In Vivo And In Vitro Experimental Research - Essay Example

In vivo and in vitro Experimental Research of the al Affiliation: Experiments are methods that scientist use for a study to help in comparing of two competing explanations of a given phenomenon such as those evident in a biological environment wherein observations are done through testing experiments. In biological term, in vivo translates to the issue where examination and observation of the topic at hand takes place where it occurs. Subject are examined in their natural environment. For instance, the observation of dolphins at sea. This is their natural environment and in contrast to in vitro, they are not moved to an aquarium that for experimental purposes are more convenient (Quignot, 2014). In vitro, a Latin word meaning within the glass means the observations or experiments are made outside the tissue of the living organism in a controlled environment. Normally, this is done using a test tube or petri dishes. Most biological experiments are done through in vitro model and not in the natural environments where it is easy to observe the intended results. Evolution of in vivo experiments In vivo research has become widespread in the recent years with the use animal models and of micro-organisms in genetic manipulation experiments as well use of animal models commonly known as test organisms to study drug toxicity in pharmacology. Scientists and more specifically geneticists use prokaryotic, some unicellular eukaryotes such as yeast and animals such as frogs and mice to study toxicology, genetics, and molecular biology. The role of genes has been studied by introducing targeted mutations in cultured cells or through spontaneous effects of mutations in the test organisms. The insertion of gene cloning and in vitro mutagenesis has made it possible to produce certain kind of mutations in test organism that has considerably facilitated the in vivo research. Mice with altered copies of genes in the genome can be generated by transenesis that is currently a well-established technique (Quignot, 2014). In many cases, the function of a given gene can be comprehended in cases where a mutants animals that do not express gene are obtained. With the current biomedical technology, this can now be obtained by a gene knock-out technology that entails first segregating a gene of interest and replacing it in vivo with a similar but defective copy. There have been religious concerns on the in vivo experiments. For instance, some religion such as Catholic believes marriage is the only way that is biblically and morally acceptable framework for reproduction. The church also recognizes that it would be wrong for the donor to contribute towards conception without helping in the upbringing. In the past, the blacks were used as test organisms. These were part of the violation of human rights and ethical issue that affected many blacks in western states and Europe. It is worth noting such experiments are done where humans are being tested to function as robots and comprise a violation of human rights. 3Rs Principle The principle of 3R, refinement, reduction and replacement is currently widely accepted internationally in experimental research. The aim is all animal research to integrate the principles of 3Rs The replacement aspect avoids methods that use animals that are defined as protected under the Animals Act (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), 2014). Refinement aspects address improvement to scientific procedures and husbandry that reduces potential or actual distress, suffering, pain or harm to the animal welfare whereby their use is completely unavoidable. Reduction aspect deals with minimizing animal use and empower researchers to collect comparable degree of information from fewer animals, or extend the number of information obtained from the same animal hence reduce the number of animals used. This covers areas such as experimental design and data and resource sharing. Advantages and disadvantages In vivo and intro-vitro have arguably moved research to the next level. Through conducting scientific experiments, it is possible to discern what happens inside the organism’s cell. Both models have helped solve biologicals myths and advances in medicine. Living organisms are exceedingly complex animals with their functional system being made of an immense network of genes, proteins molecules, organic and inorganic compounds and RNA molecules among others in an environment that is spatially organized by membranes. This complexity forms part of the barrier in that identification of interactions between its individual components and explorations of basic biological functions. The basic advantage of in vitro study is that it allows simplification of work under study in a way that investigation can be done under a small number of component. For instance, identification of the immune system and the mechanism of how they work would remain an uphill task if not for the widespread use of in vitro experiments that have enabled isolation of the concerned proteins and study of their physical properties and how they work (Quignot, 2014). It has been observed that cellular responses usually specific which makes cross-species transpositions challenging. Indeed, this is true for the case of test organisms used since it can be difficult this may have a similar effect on the humans. Advantage on in vitro experiments is that human cells can be used directly without using the test organism. In vitro testing is very helpful in the characterization of some specific adsorption, metabolism, and distribution and excretion process taking process inside a living organism. This is easily done through a PBPK model that uses in vitro concepts. Additionally, it is possible to automate and miniaturization of the subjects that can help yield a high output for toxicology and pharmacology use. Despite this, in vitro studies can be very difficult to extrapolate from the results to the intact organism. Caution must be exercised not to over-interpret the results in the case of in vitro experiments. For example, an investigation of a bacterial can be positive in a controlled environment but be ineffective in a natural environment. On the other hand, in vivo experiments gives a better picture of what is going on inside the organism cell. All cells contain some machinery can be important in the experiments. It also can be a disadvantage side since it becomes practically hard to control all the parameters of a cell. Additionally, living things tends to show variability, even with time, which is somehow hard to fully control. On the aspect of control, in vitro experiments is better as compared to in vivo especially when studying soluble molecules. It can be possible to add small amounts of molecules and maybe assess their binding knowing that no other molecules are interfering. However, this can be disadvantageous since some enzymes may require special conditions to work better which might be a bit hard to create in a test-tube. It is important to note that there is no clear cut merit or demerit of each type as the condition depends on the parameters being tested. Nevertheless, the success of the results is limited to the level of simulating the actual conditions of the organisms that make it less precise. Comparing it against the in vivo experiments it gives quicker results and less expensive. Bibliography Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), 2014. The replacement, refinement and reduction (3Rs) in research using animals. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/priorities/3rs-research-animals/ [Accessed 7 November 2015]. Quignot N., H. J. B. F., 2014. Extrapolating in vitro results to predict human toxicity, in In Vitro Toxicology Systems, Bal-Price A., Jennings P., Eds, Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology series. 2nd Edition ed. New York, USA: Springer Science. Read More