2012/22: Should animals be used in testing and research?
What they said...
'Some biomedical research is best undertaken on primates in order to allow the greatest relevance to understanding health and disease in humans'
The National Health and Medical Research Council
'There are already many alternatives to animals which have been developed, particularly in the areas of toxicity testing and teaching...'
Animals Australia
The issue at a glance
On December 2, 2012, it was announced that almost half a million animals were killed for research in Victoria in 2011. A total of 474,453 lab animals died last year, including 229 domestic dogs, 68 domestic cats, 113 macaques and marmoset monkeys, 421,661 lab mice, 22,325 lab rats, 36 horses and three seals and sea lions.
These numbers exclude more than a million poultry and 750,000 fish used in research.
Experiments - and the ethics committees that approve them - are audited by the state's Bureau of Animal Welfare.
Some members of ethics committees have suggested that these committees are not sufficiently rigorous and that too many experiments involving the use of animals seem to get virtually automatic approval. This claim has also been made by some animal welfare groups that have called either for far more rigorous controls or for an end to experimentation on animals. Some researchers, on the other hand, have come out in defence of current practices.
Background
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Worldwide it is estimated that the number of vertebrate animals-from zebrafish to non-human primates-ranges from the tens of millions to more than 100 million used annually. Most animals are euthanised after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while others are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.
The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defence establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defence research. The practice is regulated to various degrees in different countries.
Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the United States National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas.
Animal rights, and some animal welfare, organisations-such as PETA and BUAV-question the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.
Internet information
The Australian federal government's National Health and Medical Research Council has developed an Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. The Code is regularly reviewed. The most recent edition of the Code, No 7, was issued in 2004. It can be accessed at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/ea16
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is opposed to animal testing. Where it cannot be avoided, the RSPCA urges that humane practices be followed, including the use of analgesics to minimise pain.
A full statement of the RSPCA's position on animal testing can be found at http://rspcavic.org/issues-take-action/testing-on-animals/
The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is opposed to animal testing. They have a section of their Internet site given over to a discussion of this issue. This material can be found at http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx
On December 9, 2012, The Age published four letters under the heading 'Sunday Age big issue: animal testing'. The letters present a range of views on the issue. These can be accessed at http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/sunday-age-big-issue-animal-testing-20121208-2b2tn.html
On December 2, 2012, The Age published four letters under the heading 'Testing animals a harvest of shame'. The letters were prompted by a report on the use of primates in animal testing and present a range of views on the issue.
These can be accessed at http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/testing-animals-a-harvest-of-shame-20121201-2ao8f.html
On October 2, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by John Hadley,
a Research Lecturer at University of Western Sydney.
John Hadley's research seeks to consolidate the project of moral inclusion initiated by the first-generation of philosophers working on animal and environmental issues.
His article is titled 'Nothing to hide: opening the files on animal research'.
Hadley is arguing for greater and easier public access to statistics indicating the extent of animal testing.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/nothing-to-hide-opening-the-files-on-animal-research-9686
On August 9, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Swetha Murali, a PhD student at the University of Sydney. She works in a neuropharmacology lab researching the development of novel therapeutics for treating chronic pain.
Swetha Murali's comment is a defence of animal testing and is titled 'Animal-based research is still relevant and necessary'.
The full text of this opinion can be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/animal-based-research-is-still-relevant-and-necessary-8700
On December 31, 2010, The Guardian published a background piece titled 'How animal testing is minimised' by Alok Jha. The piece looks at the three Rs principle - replacement, refinement and reduction - which underpins animal testing in Britain and Australia.
Practically speaking, this means trying to avoid the use of living animals, minimising the number used, and reducing their suffering and distress during any experiments.
The article looks at techniques currently being employed to reduce the number of animals used in testing.
The full text can be accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/31/animal-research-alternatives
The United Kingdom Internet site Understanding Animal Research aims to provide information and educational materials to increase understanding of the need for animal testing and the protocols which govern it.
Understanding Animal Research also outlines the three Rs principle which underpins the humane use of animals in testing.
The full text can be found at http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs
On June 25, 2005, The Age published an investigative report by Richard Baker looking at the increasing number of animals being used in testing and suggesting that many were not used for valid purposes.
