Bookmark and Share

Resource Details

 

Animals in Research, Testing and Education Position Paper
08-17-2006

  1. The use of animals in the sciences primarily began with the French 17th century philosopher René Descartes and others of the scientific revolution era who dissected animals – dead and alive––to study anatomy and biology, and to practice surgical procedures. Animals used in U.S. laboratories today include mammals such as cats, nonhuman primates, dogs, pigs, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and mice, as well as birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. These animals are mostly captive or purpose-bred, but some indigenous wildlife and non-indigenous species (particularly birds and certain nonhuman primates) are also used.
  2. In some states, animal shelters are permitted or legally required to surrender impounded dogs and cats to laboratories on request—a practice known as “pound seizure.”
  3. The exact number of animals used annually in U.S. laboratories is unknown. The most commonly used animals (i.e., rats, mice and non-mammalian species, which may comprise 95 percent of the total number) are not counted in any government statistics. (See a discussion of the Animal Welfare Act in paragraph 10 below.) In 2002, the number of animals used in research was estimated to be more than 11 million. This figure was based on the number of animals officially counted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1.12 million,)  and multiplied by 10 to factor in animals excluded from USDA statistics. A more recent estimate suggests that 100 million or more mice and rats are bred in U.S. laboratories each year, and this number is expected to rise in coming years due to the increase in experiments involving transgenic animals.  (See Carbone, L. (2004). What Animals Want: Expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal welfare policy. p.26. New York: Oxford University Press.) (See paragraph 5 below.)
  4. The scientific use of animals encompasses three broad areas:
    1. Basic or applied research: the use of animal models to study particular tissue or system function or mechanisms of disease
    2. Product development and safety testing: the use of animals to assess the safety and/or efficacy or potency of prescription drugs, industrial chemicals, pesticides, food additives and genetically manipulated food, cosmetics and household products and biologicals and vaccines
    3. Education and training: the use of animals to teach biology, anatomy and surgical instruction to students in elementary schools, high schools, colleges and veterinary or medical schools
  5. The scientific case for more mechanistic models for testing and a better understanding of the mechanisms of disease is driving the perceived need to build a better “animal model” through genetic manipulation and other means. By inserting or removing genes from an animal’s genetic makeup, experimenters are producing entirely new (“transgenic” or “knockout”) strains that they hope to patent, thereby ensuring monopoly rights on their sale. Major business applications of this technology include the creation of new “disease models” for research, “drug factories” to produce pharmaceuticals and vaccines, and faster-growing animals for factory farming operations.  Another controversial application of genetic manipulation technology is the creation of “humanized” animals to serve as a source of organs and tissues for transplantation. The majority of the animals used in such experiments are mice and rats. They, along with traditionally farmed animals, such as cattle, pigs, and sheep, are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act.
  6. Because of the unpredictable nature of genetic manipulation, any “mistakes” can be disastrous for the animals involved. Transgenic mice have suffered from severe conditions such as abnormal enlargement of the liver and kidney disease that have resulted in early death. Transgenic pigs who were bred to grow faster and leaner have suffered from lameness, lethargy, bulging eyeballs, degenerative joint disease, and heart problems.
  7. The creation of new strains of genetically manipulated animals is wasteful and inefficient. For every viable transgenic animal born, as many as 99 animals may be killed. “Between one and 10 percent of genetically modified animals will exhibit the desired trait. Most of the animals who do not are considered to be ‘waste’ and are subsequently killed.” (Coghlan, A. 1999. Hidden Sacrifice. New Scientist. 162 (2185): 4.)
  8. The two principal instruments by which the U.S. government regulates the use of animals in research, testing, and education are:
    1. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which is enforced by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care Division.
    2. Public Health Service Guidelines, which are primarily issued through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).  Since the NIH provides the majority of federal funding to research facilities (see paragraph 14 below), compliance with Public Health Service Guidelines is not independently assessed.
  9. In general, facilities seeking federal funding are expected to be independently certified by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). The AAALAC, whose certification does not carry the weight of federal law, is a private entity not subject to public scrutiny.
  10. The AWA, enacted in 1966, is the only federal statute regulating the treatment of animals in research, testing and education. All states have anti-cruelty statutes; however, 40 states plus the District of Columbia specifically exclude animals in research, testing and education from protection. AWA regulations set minimum standards for the care, transport, treatment, and breeding of these animals. They specifically exempt from coverage rats, mice, birds and other non-mammalian species––believed to comprise up to 95 percent of animals used in research. As a result, these animals are not counted in any government statistics. Moreover, laboratories that use only these exempt species are not required by law to provide pain relief or veterinary care when needed, or to have an institutional committee to review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity, or to consider alternatives to painful and/or distressful procedures on animals.
