Why do we need an alternative to animal testing?
Dr. Udo Klotzbach: For one thing, there are obviously ethical concerns – animal rights – that necessitate alternatives. Another point is that animal experiments conducted in the laboratories of pharmaceutical or medical technology companies do not correspond exactly to human beings. You inevitably encounter limitations and need to find other methods. Microphysiological systems offer a great option in this case.
What are these systems able to replicate?
Schmieder: Essentially, we have quite a broad set of tools. We use them to emulate a variety of functions and recreate the original as closely as possible. Depending on which cells you cultivate in the system, you are technically able to emulate all organs though not in their full complexity. The biologists and health professionals we collaborate with are concerned with very specific issues. And we want to provide them with exactly what they need. Besides, the goal is not always to replicate the entire organ in its full complexity. Oftentimes, a more complex test is also more expensive. What’s more, you are also subsequently not able to realize high parallelism. That is to say, on the one hand, the organs should be copied in as much of a complex manner as possible, while they should be as cost-effective and suited for mass implementation as possible at the same time. This is why it is not always necessary to exactly replicate all physiological characteristics normally exhibited by the human body. The specific issue drives what is important and what must be reproduced.
We are approached with a wide range of questions and issues, for instance as it pertains to substance testing without animal testing. Basic research raises yet other questions. In this case, the objective is to investigate how the different types of cells of the human body interact with each other and how specific signaling cascades work for example.