Jump to content

Animal testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nrets (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 13 July 2006 (rv wholesale deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Filmed by PETA, Covance primate-testing lab, Vienna, Virginia, 2004-5. [1] Non-human primates make up 0.3% of research animals, with 50,000 being used each year in the United States, according to its Dept of Agriculture, and 10,000 in the European Union, according to BUAV, 4,208 of them in the UK in 2004. [2] [3]

Animal testing, also referred to as animal research, refers to the use of non-human animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 million–100 million animals worldwide [4] [5] [6] are used annually and subsequently killed in scientific procedures — conducted as part of pure research, applied research, or toxicology testing — mostly inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. Testing is also carried out on farms, in defense-research establishments, and by public-health authorities, on a variety of species from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates. [7] Most laboratory animals are purpose bred, while a smaller number are caught in the wild or supplied by pounds. [8]

The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and whether using animal models is good or bad science. The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that "promot[es] public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research," writes that "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health," [9] and that many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). [10][11][12] Whether animal research was necessary to achieve these results has been questioned by animal rights groups [13] and critics of the animal model. [14]

The moral basis of the pro-testing position was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "The institution of morality, society, and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals," and are therefore morally entitled to use them for their own purposes. This belief is "combined with a further belief that there is a moral imperative ... to develop medical and veterinary science for the relief of suffering ..." [15] Some people also believe that animals may suffer less during experiments than human beings would, arguing that although all mammals have similar pain receptors and central nervous system pathways and may feel physical pain in the same way, non-human mammals suffer less because they have a reduced capacity to remember and to anticipate pain. [16] Opponents of animal testing strongly contest these views.

History

One of Pavlov’s dogs with a saliva-catch container and tube surgically implanted in his muzzle. Pavlov Museum, 2005

The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the third and fourth centuries BCE, with Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304-258 BCE) among the first to perform experiments on living animals (Cohen and Loew 1984). Galen, a physician in second-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection." [17]

Animals have played a role in numerous well-known experiments. In 1796, Edward Jenner extracted pus from pox-infected cows to inoculate James Phipps against smallpox. The virus was the top cause of mortality in England before Jenner's work. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by giving anthrax to sheep. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning. Insulin was isolated first from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. On November 3, 1957 a Russian dog named Laika became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, leprosy multi-drug antibiotic treatments were developed first in armadillos, then in humans. In 1996 Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.

Regulation

United States

In the United States, animal testing is primarily regulated by the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, [18] which is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA has been amended five times since 1966, most recently with a minor amendment in 2002. It contains provisions to ensure animals used in research receive a certain standard of care and treatment, provided that the standard of care and treatment doesn't interfere with scientific merit.[19] [20] The AWA only covers non-rodent mammals, and not mice, rats and birds, [21] meaning over 95% of research animals in the U.S. are not covered by this legislation. [5] The Act requires each institution conducting animal testing to set up an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which is responsible for enforcing the Act. Institutions are subject to unannounced bi-annual inspections. There are over 100 inspectors [22] to monitor around 1100 research institutions. [23] The inspectors also conduct pre-licensing checks for sites who do that not engage in animal research or transportation, of which more than 4000 exist (e.g. dog kennels). [24]

Another regulatory instrument is the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, which became statutory with the Health Research Extension Act 1985, and which is enforced by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). This Act applies to any individual scientist or institution in receipt of federal funds, and requires each institution to have an IACUC. OLAW enforces the standards of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals [6] published by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, [7] which includes all vertebrate species in its care protocols, including rodents and birds [8] (Introduction, p.1). In 2004, the National Institutes of Health provided funds to 3,180 different research institutions and universities. [9] This means that most IACUC committees effectively regulate the use of all vertebrate species in research, even if they are not covered by federal legislation. OLAW does not carry out scheduled inspections, instead only visiting when there is a suspected or alleged violation.