  11. One of the greatest threats to animals used for scientific purposes is the increasing demand by federal regulatory agencies to develop “baseline” sets of hazard data on chemicals currently in commerce, in the guise of better hazard and risk assessment. These programs may also call for new testing for health and/or ecological effects not previously measured. The overwhelming majority of animals who would be used in such testing are those exempted from the protection of the AWA.
  12. The barriers to public oversight of research protocols leave a wealth of information veiled from general view. Under the aegis of homeland security, the federal government has restricted access to this information by requiring individuals and public interest groups to file formal requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Annual inspection reports for research facilities, previously available electronically, are no longer accessible to the general public.
  13. The AWA is generally weaker in significant areas than comparable laws enacted in other countries. For example, the 7th Amendment to the European Union Cosmetics Directive is designed to end the use of animals for testing cosmetic safety.
  14. The development of public policy in the scientific use of animals is inseparable from the vast sums of taxpayer money appropriated by the federal government and donations through public charities for research, and the pervasive belief that animal research leads to improved public health. In 2004, the NIH awarded nearly $27 billion in grants for basic and applied research, half of which was directed toward laboratory versus human clinical studies.In addition, millions of dollars in public donations to charities such as the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association regularly fund experiments on animals.
  15. Millions of animals are dissected in classrooms each year from the elementary to the university level. Some students from K-12 have a legal right to refuse to dissect animals. Student choice laws exist in Pennsylvania, California, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, and Virginia. Louisiana, Maine, and Maryland offer informal policies, while similar legislation is pending in Delaware, New Jersey, and Vermont.  Although the national Science Talent Search prohibits experiments on live vertebrates, animals are still used in science fair projects nationwide and can be used in projects for the Intel Science and Engineering Fair, which sets national standards for science fairs. Some universities continue to use dogs in classroom laboratory experiments, although the first and second ranked medical schools (University of Washington and Oregon Health & Science University) and many others have eliminated live animal laboratories. Some veterinary schools (e.g., Tufts University and University of Pennsylvania) have removed small animal terminal surgeries from their curricula.
  16. Concerns about the use of animals in research, testing and education are not exclusive to animal advocates. Americans generally value compassion toward animals. They do not support the use of mammals and birds in research and testing that subject animals to severe or moderate pain or distress. Many Americans express concern about particularly egregious types of research, testing and education using animals. This concern is greater for some species than others. For example, between 1985 and 1996, the National Science Board measured public support for using chimpanzees and dogs in research that would produce new information about health problems. In 1985, 63 percent of the public supported such use; by 1996, support had dropped to 50 percent, with 46 percent of respondents opposed.
  17. The scientific community’s recognition of the “three R’s” (replacement, reduction and refinement) approach to reducing the number of animals used in research has prompted an international effort among governments, businesses, and educational institutions to develop and implement non-animal methods and procedures in research, testing and education.
  18. The diversity of organizations working to address the use of animals in research, testing and education is reflected in the variety of their approaches. They include the promotion of cruelty-free personal care and household cleaning products, programs that offer educational software to replace the use of animals for dissection in primary and secondary schools, grants to innovative researchers focused on developing non-animal alternatives, and establishment of the first-ever international coalition of animal protection organizations to achieve the status of “invited experts” at high-level meetings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
  19. The animal advocacy community calls on all levels of government to recognize the use of animals in research, testing and education as an important public policy issue because of the adverse impact on public health and environmental and animal protection. Further, we call for significant governmental commitment of financial and other resources to partnerships with the privately funded not-for-profit animal advocacy community in a long-term strategy to successfully address this issue.
  20. The animal advocacy community envisions a time when U.S. public policy recognizes the use of animals in research, testing and education as inimical to human health and animal protection. Given the lack of effective legislation at the federal and state levels, the animal advocacy community believes that scientific and business communities must immediately begin working with animal advocates to achieve the following goals: 
    1. Increased federal funding for and commitment to short-term and long-term human clinical and epidemiological studies
    2. Promotion of public health education and prevention programs
