---

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors, especially in names. Click any timestamp to jump to that moment in the audio.

0:01Who are the characters behind science? This is Science Behind the Glass, illuminating the human side. In this podcast, we unveil the human side of laboratories and science. Scientists share personal experiences and we discuss their meanings from different perspectives and fields of research. Welcome to Science Behind the Glass, illuminating the human side. The podcast where we explore the groundbreaking innovations that make science more compassionate and ethical. I’m your host.

0:34dr linda duran and today we are venturing into the transformative world of scientific research without animal testing a pioneer had marked by challenges breakthroughs and ethical milestones reshaping the future of research that’s right our guest is a dedicated advocate and expert in this movement dr natalie anderson who has a phd in public health from cortin university a master’s in Child Health Research and a Bachelor of Science in Human Biology. Dr. Anderson has made significant contributions to pediatric respiratory medicine, combining in silico and experimental methods to advance healthcare solutions. Dr.

1:20Anderson plays a vital role as a postdoctoral researcher and science outreach consultant for animal -free science advocacy. It’s a nonprofit organization or NGO dedicated to replacing the use of animals in research, science, and teaching with innovative and ethical alternatives. Through her work, she guides researchers in adopting these methods and advocates for policy changes to foster a more compassionate and scientifically relevant approach. Dr. Anderson is a member of the Editorial Board of Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, a peer -reviewed journal that drives the development of humane and scientifically sound methodologies. Her efforts not only push the boundaries of ethical research, but also pave the way for a future where scientific innovation aligns seamlessly with moral responsibility.

2:11Natalie, thank you very much for accepting the invitation. Thanks so much, Linda. It’s a real pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for the introduction. To start, your academic background spans multiple areas of science and health research. What inspired you to focus on promoting non -animal research methods and what led you to work in this? Yeah, so it was a bit of a journey, I suppose.

2:40Firstly, As you just introduced, I did my master in child health research. And for that work, I was doing radio labelled lung deposition studies in teenagers to look at if different asthma medications reaches the small peripheral airways where they have the most benefit for children with asthma. And we weren’t allowed to do those types of studies because they involve radiation in small cohorts of children, although it was less than sort of it. five aeroplane flights worth of radiation or one x -ray but it’s still an ethical consideration so i was already thinking at that early stage how i could better and more ethically investigate the issue of aerosol lung deposition and then there were some other limitations of the method such as we were we were imaging it was using two -dimensional imaging instead of three -dimensional because three -dimensional takes longer to image So there was a number of reasons, but I was already sort of thinking, how can we do this more ethically, even though those studies were in humans? Because of those limitations, I looked at the end of my masters, what other options are there? And computational modelling was becoming really popular and the computing power was increasing. And you need, because you need supercomputers to just sort of investigate using computational fluid dynamics, the aerosol lung deposition. And that’s when I knew that I wanted to do a PhD using those

4:12computational models. And so they’re also considered non -animal models. So that’s an alternative to studying those in animals as well. So, yeah, I went on to do that for my PhD. In that space and while I was doing my PhD, I learnt… that we had a collaborator over in the US who was also doing these amazing computational models.

4:39They published a paper that was using, combining the in silicoid computational aerosol lung deposition study with some in vitro cell -based studies. So looking at the toxicity of a particular agrochemical or pesticide and those types of studies. are usually done in animals so they’re called they’re normally called the 90 -day inhalation toxicity test and it’s commonly performed in rats but this collaborator had created these alternative models that were able to replace essentially the animal model that 90 -day study in rats and so I’d already seen at that point that it was possible and that study and that method got accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency in the US as an alternative they actually wavered the need for that 90 -day study so yeah that was sort of my first insight into that during my PhD through our collaborators work and so I knew that It was important and these models were being sort of accepted elsewhere in the world. And then I suppose the other main reason and why I like to promote the non -animal research methods is just I do have a love for animals. That’s partly my personal experience that got me involved in this area. I’d ask to volunteer actually at Animal Free Science Advocacy or we would… We were then known as Humane Research Australia,

6:10but there was a job going. So I applied for the job there and I’ve sort of, and I got the job and I’ve not looked back ever since because really the non -animal models and methods of, they excite me as a researcher. We’re always looking to sort of push the boundaries and this certainly ticks all of those non -animal models, certainly tick all of those boxes. Yeah, we need to sort of start thinking that and really considering, seriously that animals are sentient, they have autonomy.

