Nimesh Patel

BME 4701
Debate Reports

Animal Testing

The use of animals in testing for the purpose of research and development in the
bio-medical industry has undoubtedly led to many great advances and saved many human
lives. However, it has been argued that there must be alternatives to animal testing
adopted in order to reduce the number of animals used and that common practices need
be reformed to cater to the rights of the animals. In this report, an objective overview of
the primary issues pertaining to the use animals for testing is presented. These issues
include viable alternatives to animal testing, the accuracies and inaccuracies of both
animal and in-vitro studies, and the unavoidable ethical dilemma in regards to cruelty.
Those who favor animal testing argue that it is too difficult and risky to simulate
in-vivo experiments. There have been many studies that have shown a successful in-vitro
test and the subsequent failure of an in-vivo test. This can occur due a variety of reasons.
The primary being that there are many unpredictable factors inside the body such as
enzymatic degradation, blood clotting, immunological responses. Additionally, many
loading factors such as orientation, repetitive strain, fatigue, and creep are not properly
simulated but simple laboratory tensile testing. At this point in time, the simulation
methods cannot safely mimic the in-vivo testing and do not gain enough respect in the
scientific community to proceed directly toward human trials.
Although the need for animal testing cannot be immediately eradicated due the
insurance of the in-vivo test, animal rights activists argue for reduction, refinement and
replacement. The reduction of animals used, the refinement of the current practices, and
the eventual replacement of animals. They argue that this can be accomplished by
developing and using alternative test methods.
The first alternative method is to use advanced in tissue engineering to replace
some tests currently performed on animals. Three dimensional skin models made from
human derived epidermal keratinocytes can be, and already are being, used to simulate
toxicity testing. The next method involves the use of in-vitro cell culture. There are
studies that show that in-vitro tests have been accurate predictors of poor in-vivo
biocompatibility. It is argued that if the test fails on the in-vitro level it is purely
sacrificial to test on an animal. The final method to reduce the amount of animal testing is
the adoption of computer modeling to simulate some in-vivo conditions. In this approach,
extensive differential equations are used to model the behavior of the body. Proponents
also point out that the more computer models are used, the more refined they will become
and could eventually replace animal tests.
There is room to critique the accuracy of both animal testing and alternative
methods.
When considering the alternative methods, specifically with the computer
modeling and simulation, there is the inherent possibility of inaccuracy due the necessary
assumptions involved. In order to model any non-linear system in a linear fashion, certain
factors will need to be simulated as constant or negligible. Thus, there can rarely be a
perfect model. In order to regulate this problem the European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative methods was created. They sponsor extensive monitoring and peer review for
studies using simulation.
There may be an equal amount of inaccuracies involved in animal testing. It was
found that as many as 50 percent of FDA-approved drugs are withdrawn or relabeled due
to unanticipated side effects in humans This may arise from the dissimilarities
encountered during cross-species extrapolation. For example, it is known that humans
can differ from animals in their anatomy, metabolic systems, reproductive time, and
sensitivity to environmental factors. There are many cases where this has been illustrated.
It was proven that penicillin was ineffective on animals and extremely effective on
humans, Vioxx was found safe on animals and caused over 140,000 human heart attacks,
and many teratology medications caused millions of birth defects in humans after being
found suitable in animal trials. Furthermore, it is common for only few animals to be
used in each study to reduce cost. This can cause misleading statistical descriptions or
results. It was also found that many animals were tested on with disregard to their history,
size, age or behavior, leading to a further increase in poor cross-species extrapolation.
The response from the proponents of animal testing is that performing more animal trails
will lead to a better understanding and ultimately better extrapolation. Additionally, they
argue that many of the differences previously described between humans and animals can
be easily modeled through experimentation and will be in the future.
For many animal rights activists, including those organized in the scientific
community, it is the extremely high number of animals used as well as the manner in
which they are treated that result in their plight. The Nuffield council on Bio-ethics
estimates over 50 million animals are tested on per year worldwide. Although the number
of animals tested on declined in the 1980’s and 1990’s, they are again on the rise due to
the use genetically modifying and breeding animals tested on to preserve accuracy. It was
found in a census poll that 70% of the population is opposed to using animals in genetic
engineering. The animals used in testing are also subjected very painful and cruel
treatment. During eyes irritation tests, it was reported that the test was invalid since most
of the rabbits used died from broken vertebrae incurred during writhing in pain. Animals
can be subjected to addictive drugs, paraplegia, burning, blinding, poor housing, and
open body cavities post surgery.
Those who argue that the benefits of animal testing outweigh some of the
necessary costs state that many of the cruel practices are rare and isolated incidents.
There are many regulations, especially in the United Kingdom, that protect animals.
Researchers must have adequate facilities, have proper training, and show a genuine need
to use animals in their study. Some argue that there is a much larger proportion of
animals being killed for food, exploited as pets, and trapped as pests. There also exists the
animal welfare act in the U.S.A that ensured proper scientific justification for
experimentation performed on animals.
Although there may be excellent regulations for animals in the United kingdom
and in the U.S.A, the legislation lags behind in those more developing countries. No such
regulations exist in other countries. Since bio-medical research exists worldwide, the lack
of global cohesion on animal testing legislation can be troubling to activists. Furthermore,
the Animal Welfare Act does not include or protect studies performed on mice, rats and
birds. These animals not included in the act constitute 90% of animals tested on in the
U.S.A. There may be some soft regulations at this point in time, but pressures from
activists, both political and scientific, have pushed the United States congress to amend
this act. The act is currently under review and more strict regulations are expected to be
included.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages to animal testing. Currently it is
impossible to accurately simulate in-vivo tests which have led to many life changing
discoveries.. However, there are some viable alternative tests that can reduce the number
of animals needlessly tested on. There are some good regulations in developed countries
on the matter but perhaps a global governing body will need to be created in order to
establish and enforce common rules. The cosmetic industry is an example of a success
story where the numbers of animals tested on have drastically decreased without a drop in
the quality and safety of the product produced.