BLOG |
By Margaret Waters “A laboratory mouse with cancer tumors”. By Unknown photographer, released by the National Cancer Institute [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Nonhuman animal testing, sometimes referred to as vivisection, is a subject that, for the average person, is a difficult one to take a side on. Every year, more that 25 million nonhuman animals are used in laboratory experimentation, whether medical, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic research. Most of them are mice, but some are the cats, dogs, and rabbits that we claim to love. Even monkeys and chimpanzees, our closest relatives, are subject to this horror. They are burned, injected, poisoned, kept isolated, and withheld food and companionship, sometimes from the moment of birth (PETA). HistoryOn the other hand, nonhuman animal testing has brought about a myriad of scientific breakthroughs that, throughout history, have saved many human lives. Cancer research insights, our knowledge on dementia and Alzheimer's disease, even anesthesia as we know it today came from testing on nonhuman animals (Rakhee, 2015). While many new methods of testing involve synthetic skin, cells, even organs and organ systems that have be created in labs are being utilized for more and more testing, there is no replacement as of yet for a full, living body. While some research and testing on nonhuman animals cannot be translated perfectly to human anatomy, the research is still necessary for serious research. However, research done for cosmetic or learning purposes is unnecessary, and with current advances, could be phased out if institutions were willing to implement this new technology. If nonhuman animal testing is still a necessary injustice, then precautions must be taken to prevent undue harm or trauma to the subjects that cannot defend or speak up for themselves. A reduction of testing, a refinement of testing procedures and confinement protocols, and finally, replacing all unnecessary tests with more innovative, and not cruel procedures. By doing so, we can lessen the intense suffering experienced by nonhuman animals used in laboratories. “Domitian, one of the Silver Spring monkeys, in a restraint chair in 1981 inside the laboratory of Edward Taub at the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. PETA contacted the police, who raided the laboratory on September 11, 1981, and charged Taub with 119 counts of animal cruelty, leading to a conviction on six counts, overturned on appeal”. By Alex Pacheco of PETA (PETA) [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons. Animal testing has been a necessary, although often unethical, practice. In the past, there have been pharmaceutical products released to the public without being tested first on nonhuman animals. In 1937, ‘Elixir Sulfanilamide’, a drug was made that contained dissolved DEG (diethylene glycol), which is poisonous to humans. Unfortunately, this was unknown at the time. The drug was marketed, and poisoned thousands of people. More than one hundred people died due to the oversight. This was, incidentally, why the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was instated, which to this day requires safety testing of any drugs to be done on nonhuman animals before humans. On top of these dangerous risks to foregoing nonhuman animal testing, much of the important medicine and knowledge we have today has been the product of this testing. Antibiotics, chemotherapy, organ and limb transplants, and blood transfusions have all been products of past nonhuman animal testing. In addition to this, any further research on cancer treatment and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's would be severely inhibited, since living beings are required for proper testing, and human testing would be an ethical and political minefield to navigate. Despite many huge leaps and bounds made in the development of synthetic cells and other bodily systems, there is still a long way to go before completely nonhuman animal-free testing is possible. “Sheep research cages for metabolic studies in the Animal Annex adjacent to Nutritional Biochemistry laboratory, Adelaide. Digestive processes studied via fistulae to allow access to rumen”. By CSIRO [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons. Still Necessary?Not all nonhuman animal testing can be replaced. While much of the historical testing done could today be replaced by current technology, there are areas of future research that cannot be replaced quite yet, as mentioned previously. There is argument that research on nonhuman animals is untranslatable to humans, which is often true – the same can be said for synthetic testing. Cancer has been cured in mice hundreds of times, and in test tube cells just as much. However, cancer is incredibly complex. While killing the cancer cells themselves can be done, they aren't alone in the body. They're connected to healthy cells, tumors, and organs that can't be killed alongside the cancer cells. Curing it requires testing treatment on all of those things, which in turn, requires the living system. Living beings are complex. They each feel emotion and pain differently. They also respond to drugs differently. The body is designed to fight against any unrecognized intruders, including medicines and treatments. There are barriers blocking organs that have to be overcome, and often drugs are metabolized by the liver or bound and blocked by proteins. The effect a drug has on blood pressure, emotions, moods or even basic functions cannot be predicted, it must be seen and studied. Right now, the best way we have to study these affects, is by testing on nonhuman animals. Many species have similar functions, organs, and systems as humans, just not all in the same species. Unfortunately, this means that to study the multitude of severe diseases and problems prevalent in the human race, nonhuman animals are the closest living substitute. Alternatives That Work (But Not for Everything)Just because nonhuman animals are available and cannot speak against testing performed on them, doesn't mean that the practice can continue for everything. Animal testing can be replaced in many areas by synthetic research. Today, many cosmetics are tested on nonhuman animals before they can be manufactured. Often this involves severe irritation to the beings being tested, as the researchers will put them in their eyes, their ears, and on their skin before they know if it's safe. This type of testing can be completely foregone with synthetic skin, and a computer model called physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK), which predicts the absorption, distribution and excretion of substances in the body. While this type of study can still have error, that error can be minimized by this modeling, as well as previous knowledge of