“Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals and they answer is: ‘Because animals are like us.’
“Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like us.’
“Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.”
:: Prof. Charles R. Magel ::
Animal testing falls into three broad categories:
- Product testing of safety for human consumption. Most often this is linked to cosmetic testing such as makeup and soaps.
- Research used to advance medical science and test new drugs.
- Education and training ranging from dissection of frogs in high school science labs to training medical staff in invasive procedures.
There is little doubt that the use of animals in medical research has lead to important advances in the science.
But this has not come without a cost.
We should be reminded that countless animals have suffered in poorly conducted research that has added absolutely nothing to our body knowledge or skills.
In one state of Australia alone (New South Wales), it has been estimated that one animal is killed every hour in the testing of medicines and cosmetic products. Many of these kept conscious, and subjected to “a moderate or large degree of pain/distress that is not effectively alleviated”1.
A great deal of medical research involving animals involves invertebrates that are not considered capable of experiencing suffering such as fruit flies or nematode worms and these sorts of experiments are largely unregulated by laws.
But, for other types of medical research it is often deemed necessary to use more complex animals with an adaptive immune system, or animals that are more closely related to humans2.
Worldwide, rabbits are chosen for eye irritancy tests because their eye pigments make any effects of the chemicals easier to detect, they also have less tear flow than other animals.
Cats are often used in neurological research and dogs are widely used in biomedical research.
Beagles are a particularly popular choice amongst researchers as they have a gentle nature and are easy to handle.
Non-human primates such as Rhesus monkeys, squirrel monkeys and owl monkeys as well as chimpanzees and baboons are used for toxicology testing as well as conducting studies in AIDS, hepatitis, genetics and behavioural responses.
Experimentation in Australia:
The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes states: “The scientific validity of animal models of human disease rests in part on how closely a given model resembles a particular disease, which may include the animals experiencing the attendant pain
or distress of the human disease state.”
Australia does not publish national statistics on this sort of thing, but to give you some idea of the numbers, here is some collective data published separately by individual states on just a few of the animals used in experimentation in Australia back in 2005:
- Mouse: 660,924
- Rabbit: 91,435
- Cat: 1,692
- Dog: 4,613
- Sheep: 184,833
- Native animals: 63,352
This experimentation covered a range of purposes including:
- Understanding of human or animal biology: 604, 043
- Production of biological products: 36,186
- Diagnostic procedures: 2,221
- Educational objectives: 710,485
And these experimentation’s varied in severity of procedure from:
- Minor interference: 1,835,952
Through to - Major physiological challenge: 116,852
And - Death as endpoint: 50,0983.
Suffering. Is it a means to an ends?
Now call me a softie if you must, but the one thing that upsets me more than human suffering is animal suffering.
The big issue for me is, do these animals experience unnecessary suffering during medical experimentation and educational demonstrations?
Do we really gain much scientific value from such experimentation4.
And is there such a thing as necessary suffering anyway?
Well according to the US department of Agriculture, in the USA in 2006, 84,000 animals (not including the invertebrates or mice) were involved in studies designed to cause pain or distress that would not be relieved5.
In Australia, there is a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act as well as the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. In addition to this, any research involving animals must first be approved by an Animal Ethics Committee consisting of a Veterinarian, a researcher, an animal welfare representative and a layperson. Unfortunately, all information on protocols and the process surrounding how exactly theses decisions are made remain confidential.
There are also more specific guidelines published to assist AEC’s in considering applications for the use of animals in scientific purposes, for example the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have a guidelines on the care of dogs, many of which are sourced from pounds.
The guidelines cover the general wellbeing, transport and disposal of dogs and although comprehensive, seem ( to me at least) to have a disturbing subtext.
Lets take a look at the guidelines for the dogs mental wellbeing:
Dogs are gregarious, social animals and contact with people and other dogs is crucial for their mental well-being and, ultimately, their physical wellbeing. This applies especially to animals used for research where adaptive responses to behavioural stressors may do detriment to observations. It is known that dogs used for medical research are generally better adapted to their holding conditions if they receive frequent and regular contact with people.
Sounds pretty good. But the guidelines only recommend “ at least 20-30 minutes of daily contact between dogs and at least one attendant, even when dogs are group housed…. Some dogs will demand more attention than others and some dogs may require less than 20 minutes contact.”
Gee, 20 minutes of contact a day. No doubt that occurs during the experimentation.