6:42We sort of need to stop thinking of them as human property or tools to use in research. I think that’s really important to advocate for that. Yeah, that sounds pretty interesting and very complex methods that you start implementing to overcome these necessities. And to put everything in context, You already explained a little bit why it’s important, but can you expand on the importance in medical science to transit away from animal testing and in general in scientific research to other methodologies like these models?

7:24Why is this transition important? Yeah, so it is essential, I think, in the most obvious reason in Australia and throughout. throughout the world as well there’s similar codes but we have the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes and in that code it does state that animals should only be used when there’s no scientifically valid alternative or replacement option for that particular test and that replacement for animals must be considered so there is that ethical and scientific obligation that’s written in that code to do that. So that’s the first most important reason. And I think we just have to remember as researchers that using animals in research allows you to do things to animals that would ordinarily be illegal. um you would receive a fine for those if you don’t have that special scientific license so we we’re really given an enormous amount of responsibility um as researchers and a huge amount of trust um to do the right thing um sometimes i think we we forget that we have that that huge amount of trust and responsibility i suppose the fact that searching for alternatives isn’t mandated um although it’s then to be considered in this code. The code is not a legislation. The code can be put into legislation throughout the different

8:56states in Australia, but it isn’t a legislation itself. It’s just an overarching guideline. So, yeah, it’s really important that we take the responsibility as researchers to look for those alternatives and help build that trust in scientific research. And I suppose the second… really important reason why we need to transition away is is to stop the waste of time and money that’s involved with animal testing the animal testing can take years and cost a considerable amount more than than the non -animal models which are also quicker but there’s there is a huge incentive financially to to transition and then globally there there are a huge amount of drivers for this transition, although they’re not so relevant to us here in Australia. But the biggest, one of the biggest reasons why they’re pushing the transition to non -animal models internationally is to meet the demand to test industrial chemicals.

9:56And it might sound shocking, but it is true that less than 10 % of chemicals on the market today have been fully tested for safety. I learned that from the director for the OECD Environment Directorate. in one of their presentations. So it is a globally recognised issue. And the production of chemicals is over 1,000 new chemicals on the market every year, put on the market every year in the US alone. And the industrial chemical market is bigger than the pharmaceutical market.

10:27So there’s a huge financial incentive to be able to test those to make sure that they’re safe and to get them on the market. That’s a huge driver. But then the pharmaceutical market is also massive. We’ve probably, maybe everyone has heard the stats that between 90 to 99 % of drugs that are tested in preclinical animal trials go on to fail, either due to safety or efficacy when they get into human clinical trials. There’s a really low success rate of drugs getting to market. And that’s obviously a concern for pharmaceutical industry. So that’s another huge reason why we want to be pushing towards using the non -animal models and methods to help get treatments to patients faster. I think those are probably some of the major reasons. But I guess testing in animals is also quite an old science. It was first mandated or the need to test in animals was first mandated by the United States. and Drug Administration in 1937. So it is an old science and we’ve come a long way since then.

11:36And I think the technologies and methods that we have in the non -animal space are really very advanced, very advanced engineering. And so, yeah, we’ve got the tools and the methods to be able to transition. It’s just now the cultural shift make to move more in that direction. Yeah, that’s true. And something that you mentioned before is like, yeah, unfortunately, these guidelines for the use of animals in research are like a guideline and a suggestion, but there’s not a law that actually enforces them. And it’s pretty old. It’s 2013, if I’m not wrong, here in Australia.

