Home Forums *News Top Industry News: October 31-November 18

Top Industry News: October 31-November 18

Home Forums *News Top Industry News: October 31-November 18

    • Lauren Feldman

      Daily Mail.com (November 17, 2022) Chip designed to mimic a human placenta and embryo could replace ‘the cruel and unethical’ drug testing on the more than 2 MILLION pregnant mice used in experiments every year

      Swedish scientists have created a chip to replace drug testing on pregnant mice. The chip is designed with placenta cells to mimic that of a pregnant woman, which also includes an embryo. Drugs in tests can be added to the chip, allowing scientists to see how the substances interact with both tissues.


      One Green Planet (November 10, 2022) Harvard Monkey Study Reignites Debate on Animal Testing

      In Margaret S. Livingstone’s study, the researcher discovered that baby monkeys “form strong and lasting attachments to inanimate surrogates, but only if the surrogate is soft.” In addition, Livingstone was able to report that “postpartum monkey mothers can also form strong and lasting attachments to soft inanimate objects.” The backlash wasn’t immediate, although once it made its way to social media the news spread quickly.


      Fox 13 News (November 5, 2022) Rescued beagles adopted

      Catch up with a beagle that was rescued from a research breeding facility and adopted by a Tampa family.


      CBS News (November 3, 2022) Harvard study on monkeys reignites debate over animal testing

      Mother monkeys permanently separated from their newborns sometimes find comfort in plush toys; this recent finding from Harvard experiments has set off intense controversy among scientists and reignited the ethical debate over animal testing. The paper, “Triggers for mother love,” was authored by neuroscientist Margaret Livingstone and appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in September to little fanfare or media coverage. But once news of the study began spreading on social media, it provoked a firestorm of criticism and eventually a letter to PNAS signed by over 250 scientists calling for a retraction.

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.