Organ-chips not ready to replace animal studies
EXAM ROOM
One of the cutting-edge technologies the Food and Drug Administration wants to use to replace animal studies might not be ready for a solo performance.
Organ-on-a-chip technology, which uses human cells on microfluidic chips to mimic the structure and function of organs in a laboratory setting, can't yet replace animal tests, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.
Standing in the way: Challenges include cost, availability of materials, a time-intensive process and the need for highly trained staff to operate the technology. OOCs aren't standardized, which makes reproducibility difficult. The National Institute of Standards and Technology told the GAO that standards are needed, particularly for multi-organ chips, but the technology is evolving too rapidly to set them.
The report also highlights a lack of agreed-upon benchmarks for OOCs and validation studies.
However, OOCs could work alongside animal studies, particularly for exploring toxicity, the GAO said. It also found that OOCs could be used in lieu of animal studies for certain standardized tests, for example, to assess skin damage from a compound.
Some recommendations: GAO called for policies that:
— Increase access to diverse, high-quality human cells
— Create standards around the technology
— Encourage more research and validation studies
— Provide regulatory guidance
Notably, it said companies were confused about FDA guidance regarding OOCs. And as of the end of last year, the agency hadn't qualified an OOC for use in regulatory review. However, the FDA's Innovative Science and Technology Approaches for New Drugs pilot program accepted a letter of intent for an OOC that would eventually predict drug-induced liver injury.
What's next: 'Body-on-a-chip' is coming. Instead of chips with single organs, the next generation of OOCs will link multiple organs, including intestines, livers and kidneys— to understand how they interact.
WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE
This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.
Kids advocacy group Fairplay and the Electronic Privacy Information Center are asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether a new kid-focused release of Google's AI chatbot Gemini is violating children privacy laws. Google says the technology is available through parent-supervised accounts and parents are free to disable it.
Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Danny Nguyen at dnguyen@politico.com, Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com, or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com.
Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: Dannyn516.70, CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01.
AROUND THE NATION
States are increasingly interested in making Apple and Google responsible for protecting kids from online harms.
Texas is poised to be the second state to require app stores, like Apple's App Store and Google's Google Play store, to verify their users' ages and — if they're minors — get parental consent to download apps. In March, Utah became the first state to sign an app store age-verification bill into law.
The bill sailed through the Texas House with support from 80 percent of the state Legislature and passed in the Senate by voice vote last week. Now it's awaiting Governor Greg Abbott's signature.
In practice, app stores must verify a user's age. If the user is a minor, the app store must obtain parental consent for each app download. The app stores would then relay this information to the app developer, because some apps provide different experiences based on age. However, certain apps like crisis hotlines and emergency services won't require parental consent.
Pushback: Google isn't happy about the bill's advancement (Apple also opposes this legislation). In particular, the company says there's no commercially reasonable way to verify who a child's parent is. 'Will they need to show a birth certificate or custody document to demonstrate that they have the legal authority to make decisions on behalf of a child?' asked Kareem Ghanem, Google's Senior Director of Government Affairs & Public Policy.
Google prefers a targeted approach: Send 'an age signal' with explicit parental consent only to developers whose apps pose risks to minors.
But such picking and choosing could open this legislation up to legal scrutiny.
Long-time concerns: Doctors, including former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; parents; and even kids are frustrated with the state of online media. For years, growing evidence has suggested that social media apps wear on kids' mental health.
But social media platforms enjoy protections from a decades-old law that prevents them from being sued their platforms' content.
And states like California and Maryland that have tried to put guardrails on social media have been sued for blocking free speech.
Legal challenges: Requiring app stores to verify ages isn't likely run into First Amendment issues. What's more, the policy rests on a fairly well-established legal foundation: contract law. For years, app stores have required minors to sign lengthy contracts — the ones most people don't read — before creating accounts, and legally, it can't do that. Minors can sign contracts but they aren't legally enforceable. App store age-verification laws, however, require sign-off from a legal guardian.
Supporters hope app store accountability laws will provide a first-line defense, funneling more kids into parent-linked app store accounts. It could also render the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which limits the amount of data that apps and websites can collect on children under 13, more enforceable. However, the law doesn't change social media or the risks associated with those platforms.
