Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Alistair Currie

GET UPDATES FROM Alistair Currie
 

Fewer Animals in Laboratories Is Good for All of Us

Posted: 18/03/2012 23:00

It is welcome news that many airlines and ferry companies have made the compassionate decision to stop transporting animals to laboratories in the UK. Not only will this save some animals from being infected, poisoned, burned, genetically manipulated, surgically mutilated and killed in painful experiments, it could also help save human lives. That is, if scientists embrace this opportunity to use more creative and effective research methods that don't involve animals - and which will lead to real cures.

Most of those imported animals are genetically modified rodents. The media seems to always fall for the latest hype surrounding the use of animals who have been genetically modified to approximate human medical conditions. This PR always contains gee-whizz science, astonishing effects, and inflated claims about potential human benefits but ignores even a hint of the price paid by animals. Yet the outcome is always predictable: animals can never be "humanised," there will always be thousands of important differences between species, and the link to humans will remain assumed and unproven.

Like all animal tests, those performed with genetically modified animals aren't delivering. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions.

That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials.

Clinging to archaic animal experiments even seems to blind experimenters to the obvious. When PETA US experts reviewed more than 500 rodent cancer studies to assess their scientific validity according to current, internationally accepted criteria, they found that critical public-health and worker-protection measures related to cigarette smoke, asbestos, benzene and other cancer-causing substances were delayed for many years because of misplaced trust in animal tests, which could not replicate the health effects already well-documented in humans.

Medical research may now finally be able to progress into the 21st century because the British public is demanding human-relevant, modern research techniques instead of obsolete and unreliable animal tests. Sophisticated, cutting-edge techniques and technologies such as cell lines, tissue cultures, computer and mathematical modeling, clinical investigations, epidemiological research and autopsy studies are cheaper, faster and more reliable than animal tests - not to mention infinitely kinder.

Let's hope the refusal of transport companies to carry animal victims to UK laboratories causes the scientific community to rethink its psychological dependence on cruel and unreliable animal tests. Switching to advanced non-animal methods now would result in a future filled with less suffering for all species.

 
FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:18 AM on 04/26/2012
Actually, all the experiments will just move to frickin China, which is the Wild West of animal welfare.
07:57 PM on 03/19/2012
Never trust a man who clearly prefers rats to scientists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
05:54 PM on 03/20/2012
i don't think you '' got '' the article.
05:51 PM on 03/19/2012
Congratulations! You've rigged your argument so you automatically win. If animals are ONLY like us in terms of their experience of the world and NOT in terms of how their bodies work, then of course research is useless. And yet somehow the accumulation of knowledge through medical research has improved the length and quality of our lives.
05:31 PM on 03/19/2012
Same goes for stroke research. While there's no doubt that there have been a lot of disappointments in the field the reviews that have been undertaken by scientists such as Professor Malcolm Macleod showed that this was not due to a fundamental problem with using animals as such, but because the animal studies and the subsequent clinical trials had been poorly designed. For example they found that in the animal studies the drug was administered at an unrealistically early time point (15 minutes after stroke onset) while in the human clinical trials treatment was delayed until it was too late (5 hours after stroke onset). The solution is to do the animal studies and subsequent clinical trials better, not to abandon animal research.

It's noteworthy that just today Malcolm Macleod announced a major trial of hypothermia in ischemic stroke, based on strong evidence from animal studies, see http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/03/19/hypothermia-in-stroke-eurohyp-moves-from-rats-to-man/

Of course animal research is vital to progress in many areas of 21st century medicine, from stem cells to tissue engineering, from gene therapy to monoclonal antibodies, and from brain machine interfaces to smart drugs, wherever you see new and exciting fields of medicine you will see scientists using animal research methods alongside a whole host of other techniques.

Alastair is simply wrong, and that's why the vast majority of scientists and doctors reject his agenda.
05:31 PM on 03/19/2012
More newspeak from the animal rights movement.

The UK public strongly supports animal research, for example a 2010 Ipsos-MORI poll found that 87% supported the use of animal in research http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/nhspublichealth/attitudestowardsanimalexperimentation.aspx

His claims about HIV vaccines are off the mark too, the vast majority of the 80 vaccines that "passed" animal tests actually showed a very weak ability to block the SIV virus and consequently were never evaluated for their ability to block HIV infection in humans. A few did block infection by the artificial SHIV virus, but that virus does not model HIV infection nearly as well as the SIV model. Research using non-human primates still has a vital role to play in the development of HIV vaccines, as the real experts in the field recognize.

