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
Tom's Guide
11 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
I tested Call Screening on iOS 26 vs Android 16 — and there's a clear winner
Apple's making a lot of noise surrounding its iOS 26 public beta release, which is filled with new features that make using any of the best iPhones even better. If there's one iOS 26 feature you absolutely need to try, it has to be Call Screen, In fact, it's what my colleague Philip Michaels specifically calls out as being 'one of the most exciting' new things he's experienced in his iOS 26 preview. I have to agree because it gives you more control of how to approach phone calls going forward. However, I can't neglect to remind you about Google's similar feature — also called Call Screen — that leans on Google Assistant to take phone calls on your behalf. When I first tested it with my Pixel 8 Pro a couple of years ago, I said it was the most impressive smartphone feature I tested out. The two competing features are fundamentally the same, tasked to reduce spam calls and inquire about their reason to call you. I've been testing out the iOS 26 beta for some time now, so I want to share how the iOS 26 Call Screen feature compares to how Android 16 with the Pixel 9 lineup. For this test, I asked AI to generate a phone call script for three different phone call conversations to two phones — an iPhone 16 Pro Max running iOS 26 beta and a Pixel 9 Pro running the Android 16 beta. For this first test, I used another phone to place a phone call pretending to be a package delivery courier. Here's the message I left: Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. 'I'm calling because I need to drop off a package for John Velasco. It's a medium sized box that needs to be signed for and I need to know if someone could come down and sign it.' With Call Screen in iOS 26, I'm greeted by the assistant who tells me to leave a message on what I'm calling about. What I like about Call Screen in iOS 26 is that I can see the transcript in real time as they're leaving the message, but since this feature isn't tied to Apple Intelligence, it messes up by thinking that the caller is me. Regardless, I gave a response to send me more details, but Call Screen proceeded to tell them to leave a message. That's pretty much the extent of the interaction with iOS 26. In contrast, the Call Screen in Android 16 is much more reliable in my opinion. After leaving the same message, Google Assistant intelligently provides me with contextual responses that I can select directly from my Pixel 9 Pro. What makes this better is that these responses are generated automatically, which shows how AI is really working behind the scenes to understand what the conversation is about. Winner: Android 16 Although both platforms are improving the way they block spam calls, you might still find one come through every now and then. For this next test, I pretended to be a salesperson — you know — the stuff you're likely to hang up for right away. Here's my pitch: "This is John Smith calling from Sparkle Clean Solutions. We're a local company dedicated to helping homeowners like yourself achieve truly pristine living spaces. And the reason for my call today is a quick question about your home cleaning." Again, Call Screen in iOS 26 asks to leave a message that's automatically shown on my iPhone 16 Pro Max. While it's convenient that I can type my response to have the assistant relay it, I wish I could be given smarter responses to choose from like Call Screen on Android 16, but it doesn't. At least the assistant politely responds by telling them 'no thanks' and to leave a more detailed message. The Pixel 9 Pro, along with the Pixel 9 Pro XL and Pixel 9 Pro Fold, proves a point of how helpful AI could be. This interaction with Call Screen in Android 16 is a perfect example because right after the message is left, Google Assistant instantly identifies it as a spam call — which I find hilarious to be the first option in its list of actions. They don't even get the chance to leave a message because once I tap 'report as spam,' it ends the phone call and it's identified as a suspicious call. Winner: Android 16 For this final test, I pretended to be someone calling on behalf of someone who's in the hospital seeking medical help. This is the kind of call I'd want to answer, so I was really interested to see how Call Screen handles it. Here's the message I left: "Listen, I'm calling because Jimmy is in the hospital. He was admitted to Good Enough Medical Center at about 3:00 pm today. The reason I'm calling is because I really need some help. Jimmy needs someone to bring over a change of clothes and their glasses, and he's not able to communicate clearly right now, and the doctors are asking questions about his medical history." Call Screen in iOS 26 simply cannot provide meaningful actions or responses other than telling the caller to leave a more detailed message. In a real-life situation, I would pick up the call right away after reading the message on my iPhone — but the only thing they can do is to leave another message. Meanwhile, I think Android 16 has trouble with this one as well