Your Frequently Asked Questions Answered
1. What are animal experiments?
2. How many animals are used around the world?
3. What types of animals are used?
4. What do the animal experiments involve?
5. What are animal experiments for?
6. Do animals suffer in experiments?
7. What’s wrong with animal experiments?
8. Doesn’t the UK have the toughest ‘animal experiments’ law in the world?
9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?
10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube or a cell culture?
11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they used alongside?
12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?
13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to do it?
14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trust’s work different from other medical research charities?
15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity develops?
16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested medicines?
17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law requires them for new drugs?
18. Are animal experiments required by law?
19. Haven’t animal experiments resulted in medical advances?
1. What are animal experiments?Animal experiments (also known as vivisection) are defined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as any scientific procedures performed on a living animal likely to cause them “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.” At present, the Act defines an animal as any animal with a backbone; plus the octopus.
back to top…
2. How many animals are used around the world?An estimated 180 million animals are used in experiments every year across the globe. Not all countries keep accurate records of their animal use, and some official figures are likely to be underestimates. In the USA, for example, 80% of animals used (birds, rats and mice) are not included in official figures at all. Across Europe an estimated 13 million animals are used each year, with the UK (nearly 3 million animals) consistently the largest user of laboratory animals. In many cases (including the UK) there are other significant omissions in official statistics. For example, in the UK animals who are bred for research, but subsequently not used, will be killed as ‘surplus’ but not appear in the statistics. Also excluded are animals killed purely for biological products such as blood, or those involved in longer term experiments after the initial first year (any subsequent years of suffering simply disappear from the statistics). The public has a right to know the true number of animals being used each year by the animal research community, and the government should implement complete transparency. (See factsheets in right hand column for latest statistics).
back to top…
3. What types of animals are used?Many different animal species are used for animal experiments around the world including rats, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, primates, goats, sheep, birds, fish etc.
back to top…
4. What do the animal experiments involve?The experiments animals are used in are wide-ranging but can involve poisoning; disease infection; wound infliction; application of skin/eye irritants; food/water/sleep deprivation; subjection to psychological stress; brain damage; paralysis; surgical mutilation; induced organ failure; genetic modification and associated physical deformity; burning; and electric shocks. Animals may die as part of the experiment or are killed afterwards for post mortem examination. The government say that most experiments are of mild to moderate severity, but we believe they underestimate suffering.
back to top…
5. What are animal experiments for?Broadly speaking and world-wide, animals are used in research into human and animal diseases, and in basic research to expand human knowledge. Animals will also be used to test (and develop) consumer and industry products: these can include cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives and colourings, food products, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, industrial and agro-chemicals.
back to top…
6. Do animals suffer in experiments?Yes, an experiment on a living animal only needs to be licensed by the UK government if it has the potential to cause “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.” (see the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986). Animals are capable of experiencing both physical pain and suffering as well as psychological harm like fear (including, for some species, anticipation of harm), boredom or depression. Suffering can be caused not only by the experimental procedure, but also due to the unnatural and often stark laboratory environment, handling or excessive noise or light.
back to top…
7. What’s wrong with animal experiments?The Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to animal experiments for ethical and scientific reasons. As well as causing pain and suffering, animal experiments are unreliable because of differences between different animal species, including humans.
UK law recognises that animals used in research are capable of experiencing “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”. These sentient animals are unable to give their consent and do not personally benefit from the experiments. Beyond physical pain, animals can be harmed by confinement, frustration, fear, isolation, and loss of life – experiences unavoidable for animals confined in laboratories and used in experiments. The Dr Hadwen Trust does not believe that animal experiments are ethically supportable.
The scientific objections to animal experiments are based on the problem of species differences and the artificiality of the diseases induced in them, which make results from animal experiments of dubious value to humans. A major weakness of medical research on animals is the differences between species, which can make results from one type of animal inapplicable to another. Some of these variations are known and can perhaps be taken into account; but others, such as reactions to new drugs or the function of an area of the brain, are not yet discovered – in these cases, the results from animal experiments can be seriously misleading.(See factsheets in right hand column).
back to top…
8. Doesn’t the UK have the toughest ‘animal experiments’ law in the world?We often hear the UK government and research industry claim that the UK has the toughest legislation and tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to protecting laboratory animals. The Dr Hadwen Trust questions this claim for a number of reasons.
Firstly it would be misleading to give the impression that the legislation governing animal experiments, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, is a piece of animal welfare legislation. Its purpose is not only to limit what scientists can inflict on animals and thereby offer them protection, but also to afford legal protection to scientists who would otherwise fall foul of animal protection laws such as the Animal Welfare Act (2006). It is under the ‘1986’ Act that animal experiments are licensed and defined as procedures likely to cause an animal “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.”