The full text of this piece titled 'Sacrificed for Science' can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sacrificed-for-science/2005/06/24/1119321904401.html
Arguments in favour of animal testing
1. Human life is of greater value than animal life
It has been claimed that though the loss of animal life that often results from animal testing is regrettable, it is preferable to either the loss of human life through disease or through testing treatments initially on human beings.
Those who argue this claim human life is of greater value than animal life. In justifying this claim it is usually argued that human beings are the most intelligent, creative and adaptable creatures on the planet and that they have a level of consciousness and self-awareness that exceeds that of any other animal.
Relatedly, it is claimed that human consciousness and self-awareness means that human beings have a greater capacity to suffer than any other species. This argument is used to justify the use of animals other than human beings in animal testing.
This argument has been put Dario Ringach, who, on September 12, 2012, on the Internet site Speaking of Research, argued, 'A human mother that is contemplating death due to cancer, will suffer beyond her physical pain when thinking that her children will grow up without a her, that she will never see them marry or have children of their own, that she will leave her spouse alone to take care of the family.
It is her cognitive abilities that allow her to suffer in ways other animals cannot. Thus, if we agree that suffering is morally relevant, the type of suffering this mother experiences must count too. And because such suffering is enabled to beings with the cognitive abilities that allow them to pose such questions, one must conclude that human cognitive abilities are morally relevant too.'
2. Animal suffering is minimised in animal testing
It has been claimed that there are protocols in place which ensure that animals used in testing are treated in a way that minimises their distress.
The United Kingdom Internet site 'Understanding Animal Research aims to provide information and educational materials to increase understanding of the need for animal testing and the protocols which govern it.
The Internet site notes, 'The people who work in laboratories - scientists, vets, animal carers - are human beings like everyone else and have no desire to mistreat animals. For many of them it is their primary responsibility to look after the animals, and they work with laboratory animals because they are animal lovers. Many are also actively involved in developing scientific methods to reduce the need for animals or replace them entirely.'
It goes on to claim, 'Good science and good animal welfare go hand in hand. If an animal is suffering stress or pain it could affect the results of the research. So it makes good scientific sense to house animals in the best possible conditions and make sure they get the best possible care from skilled and experienced carers. What animals need is not always the same as what people think they need, so scientists are studying which environments different animals prefer.'
In the United Kingdom experiments are classified as mild, moderate or substantial in the amount of suffering they cause an animal. A fourth category of unclassified is used when the animal is anaesthetized but killed before regaining consciousness.
In December 2001 the breakdown of experimental licenses issued in the United Kingdom was:
39% mild
55% moderate
2% substantial
4% unclassified
Such a breakdown indicates that very few experiments cause substantial suffering to the animals involved.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, Johannes Manning claimed, 'I am a retired vet and am one of those who benefit from having ''electric shocks to my head'' while undergoing treatment for Parkinson's disease (a treatment developed in monkeys). From the footage I saw, the monkeys [used in tests] looked healthy, had plenty of space, were in the company of other monkeys and showed normal behaviours.'
3. Many of the animals killed in animal testing have been specifically bred for this purpose
It is noted that many of the animals used in testing have been bred for this purpose. Those who argue in favour of animal testing further note that these creatures would not have been alive at all were they not needed for animal testing. It is also noted that they are bred and reared under humane conditions.
The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson's Internet site states, 'When animal testing is necessary, it is our policy to use purpose-bred animals, which are born and raised under controlled conditions and specifically for testing. In certain geographic regions of the world, purpose-bred animals are not available and, in these cases, animals must be obtained through regulated dealers that meet our criteria for the humane care and use of laboratory research animals.'
The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science also states, 'While some research requires that dogs and cats are used, the vast majority of laboratory animals are rodents specifically bred for research. Nearly half of the dogs and cats needed for research are also bred for that purpose. Since state laws and local policies prevent many animal pounds and shelters from providing dogs and cats to research facilities, animal dealers are the primary source for the other half of the animals scientists require. These dealers must be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must adhere to Animal Welfare Act standards of care. Both dealers and research facilities can obtain dogs and cats only from specified sources and must comply with detailed record-keeping and waiting-period requirements. In addition, USDA conducts unannounced inspections of dealers and research facilities for compliance to help ensure research animals are not missing pets.'
