{"id":21082,"date":"2014-01-09T06:45:09","date_gmt":"2014-01-09T11:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/there-is-only-one-evolution\/"},"modified":"2014-01-09T06:45:09","modified_gmt":"2014-01-09T11:45:09","slug":"there-is-only-one-evolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/genetic-engineering\/there-is-only-one-evolution\/","title":{"rendered":"There is Only One Evolution"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    I have frequently pointed out that pharmaceutical companies    acknowledge that animal models are not predictive for human    response in terms of efficacy or toxicity. More evidence for    this position comes from Robert G. Hunter in an     article in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology    News.[1] Hunter: Having developed over the past 20 years    into a global market recently estimated at $5 billion, in vitro    and in silico products and services are now about the same size    as the in vivo services (contract research organization)    industry. If animal models worked well, there would be no need    for industry to look at other options. Pharma does not love    bunnies. Pharma loves money.  <\/p>\n<p>    Matthew Herper addressed the problems in drug development in an        article in Forbes.[2] Herper:  <\/p>\n<p>      Theres one factor that, as much as anything else, determines      how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat,      and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the      cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by      the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines      that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and      safe.    <\/p>\n<p>    Animal models are relied on for the evaluation of both efficacy    and safety.[3-9] Herper continues:  <\/p>\n<p>      A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers      on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to      market can expect to have spent $350 million before the      medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs      fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on      dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new      medicine. . . . This is crazy. For sure its not      sustainable, says Susan Desmond-Hellmann, the chancellor at      UCSF and former head of development at industry legend      Genentech, where she led the testing of cancer drugs like      Herceptin and Avastin. Increasingly, while no one knows      quite what to do instead, any businessperson would look at      this and say, You cant make a business off this. This is      not a good investment. I say that knowing that this has been      the engine of wonderful things.    <\/p>\n<p>    This, in part, is why disease-specific drugs like Kalydeco, a    drug for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients that have a specific    genetic mutation, costs $294,000 per patient per year.  <\/p>\n<p>    The reason animal models fail for drug development is that    animals and humans are evolved systems that are differently    complex. While morphological similarities exist, very small    differences in the genetic make-up between species and between    individuals of the same species means the predictive value for    extrapolation is nil in the real world. (For more on this see        Trans-Species Modeling Theory.) Moreover, if the concept of    evolved, complex systems invalidates trans-species    extrapolation in drug development, it is going to do the same    when trans-species extrapolation involves any perturbation that    affects higher levels of organization. So just based on the    evidence from drug development we can safely say that disease    research on mice, monkeys, or dogs is not going to result in    knowledge that has predictive value for human patients. The    literature confirms this.[10-21][[22]p19-33, 73-77] [23-25]  <\/p>\n<p>    Compare the above to this recent statement from Michael E.    Goldberg published in the Wisconsin State Journal: Nearly    every medical advance from the last century is a product of    responsible animal research, and animal models will continue to    be important to medical progress. . . . Activists who claim    animal research does not benefit humans are wrong. Animals are    essential to medical progress in all fields of human disease.    [26] This illustrates the dichotomy regarding animal models. Dr    Goldberg is an animal modeler who does basic research, which he    sells as applied research. Not surprisingly, Goldberg thinks    animal modeling is great. He does not suffer loss of income or    prestige when the knowledge from animal modeling fails to    translate to human patients.  <\/p>\n<p>    Pharma on the other hand, can actually measure the success or    lack thereof of animal models in the form of drugs successfully    brought to market and Pharma says it doesnt work. Remember,    Pharma is a business and they do not care how they develop new    drugs they just want to develop new drugs so they can make    money. Also remember that there are not two different theories    of evolution: one for drug development and another for basic    science research or basic research masquerading as applied    research. If animal modeling in drug development fails to be    consistent with evolutionary biology, then it fails in general    as well.  <\/p>\n<p>    Image courtesy of Wkipedia Common     <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg\" rel=\"nofollow\">http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg<\/a>  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Original post:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.opposingviews.com\/i\/society\/animal-rights\/there-only-one-evolution\" title=\"There is Only One Evolution\">There is Only One Evolution<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> I have frequently pointed out that pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that animal models are not predictive for human response in terms of efficacy or toxicity. More evidence for this position comes from Robert G <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/genetic-engineering\/there-is-only-one-evolution\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genetic-engineering"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21082"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}