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/1/aids-hiv/
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/09/29/mice-and-macaques-pave-the-way-for-effective-hiv-vaccines/
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
02:07 PM on 03/19/2012
More emotional hype from PETA. They make good bedfellows with the 'pro choice' lobby - same emotional rhetoric, same straw man tactics - although this article is not nearly as hysterical as some I've seen. Almost rational, in fact.

But the constant vilification of supposedly ghoulish researchers is both childish and tiresome. There are already stringent checks and limitations in place - it''s not the genocidal free for all so beloved of the more emotional campaigners, or anything like it.
01:13 PM on 03/19/2012
I agree with the heading of this article. I also believe that the billions pumped into, say, Cancer Research is the reason no cure will ever be found - to do so would be to kill the goose that laid a golden egg. The pharm companies and their shareholders (bankers, government and big business) are not going to want people cured in a hurry! Those who protest against vivisection are also lebelled terrorists, which was a neat bit of propaganda spread by the media, but I no longer support PETA because I have come to the conclusion that this organisation is run by 15 year olds whose main aim in life is to shock the grown ups. Also the fact that they are prepared to even consider using pornography as a method of promoting the anti viv message is demeaning to both women and men - women are portrayed as there to be used and abused, men as brainless idiots who can't see further than a big pair of breasts. Many people are fed up of these daft tactics and PETA has lost a lot of support, by seeming to be the sort of people who put animals abovve humans, thus forgetting that humans ARE animals, and endangering the message that they are promoting. I donate to, and support the Human Research Trust who have done some marvellous work in cancer and HIV research to name but a few.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
11:25 AM on 03/19/2012
What a great feature Alistair.

I think there's another point worth making in this debate, which is that we already know how to save millions of lives but we're doing very little about it.

The people who are making money out of these experiments obviously make claims that their research could save lives, but prevention is better than cure.

Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from preventable illnesses caused by smoking and obesity.

If the money that was spent on trying to find a miracle cure was instead invested in educating people to eat a healthy diet and stop smoking, we could stop a vast amount of animal suffering and human suffering in its tracks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
01:20 PM on 03/19/2012
I'm not saying Big Pharma is whiter than white (it's not) but they are a necessary evil that helps save billions of lives each year. It's not as simple as "people making money on experiments". Pharmaceuticals are immensely expensive to develop, with pharmaceutical companies spending millions of dollars before they can even be sure their product is going to work. The only model we've found that works is the capitalist model, whereby these companies make big investments in drugs in order to reap big rewards, with the net result of better drugs available. That's undeniably a good thing.

It's so tempting to write off pharmaceutical companies as giant faceless corporations only interested in money, and things like animal testing as cruel and unnecessary, but the fact is that the current system generate affordable medical treatment for billions of people. That has to be worth something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
01:43 PM on 03/19/2012
Can I direct you towards this petition:

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/novartis-lawsuit/?akid=246.269143.VeH-Ut&rd=1&sub=fwd&t=2

A huge pharmaceutical company is effectively trying to prevent access to live-saving drugs for some of the most at-risk, needy people on the planet. The law they are trying to challenge does not prevent pharmaceutical companies from taking the share they earned through research and development, it is simply designed to make sure these drugs are cheap and available. The drug company in question objects to this, they clearly put profit before ethics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
01:43 PM on 03/19/2012
I hear what you're saying Thomas and agree with your points - I have a good friend with cystic fibrosis who is now 32. There is no way she would have reached such a ripe old age without pharma research!

But hers is an extreme case - there is clearly a huge amount of scope for people to take more responsibility for their own health, rather than expecting someone else to come up with cures for illnesses that could have been prevented. For example we all know eating 5 portions of fruit and veg a day can reduce our chances of getting cancer and heart disease, but loads of us don't bother.

If the government invested in a huge educational campaign that was also entertaining and interesting, it could drastically improve the nation's eating habits in just a few short weeks.
10:47 AM on 03/19/2012
Excellent article, well done Alistair! It has never been justifiable to inflict this kind of horrific suffering on animals, and results have been proven time and time again to be inaccurate. With accurate, reliable and humane alternatives available there is simply no excuse, nor has there ever been, to experiment on sentient, living beings.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
01:28 PM on 03/19/2012
Look at it from the other perspective. Animal testing is useful because it looks holistically at the reaction of a complex organism to a possible medical treatment. The alternatives to animal testing (accuracy and reliability aside) are unimaginably more expensive, driving up the cost of drug research and development and thus the price of the drugs on the other end.