12:16And besides, there’s no transparency. So the researchers are not showing. the results or how many animals are being used for being tested. And also what is really translated from the use of these animals, for example, in drug discovery or for pharmaceutical purposes or what is immunology or for the vaccination of making vaccines. So that’s something that is really weak, I would say really weak. A lot of researchers are reluctant to try another test just because it has been done like that before. But we forget that science is not a religion. And in science, the idea is just progressing, testing, and it’s like it is not working when we move forward. And that’s something that needs to be mentioned. Now that we mentioned this part, the pharmaceutical and immunology have historically relied heavily on animal models, especially mice. What are some viable alternatives for these fields? How can researchers make transition without compromising safety or efficacy? Having said that, there’s a lot of literature that shows that actually the animal testing doesn’t translate in good results. For humans, as you mentioned before,

13:47some of them, the tests that they did in the lab actually doesn’t work for humans. So it doesn’t translate in anything. So end up in just a waste of money and resources. And unfortunately, the death of these animals. Yeah, that’s it. They’re all really important points to make, Gwenda. So as far as the viable alternatives and the limitations of the animal models, though, I guess we can’t forget that using animals is just a, is supposed to have always been protective of human health. It’s not supposed to be predictive of human health. That was never sort of the original idea for why animals were being used. as I mentioned, the first mandate to test in animals that came about because there were several big pharmaceutical scandals back in the early 1900s. And so one of those was the thalidomide scandal, which obviously resulted in a lot of birth defects in children, where that drug was actually promoted as a morning sickness drug. And then there was the sulfonamide scandal as well. So where the substance that we now know as antifreeze was being actually put into children’s medication to make it into

15:18a liquid form, which was supposed to be easier for them to take. And that resulted in child death. So the requirement to test in animals was brought in because of those two incidents. um to help with the regulation of the field and that was to be protective of human health so not predictive um so i think yeah that’s a really important distinction to make um that the animal models are just sort of to give a supposed to be to give a rough idea of what might happen um in a in a human and in mammal so and then having said that there are lots of viable alternatives i guess the animal models aren’t necessarily sophisticated enough. So like I mentioned before, 90 to 99 % of drugs tested in animals go on to fail in human trials. So already we know that the animal models are not necessarily sophisticated enough to determine safety and efficacy in humans, or that success rate may be a lot higher. So yeah, and I think the other important thing to note in the pharmaceutical area is that it’s…

16:30the only major industrialised sector to not use modelling and simulation to test the safety, the quality and the effectiveness of products that are used in humans. So the cars and aircraft all have modelling and simulation to test the safety. So you think like car crash test dummies and that sort of thing. And that is increasingly being transitioned to computational modelling.

16:55So I think in the pharmaceutical industry, definitely needs to use a lot more of that just purely to be or should do the same thing as what the other industrialised sectors are doing. But there are already some signs that this is happening in the pharmaceutical industry. So, for example, there’s what’s called physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling. So this kind of modelling is… computational it looks at the absorption the distribution metabolism and excretion of a drug from the body and so these models are definitely already being used to support drug applications that are made and there is also the virtual physiological human initiative was founded in 2005 and they’re they’re working towards modeling a virtual human or a digital human twin And these type of technologies can also be used in drug development. So there are those types that are already being used.

18:08And the virtual human heart is already being used to test some medical products, medical devices. So there is already evidence that it’s being used. They’re not a complete replacement for testing these products and drugs on animals, but they are already being used to complement that. at the moment. And they don’t compromise the safety or efficacy, obviously, because they are already a bit accepted method by the regulatory agencies. So I think how we can transition is another sort of maybe separate question, because I think we will always be making sure that these alternatives don’t compromise on the safety or efficacy. because essentially the non -animal models are being held to a higher standard even than the animal models themselves and require validation. And we will only be using these methods if they are scientifically valid. And there’s sort of really stringent process that they have to take to make sure that they are validated.

19:18The whole idea of transitioning, I guess, is another thing. So, for example, there is, and we have to take the lead of international colleagues, I think, here because they are quite far advanced than perhaps Australia. So, for example, there’s a test called the Monocyte Activation Test and it was invented in 1989. It is a test to test for hydrogen -causing or fever -causing substances.

19:46that might be in injected drugs. And that test was invented only eight years after we understood as humans how fever worked, that science started to understand that. And that test can be used to replace the rabbit pyrogen test, which was first invented and used in 1912. So there is a really long history of these tests being developed.

