Yes

by Michelle Shafer

Created on: September 02, 2007

The Scientific Case Against Animal Experiments

You know, one of my most entertaining fantasies is that my ex, whom I affectionately refer to as "Caligula", comes back in his next life as a lab rat.
Trust me, the real Caligula was morally wrong. He actually enjoyed causing pain and suffering. If reincarnation really is a valid concept, then perhaps coming back as a lab rat for those of us who epitomize the bumper sticker "Mean people suck" is karmic and poetic justice. For the rest of us, well, we pity the poor lab rat, along with the Vegetarians, PETA people and, interestingly enough, professional medical personnel.

Yes, that's right. Most medical scientists, researchers, doctors, nurses, therapists, psychologists and the like all have a soft spot in their hearts for the lab rat. Doomed at birth since the 1940's, this harmless little creature has taken the brunt of every chemical and surgical experiment we can devise all in the name of scientific research for the advancement of human medicine. Oh, we strategically pump their little livers with the latest SSRI's, jolt their tiny cerebrums with electric needles in an effort to determine which body part will jump and tremor in correlation with the section of the brain that needle touches, all reminiscent of those Saturday afternoon Vincent Price movies of our baby boomer youth. Of course, no one could possible view the PETA video "Meat.Org" which references the adverse conditions of dogs in animal food testing without shock and sadness. Yes, there is a valid ethical and moral argument against animal testing, and, fortunately, there is a solution. Please read on.

The Scientific Case Against Animal Experiments

The scientific objections to animal experiments are based on the problem of species differences and the artificiality of the diseases induced in them, meaning that results from animal experiments may be of dubious value to humans.

A major weakness of medical research on animals is the differences between species, which can make results from one type of animal inapplicable to another. Some of these variations are known and can perhaps be taken into account; but others, such as reactions to new drugs or the function of an area of the brain, are not yet discovered in these cases, the results from animal experiments can be seriously misleading.

Pursuing a line of research on animals can produce conflicting or confusing results, of unknown relevance to human beings. This can have serious implications, at worst misleading researchers about an illness and delaying medical progress.

In medical research animals are used to model a variety of illnesses. This usually involves artificially inducing some of the symptoms of the human condition, whilst failing to replicate the underlying cause. Animal models' can therefore seriously mislead. Results from animal experiments all too often raise patients' hopes of an imminent cure, only to have them dashed when the promised therapy fails to work in humans.

Monkey behind bars. For example, strokes' are induced in monkeys and rats by blocking an artery to the brain, causing brain damage. Decades of animal research have produced numerous stroke drugs that protect animals, but none of them are effective in humans.

Monkeys are injected with a toxic chemical that induces a disorder superficially similar to human Parkinson's disease, but the monkeys recover from the condition when the injections stop. The human condition remains incurable.

Dogs are widely used for research into heart disease, despite numerous differences between dog and human hearts, blood vessels and circulation. For example, high blood pressure in obese patients is associated with high insulin levels in the blood, yet in dogs high insulin levels actually lower blood pressure.

Septic shock, the leading cause of death in intensive care units, has been studied for decades in animals. Of numerous therapies found to improve survival in animal models of septic shock, none have worked in humans and even worse, some have decreased patients' survival.

Billions of dollars have been spent on trying to create animal models of AIDS with little success. Now increasingly animals are being genetically modified in attempts to model human illnesses. Even when these GM animals have an identical defective gene they do not always develop the same disease as humans, or indeed any disease at all.

The "three Rs"

Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering as possible, and that alternatives to animal testing need to be developed. The "three Rs",[1] first described by Russell and Burch (1959), 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.
* Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.
* Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.

What Are the Research Alternatives to Animal Experiments?

Animal experiments are being replaced by a range of alternative methods that frequently prove cheaper, quicker and more effective as well as saving lives.

Cell Culture
It is possible to obtain human cells and tissues from biopsies, post-mortems, placentas, or as waste from surgery, and grow them in the laboratory. Cell cultures are used in many medical fields, and have contributed enormously to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of cancer, Parkinson's disease, and AIDS. Cell cultures are routinely used in vaccine production, toxicity testing, drug development and to diagnose disease. It is important that human cells, rather than animal cells, are used for medical research, to avoid the problem of relating results from one species to another.

DNA Analytical Technology
Technologi cal advances are resulting in improved molecular methods for analyzing and identifying new compounds and medicines. The Trust provided analytical equipment to researchers selecting new anti-cancer and anti-malaria drugs, based on their molecular interaction with DNA, as an alternative to selecting drugs by animal tests.