Some companies and universities also receive accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), a non-governmental, nonprofit association, which accredits 680 institutions in 27 countries. Inspections occur once every three years without prior notice. [10]

Europe

Experiments on vertebrate animals in the European Union are subject to the European Union's Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific purposes. [11] There is considerable variation in the manner member countries choose to exercise the directive: compare, for example, legislation from Sweden, [12] The Netherlands, [13] and Germany. [14]

United Kingdom

File:Rodent52copy.jpg
Technician assessing the health status of transgenic mice in a UK laboratory, 2000. Provided by RDS/Wellcome Trust Photographic Library [2]

The types of institutions conducting animal research in the UK in 2004 were: universities (42.1%); commercial organizations (33.3%); non-profit organizations (4.9%); government departments (2.4%); National Health Service hospitals (0.9%); public health laboratories (0.6%); other public bodies (15.8%) [15] (pdf).

The 1986 (Scientific Procedures) Act [16] requires experiments to be regulated by three licences: a project licence for the scientist in charge of the project, which details the numbers and types of animals to be used, the experiments to be performed, and the purpose of them; a licence for the institution to ensure it has adequate facilities and staff; and a personal licence for each scientist or technician who carries out any procedure. In deciding whether to grant a licence, the Home Office refers to the Act's cost-benefit analysis, which is defined as "the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence" (Section 5(4)). A licence should not be granted if there is a "reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of protected animals" (Section 5(5) (a)). The experiments must use "the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering distress or lasting harm, and [be the] most likely to produce satisfactory results" (Section 5(5) (b)). [17]

During a 2002 House of Lords select committee inquiry into animal testing in the UK, witnesses stated that the UK has the tightest regulatory system in the world, and is the only country to require a cost-benefit assessment of every licence application. [18] There are 29 qualified inspectors covering 230 establishments, which are visited on average 11-12 times a year. [19] (See also Animal Procedures Committee.)

France

In France, legislation (principally the decree of October 19, 1987) requires an institutional and project licence before testing on vertebrates may be carried out. An institution must submit details of their facilities and the reason for the use of animals they house, after which a five-year licence may be granted following an inspection of the premises. The project licensee must be trained and educated to an appropriate level. Personal licences are not required for individuals working under the supervision of a project licence holder. [20] [21]

Japan

The system in Japan is one of self-regulation. Animal experiments are regulated by one clause in the 2000 Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals [22] (pdf), which requires those using animals to cause minimal distress and suffering. There are no inspections, and there is no reporting requirement for the numbers of animals used. [23] A 1988 survey published by the Japanese Association for Laboratory Animal Science reported that eight million had been used that year. [25]

Number of animals and species used

Numbers

Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to collect. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million animals are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the European Union [24] (pdf) and 1,101,958 non-rodent mammels in the United States in 2004 [25] (pdf p.3). The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that "[e]stimates of the total number of animals used annually in research around the world are difficult to obtain and range from between 50 to 100 million animals." [6] Animals bred for research then killed as surplus, or used for breeding purposes, are not included in the figures.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides a census of the actual number of non-rodent mammels in use each year since 1973[26]. Below is a partial summary table of these numbers. There is a trend for reduction in all non-rodent mammal usage except non-human primates, of which animal use number stay close to 50,000 each year. Many animals are used for consecutive years and counted in the census each year, so the actual number of animals used for research is less than the sum of the census counts each year.

YearDogCatNon-human primateAll
1973195,15766,16542,2981,653,345
1980188,78368,48256,0241,661,904
1990109,99233,70047,1771,578,099
200069,51625,56057,5181,286,412
200464,93223,64054,9981,101,958

The Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group has used these figures, and estimates of non-covered animal usage, to estimate that 23-25 million animals are used in research each year in America. [26] In 1986, a report produced by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that "estimates of the animals used in the United States each year range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million," and that their own best estimate was "at least 17 million to 22 million." [27] Approximately 7-8%, or 86,000 in 2004, of the non-rodent mammals in use were categorized in USDA Category E, meaning unrelieved pain and distress occurred. 36% of the USDA census were in category D, meaning pain and distress occurred but was relieved with anesthesia and/or analgesia, and 56% were in category C, no pain or distress occurred as part of experiments[28]

Figures released by the British Home Office show that, in 2004, 2,854,944 procedures were carried out on 2,778,692 animals [29] (pdf), an increase of 63,000 from 2003, [29] the third consective annual rise and the highest figure since 1992. [30] The term "procedure" refers to an experiment, which might last several months or even years. The figures show that most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are killed and dissected afterwards. [31](pdf).