4. Animal testing helps achieve advances that save human lives and ensure human safety
It has been claimed that animal testing is needed to save the lives and improve the health of human beings suffering from diseases and other debilitating conditions.
The Age, in an editorial published on November 25, 2012, noted, 'Organisations such as the Foundation for Biomedical Research say that without experimentation, the vaccines against "polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis" would not exist.'
The same editorial also quotes Professor James McCluskey, deputy vice-chancellor of research at the University of Melbourne, who believes that testing on animals was 'absolutely crucial to huge areas of biomedicine, particularly the testing of drugs'.
In a letter published in The Age on December 2, 2012, Julia Veitch has stated, 'Don't we all have family and friends affected by health problems, who take medication and often wait anxiously on developments in medical research?
Without understanding how a biological mechanism works in vivo - in a living system or ''model'' - there is no hope of fixing the mechanism when it goes wrong, as it does in sickness. Living systems are highly complex, and developing successful therapeutics depends wholly on a good understanding of them. That is why the National Health and Medical Research Council funds medical research using animals.'
On its Internet site, the University of Minnesota has published a list of some of the major medical advances which have occurred as a result of animal testing. The list includes: 1796 - Smallpox vaccine developed (Cow); 1881 - Anthrax vaccine developed (Sheep); 1885 - Rabies vaccine developed (Dog, Rabbit); 1902 - Lifecyle of Malaria discovered (Pigeon); 1919 - Immunity mechanisms discovered (Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig); 1921 - Insulin discovered (Dog, Fish); 1932 - Neuron function discovered (Cat, Dog); 1933 - Tetanus vaccine developed (Horse); 1939 - Anticoagulants developed (Cat); 1954 - Polio vaccine developed (Mouse, Monkey); 1956 - Open-heart surgery & pacemakers developed (Dog); 1964 - Cholesterol regulation discovered (Rat); 1973 - Social & behavioural patterns in animals discovered (Fish, Bee, Bird);1982 - Leprosy treatment developed (Armadillo); 1990 - Organ transplant techniques advanced (Dog, Pig, Sheep, Cow); 1997 - Prions discovered & characterized (Hamster, Mouse); 2000 - Brain signal transduction discovered (Sea Slug, Mouse, Rat); 2002 - Cell death mechanism discovered (Worm).
5. Animal testing is properly regulated
It has been claimed that the members of ethics committees, making judgements as to whether particular animal tests should be approved, take their task seriously and make well-considered decisions. This claim is made even by some members of ethics committees who are not themselves research scientists.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, Cormac McMahon stated, 'I am proud to be a non-scientific member of an ethics committee. Yes, the issues are complex and the scientific language of the applications can be daunting. But the tests a committee applies are not hard to understand: Does the study make a valuable contribution to our understanding of disease or developing treatments and is the animals' welfare built into every stage of the project?'
It has further been claimed that researchers are scrupulous in the applications they make to ethics committees justifying the use of animals in tests and experiments. It has been argued that this is the reason so few applications are denied.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, biomedical research scientist, Philip Shehan, has claimed, 'The vast majority of researchers ensure the I's are dotted and T's are crossed in their applications. You do not wish to invite questions, delays, extra work and possible rejection by not doing so.
It is hardly surprising that applications routinely report there are no alternatives. The housing of and caring for animals is messy, time-consuming and expensive and grant money is scarce. Projects where alternatives can be used will by definition not be presented. The fact that few applications are rejected is evidence that researchers are unlikely to submit proposals that will not pass muster.'
A similar claim has been made by Swetha Murali, a PhD student at the University of Sydney, working in a neuropharmacology lab researching the development of novel therapeutics for treating chronic pain. Swetha Murali has stated, 'All scientists who work with animals spend a significant proportion of their time applying for approval from their institutional animal ethics committee for their work, and ensuring that approval is maintained. The committee is comprised of vets, experienced researchers, members of animal welfare organisations and independent people who are not associated with animal-based research, or with the institution.'
