* Enables the continued advancement of modern medicine etc
* Animals are very genetically similar to humans, so they are good models for the development of drugs and the study of disease – it is likely that any reactions displayed by animal test subjects will be similar to those found in humans
* Far less animals are used in research than are consumed as food
* Many products must be tested on animals before they are put on the market to ensure their safety, e.g. household cleaning products, cosmetics
* Animals do not have the same cognitive ability or moral judgement as humans, and so it is more ethically acceptable to test using animals rather than just human testing
* Persons involved in animal research are required to treat animals humanely to ensure high standards of welfare and good quality results
* Most animals have shorter life cycles than humans, so the effects of a drug or disease can be observed over a whole life time more easily
* Research involving animals is highly regulated in most countries with specific laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment
* There are currently no alternative methods of testing that are advanced enough to completely replace animal testing
* Animals also benefit from testing – diseases such as rabies or canine distemper can be combated with treatments derived from animal testing P
Against
* It is cruel and inhumane to cause suffering in animals
* Animals used in animal testing can suffer pain and distress caused by the tests
* There are some genetic differences between humans and animals – sometimes results in animals may not accurately indicate results in humans
* Testing with animals is very expensive
* Errors in experimental design mean that more animals are used than is necessary, increasing the number of animals that must suffer
* Strict laws do not necessarily prevent poor welfare in practice
* Even though animals do not have the same cognitive abilities as humans, this does not mean that they have no rights
* Alternatives to animal testing do exist – computer models, cell cultures P
Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org/
b. Describe methods of implementing refinement, reduction and replacement techniques. – Pass
The concepts of replacement, reduction and refinement were developed by Russell and Birch in 1959. Replacement involves substituting animals used in research with other models, such as computer simulations, cell cultures or through evidence gained from previous work. This can also refer to using animals from a ‘lower’ order, or level of cognitive function. Reduction refers to decreasing the number of animals required to produce viable and accurate results. This can involve using preliminary statistics to calculate the number of animals needed for a rigorous study, using a pilot study with a small number of animals to determine whether results justify a full study, or using a controlled breeding system where only the required number of animals is produced, leaving little excess. This concept can also involve developing methods to obtain more information from the same number of animals. Refinement refers to the improvement of all aspects of the research, from the husbandry of the animals to the techniques performed on them. For example, improved training for husbandry technicians can lead to more appropriate housing, good handling practice and easier identification of health concerns, and techniques can be improved by developing less invasive or stressful methods. P Source: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/
c. Describe examples of the 3 Rs in practice. – Merit
In practice, replacement could involve the use of rodents in a study rather than primates – hypothetically, rodents are less aware of their surroundings than primates, and so would be less susceptible to any stress caused by the study. As another example of this, Drosophila fruit flies have been used as a replacement for rodents in oncology studies researching colorectal cancers. As an example of reduction, improvements in certain genotoxicity assays have allowed for a decrease in the number of animals required in a study to produce viable results. Finally, examples of refinement can include improving basic animal husbandry. Methods of husbandry that have been considered acceptable in the past are now being phased out in favour of alternatives. For example, rabbits have traditionally been housed in cages with wire floors, to allow droppings and soiled bedding to drop onto a tray beneath. Although this keeps the animals clean, not having access to solid flooring can cause sores and blisters to develop of the feet and hocks of the animals. Therefore, it is now a requirement that all rabbits have access to at least a partial solid floor to allow their feet to rest. Other methods include training animals such as livestock and primates to allow their blood to be drawn voluntarily, without the need for restraining or sedating the animal – a much more stressful experience. Resources such as grimace scales are also now being implemented more often to correlate changes in facial expression with levels of pain in animals like rodents, who as prey animals will instinctively try to hide any indications that they are in pain. P Source: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/
d. Describe how the implementation of the 3 Rs is encouraged. – Distinction
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research leads the discovery and application of new technologies and approaches towards research animals in the UK. They fund research into developing new techniques, training, and career development, and stimulate changes in policy and regulation towards research animals. The Centre operates a funding panel that distributes grants to researchers investigating new methods of improving research in all concepts – encouraging the further development of the 3rs. P
The application for a project licence (PPL) must take the 3rs into consideration. When stating what species are to be used in the project, the researchers must explain why that species must be used and not any others. For example, if a project requires primates to be used, it must be shown that the researchers have considered using other lower order species, such as mice or fish, or even invertebrates, and have found them unsuitable alternatives. Similarly, if several procedures could be used to obtain the same result, those likely to cause the least amount of pain, suffering or lasting harm to the test subjects must be used – if more invasive or damaging procedures must be used, then their use must be justified. P Source: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/animal-research-and-testing
2. Understand that there is a broad range of ethical, welfare and scientific perspectives on the use of animals in scientific procedures, and that thinking on these matters evolves over time and is influenced by culture and context. a. Discuss different arguments for and against the use of animals as research models. – Pass
For
Proponents of animal testing will argue that it has enabled the development of modern medicine, both for animals and humans, and that there is currently no alternative method for researching a complete living organism. The vast majority of biomedical and health organisations in the US endorse animal testing. A poll conducted by Nature found that more than 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.
