Animal research: the debate continues

Abstract

On 24 July 2007 the British newspaper The Guardian ran two articles side by side that appeared under the headlines ‘Law failing animals used in medical research’ and ‘Protein reverses Alzheimer’s disease in mice’. The juxtaposition of these two emotive reports reflects a debate on the use of animals in medical research and drug toxicology testing that has gone on for centuries, and which has reached new levels of acrimony and violence in recent years, particularly in Great Britain. Last year, an independent group of scientists and nonscientists outside the primate research community published a report on the scientific basis for research on nonhuman primates; as no great apes have been used for research in Britain since 1986, the report focused mainly on the use of monkeys in basic or applied research, emphasizing that modern biomedical research reflects the continuum between them. The Report [The use of Non-Human Primates in Research (http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/images/project/nhpdownl.pdf)] focused in particular on the neurosciences and on infectious disease, notably work directed at the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It also dealt in some depth with alternative approaches to medical research that do not require the use of animals, and touched on other important areas of biomedical research, toxicology studies in the pharmaceutical industry, the care of animals and, in particular, the ethical issues involved (Table 1). It concluded that in some cases there is a valid scientific argument for the continued use of monkeys and stressed that, because of the rapid pace of scientific development, and many uncertainties about the appropriate way forward in many fields, it would be unwise to make any blanket statements about stopping work in this field. Rather, it called for a national strategic plan for nonhuman primate research, more open reporting of the methods and outcomes by scientific journals and the pharmaceutical industry, the development of centres of excellence for carrying out research and for improved care of the animals involved, and for a better-informed debate between scientists and the public about future directions in this field. The report was accepted by its sponsors, the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, and was welcomed by the British Government. It is hoped that it will form the basis for a more logical organization for the control and regulation of research of this type in future. Not surprisingly, some of the animal rights groups were less enthusiastic. In particular, they were critical about the lack of coverage, at least as they saw it, of alternatives to the use of nonhuman primates. In fact, the report did cover many of these potential developments, including the increasing use of technology derived from cell and molecular biology, microdosing, transgenic-mouse models, reporter genes in mice, and a wide variety of in silico approaches using computer modelling and systems biology. Whilst it was felt that these and related approaches held considerable promise for reducing the requirement for research in nonhuman primates, many of them were at such an early stage of development that it was simply impossible to make any predictions about their future role in medical research or drug development. Only time will tell whether this report will make a major contribution to this complex field. However, it is encouraging to hear that the British Government are planning to take it forward and to explore its recommendations in further detail. The recent report in The Guardian underlines how difficult it is to progress in this field. The British Home Office have just announced that procedures carried out on animals rose 4% to a 15-year high of 3.1 million last year, making Britain the most active country in Europe for animal experimentation. Apparently the rise is almost entirely accounted for by increases in the use of mice and fish, reflecting the dramatic increase in the creation of genetically altered mice to study gene function. Interestingly, work on monkeys and other nonhuman primates had fallen by 10%, whilst toxicology testing in the pharmaceutical industry remained at a stable level. Not surprisingly, these recent figures are already coming under heavy attack by different groups of animal rights activists. For although they do not suggest any increase in the use of primates for research or drug testing, the most emotive of all animal research, they do indicate a substantial increase in the overall use of animals for research in very recent times, and for that reason alone must be disturbing for the public at large. Furthermore, the increase is associated with a major expansion of experimentation directed at altering the genetic make-up of small animals. Coming together with similar concerns about various aspects of stem cell and embryo research, not to mention cloning, it appears that modern biomedical science is moving so fast that it is difficult for the scientists themselves, let alone the public, to maintain a cool debate on the social and ethical issues involved. Given this uncertain and rapidly moving scene, and as emphasised by the report on primate research, it is absolutely vital that there is a rapid development of better communications between biomedical scientists and the media, together with increased possibility for informed debate between scientists and the public. Indeed, from our recent experiences in preparing the report it appears that, at least in the case of the United Kingdom, things are moving so rapidly that the regulatory bodies themselves are finding it difficult to maintain appropriate reactions. In this over-charged atmosphere there is always the danger, as evidenced by events in the United States, that governments may indulge in precipitous, knee-jerk reactions that could, in the longer term, damage the extraordinary potential that modern bioscience has for improving the health of society. This can only be prevented by closer collaboration between scientists, the media and government, with complete openness on the part of all parties involved. No conflict of interest was declared.