Types of Animal Experimentation
...cepted alternatives, we are finally getting rid of it because of the work of groups such as the British Union Against Vivisection (BUAV). The Draize eye test is carried out by holding a number of rabbits immobile, each in their own specially designed box, forming a 'cup' with their lower eyelid, and filling it with the chemical to be tested. The effects on the rabbits eyes are monitored, and can range from mild irritation to gross disfigurement. Some scientists say that a rabbits eye is more sensitive than a human eye, while others say less, and there is a very big question mark over what the short term effect of a chemical on a rabbits eye can tell us about the long term effect on a human eye. After the LD50 test has gone, this will probably be the next well known procedure to be targeted, and hopefully the anti-vivisectionists will be able to force through the adoption of alternative non-animal methods. Other animal based tests are those used to screen new chemicals/drugs for their Carcinogenic, and teratogenic effects. There are serious scientific doubts surrounding such tests, and hundreds of example of where a drug or chemical can have one effect in a certain animal but a totally different effect in a human or other species of animal. One of the best known failures of animal testing is its inability to prove the link between smoking and lung cancer which was finally established by studies on the human population. Another use of vivisection came into the news recently (September 2000), with the Daily Express expose of Imutran/Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), which provided evidence of excessive suffering being inflicted on wild caught baboons. In one experiment, baboons had transgenic piglet hearts transplanted onto their necks 03 - More Animal Testing Would Have Prevented The Thalidomide Tragedy. I am sure that most of you will have heard the story of thalidomide many times. It was an over-the-counter drug responsible for the horrendous birth defects, or death, of thousands of babies, and the suffering of their parents and families. Thalidomide was first manufactured in 1953 by the West German firm Chemie Grünenthal. It was first intended to be used as an anticonvulsant drug, but was quickly found to be unsuitable for this purpose and marketed as a particularly safe sedative, as overdoses were never fatal. Unfortunately, it was used as a treatment for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. The drug first entered the UK market in April 1958, manufactured by Distillers, under the trade name Distaval, and was used as a component in Asmaval, and Tensival. Although thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals before it was launched onto the market, it had undergone other animal testing by both Chemie Grünenthal, and Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Ltd., and by other firms producing it under licence in various countries. None of these animal tests brought to light a common and serious side effect of thalidomide, i.e. it can cause irreversible peripheral neuritus. Although released for clinical trials in the USA, it was never sold there because the FDA learned of reports in Europe in December 1960, that patients who had taken thalidomide were showing symptoms of peripheral neuritis, The FDA medical officer responsible for keeping thalidomide off the U.S. market, Dr. Frances O. Kelsey, was honored as a national hero in 1962 by President Kennedy. The reports of cases of peripheral neuritus did not stop Distillers carrying on with advertising which stressed the drugs safety, but they finally withdrew Distaval from the market in November 1961, when the clinical evidence of the link between thalidomide and massive birth defects became overwhelming. Over a decade later, the vast majority of the British victims had still not had their claims against Distillers settled.(1) It is very unlikely that if tests on pregnant animals had been carried out at the time that they would have identified the problem. In 1980 Professor George Teeling-Smith said that as it was only possible to reproduce the specific deformities in a small number of animal species, and that it was unlikely that specific tests on pregnant animals would have given the necessary warning, because the right species would probably not have been used. Incidentally, in the same paper, he tells us how very small doses of penicillin are fatal to guinea pigs.(2) Similarly an article in 1968, discussing a register of congenital malformations, tells us that existing methods for evaluation of teratogenic effects of exogenous factors--especially drugs and other chemical substances--give no reliable protection to the human embryo.(3) In that paper it was claimed that such a register would have seen thalidomide withdrawn from the market within five months of its introduction. The reality was that Distaval stayed on the UK market for three an a half years. The real lesson to be learned from thalidomide is that new drugs should not be given to pregnant women until their effect on people has been well studied, and even then their use should be closely monitored. Let's try and understand the logic of the animal experiments inspired by the thalidomide tragedy. As shown, any test on pregnant animals, before thalidomide was put onto the market, would have been unlikely to have indicated a problem. So, after the link between thalidomide and birth defects was discovered by clinical observation, a host of animal tests were carried out. Initially, tests failed to reproduce the teratogenic affects found in humans, but after many experiments with many species of animals, a certain species of rabbit found for which thalidomide caused birth defects, it takes about ten times the dose per Kg of bodyweight for a rabbit than for a human.