Animal Experiments

[Guest guest]

Apparently there was a petition on the You.gov site and the response

was as expected. This is the Dr Hadwen Trust response, with

information that is always worth keeping for future

arguments/discussions.

 

Jo

 

Dr Hadwen Trust responds to No10 e-petition statement

Friday 22 Jun 2007 12:15

 

The Dr Hadwen Trust's e-petition on the No 10 Downing Street website

asked

the Prime Minister " to demonstrate a commitment to replacing animal

experiments with more ethical and scientifically relevant non-animal

research techniques, by committing to and publishing a targeted

timetable

for total replacement. " At the close of the petition, the Government

issued

a statement which can be read in full here

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11929.asp

 

 

The statement contains the often-repeated yet unsubstantiated claim

that

animal experiments must continue " if improvements in healthcare are

to be

developed with the minimum of delay, and to make proper provision to

protect

man and the environment from other hazards. "

 

The Dr Hadwen Trust believes that the Government's position lacks

credibility and is simply not borne out when subjected to proper,

independent scrutiny. For example:

 

.. The British Medical Journal published a detailed assessment of six

treatments for different human conditions: brain injury, haemorrhage,

stroke, respiratory distress syndrome in newborn babies and

osteoporosis

[1]. In comparing the outcome of the animal experiments to the actual

outcome of the treatments in patients, the review found there was

only a

50%success rate which is hardly impressive and certainly does not

represent

convincing scientific justification for animal models.

 

.. A subsequent editorial also in the BMJ [2] added that other reviews

had

found similar problems, and said " ...it seems prudent to be critical

and

cautious about the applicability of animal data to the clinical [i.e.

human]

domain " .

 

.. In The Lancet, an editorial focused on the recent failure of yet

another

stroke treatment tested in animals [3]. An experimental drug called

NXY-059

that had seemed promising in treating deliberately induced strokes in

rats

and marmoset monkeys (at Cambridge University), was found to be

ineffective

in a final clinical trial (with human patients). This is believed to

be the

114th drug of this kind to have succeeded in animal tests but failed

in

clinical trials. The editorial said: " Translation of positive results

obtained in the laboratory into the clinic has been exceptionally

elusive,

and the stroke [research] community needs to think long and hard about

whether these animal models are financially and ethically viable " .

 

.. In October, a systematic review of 76 highly cited animal studies,

published in seven leading scientific journals, found that only 37%

had

translated into successful human trials [4].

 

In hazard/safety assessment too, the British Government's faith in

traditional animal toxicity testing seems worryingly out of step with

a

growing international concern that the animal tests are not only

unethical

but also unreliable, time-consuming and cost-ineffective. Only

recently, a

new report [5] commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency

and

compiled by the National Research Council, highlighted the very wide

short-comings of animal toxicity testing and called for their

replacement

with advanced non-animal methods using in vitro human cell lines,

computational methods and epidemiological studies. The report's

authors

concluded that such a modernisation of safety testing would be akin

to what

it called other " pivotal events in science " such as the discovery of

penicillin, the DNA double helix or the development of computers.

 

The Government claims to be committed to funding and encouraging the

development of non-animal alternatives and points to the relatively

recent

creation (2004) of the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and

Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). However, the Dr Hadwen

Trust does

not believe that the Government's record of investment and policy

initiatives demonstrates any genuine or meaningful commitment to

replacing

animals in experiments.

Non-animal research techniques are widely recognised to be more

ethical than

animal experiments; they can also offer greater scientific relevance,

repeatability and accuracy. In addition they are often faster and

cheaper to

perform. If replacing animal experiments is the end goal for any

Government,

even a long-term goal, it is unlikely to be achieved with any urgency

without substantial investment as part of a clear and target-driven

strategy.

In answer to our petition the Government has said that, in its view, a

timetable to phase out animal experiments would be " unrealistic and

raise

false hopes " . We strongly disagree. We believe that setting clear

targets is

essential to give real focus to otherwise potentially amorphous R & D

funding

and vital to incentivising and driving the replacement agenda for all

stakeholders including industry, researchers and policy makers.

 

Target-setting must run in tandem with sufficient funding; in

isolation

neither one will achieve its goals. It is vital that funding for

replacements is substantially increased so that it matches or exceeds

spending on animal-based research, but unless this is done within a

targeted

framework, it will always lack structure and purpose. For many within

the

scientific community, charity sector and industry, replacing animal

experiments will all too often be perceived as an optional and

extremely

long-term aspiration that has little if any application to their day

to day

research priorities.

 

For years prior to the UK's withdrawal of licenses to test cosmetics

on

animals, the cosmetics industry insisted that a non-animal testing

strategy

was impossible. However, as soon as the 'ban' became a reality, the

industry

applied itself to ensuring that replacements were developed and

continue to

be developed. The same focus and drive for replacements could be

replicated

across all current animal use if targets for doing so were

prioritised. The

scientific community will prevaricate for as long as it has no

incentive or

option to do otherwise. A policy that permits a largely apathetic and

reluctant research community to set the agenda on replacements, is no

policy

at all.

 

Despite its claims about support for alternatives, the Government has

actually failed to sufficiently prioritise funding to drive forward

cutting-edge, non-animal research. In the last Budget, Chancellor

Gordon

Brown announced that the UK's public spending on science will

increase to

£6.3bn by 2010, a rise from present spending at £5bn. Mr Brown said

that

this substantial level of investment will " provide long-term

certainty for

the research community " and added that the budget contained several

initiatives to provide incentives for innovation investment. However,

the

budget delivered no such certainty or incentives for those in the

research

community developing non-animal technologies and techniques.

 

By 2007-08, total UK science spending will be £5.4 billion. Current

government spending on replacement research (via the National Centre

for the

3 Rs) is totally inadequate. Since it began operating in 2004 the

government's National Centre for the 3Rs has awarded some £3 million

pounds

in grants for research, £1.8 million of which was for research to

replace

animal experiments. In the same period, 2004-2006, the Dr Hadwen

Trust alone

awarded almost £1.5 million pounds for replacement research.

 

Progress on replacing animal experiments can only be judged by

actions, not

words. Regrettably, with this Government's complacency, lack of

vision and

reluctance to meaningfully engage with replacement expertise world-

wide in

developing policy, Britain is in real danger of being a follower and

not a

leader in the global effort to replace animal experiments.

Notes

1. P Perel et al (15 December 2006). British Medical Journal

doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE

2. DG Hackam (2007). British Medical Journal 334:163-164.

3. Editorial (2006). The Lancet 368:1548.

4. DG Hackam & DA Redelmeier (2006). Journal of the American Medical

Association 296:1731-1732.

5. Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first century: a vision and a

strategy

(2007). Extracts of the report can be viewed at the National

Academies Press

at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109922