What's next: As more states take up app-store age verification, federal lawmakers considering similar legislation are likely to feel more pressure to prioritize it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Tea App Breach Reveals Why Web2 Can't Protect Sensitive Data
Web2 failure exposes Tea App users' sensitive data. A dating app built to empower women and marginalized genders has now put them at risk. Tea, the viral safety-focused app that lets users anonymously review men they have dated, has suffered a major data breach. Sensitive user data including photos, government IDs, and chat logs was exposed and later shared on the message board 4chan. According to 404 Media, the breach was caused by a misconfigured Firebase database, a centralized backend platform maintained by Google. The leaked data included full names, selfies, driver's licenses, and sensitive messages from within the app. Many of these files were uploaded during identity verification processes and were never intended to be public. Tea confirmed the breach and said the data came from a two-year-old version of the app, though it's unclear whether users were ever notified of this risk during sign-up. For many users, however, that explanation offers little comfort. Trust was broken, and it was trust the platform had sold as its core value. What is Tea? Tea launched in 2023 and quickly gained attention for its bold concept. The app allows women, nonbinary people, and femmes to post anonymous reviews of men they have dated. These posts can include green flag or red flag labels along with identifying details like first names, age, city, and photo. It also offered tools like reverse image searches, background checks, and AI-powered features such as 'Catfish Finder.' For a monthly subscription fee, users could unlock deeper insights. The app pledged to donate a portion of profits to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, branding itself as a safer space for navigating modern dating. At one point in July 2025, Tea reached the top of the Apple App Store. But beneath the growth was a fragile architecture. A Breach That Breaks the Tea Mission The Tea breach is not just a case of leaked data; it is a collapse of purpose. A platform built for safety exposed the very identities it was meant to protect. Legal IDs. Facial recognition data. Personal messages. Tea marketed itself as a safe space where people could share vulnerable experiences without fear of retaliation. That trust was supposed to be a feature, not a liability. But in exposing the identities of people who likely signed up for the app under the promise of anonymity, the breach reversed the app's core mission. It also reignited debate around the ethics of crowdsourced review platforms. While Tea's users may have had the best intentions, the lack of formal moderation or fact-checking raises significant legal concerns. Already, reports suggest the company receives multiple legal threats each day related to defamation or misuse. Now, with the breach, the legal stakes have escalated. And they may soon extend into privacy litigation, depending on what jurisdictions impacted users reside in. Tea and Web2's Fragility At the heart of this failure is a familiar problem in consumer tech: reliance on Web2 infrastructure. Firebase, while powerful and scalable, is a centralized backend system. When a problem occurs, users have no control over what is exposed or how quickly it is contained. This was the foundation Tea chose, despite the known risks of centralized data storage. Web2 models store user data in app-controlled databases. This may work for e-commerce or gaming, but with private messages and government-issued IDs, the risks multiply. Once exposed, that kind of information is almost impossible to fully retrieve or erase: disappearing into the vastness of cyberspace. The Tea incident echoes previous Web2 failures. In 2015, the Ashley Madison breach exposed the names and email addresses of users on a platform designed for private affairs. The consequences ranged from public shaming to blackmail. While the scale was different, the pattern was the same: a platform promising discretion, but failing to secure its core value proposition. Web2 Tools of Tea & Web3 Upgrades The incident reopens a critical discussion around digital identity and decentralization. Web3 advocates have long argued that user-controlled identity systems—such as those built with zero-knowledge proofs, decentralized identifiers (DIDs), or blockchain-based attestations—can prevent precisely this kind of disaster. Had Tea used a self-sovereign identity system, users could have verified themselves without ever uploading their actual ID to a centralized database. They could have shared attestations from trusted issuers or community verification methods instead. These systems remove the need to store vulnerable personal files, drastically lowering risk in the event of a breach. Projects like BrightID and Proof of Humanity already explore these models by enabling anonymous but verifiable identities. Though still early-stage, these systems offer a glimpse of a safer future. Ultimately, this could help reduce single points of failure. Web3's architecture, where users control their credentials and data flows through distributed systems, provides a fundamentally different risk profile that may be better suited for sensitive social platforms. Web2 Failures Create Web3 Urgency The Tea breach also poses real-world risks beyond the app itself. Exposed IDs and selfies could be used to open fraudulent crypto exchange accounts, commit SIM-swap attacks, or bypass Know Your Customer (KYC) checks on blockchain platforms. As digital assets grow more accessible, the overlap between privacy, dating, and financial fraud will only increase. This could also create reputational damage for users outside of Tea. If their names or images are associated with unverifiable accusations, even falsely, those records could be copied or weaponized in future contexts. Search engines have long memories. So do blockchain crawlers. For regulators and technologists, the Tea breach offers a blueprint of what not to do. It also poses a serious question: should platforms that deal in high-sensitivity content be allowed to launch without structural privacy safeguards? More pointedly, can any platform promise safety without first rethinking the assumptions of its data model? What's Next for Tea & Other Web2 Tool Users For now, Tea says it is reviewing its security practices and rebuilding user trust. But the breach highlights a larger industry problem. Platforms that promise anonymity and empowerment must treat data protection as a structural principle: not an optional feature. This incident may become a case study in why Web2 safety tools are insufficient for modern risks. Whether for dating, reputation, or whistleblowing, the next generation of platforms may need to be decentralized from the start. Tea promised safety. What it delivered was a case study in how trust breaks down in the Web2 era.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Google Warns This Email Means Your Gmail Is Under Attack
