So, we’re going to have a space elevator within a decade then?
Boffins cure BONING PROBLEMS in 'virtual lab'
Computer simulations can act as "virtual laboratories" and replace trial-and-error testing for creating new materials, say boffins at University College London. The UCL scientists used the power of two supercomputers to show how a composite material is formed, meaning that the properties of potential new materials can be …
COMMENTS
-
Wednesday 10th December 2014 13:58 GMT phil dude
only....
There are some marchers who protest outside the Oxford "bio" building every Thurs who wave posters about how "Computers mean you don't need animal testing".
Only 2 problems with that:
1) They were waving a poster I actually knew the creator and their work. The poster was complete fantasy.
2) Hands up who wants to have a pharmaceutical compound which has NOT been tested on animals, for which:
i) we don't know the lethal dose
ii) we don't know the side effects
iii) we don't know the metabolic activity
iv) we don't know if it makes you sterile or cause birth defects.
My PhD is trying to eliminate *some* of the testing to get faster treatment form compounds we KNOW are safe. It is madness to think we will get rid of animal tests in the foreseeable future.
Unless you can legally define a group of humans as sub-human test subjects, animals are the only biological alternative.
To the shame of humanity, you might find this has been tried before...
P.
-
Wednesday 10th December 2014 14:40 GMT Filippo
Re: only....
Yeah. If you can't test on animals, then at some point you're going to have to expose a *person* to a substance to which *no* complex organism has ever been exposed before. This assertion holds true no matter how many or how good your simulations and in vitro experiments are. At some point, something has to be the first live test subject, and it's either an animal or a person.
I don't know if anti-experimentation campaigners don't understand this simple logic, or they understand it and honestly feel that monkeys are more important than people, or just don't think we should have any new drugs. Any of those prospects is worrisome.
-
-
Thursday 11th December 2014 13:43 GMT phil dude
Re: The solution to this is simple.
I am sad to say that there are some mentally disturbed people "self-medicating" this way.
If you ever meet someone in a bar who tells you their significant other is "drinking their urine because it is the cure for so many things", you will know what I mean.
It is the molecules that matter - so failing to be selective can really mess up your (day/hair/skin/life)*
Beer, some of my favourite molecules.
P.
* - delete as applicable.
-
-
-
Friday 12th December 2014 01:27 GMT Martin Budden
Re: only....
Unless you can legally define a group of humans as sub-human test subjects, animals are the only biological alternative.
Years ago when I was a medical student a legally defined group of human test subjects did in fact exist. It was called "medical students".
Protip: don't put bradykinin on exposed dermis, it really fucking hurts.
Icon: white coat