Double Nn Herbal medicines have been a beloved treatment for ailments and disease for many millennials (Gowder, 2014). However, this does not mean that all herbs are safe to use. For example, licorice has been cited to potentially cause myopathy and garlic can possibly cause platelet dysfunction (Wongkrajang et al., 2014). Overall, herbal toxicity and safety data are limited. Much of the information about the safety of an herb comes from animal studies, especially in situations where testing on a person would be unethical such as in the case of pregnancy.
Currently, about 115 million animals are being experimented on even though there are physiological and genetic differences between animals and humans, which lowers the accuracy of animal testing (Akhtar, 2015). In addition, the conditions in animal studies are rarely able to be copied in clinical trials. Even so, this does not mean animal studies do not have a place in science. Animal studies give you clues to discovering potentially harmful effects of herbs, but they do not give you the entire map to find their true impact on humans.
Researchers should employ animal testing to gather information about the possible effects of herbal medicine. However, animal studies have varying levels of accuracy. For instance, 89% of drugs fail human testing and 50% of those drugs cause toxicity that was not illustrated in prior animal trials (Van Norman, 2019). In consequence, animal testing should not be the sole means of indicating adverse reactions. One possible policy solution would be to adopt animal testing as a method for discovering what parts of the body are heavily affected by an herb. Then researchers can further their study of the plant by treating cells with herbal extracts. For example, if comfrey shows signs of liver toxicity in mice, the next step would be to test comfrey extracts on human liver cells such as an in vitro study (Gowder, 2014).
Essentially, since there is no real way to know how an herb would affect a person other than through clinical trials, adopting other testing methods such as DNA microarrays which test the mechanisms and reactions cells have to toxins, proteomics which shows a protein’s expression induced by phytochemicals, and metabonomics which measures metabolite composition and enzymes in response to chemicals in cells and tissues (Gowder, 2014). These methods in combination with animal testing can create plausible deductions on how an herb may affect a person and help prevent potentially dangerous situations in clinical testing. Ultimately, these approaches are not able to be totally replicated in people and have potentially high costs from employing numerous methods to test a single herb (Akhtar, 2015).
As stated by Akhtar, animal studies can be misleading by either inaccurately highlighting toxic chemicals or eliminating potentially beneficial products to humans because of unsuccessful animal tests (Akhtar, 2015). Akhtar does offer alternatives such as human grown organs or cognitive computing technologies for experiments. However, when testing an herb that can be found in the market for a couple of dollars, are the prices for these advanced testing methods a reasonable solution? What would be a cost-efficient alternative? An artificial organ is on average $20,000 (Ackridge & Haney, n.d.). In the end, Akhtar nor I provide alternatives that are financially feasible, which limits the likelihood that these methods will be commonly employed.
References
Ackridge, A., & Haney, M. (n.d.). Artificial Organs. Western Oregon University. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://wou.edu/chemistry/home/student-activities-2/chemistry-corner/advancing-the-frontiers-of-medicine/artificial-organs/#:~:text=The%20Cost%3A%20The%20average%20cost,joint%20(Malchesky%2C%202014).
Akhtar A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 24(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079
Gowder, S. (2014). Screening of Herbal Medicines For Potential Toxicities. In New Insights Into Toxicity and Drug Testing (pp. 63–83). essay, InTech.
Van Norman, G. A. (2019). Limitations of Animal Studies For Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 4(7), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008
Wongkrajang, Y., Kitphati, W., Kongsaktrakoon, B., & Temsiririrkkul, R. (2014). Potential risks and hazards from herbal uses. Journal of Asian Association of Schools of Pharmacy, 3, 280-289.