Secondly, the claim that the UK has the strictest legislation in the world is based rather more on assumption than fact. It is undoubtedly true that some countries in the world have very little legislation in place governing animal experiments and consequently very few restrictions. However, whilst the UK and other EU member states do have comprehensive legislation, this still imposes relatively few restrictions compared with the animal suffering it permits. Simply having legislation in place doesn’t necessarily mean that it is for the benefit of laboratory animals, or that it is effectively implemented in laboratories.
Thirdly, the government’s claim to the strictest law on animal experiments is unsubstantiated. Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland all have legislation at least as tough as the UK’s.
back to top…
9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?There is a range of different methods that can be used to replace animal experiments. These include cell and tissue cultures, analytical technology, molecular research, post mortem studies, computer modelling, epidemiology (population studies), ethical clinical research with volunteer patients and healthy subjects, and the use of microbes such as bacteria. Please see what-are-non-animal-alternatives where there is more information.
back to top…
10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube or a cell culture?Non-animal research rarely simply replaces like for like. Instead we use a different approach in order to replicate the whole body scenario, replacing each type of animal experiment with a whole range of non-animal techniques that are used in combination. When it comes to studying the “whole animal” it is wrong to assume that animals are the best choice, or that they are necessary to solve every medical problem. The ethical clinical study of the whole relevant organism — that is humans — is much more useful and relevant than an animal model.
back to top…
11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they used alongside?Alternative methods are regularly replacing animal experiments and have already saved the lives of millions of animals worldwide. For example, cell cultures have replaced the use of monkeys in polio vaccine production; pregnancy tests are now conducted in test-tubes instead of in rabbits; batches of insulin are analysed chemically and not by tests in mice; and cell culture methods have replaced the use of thousands of live mice in the production of monoclonal antibodies. Alternative techniques have the potential to replace more animal experiments and offer more humane and better quality research, but sufficient political and scientific will is required to un-tap that potential quickly for the benefit of everyone.
back to top…
12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?Every country has different legislation and not all countries impose a requirement to use alternative methods. For example, in the USA (the world’s largest laboratory animal user) although researchers must consider replacement techniques, there is no legal requirement forcing them to use them. This means that if a researcher experiments on animals even though there is an accepted total non-animal replacement, they will not be breaking the law. In countries like Japan and China, legislation is very weak or non-existent.
The situation is different in the UK and the rest of the EU, but by no means perfect. The law does say that if an ‘alternative’ method exists (which includes reduction and refinement as well as replacement), it must be used. However, the Dr Hadwen Trust is not convinced that this is robustly or effectively enforced or monitored.
Much is made of the requirement to demonstrate that non-animal approaches have been considered. Yet in practice, this amounts to little more than a few lines on an application form claiming that non-animal techniques are not available, without even any obligation to justify that conclusion. The credibility of this claim is assessed by the Home Office Inspectorate as part of the application process, but because there is no central database of all non-animal techniques, the assessment relies purely on the knowledge and memory of the individual Inspectorate, only one of whom has specialist knowledge of replacements.
At present, new animal experimenters undergo a training course which is only an introduction to important issues. The consideration and implementation of replacement methods is covered only very superficially. Many established researchers doing animal experiments have never even attended a training course.
There can be delays between the development of a non-animal technique and it being widely accepted and therefore used to replace animal use. For example, in regulatory toxicology a replacement method must go through a long process of formal validation to demonstrate that it works. This in itself can take years, but even after it has been declared an officially validated method, it doesn’t automatically replace animal experiments. In the EU, for example, member states can still resist replacing the animal test until it has achieved acceptance at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development) which sets international test guidelines. Achieving OECD approval can take years.
So whilst it sounds impressive to state that researchers are required to use non-animal techniques when they are available, in reality significant political and regulatory hurdles remain for replacing toxicity tests. However, basic and medical research (such as that funded by the Dr Hadwen Trust) is not carried out to meet regulatory requirements, and so non-animal methods developed in these research areas do not need to undergo a formal validation procedure. They can be used to replace animals much more quickly.
back to top…
13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to do it?Animal experiments continue for a number of reasons. These can include an unwillingness to change from a traditional and familiar research method; a lack of knowledge or expertise in non-animal techniques; a lack of suitable resources or funds to conduct humane research; as well as the resistance of those with vested interest in continuing animal research (such as animal suppliers and contract testers). In some instances, animal tests are effectively a legal requirement, for example in the marketing of a new drug. Sadly, animals continue to be seen as cheap, available and disposable ‘tools’ in the laboratory, and so may be used in preference to more sophisticated or technically demanding non-animal methods. Finally, more work is needed to develop additional replacement techniques.
back to top…
14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trust’s work different from other medical research charities?Unlike most other charities, the Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to all animal experiments both on ethical and scientific grounds. We believe animal experiments are inadequate, and that faster medical progress will be made by developing and utilising advanced, non-animal research methods. The Dr Hadwen Trust is very unusual in that it works to exclusively promote and develop non-animal techniques to replace animals. We have one of the strictest ethical funding criteria in the world, and we will not fund research that is conducted on living animals, or animal cells and tissues. All the projects we fund aim to both replace animal experiments and further medical research, thus helping both people and animals.
back to top…
15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity develops?We encourage all our researchers to present their work at conferences and to publish their findings in scientific journals. To date, some 200 reports of our research have been published in scientific journals around the world.