Over half the experiments in Britain in 2004 — 1,710,760 — either did not require anesthetic (e.g. behavioral tests, breeding stock, controlled dietary intake) or anesthesia was not used because this would interfere with the experimental results; 880,897 experiments were conducted in connection with pure research; 114,081 were toxicology tests, 982,640 were for breeding, and most of the rest were for applied studies in human medicine, veterinary medicine or dentistry. 9,035 involved the deliberate infliction of "psychological stress".

Species

Listed in descending order of numbers of individual animals used:

Invertebrates

Most of the animals used in animal testing are invertebrates, especially Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode. In the case of C. elegans, the precise lineage of all of the organism's cells is known, and D. melanogaster has various characteristics making it well suited to genetic studies. These animals offer scientists a number of advantages over vertebrates, including their short life cycle and the ease with which large numbers of individuals may be studied. Invertebrates are often extremely cost-effective, as thousands of flies or nematodes can be housed in a single room, but this is not true for all species of invertebrates.

With the exception of some cephalopods, invertebrate species are not protected under most animal research legislation, and therefore the total number of invertebrates used remains unknown.

Rodents

Rats and mice, the most commonly utilized vertebrate species, are used in large proportion because they are small, inexpensive, easy to handle and care for, and can produce up to 100 pups in a year. Mice are considered the prime model of inherited human disease, are genetically tractable and share 99% of their genes with humans. [27] In the UK in 2004, 1,910,110 mice, 464,727 rats and 37,475 other rodents were used (84.5% of the total animals used that year). In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used are not reported, but are estimated at 15-20 million. [28]

Fish and amphibia

In the UK, 194,562 fish and 18,195 amphibia were used in 2004 [29] (pdf). The major species utilized are the zebrafish, Danio rerio, which are translucent during their embryonic stage, and the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis.

Rabbits

Over 20,000 rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004. Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests because rabbits have less tear flow than other animals and the lack of eye pigment make the effects easier to visualize. They are also used in skin irritancy tests (see Draize test). In 2004 less than 12% of the rabbits were used for safety testing of non-medical products [30] (pdf).

Dogs

Beagles are used, because they are friendly and gentle, in toxicity tests, surgery, and dental experiments. Toxicology tests are required to last six months in the UK, although British laboratories carry out tests lasting nine months on behalf of Japanese and American customers. Of the 8,018 dogs used in the UK in 2004, 7,799 were beagles (97.3%). [31] In the UK, most dogs are bred for the purpose, for example by Harlan in Leicestershire.

Non-human primates (NHPs)

In the United States, 54,998 non-human primates were used in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), an annual figure that has been more or less steady since 1973 [32] (pdf, p. 10). In the European Union, 10,000 are used each year, with 4,208 used in Britain in 2004, a decrease of 591 from the previous year. [33] [34]

Most of the NHPs used are baboons, macaques, marmosets, and chimpanzees. Licenses approving the use of non-human great apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans (also known as Hominidae), are not currently being issued in Britain, though their use has not been outlawed, [32] but chimpanzees are used in the U.S., with an estimated 1,300 still remaining in research laboratories, according to the Humane Society of the United States. [33]

There are indications that NHP use is on the rise. The US National Center for Research Resources has made increasing primate availability part of its Strategic Plan for 2004-8[34]. The reasons for this plan are "...due to their essential role in biodefense, gene transfer research, and the increased risk of transmission of infectious agents to air travelers from remote areas around the globe." China is also increasing its NHP use, and is regarded as attractive to Western companies because of the low cost of research, the relatively lax regulations and the increase in animal-rights activism in the West. [35]

In 2004, the British government reported "a definite long-term downward trend" in the use of new world primates, but stated that the use of old world primates fluctuates and is more difficult to determine [35] (pdf). In 1996, the British Animal Procedures Committee recommended new measures for dealing with NHPs. The use of wild-caught primates was banned, except where "exceptional and specific justification can be established"; specific justification must be made for the use of old world primates (but not for the use of new world primates); approval for the acquisition of primates from overseas is conditional upon their breeding or supply center being acceptable to the Home Office; and each batch of primates acquired from overseas must be separately authorized [36] (pdf).