because it doesn't give me as much variety with the responses as the other two conversations. I asked them to tell me more about why they're calling, but the only options at my disposal were to simply thank them for letting me know. Still, it's an acknowledgement and goes one extra step further than iOS 26. Winner: Android 16 I said it before, I'll say it again. Call Screen in Android 16 is one of the best smartphone features around — and it shows why Google has some of the best AI phones around. The ability for Google Assistant to listen and generate intelligent responses is proof of how AI is making a big impact. Even though the feature didn't get a boost with the release of the Pixel 9, I'm hoping that Google refines it in such a way with the forthcoming Pixel 10 reveal at its next Made by Google event next month. For Apple, it's a good first step with Call Screen in iOS 26. Although it's basic in what it offers in its current iteration, I'm hoping that it's somehow injected with some Apple Intelligence love later on. Despite not revealing any new Apple Intelligence features at its iOS 26 reveal during WWDC 2025, the company's reportedly working on bringing new ones at a later time. I hope it involves Call Screen because it'd be nice if the assistant could make proper responses.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Presumed outbreak of E.coli and amoebiasis at Calgary-area food facility
CALGARY - Two people have been hospitalized and more than 200 have shown symptoms after a gastrointestinal outbreak at a Calgary-area food facility. Alberta Health Services says the outbreak at Saskatoon Farm in Foothills County is presumed to be E. coli and an intestinal illness called amoebiasis. Saskatoon Farm's food service facilities were ordered closed on Wednesday until deemed safe again, while the rest of the business remains open. Alberta Health Services says there have been 18 lab-confirmed cases of E. coli, three of which also tested positive for amoebiasis. It says 235 people have shown symptoms connected to the outbreak and there have been two recent hospitalizations, though one of them has since been discharged. The agency says it's believed the facility's water system is the source of the outbreak and Saskatoon Farm has switched to a different water source that has been confirmed safe. Anyone who consumed food, beverages or water there between July 1 and 16 is being asked to monitor for gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain. Officials say the type of E. coli identified in the outbreak is not normally found in treated drinking water, adding that it is not toxin-producing and generally goes away without treatment. They say amoebiasis may not result in immediate symptoms but can lead to gastrointestinal illness and, in rarer cases, severe infection of the liver, lungs, heart and brain. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Meta clashes with Apple, Google over age check legislation
The biggest tech companies are warring over who's responsible for children's safety online, with billions of dollars in fines on the line as states rapidly pass conflicting laws requiring companies to verify users' ages. The struggle has pitted Meta Platforms Inc. and other app developers against Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, the world's largest app stores. Lobbyists for both sides are moving from state to state, working to water down or redirect the legislation to minimize their clients' risks. This year alone, at least three states — Utah, Texas and Louisiana — passed legislation requiring tech companies to authenticate users' ages, secure parental consent for anyone under 18 and ensure minors are protected from potentially harmful digital experiences. Now, lobbyists for all three companies are flooding into South Carolina and Ohio, the next possible states to consider such legislation. The debate has taken on new importance after the Supreme Court this summer ruled age verification laws are constitutional in some instances. A tech group on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to block a social media age verification law in Mississippi, teeing up a highly consequential decision in the next few weeks. Child advocates say holding tech companies responsible for verifying the ages of their users is key to creating a safer online experience for minors. Parents and advocates have alleged the social media platforms funnel children into unsafe and toxic online spaces, exposing young people to harmful content about self harm, eating disorders, drug abuse and more. Meta supporters argue the app stores should be responsible for figuring out whether minors are accessing inappropriate content, comparing the app store to a liquor store that checks patrons' IDs. Apple and Google, meanwhile, argue age verification laws violate children's privacy and argue the individual apps are better-positioned to do age checks. Apple said it's more accurate to describe the app store as a mall and Meta as the liquor store. The three new state laws put the responsibility on app stores, signaling Meta's arguments are gaining traction. The company lobbied in support of the Utah and Louisiana laws putting the onus on Apple and Google for tracking their users' ages. Similar Meta-backed proposals have been introduced in 20 states. Federal legislation proposed by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would hold the app stores accountable for verifying users' ages. Still, Meta's track record in its state campaigns is mixed. At least eight states have passed laws since 2024 forcing social media platforms to verify users' ages and protect minors online. Apple and Google have mobilized dozens of lobbyists across those states to argue that Meta is shirking responsibility for protecting children. 