Swetha Murali has further stated, 'It's the responsibility of the scientist to meet the requirements of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Failure means the denial of access to animals for research. And under New South Wales legislation, the penalty for cruelty to animals carries an imprisonment sentence of two years or more. Similar rules apply in all Australian states and territories. So, the consequences for deviating from accepted ethical guidelines are well understood and severe.'
6. There are often no reliable alternatives to animal testing
It has been claimed that there are often situations in which there are no viable alternatives to animal testing in order to develop treatments to assist human beings suffering a wide range of diseases and other debilitating conditions.
This point has been made by the National Health and Medical Research Council which has stated, 'Animal experimentation remains crucial to a proportion of NHMRC-funded research designed to find better ways of preventing, treating and curing human disease ... there are many situations where no alternatives exist.'
In relation the use of primates in animal testing, the National Health and Medical Research Council has stated, 'Some biomedical research is best undertaken on primates in order to allow the greatest relevance to understanding health and disease in humans.'
Swetha Murali, a PhD student at the University of Sydney, working in a neuropharmacology lab researching the development of novel therapeutics for treating chronic pain, has stated, 'The list of proposed alternatives to animal research...includes prevention programs, epidemiological studies, autopsies, in vitro research in cell cultures and computer modelling.'
Swetha Murali has raised a number of concerns regarding these alternatives, arguing, 'The first three are not alternatives at all. They don't actually lead to the development of novel treatments, just a better understanding of the efficacy of existing ones. Meanwhile the last two are already commonly used in most labs, but prior to and in conjunction with work with animals.'
Swetha Murali has further argued, 'And as powerful as modern computers are, there's still simply no comparison - the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present.'
Arguments against animal testing
1. Animal life should be treated as of value and therefore as worthy of respect
It has been argued that animal testing denies the intrinsic value of animal life and treats all animals as mere commodities that exist only for the use of human beings.
This case was argued by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez of the Mark Kulu Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, Silicon Valley. The authors' article is titled 'Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small' and within it they argue, '[The] right to be treated with respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to act rationally.'
The authors also argue, 'Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species.'
2. Animal testing causes the suffering and death of animals
It has been claimed that animal testing results in suffering and death for a growing number of animals.
In Victoria, figures released for 2011 reveal that a total of 474,453 lab animals died in that year, including 229 domestic dogs, 68 domestic cats, 113 macaques and marmoset monkeys, 421,661 lab mice, 22,325 lab rats, 36 horses and 3 seals and sea lions, among a list of other species. The figures represent a threefold increase over the previous year. These numbers exclude more than a million poultry and 750,000 fish used in research.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on June 25, 2005, Richard Baker quoted the following instances of animal testing that appeared to inflict suffering on the animals concerned. 'A group of macaque monkeys, some only days old, had their spinal cords cut by Melbourne University researchers before being made to perform tasks to examine their hand dexterity...
Brain surgery [was] performed on monkeys with experimentally induced Parkinson's disease at Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute in Sydney.
Monkeys [were] infected with a simian form of HIV, having vaccines tested on them at Melbourne University.
Electrophysiological experiments [were conducted] on macaque monkeys.
Surgical scraping [was performed], under a local anaesthetic, of the eyeballs of rabbits to test antibiotics at Melbourne's Centre for Eye Research.
Irritant acids... [were] injected into the eyes of hatching chicks to test a contact lens at La Trobe University.'
In the same opinion piece, Baker noted, 'Documents obtained by The Age under the Freedom of Information Act show research at the CSIRO's Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong involves animals being subjected to "lethality" tests; given poisons in "acute toxicity tests"; given infections and tumours "without pain alleviation"; and subjected to "environmental deprivation for extended periods". Other CSIRO research involves "harvesting" of animal parts for possible genetic manipulation to make them compatible with humans.
The documents also show research categories that permit electric shocks for "inducing stress"; "burning or scalding" and "infliction of physical trauma" to simulate human injury.'