We also organise scientific meetings and speak at international conferences ourselves, and we submit evidence to official enquiries on animal experiments and alternatives. The Dr Hadwen Trust distributes an annual Science Review to more than one thousand scientists and other key individuals, and hosts a technical website (http://www.scienceroom.org/) to educate and engage scientists in our work.
back to top…
16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested medicines?No it would only be hypocritical if you had a ‘cruelty-free’ alternative, but chose to use the animal tested product. Unfortunately, all new medicines undergo extensive animal testing as a regulatory requirement before they are widely used in humans. Therefore, consumer choice has effectively been taken away from us. Almost everything has been tested on animals somewhere, at some time: even water, salt and olive oil!
If lack of consumer choice means we cannot avoid using medicines that have been tested on animals, it does not negate our right to oppose animal research per se.
Just because animals were used to test a medicine, does not mean that its discovery or development depended upon animal experiments or that animal experiments were a useful part of the process. Nor does it mean that it is impossible in the future for drug development to be free of animal use. Animal testing cannot ensure the safety or effectiveness of a new medicine, as this is only established after it has been widely used in patients. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail to be suitable for humans.
Some anti-vivisectionists do choose to reject the use of all orthodox drugs but this is a purely individual choice. It should not perpetuate the erroneous view that ending animal experiments means an end to modern medicine. It does not. We accept the need to use drugs now whilst working to make changes for the future, based on the firm belief that non-animal methods offer a safer and more reliable route to developing drugs and treatments.
back to top…
17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law requires them for new drugs?The making and testing of new medicines is only one aspect of medical research (comprising 24% of all UK animal experiments in 2005), but it’s not what the Dr Hadwen Trust does. Most of our research is focused on understanding different human illnesses — their causes, how they develop, and the underlying features that might allow them to be prevented, diagnosed earlier, or treated more effectively. This is sometimes known as fundamental medical research. Much of this kind of medical research normally involves investigating how the body functions in health and disease, by artificially causing selected symptoms of human illnesses in other animals. We are finding new ways to investigate illnesses without resorting to animal experiments. Some of our research aims at developing advanced non-animal methods to replace the animal tests currently required by legislation or by regulatory agencies.
back to top…
18. Are animal experiments required by law?The law does not require any of the animal experiments conducted in efforts to discover the causes, diagnosis or development of human illnesses. The animal experiments carried out just to discover new knowledge are not required by law either. However, in the development and safety testing of products such as medicines, dangerous chemicals, disinfectants and pesticides, there are European laws which currently specify that companies should conduct a range of animal tests. As new, non-animal methods are developed, the testing requirements can be altered and animal tests replaced.
One example is the replacement of rabbit tests for skin corrosion by chemicals, with a test-tube method. However, there is considerable resistance to change. Pressure must be maintained on regulatory agencies and companies, so that the development and acceptance of alternative methods is prioritised and streamlined.
back to top…
19. Haven’t animal experiments resulted in medical advances?Animal experiments have been a part of medical research for centuries, and many millions are conducted every year. It would be absurd if some of those experiments had not led to some progress, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries when so little was known about how human and animal bodies function. However, due to species differences and other limitations of animal experiments for predicting what happens in humans, very many experiments on rats, mice, rabbits, primates and other animals have produced misleading information. The government’s advisory committee has admitted that the validity of animal experiments cannot be assumed and would need to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. Where the reliability of animal experiments for medical progress has been independently analysed, many were shown either to have been conducted badly or to have wrongly predicted human outcomes.
For some diseases where little progress has been made in spite of decades of animal experiments, the conclusion must be that the animal models are failing to elucidate the human condition, and may well have obscured our understanding of it. There are numerous examples of animal research delaying medical progress because results from animal studies have sent research in the wrong direction. For example, the recently revealed deficiencies of the mouse and rabbit ‘models’ of multiple sclerosis (MS) provide a reason why research into this disease has remained largely unproductive over many decades.
Animal experiments are fraught with difficulties arising from species variations and the artificiality of animal ‘models’ of disease. There is little objective evidence so far of their reliability or their relevance to human outcomes. By contrast, at the start of the 21st century, non-animal techniques have become the cutting edge of medical research. Animal experiments are being replaced by a range of non-animal methods that as well as being more humane, frequently prove cheaper, quicker and more effective – as well as saving lives.
back to top…
來源: http://www.drhadwentrust.org/faqs
