We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
US SCIENTISTS HAVE been able to help blind mice see again by injecting a chemical that makes them sensitive to light, according to a new study.
The findings in the journal Neuron offer hope of a treatment that could one day help people who suffer from the most common forms of blindness, such as macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa.
The chemical is called AAQ and works by making cells in the retina sensitive to light, said lead researcher Richard Kramer, University of California Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology.
It is temporary and does not require surgery, and may offer a new pathway toward restoring vision that does not involve implanting microchips or doing stem cell transplants, two techniques under investigation. Kramer said:
The advantage of this approach is that it is a simple chemical, which means that you can change the dosage, you can use it in combination with other therapies, or you can discontinue the therapy if you don’t like the results.
As improved chemicals become available, you could offer them to patients. You can’t do that when you surgically implant a chip or after you genetically modify somebody.
It is unclear how well the treated mice could see, but researchers could tell the chemical had an effect because their pupils contracted in bright light and the mice displayed avoidance of light.
The mice in the experiment had genetic mutations that made their rods and cones die within months of birth.
“This is a major advance in the field of vision restoration,” said co-author Russell Van Gelder, an ophthalmologist and chair of the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
“We still need to show that these compounds are safe and will work in people the way they work in mice, but these results demonstrate that this class of compound restores light sensitivity to retinas blind from genetic disease.”
Researchers said they are currently working on a next-generation chemical compound for the next step of experiments in mice.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Don’t ya just love good new. Sounds promising and a step in a positive direction for everyone.
*good news
The farmer’s wife will be thrilled….
Sorry Jono, I gave you a thumbs down, as I don’t think any form of experimenting on animals is good news.
I find it difficult to believe you’ve never benefited in your life from these types of experiments, be it anything from taking anti biotics to having a friend cured of cancer.
Without animal testing, we wouldn’t have half the cures or medical advancement we have now. That is a fact. Even blind mice can see again!
Debi, may I just say. I do not agree with experiments on animals either, however I do agree that experiments should be performed on animals to save thousands probably millions of humans…. It is cruel but I think that it is crucial for the survival of humans for generations to come….
That’s cool debi, each to their own but no offense im on team people and although it not nice (I love animals too) if it takes blinding a few mice to restore sight to humans I think it’s worth it provided no unnecessary harm is done to them. It can’t be a no stem cell no animal testing policy or we would be left with testin on prisoners or not progressing
Props though for givin a red thumb an a reasonable explanation of your opinion too. At least we get a civil debate going. I’m green thumbing u
You can’t make an omlette without breaking some eggs, I too love animals, but do not see mice as equal to humans. I’d also imagine the majority of scientists do all they can to minimise the animals suffering in these kinds of experiments.
I have reitinis pigmintosa and would be trilled if they found a cure. if they do ill be sure to buy a few hundred mice and drop them arount to your house so you can take care of them. that way we are both happy:/
there is always one:)
People who disagree with animal testing for medical reasons while their intentions regarding cruelty to animals are good, forget about the benefits humans have received from them. Darwinism at its height.
@Luke.. I agree with what you say, but I still think its wrong as so many unnecessary animal testing is done on a daily basis, that is not needed.
That photo is adorable!
@Adrian de cleir, you are 100% per -cent right.. I probably have benefited from some form of medication that has been tested on an animal or even used a shampoo that’s been squirted in some poor rabbits eyes.. And yes I have a dear friend whose son is going through a trail medication for cancer and it’s working for him. But even with all that, I still don’t think animal testing is right.. Everyone who has made a comment on here has a valid point and I respect that.
@Jono, thanks Jono :-) it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to test a few drugs or experiment on a couple of prisoners. They are ‘Human’ after all.
don’t you think the quinns have suffered enough?
While animal testing can and should be kept to a minimum, and there may be scope to increase the amount of in vitro testing in place of animal experiments, in medicine there is absolutely no way that animal experimentation can be eliminated. Unless you are of the opinion that medical science has progressed enough and that we don’t need any further advances or new medication, you must agree that animal testing is a necessary evil
have your say