You do not want to get this email. With all the cyber security attacks compromising smartphones and PCs, it would be easy to conclude there's little you can do to stay safe. But the truth is very different. Most attacks are easily prevented with a few basic safeguards and some know-how. In reality, a number of simple changes can defend against most attacks. So it is with the FBI's two warnings this week. The first a resurgence of the Phantom Hacker attacks which trick PC users into installing rogue apps. And the second a raft of fake Chrome installs and updates which provide initial access for ransomware. If you just avoid installing linked apps in this way you will steer clear of those attacks. It's the same with a new Amazon impersonation attack that has surged 5000% in just two weeks. Don't click links in messages — even if they seem to come from Amazon. And now Gmail attack warnings are turning up again on social media, which will likely frustrate Google, because their advice has been clear but is not yet landing with users. The latest Gmail warnings come courtesy of a refreshed EasyDMARC article covering the 'no-reply' attacks from earlier this year, hijacking 'no-reply@ to trick users into clicking links and giving up their Google account sign-in credentials. Here again the advice is very simple. It shouldn't matter whether an email appears to come from Google. If it links to a sign-in page, it's an attack. Period. And that means any email that seems to come from Google but has a sign-in link must be deleted. 'Sometimes,' Google warns, 'hackers will copy Google's 'Suspicious sign-in prevented' emails and other official Google emails to try to steal someone's account information.' But the company tells all account holders that 'Google emails will never take you to a sign-in page. Authentic emails sent from Google to your Google Account will never ask you to sign in again to the account they were sent to.' It's as simple as that. Similarly, Google will never 'ask you to provide your password or other sensitive information by email or through a link, call you and ask for any forms of identification, including verification codes, send you a text message directing you to a sign-in page, or send a message via text or email asking you to forward a verification code.' With that in mind, you should not fall victim to these Google impersonation attacks, and if you stick to the basic rules on installs, links and attachments, then you'll likely stay safe from most of the other ones as well.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Pixel 10 Pro Price Leak Confirms Google's Bold Decisions
Pixel 9 Pro XL As Google prepares to announce the Pixel 10 and Pixel 10 Pro in late August, some of the biggest questions have been about the price of the new handsets. With flagship phones from the likes of Apple and Samsung regularly pushing base models into four-figure prices, how competitive will Google's pricing decisions be and what do they say about its strategy? Pixel 10 And Pixel 10 Pro Pricing We have European pricing across the four main models, which are broadly similar to the pricing of the Pixel 9 family. The Pixel 10 starts at €899 for 128 GB, the Pixel 10 Pro at €1,099 also for 128 GB, and the Pixel 10 Pro XL listings drop the 128 GB option to start at €1,299 for 256 GB. Finally, the Pixel 10 Pro Fold starts at € 1,899 for 256 GB. Both the Pro XL and the Pro Fold, sitting at the top of the portfolio, do not have 128 GB versions listed. That's not to say the 128 GB option is definitely gone—perhaps these will be available only through the Google Store, region-locked, or as network exclusives. We shall see during the Made By Google launch event scheduled for Aug. 20. By echoing 2024's pricing across the range, Google offers us a glimpse into the wider strategy it is using to address both the consumer market and its Android Partners. Pixel 10 And Pixel 10 Pro Strategy The steady approach to pricing—which is arguably mirrored by the incremental updates to the physical design of the Pixel 10 family over the Pixel 9—shows Google's confidence in the market. There may be new features added to the hardware and software of the Pixel package, but the value proposition has not changed; so neither has the price. That could be a quiet victory on retail shelves. There's an expectation that the price of the new model will rise compared to the existing model. Because the counterpoint to this is that if Google did lift the prices on the Pixel models, then the difference between its smartphones and the likes of the iPhone Pro or Galaxy S Ultra models would be more apparent; the increased performance of the latter would be noticeable, and the value conscious consumer would look at the closer pricing and decide that the jump to a more recognisable phone brand would be easier to make. Yet there is something more for the price-conscious buyer. Because of the lower starting price for each model, moving up to a model with increased storage feels like good value, in part due to keeping the Pixels lower than the entry-level pricing of the aforementioned Apple and Samsung devices. Finding Value In The Pixel 10 And Pixel 10 Pro Pricing for the Pixel 10 Pro and the rest of the Pixel 10 lineup is familiar. Google continues to offer a flagship experience at a price that will be perceived as lower than that of its competitors' flagships. Part of me wonders if this is because the real value in the Pixel family for Google is in the software and subscription services such as Google One and Google Gemini. Now read the latest Pixel 10 Pro, Samsung Galaxy, and smartphone news in Forbes' weekly Android news digest...