Cats

Felines are most commonly used in neurological research. In the UK, 819 cats were used in 2004 [36] (pdf). According to the USDA, over 25,500 felines were used in the USA in 2000, of these around half were reported to have been used in experiments that caused "pain and/or distress". The number of cats used in research in the US has followed a downward trend, from a peak of 74,259 in 1973. [37]

Types of experiment

Experiments can be split into three broad, overlapping categories.

Pure research

Basic or pure research aims to increase knowledge about the way organisms behave, develop, and function biologically.

Both the largest number and greatest variety of laboratory animals are used in this type of research. Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs, through blind cavefish and armadillos [38]. In the UK in 2004, 76 macaques, 141 dogs and 204 cats were used in basic research to investigate topics such as social behaviour, vision, nutrition and suckling [39] (pdf).

Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:

  • Mutagenesis to study mechanisms in embryogenesis and developmental biology. Animals are often treated with mutagenic chemicals or radiation to generate defective embryos. By studying disrupted development, scientists aim to understand both how organisms develop normally and abnormally [40]. The 1995 and 2002 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine were awarded for research into developmental processes in animals using forward genetic screens [41][42]. Embryos used in experiments are often not covered by legislation and therefore not always required to be reported. Consequently, those that believe embryos are de facto animals claim the published number of experimental animals used is an under-representation.
  • Experiments into behaviour, to understand how organisms detect and interact with each other and their environment. Fruit flies, worms, mice and rats are all widely used in research into mechanisms of vision, [43] taste, [44] hearing, [45] touch, [46] and smell. [47] In addition studies of brain function, such as memory and social behaviour, often use rats and birds. [48] Less common is the use of larger mammals in these types of studies.


Drug testing

File:Dogs6CCcopy.jpg
Dogs used for safety testing of pharmaceuticals in a UK facility, 2000. Provided by RDS/Wellcome Trust Photographic Library [3]

In response to the teratogenic effects of Thalidomide in the 1960s, many countries passed new laws to ensure all new pharmaceuticals underwent rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:

  • metabolic tests, which are performed to find out how the drugs are absorbed, metabolized and excreted by the body when introduced orally, intravenously, intraperitoneally, or intramuscularly.
  • toxicology tests, which gauge acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity is studied by using a rising dose until signs of toxicity become apparent. Current European legislation, Directive 2001/83/EC [56] (pdf, p44), demands "acute toxicity tests must be carried out in two or more mammalian species" covering "at least two different routes of administration". Subacute toxicity is where the drug is given to the animals for four to six weeks in doses below the level at which it becomes toxic, in order to discover the effects of the build up of toxic metabolites. Testing for chronic toxicity can last up to two years and, in the European Union, is required to utilize "two species of mammals, one of which must be non-rodent" [57] (pdf, p45). The data gained from this period can be used to calculate the maximum tolerable dose; that is, the dose where signs of toxicity begin to occur.
  • efficacy studies, which test whether experimental drugs work by inducing the appropriate illness in animals using an animal model of the disease. The drug is then administered in a double-blind controlled trial. This is intended to allow scientists to determine the effect of the drug and the dose-response curve.
  • Specific tests on reproductive function, embryonic toxicity or carcinogenic potential can all be required by law, dependent of the result of other studies and type of drug being tested.

Testing cosmetics on animals

File:NoAnimalTesting.gif
Products in Europe not tested on animals carry this symbol
File:BUAV-approved.gif
Products not tested on animals in the UK carry this British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection logo
File:CCIClogo.jpg
U.S. and Canadian products that carry this Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) logo do not test their products or ingredients on animals

Cosmetics testing is particularly controversial. It is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. [58] France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. [59]

Cosmetic testing on animals includes:

  • testing a finished product such as lipstick;
  • testing individual ingredients, or a combination of them;
  • Contracting a third-party company to perform any of the above;
  • Using a subsidiary or third-party company to perform the tests in countries where animal testing is not banned.