3. Animal testing is not properly regulated
It has been claimed that the regulations which govern animal testing are not sufficient to guarantee that animals are protected from unnecessary suffering.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2012, Rob Buttrose has claimed, 'The National Health and Medical Research Council's code of practice... affords animals little protection. The regulations, for example, license acts (surgery and deliberate infection) on healthy animals that would be serious offences if committed elsewhere. The code allows the use of animals (including inflicting pain and death) when it is essential ''to obtain and establish significant information relevant to the understanding of humans'' and ''for the achievement of educational objectives''. Thus almost any research could be licensed.'
It has further been claimed that commercial pressure has led to a practical reduction of standards when approving the use of animals in tests and experiments.
In a letter published in The Age on December 2, 2012, John Hayward has stated, 'As a former member of a university animal ethics committee, I wasn't surprised at the harrowing report [detailing the use of primates in animal testing].
Government pressure to enlist universities in the service of private industry in ''CRCs'' (co-operative research centres) has seen a growing research emphasis on quick commercial returns along with a de-emphasis on ethical matters. Science has always insisted on the complete impartiality of researchers; business insists on its own success.'
Finally it has been argued that many of those on animal testing ethics committees have neither the expertise nor the influence to act in protection of animals.
Cherie Wilson, a former ethics committee member at the Department of Primary Industries, who served as an animal welfare representative, has claimed, 'Because there are animal welfare people on there, the public would think everything is all right. But it's not. I had no power - 99.9 per cent of the experiments go ahead once the funding is there.' Ms Wilson has further claimed, 'On the protocols they always ask, "Are there any alternatives?" and they always say, "No".'
Ms Wilson argues that her lack of scientific expertise left her unable to determine if there were alternatives to animal testing.
Similarly, Steph Geddes, who was on the committee of a major Victorian institution for ten years, has stated, 'Without a scientific background, it is difficult to get any experiments stopped. The best we could do was put forward suggestions that would make it easier for the animals.'
4. Much animal testing is performed unnecessarily
It is claimed that many animals are used in tests that have little, if any, practical application. It is further claimed that this is especially the case in education, where animals are used in dissections and for other purposes of questionable value.
The animal rights group, Animals Australia, has stated, 'The use of animals in teaching at all levels of secondary and tertiary education is still widespread. The majority of such teaching is not directed towards veterinary practice nor training in clinical procedures in humans. In fact, many students are required to use animals in practical classes, and then choose careers in which they will never need to use animals.
The group argues, 'At the tertiary level...the need for animals in teaching cannot be established except in relation to the teaching of veterinary and animal science courses. Where no non-animal alternatives exist, knowledge and skills should be obtained by study of, and practical work on, abattoir materials, models, or through assistance with actual clinical cases.'
There is also a type of research which its opponents term 'curiosity research' and which they claim is undertaken for no immediately obvious purpose. The animal welfare group, The Society for the Advancement of Animal Wellbeing, claims on its Internet site, 'The most wasteful and horrific trend is in "curiosity" research; this involves research that has no purpose but is done out of mere curiosity at the expense of the life and the well being of the animals involved...
In a Canadian experiment, polar bears were made to swim through a water tank filled with crude oil. When the bears licked themselves to clean away the oil, they ingested so much oil that they developed kidney failure and died. Conclusion: Polar bears should not swim in crude oil.'
5. Animal testing often presents results that cannot be extrapolated to human beings
It has been claimed that many tests conducted on animals produce results that are not indicative of how a particular drug or disease would affect a human being.
Natasha Reus, in a letter published in The Age on December 2, 2012, has claimed, 'Many drugs that were safe for primates have gone on to injure or kill people. Furthermore, the use of primates for HIV study is not plausible when one considers that AIDS is uniquely a human malady. Even chimpanzees do not develop the disease when injected with the human virus.'
Ms Reus has further stated, 'Everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned by studying people, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood cells. The US government has redirected $10 million of AIDS research funding away from chimpanzee studies after concluding they are a ''deficient model''.'
In further support of her claims, Ms Reus noted, 'In the French blood scandal in the 1980s, thousands contracted HIV through contaminated blood, given to patients because it was safe in chimps.'