The vast majority of all medical advances have been the result of animal testing. The California Biomedical Research Association has stated that nearly every medical breakthrough of the last century has directly resulted from animal testing. For example, experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led to the discovery of insulin, which been used very successfully to treat diabetes and has led to a huge improvement in the health of diabetics. The Polio vaccine was also developed through animal testing, and in the first 25 years of its used reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases to just 223. Animal research has also lead to a greater understanding and treatment of other conditions such as breast cancer, leukaemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis and many others. P
Animals are appropriate research subjects as they are incredibly genetically similar to humans. Mice, one of the most commonly used research animals, share 98% of their DNA with humans. All vertebrates have very similar biology, including organ systems, contained bloodstreams and a centralised nervous system. Humans and animals also share many of the same conditions and illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Relatively few animals are used in research in comparison to consumption for food. In the US, 9 billion chickens, 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep are consumed annually, yet only 26 million animals are used for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. Additionally, many more animals are killed by domestic cats each year than are used in scientific research. These deaths arguably have much less significance than those few that provide valuable information for the advancement of research.
It is a requirement of many products that they are tested on animals to ensure their safety for human use. Toxicity testing is a part of the development of products such as cosmetics, household cleaning products and mosquito repellent. Although the necessity of testing for cosmetics is debatable, many household products contain potentially toxic chemicals, and products like mosquito repellent are potentially life-saving, and can help to halt the spread of diseases like malaria.
Some argue that animals do not have the same cognitive ability or moral judgement as humans – for most human history they have been considered to have different rights than humans. If they were granted equal rights, all humans would have to become vegetarian, and pet ownership would become illegal. Because of this, it can be suggested that since animals are somewhat less aware of their quality of life than humans, it is more acceptable to expose them to situations outside of their natural environment.
Technicians and researchers involved in animal research are required to treat animals humanely, both to ensure high standards of welfare are maintained and to ensure reliable test results. Results obtained from unhealthy or extremely stressed animals are generally so unreliable that they become scientifically worthless, so it is in the best interests of researches to aim for high husbandry standards at all times. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians and husbandry specialists, who know the husbandry requirements of individual species well and can quickly detect and treat health concerns. Enrichment items, appropriate housing and socialisation are provided to allow the animals to express a range of natural behaviours. Many husbandry technicians are first and foremost invested in the animals they care for rather than the research conducted on them. P
Despite their genetic differences, animals often make better models than humans because of their shorter life cycles. For example, laboratory mice live between two or three years, and become sexually mature at six weeks old, so researchers can easily study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over whole lifespans and several generations. Humans live for much longer, and take much longer to reproduce, so carrying out a study over several generations would be unfeasible.
Animal research is highly regulated in most countries, with specific laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. These cover minimum housing standards for research animals specific to species, and guidelines for the techniques that can be used on animals. All proposals for using animals in research in the UK must be approved by the Home Office before any procedures can be carried out, and no
research will be approved that has not shown that alternatives to animal testing have been considered and found inappropriate. P
Although alternatives to animals testing are being developed, there is not yet currently any method rigorous enough to replace it completely. Cell cultures and computer models are useful tools for assisting research, as preliminary studies or predictive models, but they cannot yet reproduce the complexity of an entire living organism. During drug development, a substance that can produce positive results on a sample of liver cells could cause rapid negative results when it encounters the pancreas or another organ – this could not be predicted in a cell culture or computer model, and may only be revealed when tested on a living animal. Computer models specifically can only be reliable if accurate information gained from animal research is used to develop them. Additionally, cell cultures cannot be used to study conditions such as blindness or high blood pressure.
Animals themselves also benefit from animal testing – rabies, distemper, feline leukaemia, tetanus and canine parvo virus are just some examples of diseases that have been combated with treatments developed through animal testing. Endangered species can also benefit from animal testing – koala populations have been damaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia, but the animals are now being treated with vaccines that may help to stop the spread of the disease. P
Against
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animal testing, and that animals are so different from humans that animal research often yields irrelevant results.
