Productie recombinante eiwitten

1. [verwijderd] 25 februari 2006 22:32

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   wishdom schreef:

   
   Animal lab supporters go on march
   
   Students who support animal experiments march through Oxford
   Nearly 500 people have marched in Oxford in support of animal testing at a new biomedical research centre.
   University students, academic staff and members of the public gathered close to the site of the £18m laboratory being built under strict security.
   
   The laboratory has been at the centre of protests by animal rights activists who want to stop it opening.
   
   Supporters of the laboratory are arguing that animal testing is essential for medical research.
   
   The anti-vivisection campaigners say using animals "belongs in the past".
   
   Gisteren de ene kant hier neergezet,nu de andere kant.
   
   Iedereen is er maar druk mee.
   
   Groet,Wishdom.
   

   Prachtig dit artikel.... Maar nu je eigen mening graag.
   
   Vind je dat het gebruik van proefdieren "out of the order" is?
   
   Babs
2. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 12:00

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Has the milk gone sour for transgenic drugs?
   
   By Gregory Roumeliotis
   
   01/03/2006 - Be it recombinant proteins in milk, polyclonal antibodies in eggs or digestive enzymes in corn, the potential of transgenic animals and plants for the cheap and efficient production of biopharmaceuticals is huge, leading to sales of more than $12bn (€10bn) by 2012 according to market research firm Kalorama. But the rejection by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) of ATryn has given the biotech industry some unappetising food for thought.
   
   Fourteen years after GTC Biotherapeutics saw the birth of its first transgenic goat, the first application submitted by any company to any US or European regulatory authority for the approval of a recombinant therapeutic protein produced transgenically has not had a happy ending, subject to appeal at least.
   European regulators decided last week not to allow GTC to market ATryn, an anti-clotting agent produced in transgenic goats, in the EU, on the basis that not enough surgical cases were brought before them – they got five out of the twelve requested - and the fact that results from patients treated in a compassionate use programme and at childbirth could not be accepted.
   
   The news caused jitters among biotech firms who have invested hundreds of millions in transgenic drugs and so the EMEA quickly went out of its way to stress that “the grounds for refusal have nothing to do with the use of a transgenic animal.”
   
   However, this does not change the fact that big pharma was apprehensive about transgenic drugs even before the ruling and despite the significant savings and reliability that transgenic technology promises.
   
   “The full realisation of transgenically produced pharmaceuticals depends on the convergence of continued successful and innovative research and development activities, on a favourable regulatory climate and on public acceptance,” says Anne Anscomb who has written a report entitled 'Transgenic animals and plants in pharmaceutical research and manufacturing' for Kalorama.
   
   “The bar has been set very high for the regulatory approval of transgenically produced pharmaceuticals.”
   
   Indeed, one only has to look at the kind of companies investing in drugs on a transgenic platform, all small specialised firms like Pharming, Hematech and Avigenics, to see that the extra risk of having to license a drug from a transgenic plant or animal gives big multinationals the regulatory heebie-jeebies.
   
   Yet see which companies have antibodies in the market derived from transgenic rodents and you will spot the names of GlaxoSmithKline, Roche and Elli Lilly, highlighting the obstacles, both scientific and societal, between cell lines taken from a mouse and a cow genetically altered to produce a protein in its milk.
   
   “ATryn may have been a specialised drug for a rare hereditary disease but it is a stepping stone, getting that first drug manufactured by an animal or a plant approved,” explains GTC spokesman Thomas Newberry, who says the company will now put all other projects on hold to concentrate on its appeal to the EMEA.
   
   “More than $200m have been invested in ATryn and we do not believe that anything significant can be changed in the technology of the drug that would help it pass regulatory scrutiny. We will pursue the appeal with the European regulators but if it is turned down we are very confident about the drug's prospects with the FDA, so why bother with Europe?”
   
   Since the cost of producing biopharmaceuticals in bacterial or mammalian cell culture bioreactor facilities or through cell lines is much higher than in transgenic technology, some biotech companies are unlikely to give up the race.
   