(4) The vivisectors now had their model to prove that thalidomide was a teratogen, which had already been proven in humans. What they had also shown was the uselessness of an animal model in predicting teratogenicity. If a new drug causes birth defects in a laboratory animal, does this prove that it will cause birth defects in the human animal? No, it does not. If a new drug fails to cause birth defects in a laboratory animal, does this prove that it will not cause birth defects in the human animal? No, it does not. In the hopefully unlikely event that another drug with the potential of causing the same devastating birth defects as thalidomide is manufactured, will animal teratogenicity tests keep it off the market? Only if it also has a teratogenic effect on one of the species of animals it is tested on, which is far from certain. There is a large species variation in the effects of a given teratogen, with thalidomide causing severe malformations in humans, in relatively low doses, while requiring "extremely high doses" in experimental animals.(5) So, if the coin landed on the wrong side, i.e. the animal model used does not produce birth defects, the manufacturer will have an unfounded confidence in the drugs safety. I mentioned the coin because if you flip one and say, "heads the drug might be safe, tails the drug might not be safe", you have about the same chance of reaching an accurate conclusion as from the required animal tests. 04 - It Is Possible To Obtain Unbiased Information On Vivisection. I made this one up myself, just to make a point. I don't think that anybody is naive enough to really believe that they can get unbiased information about such an emotive subject. Some people/organizations will tell you so, but unfortunately, as far as I know this is not true. The usual motive for taking the time and trouble to provide information on such subjects is to make a case for your own argument, which may or may not be a valid one. The best you can hope for when seeking information, is that the person supplying it is not intentionally lying to you, but they will obviously not go too far out of their way to present the opposite point of view. People from either side of the argument may be upholding a biased viewpoint for the noblest of reasons. On the one side for example, you may have an animal rights activist who is genuinely concerned about the suffering that lab animals may have to endure. At the other extreme you may have a scientist whose whole career has centred around animal experimentation. Many of these people will think it is justifiable to highlight their side of the argument while omitting the other side, they might even think it fair to willingly deceive. Of course, they should realize that being too biased might be a big mistake, because their entire argument could be rejected, and any future viewpoint offered could appear tainted. As an anti-vivisectionist I readily admit that my views on vivisection are a little one-sided, how could they not be? Unfortunately, a lot of people 'with an axe to grind' try to pass themselves off as neutral observers who are trying to help people come to an informed decision by providing impartial information. Don't fall for it. Always ask yourself what is motivating the writer/speaker. Please remember that it might not be the one who has spent the most on their website, or who has the best graphics, or even who is the better writer, that has the most ethical viewpoint. The vivisection industry is worth billions of pounds, so it would be reasonable to expect them to spend a lot of money on lobbying, public relations etc. The anti-vivisection movement relies on voluntary organizations, and charities, or individuals and small groups. 05 - The Number Of Animals Being Used In UK Experiments Is Decreasing. This was true, until a few years ago, but the numbers now seem to have levelled out at around two and a half million per year from a peak, in 1971, of over five and a half million. This figure may rise dramatically over the next few years because of EU plans to re-test many chemicals, and also because of an explosion in 'genetic research'. Of course many more animals connected to the research industry do not show up in the statistics. In 1998, in answer to a parliamentary question by Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes at the time, the government confirmed that the MOD bred and killed three times as many animals as were actually used in experiments, and that this was consistent with normal practice. The Government admitted that in the previous year, when 2.7 million animals were used in experimental procedures, between 5 and 8 million were bred and killed, normally by gassing, injection or by breaking their necks. One example stated that at Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence research centre, out of a total of 106 marmoset monkies bred in 94/95 only 12 were used in experiments, the rest being killed (the 12 used in experiments will have been killed as well of course, at the end of, or because of, the experiment. There are no survivors in this game!). 06 - Anti-Vivisectionists Think Animals Are More Important Than People. Anti-vivisectionists believe that all sentient beings should have some basic rights, and it naturally follows that Man, the most sentient of all animals, should have these basic rights, and many more. It is my personal experience that people who are opposed to vivisection and other forms of animal abuse are pro animal rights, NOT anti human rights, and are invariably against the exploitation of people, or the erosion of their rights. I describe myself as an anti-vivisectionist, and I am just as outraged as anybody else by the treatment of American Indians, or the way Aborigines were treated by other Australians, or by what happened to the Jews (and other minority groups) in the second world war. I am opposed to vivisection, but I am pro human rights, as I would expect all anti-vivisectionists to be. I care about animals but that does not stop me caring about the twelve million (yes, 12,000,000) plus children dying every year from "hunger, neglect and preventable disease" (6), or the hundreds of teenagers living on the streets in my own