'We see the legislation being pushed by Meta as an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe,' said Google spokesperson Danielle Cohen. 'These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act.' Meta spokesperson Rachel Holland countered that the company is supporting the approach favored by parents who want to keep their children safe online. 'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee their teen's online lives and 80% of American parents and bipartisan lawmakers across 20 states and the federal government agree that app stores are best positioned to provide this,' Holland said. As the regulation patchwork continues to take shape, the companies have each taken voluntary steps to protect children online. Meta has implemented new protections to restrict teens from accessing 'sensitive' content, like posts related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Apple created 'Child Accounts,' which give parents more control over their children's' online activity. At Apple, spokesperson Peter Ajemian said it 'soon will release our new age assurance feature that empowers parents to share their child's age range with apps without disclosing sensitive information.' As the lobbying battle over age verification heats up, influential big tech groups are splintering and new ones emerging. Meta last year left Chamber of Progress, a liberal-leaning tech group that counts Apple and Google as members. Since then, the chamber, which is led by a former Google lobbyist and brands itself as the Democratic-aligned voice for the tech industry, has grown more aggressive in its advocacy against all age verification bills. 'I understand the temptation within a company to try to redirect policymakers towards the company's rivals, but ultimately most legislators don't want to intervene in a squabble between big tech giants,' said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. Meta tried unsuccessfully to convince another major tech trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, to stop working against bills Meta supports, two people familiar with the dynamics said. Meta, a CCIA member, acknowledged it doesn't always agree with the association. Meta is also still a member of NetChoice, which opposes all age verification laws no matter who's responsible. The group currently has 10 active lawsuits on the matter, including battling some of Meta's preferred laws. The disagreements have prompted some of the companies to form entirely new lobbying outfits. Meta in April teamed up with Spotify Technology SA and Match Group Inc. to launch a coalition aimed at taking on Apple and Google, including over the issue of age verification. Meta is also helping to fund the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of conservative groups leading efforts to pass app-store age verification, according to three people familiar with the funding. Neither the Digital Childhood Alliance nor Meta responded directly to questions about whether Meta is funding the group. But Meta said it has collaborated with Digital Childhood Alliance. The group's executive director, Casey Stefanski, said it includes more than 100 organizations and child safety advocates who are pushing for more legislation that puts responsibility on the app stores. Stefanski said the Digital Childhood Alliance has met with Google 'several times' to share their concerns about the app store in recent months. The App Association, a group backed by Apple, has been running ads in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio arguing that the app store age verification bills are backed by porn websites and companies. The adult entertainment industry's main lobby said it is not pushing for the bills; pornography is mostly banned from app stores. 'This one-size fits all approach is built to solve problems social media platforms have with their systems while making our members, small tech companies and app developers, collateral damage,' said App Association spokesperson Jack Fleming. In South Carolina and Ohio, there are competing proposals placing different levels of responsibility on the app stores and developers. That could end with more stringent legislation that makes neither side happy. 'When big tech acts as a monolith, that's when things die,' said Joel Thayer, a supporter of the app store age verification bills. 'But when they start breaking up that concentration of influence, all the sudden good things start happening because the reality is, these guys are just a hair's breath away from eating each other alive.' Birnbaum writes for Bloomberg.