the effects of these chemicals, which are often known for cosmetic substances. By knowing their structure, how they will react with other chemicals and cells can be predicted with less error. Skin and eye irritancy tests on nonhuman animal subjects could be ended, something that has occurred in many countries. Another drug that no longer uses nonhuman animals for research is insulin – at one time, it was extracted from pigs and cows, and checked for purity using nonhuman animals. Now, it is taken from bacterial cultures, and checked with a machine that uses chromatography. Because insulin is such a necessity for those with diabetes, the use of nonhuman animals to get it was allowed. With advanced technology, that's no longer is the case. There are many ways to reduce the use of nonhuman animals in unnecessary laboratory experiments. Programs like Computer Aided Drug Design (CADD), Structure Activity Relationship (SARs), and computer assisted learning (CAL) are huge improvements. CADD predicts areas where chemicals will bind in the body, making sure a chemical is not inactive, or acts in the wrong place. SARs predicts the activity of a chemical within the body. And the CAL program can be used in schools, as a replacement for dissection of nonhuman animals. This program has been studied and found to be just as if not more useful for learning structure and technique, and it can also be cheaper. Finally, cell cultures and lower organisms have also been utilized to avoid testing on nonhuman animals. Cell cultures and synthetic organs can help test certain aspects of a drug, and avoid unnecessary testing on living beings. As for lower organisms, yeast and bacteria are both helpful in understanding replication and certain protein functions. These types of substitutes are huge advances towards the goal of ending nonhuman animals as test subjects. Unfortunately, they are not yet enough. There is no way to properly test certain treatments and diseases on anything but a living, breathing subject, no matter how intuitive a computer program may be, or how many cell cultures are tested. The best we can do now is reduce the amount of cruel testing deemed necessary. The Three R'sAnimal testing can be reduced to only necessary procedures, and made less cruel. Computer models are becoming more and more advanced as we learn more about genetic and chemical structures. Synthetic cells and organs are becoming a greater part of medical research. But for the diseases that can't be fully tested that way, the solution for now is nonhuman animal subjects. In light of this, there are things that can be done to the current system to allow for less cruelty and coldness towards our unwilling saviors. The three R's: Reduction, Replacement and Refinement. Reducing the number of tests done on nonhuman animals, by doing preliminary tests with synthetics and programs. Replacing the tests that can be done completely by computer, or by synthetic procedures. Refine the procedures, and allow the nonhuman animals to live in a way that reduces the intense amount of fear and stress they experience. This has been found to not only increase the quality of the nonhuman animal's life, but the quality of the data gotten from the research as well. A study done on mice on Huntington's disease found that when the mice were given a complex cage with enrichment, nesting, and toys, the disease mimicked the process occurring in humans, as opposed to mice who were only given an empty cage. This supports the idea of lessening the burden of experimentation on the nonhuman animal subjects, until they can be released. Nonhuman animals used in experiments should also be allowed to have a life after testing – instead of euthanizing them for no reason, allow their adoption, by those able to care for them after what has happened to them. ConclusionThe complete eradication of nonhuman animal testing isn't possible yet. While computer programming, synthetic cell creation, and other technological advances have made many experimentations on nonhuman animals obsolete, the practice is still necessary for more severe and complex diseases, such as Alzheimer's, dementia, and cancer. Until such a time where a completely synthetic and fully structured model can be made to test these, nonhuman animal testing must continue in order to cure the things that have killed so many people, and will continue to evolve and avoid attempts at treatment. While the testing must continue, the immense cruelty cannot – treating the nonhuman animal test subjects as living beings, with needs and emotions and pain receptors, is a must. Giving them lives during and after experimentation, as well as avoiding their use unless deemed absolutely necessary, is just the beginning of the many ways we need to improve the conditions under which we allow their continued use. They are not tools, and we can no longer use them as such. References De Silva O., Basketter D.A., Barratt M.D., Corsini E., Cronin M.T., Das P.K., Ponec M. Alternative methods for skin sensitization testing. Atla Nottingham. 1996;24:683–706. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002 Ericson, J. (2014, February 20). The Price of Killing Off Animal Testing. Retrieved April 06, 2017, from http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/21/price-killing-animal-testing-245548.html Garattini, S., & Grignaschi, G. (2017). Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 39, 32-35. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013 Goyal, R. (2015). Animal testing in the history of anesthesia: Now and then, some stories, some facts. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, 31(2), 149. doi:10.4103/0970-9185.155139 Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(1), 42. doi:10.4103/1995-705x.81548 Liebsch, M., Grune, B., Seiler, A., Butzke, D., Oelgeschläger, M., Pirow, R., . . . Luch, A. (2011). Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future perspectives. Archives of Toxicology, 85(8), 841-858. doi:10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x PETA. (n.d.). Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. Retrieved April 06, 2017, from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/ Rogiers, V., & Vanhaecke, T. (2015). Cosmetics as a test case for non-animal testing? Toxicology Letters, 238(2), S48. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2015.08.133 Urbisch, D., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., & Landsiedel, R. (2016). Non-animal testing for skin sensitization: Replacement or mere supplement? Toxicology Letters, 258. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.06.2055 AUTHOR BIOMore from AuthorComments are closed.
|
ABOUT
This is a website about nonhuman animals, written by human animals taking a Society and Animals class at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|