ABSTRACT
In 2002, I attended a conference at which metabonomics was the subject of an all-afternoon session. The format was in four presentations with an extended period of interactive Q&A after each session. One of the most heated discussions arose between an avid supporter of the technology (not myself) and a member of the regulatory community over whether metabonomics was an ‘‘old dog with new tricks’’ or a ‘‘new dog’’. The regulatory representative took the ‘‘old dog’’ view
with the metabonomics advocate expressing indignation as to how this cutting edge technology could be considered as an old dog of any sort. It was a highly entertaining and amusing half-hour debate. As I reflect back on that debate, it becomes quite apparent to me that both discussants were ‘‘right’’ at least in their own perception-it was simply a matter of perspective. Clearly metabonomics technology will allow us to do some things we currently do, but much more simply, faster or cheaper. In vivo toxicity screening and target organ identification are routinely conducted today, but metabonomics may enable us to do these much more rapidly and cost effectively. This example might be considered a new trick for an old dog-a faster and simpler way to do what we have traditionally done in in vivo studies with classical histological and clinical pathology assessment. However, the ability to non-invasively, yet repeatedly assess toxicity, in some cases prior to any traditional manifestation of toxicity, certainly is something more than a ‘‘new trick.’’ It opens up a whole new avenue of scientific thought (some might say a can of worms) about what toxicity is and how we should properly assess it for a meaningful evaluation of risk.