So healthcare becomes more expensive. Does that affect you or I that much? No, because we in our Western society are fairly well off and could adapt. The people this would affect are the worst-off - the poorest, those in the most deprived areas, those most in need of medical care and least able to pay for it.
02:59 PM on 03/19/2012
Animal testing is generally very expensive (housing, supply and other costs in addition to cost of tests) and in some cases can take years to generate information from one test (rodent carcinogenicity, for instance). And what's inaccurate is always going to be more expensive than what's accurate. That's why the US government has a big programme of investment in automated high throughput methods.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jacksdad41
Quant Je Puis
05:29 PM on 03/19/2012
On your western society theme @Thomas I wonder if this was prevelant in the West something would have been done far sooner. As the imports of rodents are usually a breeding pair or two which then are used to create a lineage of prospective "test subjects" would we in the West not bring out all the stops to eradicate the following;

There were an estimated 225 million cases of malaria worldwide in 2009. An estimated 655,000 people died from malaria in 2010, a decrease from the 781,000 who died in 2009 according to the World Health Organization's 2011 World Malaria Report, accounting for 2.23% of deaths worldwide. However, a 2012 meta-study from the University of Washington and University of Queensland estimates that malaria deaths are significantly higher. Published in The Lancet, the study estimates that 1,238,000 people died from malaria in 2010
10:45 AM on 03/19/2012
hummmmm "the scientific community to rethink its psychological dependence on cruel and unreliable animal tests". Unsubstantial, sensationalist article from my point of view. Not all animal test might be reliable, but saying that this practice is obsolete is wrong. Pure activist demagogy I am afraid.

"British public is demanding human-relevant, modern research techniques" - No mate, you have terrified many airlines and ferry companies so they have stopped transporting animals to laboratories in the UK, not out of compassion but out of fear.

Dont get me wrong. I dont want any animal to get hurt, but I wil say it plainly, if you have to kill a thousand rodents to save one human live, so be it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jacksdad41
Quant Je Puis
11:54 AM on 03/19/2012
Maybe the scientific community, in an attempt to save human lives by using rodents for testing could use the 95% of animals PETA destroyed at its Norfolk VA HQ ?? Or maybe that is just an inconvenient truth?
http://www.animalscam.com/peta_7things.cfm
01:34 PM on 03/19/2012
unbelievable...this is soooo very creppy

"PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

Again, if a fishing fleet fishing in forbidden waters due to environmental regulations; I do condemn this activity, and hope they will be punished, but this looks more like a sect than anything else.

This propaganda method reminds me of the church of Scientology Alistair...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
01:49 PM on 03/19/2012
PETA may be the most vocal and most ubiquitous, but they can hardly be said to represent everyone who supports animal rights
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
10:45 AM on 03/19/2012
It's not a pleasant practice and it's not something that scientists enjoy, but the bottom line is that it saves human lives. You cite the 92% of products which pass animal trials only to be found unsuitable for humans, but what about all the products that fail animal trials by virtue of being toxic, and thus save human test subjects from poisoning? It's still one of the best tools we have in the crapshoot that is pharmaceutical testing, and the products that result from it save lives. As science advances and growing human cells for testing becomes more affordable and reliable, then we can phase out animal testing. We just can't realistically do it before then.
01:24 PM on 03/19/2012
see my post above. Many drugs tested on animals still get into the 'food chain' as it were. Iboprufen was tested on labrador dogs and caused severe bleeding ulcers. It went out anyway and caused bleeding leg ulcers in many patients including my mother! Now there is a nice little note inside warning people about, amongst other things, ulcers. They've told you, so you can't sue! The Humane Research Trust is leading the field in many areas of research but don't get much publicity or funding, whereas money is pumped into cancer research etc - look at any of the big cancer charities - their bill for admin alone is at least treble what the HRT are getting . Or go to a doctor and try not to walk away with a prescription. I recently had a skin tag and just went to the doctor expecting him to freeze it off. I came away with a few swiss named packets of pills, with long list of side effects... I tied a piece of cotton round it which worked, and took the pills back!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
02:35 PM on 03/19/2012
And yet ibuprofen is still an incredibly valuable drug in the vast majority of cases. Drugs have side-effects - if (in your example) the ibuprofen hadn't been tested on dogs, your mother may have suffered from ulcers that doctors wouldn't have been able to attribute to the ibuprofen, and she could have suffered much worse.

I'm calling shenanigans on your skin tag story, though. No doctor worth his/her medical license would treat a skin tag with any kind of pills. If he did... change your doctor.