Some cosmetics companies continue to make the claim that their products are not tested on animals despite using one or more of the above practices.

Re-using existing test data obtained from previous animal testing is generally not considered to be cosmetic testing on animals; however, the acceptability of this to opponents of testing is inversely proportional to how recent the data is.

Due to the strong public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers say their products are not tested on animals. However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws in most countries to show their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous in large quantities, such as when in transport or in the manufacturing plant. In some countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. In other countries, it may require animal testing to meet legal requirements. The United States and Japan are frequently criticised for their insistence on stringent safety measures, which often requires animal testing, although the U.S. has also been a leader in developing cell culture alternatives.

Some retailers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by their stance on animal testing. The British Co-op maintains a cosmetic-testing website, [60] which includes statements from all their suppliers about the extent of their animal testing. The Body Shop is also well-known for its campaigns against animal testing. [61]

Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, compounds that have both cosmetic and medical uses, such as those in the "anti-wrinkle" preparations Zyderm, Restylane and Botox, are still bound by the regulations requiring animal testing. According to activists, a raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that the LD50 test is still used on every batch of Botox (a toxin that, when administered intravenously, is lethal to humans) to establish potency [62] [63] [64].

While some cosmetics manufacturers have genuinely stopped all animal testing of their products, others continue to test. Companies that continue to perform cosmetic testing on animals may falsely claim that they do not do this in their advertising and on their products — or choose not to state either way.

Cosmetics manufacturers who genuinely do not test on animals generally use the following for safety testing of their products:

  • reliance on existing natural or synthetic ingredients, compounds and substances, which have already been extensively tested on animals;
  • avoiding novel ingredients or combinations of ingredients that have not been fully tested and may not be safe;
  • testing on human volunteers/clinical trials.

This presumes that cosmetics companies are already using computer modeling and cell cultures to simulate human tissue, two techniques that have had ambiguous utility in discovering problems early. Supporters of animal testing say that neither can fully replace live human or non-human animal tests.

The arguments in brief

Advocates of animal testing

Testing advocates argue that:

  • It would be unethical to test substances or drugs with potentially adverse side-effects on human beings. [65]
  • Controlled experiments involve introducing only one variable at a time, which is why animals are experimented on while confined inside a laboratory. Human beings could not be confined in this way. [66]
  • There is no substitute for the living systems necessary to study interaction among cells, tissue, and organs. Animals are good surrogates because of their similarities to humans. [67]
  • There is no substitute for psychiatric studies (e.g., antidepressant clinical trials) that require behavioral data.
  • Animals have shorter life and reproductive spans, meaning that several generations can be studied in a relatively short time.
  • Animals can be bred especially for animal-testing purposes, meaning they arrive at the laboratory free from disease.
  • Humans that use medicine derived from animal research are healthier. [68]
  • Animals receive more sophisticated medical care because of animal tests that have led to advances in veterinary medicine. [69]
  • There have been several examples of substances causing death or injury to human beings because of inadequate animal testing. [70]
  • Over 10 times more animals are killed and harmed in everyday life (eg. pest control , euthanasia of unwanted pets, hunting, and agriculture) than in animal experiments.
  • Activists manipulate and fabricate facts, therefore their claims are not reliable.
  • Alternatives to certain kinds of animal testing are unknown.
  • Wherever practical alternatives exist, they are often likely to be introduced for economical reasons, like testing on rodents instead of primates because of their lower cost of keeping.