country. Somebody who cares about animals, is much more likely to care about people than somebody who treats animals cruelly, as the well established link between animal abuse and child abuse/violent crime shows. No offence, but I would not feel comfortable letting a technician in charge of lab animals baby sit for me. Do you remember the Channel 4 expose which showed film of a lab technician punching a beagle, while fellow workers at Huntingdon Research Centre (now Huntingdon Life Sciences) stood by laughing? Do you really think that people who treat research animals like that are more likely to care about other people than the average anti-vivisectionist? By the way, if you missed that Channel 4 documentary, two lab technicians were successfully prosecuted and sacked. Of course, the ones standing by watching, and laughing, were not breaking the law, though I believe that some faced disciplinary action I don't believe that you can ask me to choose between a lab animal and a child but suppose, for the sake of argument, that you give me a straight choice between a human child and a laboratory animal, a rat say or a mouse or perhaps a cat or a dog. Of course, if it comes down to a choice like that then all the anti-vivisectionists I know would choose to save the child. One of the best known people in the animal rights movement Peter Singer, a definite opponent of vivisection, put it like this: "...But to be opposed to what is going on now it is not necessary to insist that all animal experiments stop immediately. All we need to say is that experiments serving no direct and urgent purpose should stop immediately, and in the remaining fields of research, we should, whenever possible, seek to replace experiments that involve animals with alternative methods that do not. ..." (7). The point here being that it is unlikely, to say the least, that most of the millions of lab animals killed yearly, will have contributed to the saving of human life. They are more likely to have died testing a new brand of household bleach, another indigestion tablet, or in some pointless medical experiment whose results could not be accurately extrapolated to humans. 07 - Vaccines Are Responsible For Ridding Us Of Diseases Like Diphtheria And Cholera This may be partly true, i.e. they may have helped to finish of the major epidemics which were already on the wane for other reasons before vaccines were developed. Some vaccines may have been more effective than others, and there is also the possibility that a few vaccines may have caused more problems than they have solved. Not all scientists are totally convinced that AIDS was not passed from monkies to man via the polio vaccine. The only certainty about a lot of vaccines is the large sums of money generated for their manufacturers. The main reason for the decline of diseases like cholera is the provision of clean water and adequate sanitation, the major diseases already being well under control before vaccines were introduced. The animal test for vaccines is a variant of the LD50 test mentioned above, and apart from being a particularly cruel test the accuracy of the results when applied to people are, as all results from animal experiments highly suspicious. 08 - Laboratory Animals Do Not Suffer. Incredible as it may seem, early vivisectors refused to believe that animals could feel pain at all, hence experiments where dogs were nailed by their paws to tables for live dissection, or rabbits were cooked alive so that the effect of heat could be observed on them. There are even people in 'civilized' countries today who will dispute that animals are capable of feeling pain (or pleasure). In the laboratory, animals are often not given any form of pain relief because it might interfere with the results of the experiment. Also, pain is not the only source of distress for an animal. Being kept in a small cage, or held in a restraining device so they cannot move at all is very distressing for them. Having a tube pushed down your throat in order to fill your stomach with the latest oven cleaner, or being forced to inhale toxic fumes, or undergoing another of the hundreds of distressing experiments can't be too much fun to say the least. 09 - Animals Are Only Used In Research/Testing When Absolutely Necessary. A look at the guidelines in the UK tells us that this should be so, but the point is who defines what is necessary? If the vivisectionists tell us that their inaccurate, misleading animal tests are the only option, then we must fund research into finding non-animal alternatives. It shouldn't be that difficult as the results from some animal experiments are so irrelevant to humans that it would be more accurate to toss a coin. 10 - If Its Safe/Toxic For An Animal Then It's Safe/Toxic For A person We've already looked at the story of thalidomide, which in itself disputes this particular myth. Are there any more examples to be found? Yes, plenty. Of course, it can happen sometimes that the same side effect will occur in the animal being used as a model, and in people, the laws of chance will see to that. Equally, a drug may have a detrimental effect on an animal that it does not have on a human, or vice versa. In other words, it's a bit of a lottery. The Los Angeles Times, an American newspaper, ran a story in December 2000 which told of the connection between several approved drugs and a large number of deaths. They inspected reports made to the FDA between, 1993 and 2000, of 1,002 deaths to which one of seven approved drugs had been associated as the suspected cause of death. The drugs in question had all been approved between 1993 and 2000, before being subsequently withdrawn. No deaths were counted for which the drugs had been secondary suspect or less, while epidemiologists have suggested the actual numbers of deaths could be far higher. One of the drugs involved was Rezulin, which was sold in the USA for three years, from January 1997, until its withdrawal, after several label changes, in March 2000. By this time it was not consid...