New methods of rapidly analysing DNA samples from humans have been developed and are now being used to understand the biochemistry and genetics underlying various illnesses, leading to better treatments. For example, the Trust has funded research into genes that predispose individuals to fibrosing lung disease, as an alternative to modelling the illness in animals such as genetically modified mice.

The latest laser technology (MALD-TOF-MS) combined with genetic analysis has been applied by a Trust researcher to identify infectious microbes without animal tests, as a humane alternative to old tests that relied on rabbits and guinea pigs.

Microorganisms
T ests with simple microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, yeasts and algae are being used as early indicators of chemicals likely to be harmful, and are frequently faster, cheaper and more humane than animal tests. Bacteria can be genetically manipulated to manufacture useful products previously obtained from animals, such as human insulin and monoclonal antibodies.

Fingerpri nting Microbes without Animal Tests

With the application a state-of-the-art form of mass spectrometry, called MALDI-TOF MS, to directly analyze the surface of intact bacterial cells, this method uses a pulse of laser light to generate unique spectral patterns from the surface of bacteria. These surface patterns, combined with sophisticated analysis of microbial DNA and proteins, produce individual profiles that can be used to fingerprint' and identify disease-causing culprits.

This new non-animal technique was successfully used to rapidly and reliably distinguish between infectious and non-infectious forms of several different types of bacteria (including those responsible for dysentery, food poisoning, pneumonia, meningitis, ear and other infections) without animals.

Notably, the new technique is able to identify different forms of bacteria that were previously only distinguishable by animal tests that involved inducing abscesses on guinea pigs legs. The research also revealed important new information about infectious bacteria.

The beauty of MALDI-TOF-MS is that it can be performed in a matter of minutes with tiny samples, and only minimal preparation, making it supremely cost-effective and ideal for replacing animal tests. The development of this technology is particularly important now, in a global political climate that has prompted a flurry of research into diseases such as plague, anthrax, botulism and smallpox. The widespread adoption of these methods could replace large numbers of animals in microbial research and testing.

Computer Research Models
Computers are increasingly being used to model the structure and actions of new drugs, and to predict their safety. Computer models of whole biological systems are now being developed with which virtual' experiments can be conducted, as alternatives to experiments on animals.

Studies include a model of the human placenta and fetus which assisted the treatment of problems affecting unborn babies; and a model of the human jaw and teeth for dental research. These models are based on relevant human data and can be used to carry our simulated experiments, in place of experiments on animals. There is also the use of mathematical modeling to improve cancer treatments, and to explore illnesses of aging.

Population Research
Studying diseases in human populations, and the effects of lifestyle, diet and occupation has already revealed a great deal about cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and birth defects. Such information is vital to improving human health and providing clues to the causes of illnesses, including a population study into how fetal and infant growth influences the development of heart disease in later life, as an alternative to experiments on pregnant animals.

Volunteer Studies
One of the best ways to conduct medical research is by studying the whole human being. New scanning and imaging techniques are making it increasingly possible to conduct safe and ethical studies of human volunteers, where previously animals had been used. Trust projects have made use of a variety of sophisticated imaging techniques to non-invasively investigate the intact human body. These include using a MEG scanner to study epileptic patients; investigating pain in patients with functional MRI; and developing a novel technique, TMS, to study the function of the human brain in healthy volunteers.

Microdosi ng
Microdosing, in which the basic behavior of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects.

Institutes researching alternatives to animal testing include:

The Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) [1] has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress. CAAT is an academic, science-based center affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

CAAT promotes humane science by supporting the creation, development, validation, and use of alternatives to animals in research, product safety testing, and education. It is not an activist group; rather, it seeks to effect change by working with scientists in industry, government, and academia to find new ways to replace animals with non-animal methods, reduce the numbers of animals necessary, or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animals involved.

The Dr Hadwen Trust develops non-animal research methods to replace animal experiments. They believe animal experiments are unacceptable. The Trust is dedicated to the principle of excellence in medical research, which can and should be pursued without animal experiments.
The Trust enables scientific research to make medical progress without causing suffering to animals for over 35 years.

I believe most people would agree that it is ethically and morally wrong to cause pain and suffering to any living thing. A basic premise to the practice of Medicine is to cause no harm. Fortunately, with the advent of DNA and stem cell research, mass spectrometry, and advances in Microbiology, medical researchers now have the technology to avoid the use of animal testing and apply these wonderful new research tools for greater achievements in the healing modalities of both human and veterinary medicine.

Resources, Excerpts and References:
1. John Hopkins University
2. The Dr. Hadwen Trust
3. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
4. Wikipedia

Learn more about this author, Michelle Shafer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.