    3. Elimination of replicative testing when data already exist in private or public databases
    4. Replacement of animal-based test methods with non-animal test methods determined to be scientifically valid
    5. Prohibition of animal research deemed to be unscientific, inhumane, and/or unnecessary
  21. Expand and strengthen the AWA as follows:
    1. Include coverage for rats, mice, birds, and all vertebrate animals
    2. Require the publication of an annual report that details the number and species of all animals used, protocol descriptions, and measured evaluations of related pain and distress (including improved pain/distress scale and breakdowns of purpose/nature of animal use).
    3. Prohibit Class B dealers from selling animals from random sources to research facilities
    4. Ban pound seizure, which is presently legal in Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah and requires state legislation
  22. Integral to replacing animal-based toxicity tests is the research, development, validation, and acceptance of scientifically valid alternatives. Animal advocates have successfully argued that existing, antiquated animal tests have never been appropriately validated, calling into question their actual relevance to human and environmental health. However, a new paradigm for toxicology has rooted in both U.S. and European public policy mandating that any new or revised animal test or alternative must be demonstrated to be scientifically valid prior to federal regulators requiring or recommending the test method. This ensures that any new or revised animal tests proposed by federal regulators must meet the same rigorous standards imposed on non-animal and alternative tests. This federal law, a significant departure from previous standards, will further confirm the superiority of inexpensive, faster, and more relevant non-animal tests. Animal advocacy organizations have partnered with scientists to fund ongoing activities in this area and to lobby the federal government for adequate funding. While a degree of federal appropriations supports this activity, the federal government has no centralized approach or commitment to coordinating the development and implementation of alternatives.
  23. In line with this objective, the government should require that any potential testing programs called for by federal agencies and departments undergo a rigorous audit to assess the relevance of any proposed animal tests and to identify applicable nonanimal testing strategies. In the short term, we should encourage:
    1. A coordinated federal government approach to identifying potential alternatives to replace, reduce or refine the use of animals, and investment of monetary and human resources into completing research, development, standardization, and validation of non-animal test methods and testing strategies (in coordination with parallel efforts in other countries).
    2. Automatic federal acceptance of non-animal test methods deemed scientifically valid by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM)
    3. A coordinated federal government approach to fund all aspects in the science of alternatives to ensure acceptance by the respective federal agencies
    4. Increased federal funding and accountability for the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to assess the scientific validity of non-animal test methods for immediate integration into federal testing regulations, recommendations and requirements
    5. A federal law requiring that scientifically valid non-animal test methods be used by the regulated industries even if the species replaced, reduced, or refined is not covered by the AWA
  24. We call upon the federal government to end the most egregious forms of animal use:
    1. Invasive psychological and behavioral research
    2. Substance abuse research (tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs)
    3. Military research (training and weapons development)
    4. Use of great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) in research, testing and education
    5. Cosmetic/plastic surgery
    6. Use of animals to assess the safety of personal care and household cleaning products, as defined by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, while ensuring U.S. compatibility with the provisions of the European Union’s ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals
    7. Animal-based tests for skin corrosion, skin irritation, skin absorption, phototoxicity, pyrogenicity, genetic toxicity, and potency testing for attenuated vaccines, to be replaced by non-animal methods that have been scientifically validated and/or accepted in other countries
    8. “Lethal dose” toxicity studies (including all acute LD50 and LC50 studies), in which animals are literally poisoned to death
    9. Use of animals in laboratory experiments to test companion animal food products, to be replaced with non-animal methods and studies conducted in homes and through private veterinary clinics with animals who have been volunteered by their guardians
    10. Institute a mandatory product labeling program to identify products tested on animals and whether they contain any animal ingredients
    11. Dissection and other animal-based labs in primary and secondary schools
    12. Use of animals in science fairs under the guidance of the Sciences Service
    13. Use of dogs in university dog labs
    14. Animals who are “retired” from research to suitable environments must be allowed to live out the rest of their lives without fear of further research. Increasingly, laboratories are quietly releasing these animals to permanent sanctuaries. We call upon all research institutions to work with the animal advocacy community to give these animals a new lease on life. The care of some species (e.g., nonhuman primates) used in research is clearly beyond the ability of private individuals. We therefore call for funding to establish and maintain permanent humane sanctuary facilities for retired nonhuman primates.

Back to Resources
Resource Archives


Powered By Antharia