And even more telling, the guidelines also hint at some of the effects on humans participating in such experimentation:
Inappropriate respect for dogs, the management of their death and the manner of their disposal can lead to considerable distress in those involved in an institution and should be avoided strenuously. Dog handlers, veterinary students and researchers should be prepared for the emotional difficulties that may result from their use of the dogs. Access to trained counsellors or mentors should be made available (but optional) before, during and after the euthanasia event.
Such guidelines and codes are largely self regulated. There is little information available on independent or even internal auditing or quality control assessments taking place on such practices.
When it all goes very wrong:
The breeding of animals for scientific experimentation and the provision of facilities to house and undertake such experimentation is big business.
It is a multi-billion dollar industry with close links to those exemplars of ethical business practice, the pharmaceutical industry and the chemical industry.
An example of what can go very wrong is the Huntington Life Sciences facility in the UK. This is one of the largest testing laboratories in Europe, carrying out research on everything from drugs to food additives.
In 1997 undercover footage was obtained of researchers hitting puppies whilst taking blood samples ( you can watch the original 1997 footage here. As well as a follow up report in 2005. Warning: both highly disturbing ).
As a result several employees were prosecuted. Despite this reports of animal suffering at the laboratory continue to circulate including assaulting animals, rough treatment, poor living conditions and falsification of data.
The fact is that today, with the availability of computer modeling, tissue culture stocks, simulation technology and other alternatives, a large proportion this suffering and overt cruelty is totally needless.
Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves how we feel about this issue.
Have you been involved in medical training involving interventions on animals? Do you contribute to a medical cause that might involve animal experimentation?
Perhaps what is needed is some sort of independent evaluation as to the evidence that medical experimentation leading to animal suffering (conducted by universities and research bodies, many of which receive substantial government and public funding) actually has any proven benefit at all.
Footnotes:
- Article: One animal killed every hour in NSW for scientific testing [↩]
- the lab rat is considered a good practice model as it shares 99% of its genes with humans [↩]
- Source: Animal Experimentation – a necessary evil? Author: Helen Rosser Published by: AAHR Inc. Printed: November 2007 ww.aahr.org.au [↩]
- for example: in the 1960′s thalidomide was tested extensively on animals and found to be safe before being given to pregnant mothers as a sedative [↩]
- 2005 Report on enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act [↩]
I work in medical research, though not with animals. My husband does.
All research involving animals in Australia (and that includes non-obtrusive observation in their natural habitat, right through to genetic manipulation and breeding in captivity with death as end result) must be reviewed and approved prior to commencement by at least one Animal Ethics Committee (if the research is being carried out by people from multiple institutes, each institute’s AEC will want to review the research). Each AEC must be comprised of at least one each of the following members: experts in medical research involving animals, veterinarians, animal rights advocates (such as someone from the RSPCA), and independent lay people (members of the public without links to the institute or to animal research or to animal welfare, e.g.: policemen, teachers, clergy).
The overriding question asked by all AECs: is the animal necessary in this research, can this research be done in any other way (i.e.: can this be avoided by using “computer modelling, tissue culture stocks, simulation technology and other alternatives”). The next question they ask: What is the bare minimum number of animals required for this research, can it be done effectively with fewer animals. As someone who has worked in medical research my whole career, and who has had much to do with research governance, these committees take their role very seriously, and they are very strict. There is legislation in Australia that means those who do animal research without the oversight of an AEC, or those not following the directions of an AEC can be prosecuted.
Animal testing of new drugs and new techniques is disgusting. It’s evil and everyone should be disgusted, and everyone should continue to question its need, and to monitor it – that’s what stops rogue “scientists” who don’t care. But please don’t be naive. Animal testing is a disgusting yet necessary evil. As a nurse you know that every single drug you’ve ever given or seen given to a patient, and every single technique you’ve ever used or seen used on a patient has been tested on animals. Drugs these days don’t get discovered growing on mouldy oranges, they’re thought up, designed and derived from their basic molecules in labs. The only way we can bring them to production is to clinically test them on animals first, then people. The initial testing can be done in vivo using cell lines, and there is certainly computer modelling involved, but the FDA and TGA won’t approve drugs without animal testing.
If people really want to effect change, get involved! I know the thought of reading about what’s done to the animals in great detail would scare the pants off most folk, but change is best effected from within a system. Get involved and fight the good fight. Keep asking the questions (of yourself and of others), and keep abreast of what’s happening, but be mindful that if you heap too much guilt on the medical researchers doing their job you’ll just scare off the “good” ones, and leave the crappy amoral ones who don’t give a shit, who will just obfuscate their intentions and not follow the rules.