20:16the monocyte activation test was invented in 1989 but it wasn’t until 2010 that it was actually accepted as a test and it started to replace the rabbit test and in 2017 there were 80 less rabbits being used for that test so i think it’s a very slow process to transition but that is one of the particular tests that that sort of leads the way there that sounds very interesting and you you were telling us or explaining us a little bit that these technologies or these models are reliable that they are comparable or maybe they can be even better in terms of accuracy and reliability but to understand a little bit better how these technologies works can you explain what is what in silico methods are and how these technologies that are able to model tissues or organs or even organisms work um yes i suppose there’s like you said there’s there’s the in silico methods and then there’s in vitro methods so um and then there’s sort of a broad um range of different approaches that we can take because i think partly what’s required to make that transition to non -animal models is it sort of a shift away from the mentality that we need to test in a whole organism so that that is what most researchers or animal researchers

21:48believe is important and indeed that that has been in the past it certainly has been the case and the requirement for safety is to test in in the whole organism and usually in you know in a rat and in so in two species so it’s usually a rat and a dog um it could be a rat and a primate the the alternatives are not a direct replacement for testing in a whole organism and i think that’s something yeah we have to be really clear that it’s not a a direct replacement um the alternatives uh take a um different approach where we’re sort of breaking up the whole organism into little chunks, I suppose, and thinking of it differently.

22:36So the different approaches that we can think of to support that, I think like integrated approaches to testing and assessment is one sort of terminology that will commonly come across, which just means use of in silico and in vitro technologies combined. Like I mentioned earlier with the aerosol deposition, lung deposition in silico model to see where the drug goes in the lungs. And then once you know how much is going to get to the lungs, you can use the cell culture model to test if there’ll be toxicity at that cellular level as well and combine the two. So that’s what’s called an integrated approach to testing and assessment. The integrated approach to testing assessment can be sort of combined with the adverse outcome pathway approach.

23:32And so the adverse outcome pathways, the concept for that was sort of first established around 2010, 2012. And I think first officially the Wikipedia, the adverse outcome pathways, there’s a big Wikipedia and that was launched in 2014. And this is a huge, the adverse outcome pathways. approach is to help regulatory decision making and what an adverse outcome pathway includes is or the components of it is you have a molecular initiating event and then you have a series of key events at the cellular and tissue and organ level and they lead to some form of adversity or an adverse outcome in humans or at the organism level. or maybe the environmental level with animals in wildlife, for example. So, yeah, I think that approach of breaking it up into steps and each of those steps or each of those key events can be tested for if that is happening.

24:43And so you would use in vitro or in silico method to sort of look at those different checkpoints, I suppose. So, yeah, that’s… Again, that’s a bit of a shift away from what we’re commonly used to with the animal models where you’re looking for an apical endpoint, you’re looking for something sort of external or some sort of organ system failure or cancer or some really end stage point that proves that there’s toxicity, whereas the adverse outcome pathways can be traced back to the molecular initiating event and all of those key events which then lead to. you know the adverse outcome which could be um which it was something i’m trying to think of like um neurodevelopmental toxicity or inhalation toxicity or decreased lung function those kinds of things so yeah i think we just got to change the mentality and and then the specific you might be interested more in the what the specific sort of in silico and in vitro methods are um and the most common ones that that you will hear about is organ on a chip or that’s also known as micro physiological systems and there’s a sort of really a miniature organ on a micro scale and essentially that’s taking a cross -section through a major functional biological unit so with the lung on the chip

26:13you’ve got the chip involves both airflow and blood flow. And it can stretch as well to mimic the movement of the lung and can be seeded with the immune cells and things. So it really does get can get quite complex and mimic different and be able to mimic different diseases as well that you would see. And then there’s organoids where they’re supposed to mimic an organ, obviously.

26:41And it has the sort of the cellular and the organ level. structure and they can be combined they can be vascularized but they can include blood flow as well and they can be also combined with organ chips but you can sort of mix the two I suppose and then so yeah organ on a chip organoids are probably the the two most common in vitro models although there’s other 3D cell culture models that are that are quite advanced using scaffolding too. And then the in silico ones that are most widely known is quantitative structure activity relationship, which is where you identify the main chemical structures that would potentially cause some kind of sensitivity or toxicity, massive databases of these that can be screened. And then the other major, I mean, there’s a whole sort of suite of different really. I have a question.

