Comments on: Speaking in Nature http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/04/02/speaking-in-nature/ Improving understanding about Animal Research / Animal Testing Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Dave http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/04/02/speaking-in-nature/#comment-359 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:13:41 +0000 http://speakingofresearch.com/?p=512#comment-359 The limitation of computer simulation is that it’s only as good as the information put into it. And where has this information come from? Animal testing. So it’s a great tool for replacing some research and enhancing others, but it can’t replace animal research all together.

]]> By: Denis Alexander http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/04/02/speaking-in-nature/#comment-287 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:52:26 +0000 http://speakingofresearch.com/?p=512#comment-287 The answer is much shorter: if we could simulate the human body then it simply means that you know everything there is to know about it. Our job will be done. Being able to simulate biological systems accurately is the ultimate goal — not the means to achieve it.

]]> By: Paul Browne http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/04/02/speaking-in-nature/#comment-286 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:32:53 +0000 http://speakingofresearch.com/?p=512#comment-286 The computer scientist Mark Chu-Carroll has a good post on why computer simulations cannot replace yet animals in medical research.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/

I can’t disagree with anything he says, computer simulations are an increasingly important tool in the life sciences, being used in every field from studying how epidemics spread to how a drug might affect living systems, but while they are increasingly used alongside animal (and in vitro) studies and may begin to replace some they will not be able to completely replace animal research for decades to come.

]]>