   Scale is also an important consideration, with expression levels of 2 to 10 grams of recombinant protein per litre of milk being readily achievable in transgenic livestock, as opposed to highly optimised cell cultures that can typically generate 0.2 to 1 gram per litre of culture medium, according to the Kalorama report.
   
   “I see no reason why not to be optimistic about the future of transgenic technology since European regulators made it clear they were not objecting to the platform itself,” says Elliott Fineman, CEO of Planet Biotechnology which hopes to get its plant-produced drug CaroRX approved by regulators.
   
   “I believe the industry consists of intelligent people who assess the risks of each drug individually and make informed judgements, we definitely believe in our product.”
   
   CaroRX, a tooth decay drug, has completed Phase I/IIa clinical trials under a US FDA-approved Investigational New Drug (IND) application and the company believes it can have it in the market within three years.
   
   But what about the long term, will the EU and the US accept the next wave of growth in the biotechnology sector, whose sales are projected to surpass $52bn by 2010, since this expansion will result in crop plants such as corn and tobacco transgenically altered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial enzymes?
   
   “It remains to be seen,” says Anscomb.
   
   “The main challenge for the transgenic pharma market is overcoming the scepticism that persists about the viability and safety of transgenic crops and animals.”
   
   Of course this scepticism goes beyond the public mind to the mind of many pharma decision makers.
   
   Still Anscomb believes that although ATryn's disappointment may cast a passing cloud over transgenics, it's doubtful the rejection will cause a major setback to this nascent industry.
   
   She says that drugs made in transgenic plants and animals are here to stay, so any lack of progress in clinical trials or regulatory delays can only hinder but not stifle the growth of this promising market.
   
   It appears that when it comes to transgenics the cash cow is there, it just remains to be seen who milks it first.
   
   www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng...
3. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 17:21

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   babs11 schreef:

   [quote=wishdom]
   
   Animal lab supporters go on march
   
   Students who support animal experiments march through Oxford
   Nearly 500 people have marched in Oxford in support of animal testing at a new biomedical research centre.
   University students, academic staff and members of the public gathered close to the site of the £18m laboratory being built under strict security.
   
   The laboratory has been at the centre of protests by animal rights activists who want to stop it opening.
   
   Supporters of the laboratory are arguing that animal testing is essential for medical research.
   
   The anti-vivisection campaigners say using animals "belongs in the past".
   
   Gisteren de ene kant hier neergezet,nu de andere kant.
   
   Iedereen is er maar druk mee.
   
   Groet,Wishdom.
   [/quote]
   
   Prachtig dit artikel.... Maar nu je eigen mening graag.
   
   Vind je dat het gebruik van proefdieren "out of the order" is?
   
   Babs
   

   Simpel antwoord NEE.
4. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 17:27

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Het is daar en tegen wel ok dat er activisten zijn, dit zorgt ervoor dat de autoriteiten er op toe zien dat dit onder gecontrolleerde omstandigheden gebeurt. Ze houden ze scherp om te het zo maar te zeggen.
   
5. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 17:42

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   arak schreef:

   Het is daar en tegen wel ok dat er activisten zijn, dit zorgt ervoor dat de autoriteiten er op toe zien dat dit onder gecontrolleerde omstandigheden gebeurt. Ze houden ze scherp om te het zo maar te zeggen.
   
   

   Je hebt activisten en activisten/fundamentalisten zoals oa The ALF:
   
   Anti-vivisection protesters have continually marched on the half-built lab, while at the more extreme end, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has issued threats and carried out acts of violence to put pressure on Oxford University to stop building the lab.
   
   ALF has declared all staff and students at Oxford to be "legitimate targets" and admitted it was behind an arson attack on Hertford College in 2004.
   
   Last year there were eight attacks involving incendiary devices, linked to protests against the laboratory.
   
   These sometimes violent interventions seem to have had an impact. In 2004, a contractor hired to build the lab pulled out following threats from animal rights activists.
   