27:51For example, with like a development of vaccines, what are the alternatives to use the animal models? That’s not my area of speciality, Linda, but I have heard recently that the… the virtual physiological human initiative has been working on a computational model for tuberculosis for vaccines for tuberculosis so I can’t remember exactly what that initiative is called but yeah I think for there are different methods that can be used for vaccine batch testing though for example there’s a huge and there’s been a couple of a big worldwide initiative is one called VAC2VAC which was looking at alternatives to batch testing for vaccines and one of those methods that is included with that is the monocyte activation test for the pyrogens but there’s another suite of alternative tests as well and there So the International Council on Animal Protection in pharmaceutical programs and in OECD programs does keep a list of all the internationally harmonised test guidelines that include non -animal models.

29:18So that’s something that we can look at as well. And then there was a project that was led by the NC3Rs and the National Centre for the 3Rs in the UK. and that was looking at testing of or looking into non -animal models for testing of biologicals and that was in collaboration or requested by the World Health Organization so yeah I think there are some major projects in the areas of vaccines and biologicals but the actual methods that would be used would would still be a combination of all of them um the the cues are the um for the uh initial screening maybe although I suppose sorry that’s probably for drugs more than um vaccines but organ on chip organoid there’d definitely be technologies that could be um utilized to to test uh vaccines fantastic well the biggest challenges that scientists are facing when they are trying to adopt these methodologies and how can policymakers or the public help overcome these obstacles? Yeah, so just testing policies that restrict the use of animals in general or for cosmetics and other areas, Linda. Yeah, so I think with the policies

30:49for cosmetics, In 2019, there was the Industrial Chemicals Act in Australia, and that was introduced along with the associated game, the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme. And this wasn’t a complete ban on animal testing for cosmetics purposes. And you can look on the RSPCA Australia website for more information on that. what the Act and the Scheme introduced was a restriction on animal testing and that was introduced from the 1st of July in 2020.

31:25And so the restriction was on the use of new animal test data for introductions of chemicals that had an end use in cosmetics and that did include chemicals that are used solely for cosmetics but also those that have multiple end uses. one of which is for cosmetics. And so, yeah, animal welfare organisations in Australia are calling for the Industrial Chemicals Act to be strengthened and to have a legislative prohibition on testing for chemicals that have an end use in cosmetics.

32:00And so just to put that in perspective, over 37 countries worldwide have now prohibited fully or in part testing for cosmetics purposes. And so, yeah, there’s a lot more information on the Cruelty Free International website on the cosmetics. But I think what we can do with policies, you mentioned earlier about the Australian Code being a guideline rather than a legislation. And so it’s up to the interpretation in legislation in the state how well enforced that is. And the fact that it’s over 10 years old now, I think it would be really important to strengthen the language in the Australian Code and potentially to mandate the requirement of replacement, whether that’s just similar to what the UK have done mandating that there should be funds. provided for for replacement development and validation of replacement options that could certainly be the case or whether we introduce what’s called non -technical summaries so this is where once the research project has finished they the researchers are required to write up a report in that can

33:32be accessed by the public so it’s really clearly written easy to understand the number of animals that are used, the purpose and specifically what replacement options the research has considered. So non -technical summaries are mandatory in Europe and so that’s something as well that we could be looking to do in Australia and we at the moment the consultations have just closed actually but there was a consultation on an options paper for national statistics reporting of animal use in Australia because as you mentioned we don’t there’s no requirement to publicly report on the number of animals that are used in research and teaching and science in Australia it’s up to the states whether or not they do publicly report that and several states do certainly not all so yeah that would be another really important thing is that we actually have that accountability to the public of the number of animals that are used so that they’re aware of the issue. I think most people will be surprised that six million animals are used every year for biomedical research.