Opponents of animal testing

Opponents argue that:

  • Even with medical and non-commercial research, tests are often conducted to produce academic papers in order to acquire a Ph.D., academic tenure, or more funding, and not because the research is beneficial. [dubious – discuss]
  • The suffering of the animals is excessive in relation to whatever benefits may be reaped. [71] (pdf)
  • Animal-testing facilities are not properly regulated or inspected, and several undercover investigations by activist groups have uncovered evidence of animal abuse.
  • Animal testing is regarded by opponents as bad science because they believe:
    1. Some animal models of disease are induced, and should not be compared to the same disease in humans. Activists claim Parkinson's disease in humans cannot be reproduced by causing brain damage in an animal [72], though genetic and toxin-mediated animal models are now widely used [73].
    2. Some drugs have dangerous side-effects that were not predicted by animal models. Opponents often claim Thalidomide as an example of this is [74], although when tested on pregnant animals, birth defects are seen in mice, rats, hamsters, rabbits, macaques, marmosets, dogs, cats, fish, baboons and rhesus monkeys [75].
    3. Some drugs appear to have different effects on human and non-human animals. Aspirin, for example, is a teratogen when given to certain animals in high doses [76], but there is conflicting evidence regarding its effect on human embryos [77] [78].
    4. The conditions in which the tests are carried out may undermine the results, because of the stress the environment produces in the animals. BUAV argues that the laboratory environment and the experiments themselves are capable of affecting every organ and biochemical function in the body. "Noise, restraint, isolation, pain, psychological distress, overcrowding, regrouping, separation from mothers, sleeplessness, hypersexuality, surgery and anaesthesia can all increase mortality, contact sensitivity, tumour susceptibility and metastatic spread, as well as decrease viral resistance and immune response." [79]
  • Some opponents, particularly supporters of animal rights, argue further that, even if animal testing did reap benefits to human beings, these could not outweigh the suffering of the animals, and that human beings have no moral right to use individual animals in ways that do not benefit that individual.

Controversy

File:It'sADog'sLife.gif
Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 by PETA inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.

Undercover investigations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have documented and filmed what appear to be examples of animal abuse in laboratories.

Huntingdon Life Sciences

Main article: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [37] (video). Footage shot in the U.S. appeared to show technicians dissecting a live monkey [38] (video).

Covance

BUAV filmed staff in Covance, Münster, Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them. The monkeys are kept isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light, no environmental enrichment, and high noise levels from staff shouting and playing the radio.

Primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as "horrendous," and told BUAV that to see them "crazed with boredom, and sadness probably, is deeply, deeply disturbing." Primatologist Stephen Brend told BUAV that using monkeys in such a stressed state is "bad science" and trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances is an "untenable proposition." [80] (video) PETA found similar conditions in Covance's Vienna, Virginia lab during an undercover investigation in 2004-5. [81]

University of Cambridge

Main article: Primate experiments at Cambridge University

In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five. [82] The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [83]

The experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for the purpose of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains or by injecting toxins. The monkeys were then re-tested to determine how the damage had affected their skills. They were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours. [84] [85] (video)

The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and the judge hearing BUAV's application for a judicial review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a licence. [86] [87] The Research Defence Society, a lobby group representing 5,000 medical researchers and institutions in the UK, wrote in a summmary of the case: "[F]or this research into stroke monkeys were fully anaesthetised, a piece of the skull bone was removed (in the same way as for human neurosurgery), one blood vessel was permanently blocked, the skull bone was replaced, the muscle and skin resewn and appropriate pain killers given. On recovery from anaesthesia, monkeys were kept in an incubator, offered food and water and monitored at regular intervals until the early evening. They were then allowed to sleep in the incubators until the next morning. No monkeys died unattended during the night after stroke surgery." [88]

University of California, Riverside

File:Eyesewn.jpg
Britches, as the Animal Liberation Front say they found him. [4]
Main article: Britches (monkey)

One of the best-known cases of alleged abuse involved Britches, a macaque monkey born in 1985 into a breeding colony at the University of California, Riverside, removed from his mother at birth, and left alone and tethered, with his eyelids sewn shut, as part of a sight-deprivation experiment. [89] (video)

Britches was removed from the laboratory when he was five weeks old during a raid by the Animal Liberation Front, along with 700 other animals. The university criticized the ALF, claiming that damage to the monkey's eyelids, [90] allegedly caused by the sutures, had in fact been caused by an ALF veterinarian who examined the monkey after the raid and wrote a report. The experiment was condemned by the American Council for the Blind (Newkirk 2000).