In January, 2001, Dr Neal D. Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, stated, 'The genetically engineered monkey experiments now underway at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) bear as much resemblance to bona fide medical research as a circus sideshow does to a legitimate museum. Fall for the hype, and you'll believe OHSU's bizarre assembly line of designer "monkey models" will actually help cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and who knows, even male-pattern baldness.'
Dr Bernard went on to argue, 'Apparently, OHSU is undeterred by the dismal results from decades of genetic engineering of mice, which have been inserted with human genes to study human cancers and other human diseases.
What did we learn? That treatments which may work in transgenic mice fail in humans. Nothing relevant to treating human disease has resulted.'
The animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) similarly argues, 'One of the most significant trends in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that the results of animal tests are rarely relevant to humans. Studies in esteemed publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have repeatedly concluded that because of the fundamental biological differences among species, animal tests do not reliably predict outcomes in humans. These same studies have also concluded that the overwhelming majority of animal experiments fail to lead to medical advances that improve the health of humans and, in fact, are often dangerously misleading.'
6. There are alternatives to animal testing
It has been claimed that there are alternatives to animal testing which could be used far more often than they are.
In 2005, the then chairperson of the National Health and Medical Research Council animal ethics committee, Elizabeth Grant, claimed that Australian scientists had not tried as hard as they should to find alternatives to animal testing. Mrs Grant stated, 'I think people have become a bit complacent.'
The animal rights group, Animals Australia, has also claimed, 'There are already many alternatives to animals which have been developed, particularly in the areas of toxicity testing and teaching...
The use of alternatives may involve the use of the same experimental goals, but using instead techniques which may include cell cultures or computer programs, or it may involve changing the experimental aim altogether, such as eliminating an animal-based experiment and replacing it with a clinical experiment involving humans.'
In November, 2011, the Danish pharmaceutical company, Novo Nordisk, announced the end of using living animals to test the quality of batches of medicines produced by the company. The alternative testing methods use animal cells rather than living animals. These methods had first to prove their efficacy before being approved by regulators. It has taken ten years for the company to develop a full range of alternative test procedures; however, it is now satisfied it has done so.
Similarly the animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has noted, 'Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products... Innovative biotechnology firm Hærel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals... VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines.'
Further implications
At the extreme end of the spectrum are those animal activists who argue that even though animal testing may result in benefits to human beings, the use of animals is not justified as they have as much right to the enjoyment of their existence as human beings. However, this is very much a minority view, with most animal rights spokespeople grudgingly acknowledging that some degree of animal testing is currently unavoidable.
There is currently little dispute that some classes of scientific research require the use of animals. What is contested is whether the balance is currently correct.
There are those who suggest that some of the animal testing being performed is unnecessary, either in that it is intended to achieve no clearly discernible benefit or because its ends could be achieved without using animals. Such criticisms raise questions about the efficacy of the ethics committees which monitor the use of animals for research purposes.
There is no simple consensus on this issue; beyond that both researchers using animal subjects and animal activists claim that they wish to see the distress caused animals kept to a minimum. Neither group appear to view 'distress' in the same manner, with animal activists inclined to adopt a far more conservative view of what is acceptable.
The future seems to lie in the direction of creating increasingly more effective alternatives to animal testing; however, currently, despite many advances in the development of alternatives, the use of animals also seems to be increasing.
One step toward overcoming this apparent contradiction may be to follow John Hadley's suggestion.
John Hadley is a Research Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney. He has argued that the use of animal testing has to be open to greater public scrutiny. He suggests, for example, that whenever the media reports on a particular scientific advance, it should also report on the extent of animal testing used in the development of this advance and also explain the manner in which these animals were used. It appears to be Hadley's belief that such public scrutiny would help to ensure that animal testing was conducted responsibly.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
AGE, November 25, 2012, page 1, news item / investigative report(photos) by Maris Beck, `The monkey farm'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-monkey-farm-primates-being-bred-for-experiments-20121124-2a0gz.html
AGE, November 25, 2012, page 16, editorial, `Testing on animals and the moral imperative'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/testing-on-animals-and-the-moral-imperative-20121124-2a0u4.html
AGE, December 2, 2012, page 3, news item by Maris Beck, `Scientists kill half a million animals'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/scientists-kill-half-a-million-animals-20121201-2ao42.html