34:50And even more people might be surprised that there’s almost 300 primates being used in research in Australia at the moment. So I think it’s really important that people are aware of what’s happening and that would help them to be able to make more informed decisions on this. So, yeah, I think that those are really important things that we need to do in Australia. That’s right. And, well, you’ve been explaining so far that we have seen…

35:23many significant advancements in the development of these alternative technologies, right? But do you consider that there are areas of research where these alternatives are still underdeveloped? How do you see science may address these gaps in the future? Yeah, so there’s definitely areas where the non -animal models are more developed than others and there is still a way to go for sure. So I think the areas that the non -animal technologies are more developed is obviously areas where there have been more public scrutiny or a larger amount of animals being used or there’s a bigger problem with the animal model not translating to human outcomes. So, for example, with rare diseases. And, yeah, so the non -animal models that are more developed are those that can replace the test for cosmetic purposes. I described earlier there’s either a full or partial prohibition on that in many countries worldwide. So those are the models that are really quite well developed, particularly for eye irritation testing, for example. There’s been a huge amount of progress with that. Then, yeah. For rare diseases, whether animal models, they can’t translate either due to the species or genetic differences. So that’s another area where there’s a lot more advancement

36:55in the non -animal model development. But I think what everyone is waiting for, I think, is for a complete non -animal model organism. Because, like I said, that’s the current argument. We need to test in a whole living organism. And to the best of my knowledge, there’s no non -animal model that can completely replace that full living organism yet. Like I mentioned, it’s partly because we actually need to shift our approach and our thinking to look at things more mechanistically.

37:30And this is really a benefit, I think. And we gain a lot more information from the models and they’re a lot more complex and a lot more detailed understanding of human biology can be. can be achieved with the with the non -animal models than testing in in other non -human animals so yeah i think the gap and i guess the gap are not that the non -animal technologies don’t exist it’s just they need to sort of be refined um we need to shift our thinking um a lot of the hard work is already done there is a lot of legislation in place already like in the UK with the mandating funding for replacement, with the latest, the FDA Modernisation Act in 2023, that speaking about, well, that introduced the terms for non -clinical, including in vitro and in silico methods, so that legislation has now changed and you don’t have to purely use animals anymore, although there’s, again, more work to do to sort of ensure that that. breaches that’s fully enforced, but the legislative changes, there are some legislative changes that are being made as well. So there is a lot of work that’s already been done to sort of bridge the gap barriers to the uptake of non -animal models and methods. But I think

39:02a big gap at the moment that still exists is we’re still utilising the idea of the three R’s. um and that was i think uh sort of first came about in 19 i’m gonna say 1959 it was around then by russell and birch um so it’s yeah it’s over how many years old 60 years old now um that the idea of the three r’s um which is uh replacement reduction and refinement of animal use I think, yeah, we need to be much more shifting towards just replacement. Although there is still a space for reduction and refinement, but in some areas of animal research, maybe veterinary and other areas, there is still a need for some of those.

39:53But I think with biomedical research, we really need to be shifting towards more replacement and for pharmaceutical testing. and regulatory testing on industrial chemicals that sort of thing we really need to sort of get away from that mentality and that’s a bit of a gap at the moment is that we still we haven’t kind of let go of that old concept But, yeah, I think it’s really exciting. The idea of a future without animal testing is really exciting and I think we have so much of the technology already and it’s just the case of refining that. It’s the case of keep pushing this new paradigm. Yeah, I think, you know, maybe we’re not so far away from what we see in some of the sci -fi movies where, you know, there’s a machine that can heal the body. Maybe we’re not so far away from that as we think, I think. but we need to make sure that we invest the funding, we invest the people to do the work. Yeah, I think it’s really important to push that. It’s exciting for what we can achieve, I think, with human innovation. Yeah, that’s true. Hopefully it’s going to be applied in all the countries. Yeah. And having said that, now that you mentioned before the Australia update, the animal testing policies. restricting the use of animals in cosmetics but how animal how australia sits compared to global laws and what needs to be done to create a ethical scientific

41:25landscape good question um how do we compare to internationally so i think well i guess in that regard i would start with the fact that unfortunately australia is one of only nine oecd countries to not have a centre for alternatives to animal testing. And this is a real limitation because a lot of the, it basically just means there’s no funding going into that centre. There’s no funding in non -animal technologies and models as currently in Australia, no funding streams specifically available. for that either by our national health and medical research council or through our medical research future fund unfortunately neither of them are providing funding solely for non -animal model development and validation and so that is yeah that that’s disappointing overseas there is a lot of money going into this um for example the nc3rs in the uk um has uh they’ve just actually doubled their budget so it was 10 million pounds and so it’s have recently been doubled to $20 million. In the US, there’s huge amounts of money going into the various different funding schemes. The same in Europe.

