Alternatives to animal testing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering as possible, and that alternatives to animal testing need to be developed. The "three Rs" [1], first described by Russell and Burch (1959), are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries:
- Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
- Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.
- Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
Contents |
[edit] Discussion
Groups opposed to animal testing are divided in their position on the 'three Rs'; some support the principles [2] while others accept replacement as the only valid action [3]. There are a number of scientific studies [4] and institutes [5] researching alternatives to animal tests. However, critics say these facilities perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and are only there to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find alternatives [6][7]. It is further stated these studies are funded with trivial amounts of money [8][9], but this view is contested by the UK pharmaceutical industry, which estimates more than £300 million (of a total UK R&D budget of £3285 million) is spent on 'three R' development and implementation annually [10] (pdf).
[edit] Benefits
- drug research, drug registration: antibiotics, anesthetics, chemotherapeutics, antiseptics
- vaccine (development)
- development of surgical techniques (e.g. heart valve transplantation in sheep), surgical training (e.g. tracheotomy training in sheep)
[edit] Examples
The two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. However, some claim they are not true alternatives since simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cultured cells often require animal derived products, such as serum. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems [11]. Examples of computer simulations available include models of diabetes [12], asthma [13], and drug absorption, though potential new medicines identified using these techniques are currently still required to be verified in animal tests before licensing.
Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use. For example, cultured cells have also been developed to create monoclonal antibodies, prior to this production required animals to undergo a procedure likely to cause pain and distress [14].
A third alternative now attracting considerable interest is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects [15] (pdf).
[edit] Institutes
Institutes researching (and organizations funding) alternatives to animal testing include:
- The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
- The University of California Center for Animal Alternatives
- The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments [16]
- The National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research [17]
- The 3R Research Foundation [18]
- Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
- Medical Research Modernization Committee[19]
- Dr Hadwen Trust (Dr. Hadwen Trust's website is also a good source of up-to-date news on new developments in the field.[20])
In October 2006 the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) launched an online database of toxicology non-animal alternative test methods. Categories at present include in vitro methods, QSAR models and a bibliographic section. [21]