Some organisations, such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), are extremely against many aspects of animal use today, from meat farming to zoological collections and using animals in research. They will argue that any animal suffering is ethically unacceptable regardless of potential scientific outcome – for them, the ends will never justify the means. P
The Humane Society International says that animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, and prolonged periods of physical restraint. Quoting methods such as the Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate the irritation of shampoo or other products by having them placed in or around the eyes of animals, who will have their eyes held open with clips, or the LD 50 test, where a chemical will be administered to a population in increasing concentrations until 50% of the population is dead, they argue that the degree of suffering felt by laboratory animals is unacceptable.
It can also be argued that despite the enormous genetic similarity between all vertebrates, there are still some differences between animals and humans that make animals poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences between animals and people can make animals poor models for human diseases. There are occasions where drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe for humans. The famous example is the sleeping pill thalidomide, distributed to women suffering from morning sickness in the 1950s, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Although it was tested on animals prior to its release, later tests on pregnant mammals did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Conversely, animal tests may mislead researchers into focusing on the wrong drugs or treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when administered to humans. Paracetamol, for example, is extremely toxic
to cats, but generally shows no adverse reaction in humans. As shown by these examples, animal tests do not always reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Over 85 HIV vaccines have failed in humans after working well in non-human primate studies. A 2013 study from Archives of Toxicology stated, “the low productivity of animal experiments in research areas allows direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety”.
Animal testing itself is very expensive, and often costs a great deal more than alternative research methods. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost between $2 million and $4 million, with the US National Institute of Health spending almost half of its yearly budget on animal research. Opponents of animal research will argue that this considerable amount of money could be spent on other aspects of healthcare if cheaper alternatives to animal testing were used as an alternative.
Sometimes errors in experimental design can occur that mean that more animals are used than is necessary to obtain reliable results, or that the experiment is structured in such a way that the lives and wellbeing of animals are sacrificed for a poor standard of research. Some will also argue that stricter laws have not necessarily reduced animal suffering – even in government-run institutions there have been breaches of animal welfare.
It can be argued that using animals because they do not have the same cognitive ability, language or moral judgement that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. P
Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org/
b. Describe how ethical standards have changed animal welfare over time. – Merit
Animals have been used in research at least since the time of the early Greek philosophers. Plato and his student Aristotle were among the first to perform experiments on living animals, as while Greek law prohibited the dissection of human bodies, there were no such laws to protect animals. Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in the 12th century, tested surgical procedures on animals before he applied them to his human patients. At the times of these examples, there were no laws protecting the rights of animals in any context, let alone specific to scientific research. It has only been within the last four hundred years or so that any concern towards animals in a scientific setting has been established. In 1655, physiologist Edmund O’Meara said that “the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state” – he expressed that the pain the subject endured would interfere with the accuracy of any results obtained. Yet it was not until 1822 that the first animal protection law was passed by the British Parliament. In 1876 the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed – this was the first law specifically designed to regulate animal testing. Charles Darwin wrote: “I quite agree that [vivisection] is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity”. He expressed an opinion here that was becoming increasingly popular – that a degree of suffering in research animals could be allowed if the results could be justified. This sentiment has carried over to modern British law. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, or ASPA, (1986) specifies that any research can only be conducted on a protected animal if any pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm that the results of the P
research can justify animal experiences. The aim of this is to potentially eliminate all unnecessary animal suffering from research. It also specifies a range of husbandry requirements to ensure that all animals have a quality of life that is as high as possible. Although initially ASPA only protected vertebrates, it was amended in 1993 to include the common octopus, and later in 2003 to include all cephalopods – the mental capacities of these species are now better understood, and the law has been changed to reflect these developments. This high degree of regulation and the prioritisation of animal welfare over scientific results shows how ethical attitudes towards animals have changed since the early days of their use in research. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/animal-research-and-testing
c. Apply relevant theory to a work based example. – Distinction
At Oxford in the past, rodents such as mice and rats have been housed in open-topped cages (usually a box with solid sides and a lid made of mesh or wire). Increasingly, rodents are now being housed in individually ventilated cages or IVCs. In this system, individual cages have separate sources of air – each cage is therefore its own microenvironment, isolated from all other cages on its rack. This helps to prevent the spread of pathogens within a colony, and decreases the volume of allergens in the air of the room itself – protecting the technicians working there from exposure to allergens, therefore improving their health and safety. This is an example of refinement.