42:42Animal Free Science Advocacy have a business case that you can see online for the funding that is available. Also in the CSIRO Futures non -animal model strategy for Australia. They’ve got a bit of an international comparison on how much money is being put into the non -animal technologies overseas compared to here. And so, yes, it is a little bit disappointing. And the World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Use in the Life Sciences is being held in Brazil next year. So that’s really exciting. But Australia has not ever hosted a World Congress, although there’s been 13. 13 so I think it will be 14 next year actually so yeah it would be yeah to put Australia on the map I think that’s something that we really need to do is to host a world congress that yeah there’s a lot of a lot of limitations I’m not sure specifically the The legislation or differences between Australia and other countries, I could not probably speak to that. But, yeah, certainly the limitation of funding, the fact that we don’t have a centre for alternatives and we’ve never hosted the World Congress, those are limitations. Because, as we know, when you’re attending conferences, it’s a huge opportunity to collaborate and to build networks. and to link in with what other countries

44:14are doing and to progress the field. So, yeah, it is a bit of a limitation. Having said that, this year was, I think, I believe the first year that the conference, which was first established in Australia, called Organoid Zara. This was the first year that that was actually… uh held in thailand um and it became a sort of an asia pacific conference which was really fantastic to see um so that that was really exciting um but yeah i think we we definitely need to collaborate and um get to some of these world summits or world congresses um participate in the international areas yeah that sounds nice And finally, what do you think about the use of certificates or animal test -free stamps that industries or products can obtain? Do you think that this helps to incentivize more conscious consumption and more responsible production by the industry? Yeah, I mean, I’m not really an expert on consumer habits. If industrial use of these kind of stamps would help with the uptake, but I can’t. because a consumer myself.

45:32And so I think what I personally want to know if I’m buying products is that they’re vegan. Do they have the international leaping bunny on them, which is the internationally recognised symbol that guarantees no new animal tests were used in the development of any product that’s displaying it. So I personally do look for that on products. I think there are people similar to me as well. that would certainly not want to buy something without that on it. So I think as a consumer, I can certainly say it is important.

46:07And yeah, I think if there’s some kind of certification that companies can get, we should always be striving to do better. And yeah, I think that is really important. I mean, maybe one day that can be the case for pharmaceuticals. We’re probably a long way off of that, but yeah, it would be. that would be of interest to me as well. I don’t know if that could happen with the pharmaceutical area too. So yeah, just speaking as a consumer there. Yeah, I agree. Like transparency. I think that with any product, that would be really good.

46:43Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. As a consumer, it’s really important to know what’s happened with the product and have that accountability by the companies, yeah. Thank you very much, Natalie, for all this amazing information. Yeah, thanks very much, Linda. I really appreciate the opportunity. This episode was inspired by the courage to challenge tradition and push science towards a more ethical future. Dr. Natalie’s journey reminds us that science isn’t just about breaking truths. It’s about compassion, responsibility, and the choices we make to improve human health without harm. We hope this conversation has left you feeling inspired, empowered, and curious about the future of medicine. because change starts with those willing to ask, is there a better way? Science Behind the Glass is independently produced and edited by your host, with the invaluable support of our technical director, Rafael Giordano, and original music by our talented friend, Bernardo Aguila. Stay connected with us on Instagram, X, Facebook, and LinkedIn, and visit our website for updates and stories. Don’t forget to subscribe and share this podcast with your friends and colleagues to amplify these important narratives.

47:55If you have been moved by our mission, we invite you to support us via PayPal. Just click the Support Us button on our website. Your support helps keep this project alive and thriving. Thanks for listening. Keep observing, wondering, and protecting the small wonders of our world. Until next time.