The photograph of Britches on the right is taken from a video made by the ALF during the raid, and later released as a short film by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The university said that the monitoring device attached to the monkey's head had been tampered with by activists before the photograph was taken (ibid).

Columbia University

In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [91] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" [92]

In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [93] (pdf).

Alternatives to animal testing

Template:Animal liberation movement Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs" [94] are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries:

  • Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
  • Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
  • Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.

Animal welfare groups are divided in their position on the 'three Rs'; some support the principles [95] while others accept replacement as the only valid action [96]. There are a number of scientific studies [97] and institutes [98] researching alternatives to animal tests. However, critics say these facilities perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and are only there to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find alternatives [99][100]. It is further stated these studies are funded with trivial amounts of money [101][102], but this view is contested by the UK pharmaceutical industry, which estimates more than £300 million (of a total UK R&D budget of £3285 million) is spent on 'three R' development and implementation annually [103] (pdf).

The two major, widely accepted alternatives to animal testing under development are computer simulations and in vitro cell culture techniques. However, some claim they are not true alternatives since simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cultured cells often require animal derived products, such as serum. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems [104]. Examples of computer simulations available include models of diabetes [105], asthma [106], and drug absorption [107], though potential new medicines identified using these techniques are currently still required to be verified in animal tests before licensing.

Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use. For example, cultured cells have also been developed to create monoclonal antibodies, prior to this production required animals to undergo a procedure likely to cause pain and distress [108].

A third alternative now attracting considerable interest is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects [109] (pdf).

Institutes researching (and organizations funding) alternatives to animal testing include:

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Covance Cruelty", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
  2. ^ "Primates, Basic facts", British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
  3. ^ Jha, Alok. RSPCA outrage as experiments on animals rise to 2.85m", The Guardian, December 9, 2005.
  4. ^ "Vivisection FAQ (pdf), British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
  5. ^ "Numbers of animals", Research Defence Society.
  6. ^ a b "The Ethics of research involving animals" (pdf), Nuffield Council on Bioethics, p. 45.
  7. ^ "Introduction", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament.
  8. ^ "Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research", Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, The National Academies Press, 1988
  9. ^ "FBR's Position on Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.
  10. ^ "Nobel Prizes The Payoff from Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.
  11. ^ "Benefits of animal research", AALAS
  12. ^ "Survey of Nobel Prize winners", SIMR
  13. ^ "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
  14. ^ "FAQ insulin", Americans for Medical Advancement
  15. ^ "Chapter two: Ethics", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002.
  16. ^ "Chapter three: The Purpose and Nature of Animal Experiments", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002.
  17. ^ "History of nonhuman animal research", Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group.
  18. ^ "Animal Welfare Act on USDA website
  19. ^ "Animal Welfare Act 1985 Amendment
  20. ^ "Appendix C: Some Federal Laws Relevant to Animal Care and Use", Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996), Institute for Laboratory Animal Research.
  21. ^ "USDA:APHIS website
  22. ^ [1]
  23. ^ "See Facility Lists"
  24. ^ "APHIS AWA FAQ
  25. ^ Experimental Animals, 37:105, Japanese Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 1988.
  26. ^ [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awreports/awreport2004.pdf "See last page"
  27. ^ Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing and Education, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1986, p. 64.
  28. ^ "See category counts
  29. ^ a b "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Great Britain, 2004, p. 14
  30. ^ Jha, Alok. "RSPCA outrage as experiments on animals rise to 2.85m", The Guardian, December 9, 2005.
  31. ^ "UK Legislation: A Criticism", British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
  32. ^ "Testing on apes 'might be needed'", BBC News, June 3, 2006.
  33. ^ "An introduction to primate issues", Humane Society of the United States.
  34. ^ "NCRR Strategic Plan 2004-2008
  35. ^ "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Great Britain, 2004, p. 16
  36. ^ "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Great Britain, 2004, p. 87
  37. ^ Undercover video footage of HLS employees beating a puppy, filmed at the Huntingdon Research Centre, England.
  38. ^ Undercover video footage of HLS employees apparently dissecting a live monkey, filmed at the HLS Princeton Research Centre, NJ, USA.

References

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_testing&oldid=63605499"