This scientist formed a new law that takes Canada away from animal toxicity testing

For decades, researchers have relied on animals to test whether chemicals are toxic to humans.

But science has developed alternatives, and a new Canadian law will oblige them to move in that direction.

This week, Bill S-5 passed the Senate and received royal assent. It contains language that moves Canada closer to “modernized toxicity testing,” according to a Windsor researcher who helped shape the legislation.

Charu Chandrasekera says laboratories of the future will be forced to use other methods to determine if chemicals are safe – instead of using rats, mice and dogs.

She was in Ottawa to witness the royal assent of the legislation.

For the past four years, Chandrasekera has led the Canadian Center for Alternatives to Animal Methods at the University of Windsor.

“Fortunately, the world is witnessing a global shift, embracing a versatile toolbox full of 21st century technologies such as organ-on-a-chip, 3D bioprinted tissue and computer modeling to mimic human biology in a petri dish,” she said.

Chandrasekera calls the new law “landmark law” and says Canada is now ready to enter a new era of research and innovation.

She spoke with Windsor morning host Nav Nanwa. Here’s part of that conversation.

What kind of research will be affected by this new law?

It is research with toxicity testing. So here you look at the chemical safety of chemicals in consumer products such as paint and pesticides, household cleaners, industrial chemicals, industrial waste, wastewater. These are all currently being tested on animals.

There is a large, extensive list of animals currently used for this?

If you look at chemical safety testing – it’s mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, pigs and in some cases even primates, but mice and rats serve as the gold standard. And dogs are the primary non-rodent species used in chemical safety testing.

In your career as a scientist, I know you have tested with animals. How did you feel when you did that?

When I was an animal researcher, I looked at heart failure and diabetes with mostly rodent models. And at that moment I believed in it. I wanted to do it for the greater good.

But I soon learned that the insurmountable limitations of animal testing and how effective it is… 95 percent of drugs tested to be safe and effective in animals failed human clinical trials.

And at the same time, I went through a personal transformation learning about animal awareness from my cat. So combined with the scientific failures and their ethical implications, I walked away from it all.

It’s not like you take one mouse test and replace it with one human test.-Charu Chandrasekera

What kinds of other technology are available to us to avoid using animals in some of these scenarios?

There are many different technologies now, especially in the last 15 years.

There have been many different technologies, some as simple as just a few human cells, really a few hundred human cells to a few thousand. And then there are more complex, pretty neat 21st century technologies like organ-on-a-chip and computational modeling.

We’re talking about and all these technologies.

It’s not like you take one mouse test and replace it with one human test. But this is really looking at human biology at every level, looking at your DNA and your RNA, what’s happening at the cellular level, what’s happening at your tissue and organ level.

So, for example, if you are exposed to chemicals, you can get fibrosis.

With our tissue models, we can see the development of pulmonary fibrosis from chemicals that are toxic if you inhale them. So there are a lot of different ways to integrate all this information so that you can actually capture human biology in a petri dish.

Do you think scientists welcome this idea of ​​moving away from animals and using alternative technology?

Yes, for the most part.

There are many scientists who are actively working on this. There are academic scientists, industry groups. And for some of these industries, it’s beneficial for them to do it this way because it can cost up to $6 million and take up to three years to fully test a single chemical to identify the full breadth of the adverse understand effects on humans.

And then there are now government agencies, especially now with Health Canada and Environment Canada, who have to play an active role in moving away from animal testing under this new legislation.

Before this bill was passed into law, where was Canada sort of a rank or place when it came to this type of innovation being used on a regular basis?

Oh, I don’t know what word to use there. Pretty pathetic, I must say.

We were really behind the European Union… and then the US… we were a little bit behind in Canada.

And every time I went to the EU or the US to lecture on these things, people always asked me, “Why don’t Canadians care?” And I had no answer. So I’m ecstatic now that I can finally say that we care and that we’re on the global stage.

How did it feel to get royal approval?

It was just incredible to witness the history. This was a milestone moment. It pretty much spells the beginning of the end of animal toxicity testing in Canada.