   Some of the builders currently working on the project wear balaclavas, lest they be photographed by extremists and possibly targeted for harassment or assault.
   
   And it was recently reported that sections of the lab are being built at a secret location, to be transported to the increasingly volatile construction site only when it becomes safe to do so.
   www.iex.nl/forum/topic.asp?forum=228&...
6. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 18:03

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   flosz schreef:

   [quote=arak]
   
   Het is daar en tegen wel ok dat er activisten zijn, dit zorgt ervoor dat de autoriteiten er op toe zien dat dit onder gecontrolleerde omstandigheden gebeurt. Ze houden ze scherp om te het zo maar te zeggen.
   
   [/quote]
   
   Je hebt activisten en activisten/fundamentalisten zoals oa The ALF:
   
   Anti-vivisection protesters have continually marched on the half-built lab, while at the more extreme end, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has issued threats and carried out acts of violence to put pressure on Oxford University to stop building the lab.
   
   ALF has declared all staff and students at Oxford to be "legitimate targets" and admitted it was behind an arson attack on Hertford College in 2004.
   
   Last year there were eight attacks involving incendiary devices, linked to protests against the laboratory.
   
   These sometimes violent interventions seem to have had an impact. In 2004, a contractor hired to build the lab pulled out following threats from animal rights activists.
   
   Some of the builders currently working on the project wear balaclavas, lest they be photographed by extremists and possibly targeted for harassment or assault.
   
   And it was recently reported that sections of the lab are being built at a secret location, to be transported to the increasingly volatile construction site only when it becomes safe to do so.
   www.iex.nl/forum/topic.asp?forum=228&...
   

   Dat heb je in elke laag van activisten, waartegen ze dan ook zijn. Helaas wel.
   
   arak
7. [verwijderd] 3 maart 2006 18:18

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Animal rights activists convicted of inciting violence
   
   Associated Press
   Friday March 3, 2006
   
   A US court today convicted an animal rights group and six of its members of using its website to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against a company testing drugs on animals.
   After a three-week trial at the federal court in New Jersey, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty were found guilty on six counts.
   
   The federal government accused SHAC of waging a five-year campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, posting information about the lab's employees and clients on the website.
   
   Article continues
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   However, the animal rights group said its actions were protected under the First Amendment.
   The court heard that many of the people named on the SHAC site had their homes vandalised and received threatening emails and phone calls.
   
   One woman said she received an email threatening to cut her seven-year-old son open and stuff him with poison "the way Huntingdon does with the animals".
   
   Sally Dillenback told the court her son would crouch by the door brandishing a kitchen knife when the doorbell rang, promising to protect his mother.
   
   "He told me not to worry," she said. "He said he was going to get the animal people. That was his state of mind. He was a seven-year-old boy."
   
   Another man told the court that all the windows at his home had been smashed, showering him with flying glass.
   
   The defendants, all in their late 20s or early 30s, were not accused of directly making threats or carrying out vandalism, but of inciting attacks through the web postings.
   
   One defendant, Joshua Harper, told the court he opposed injuring any life form, but said he thought it all right to throw rocks through someone's windows if they were not at home.
   
   Philadelphia-based SHAC and six of its members were charged with animal enterprise terrorism, stalking and other offences.
   
   The six face between three and seven years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 £142,000).
   
   Mike Caulfield, Huntingdon's general manager, today said the verdict was "a victory for democracy, research and patients".
   
   "The government and this jury have sent a strong message to those who would ignore the democratic process and resort to criminal activity to advance their political views," he said in a statement.
   
   Jurors reached their verdict after three days of deliberations. The SHAC president, Pamelyn Ferdin - who did not face any charges - said the decision was "a scary path for all Americans".
   
   She claimed the judge's order for SHAC to remove victims' names and home addresses from its site "reeked of fascism".
   
   "Here is a government, a feckless federal government, who spent millions of taxpayer dollars to wage an assault on all our constitutional rights," she said.
   
   The judge ordered five of the defendants to be held without bail.
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   No mercey.