One Voice : Animal experimentation

1. "All important medical discoveries are the result of animal experimentation”

Not at all. Since its creation in 1901, of all the scientists who have been awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine, two-thirds used alternative methods to animal experimentation.

Increased life expectancy is mainly the consequence of changing lifestyles and improved hygiene. Chemical and epidemiological research (the study of the natural spread of disease among human populations) have had the biggest impact on public health. The link between cholesterol and heart disease was identified thanks to epidemiology, as were the factors that promote the development of cancer. The direct correlation between cigarettes and cancer was revealed long before the public was alerted to the dangers of smoking… because animal experimentation had failed to reach the same conclusions !

Indeed, in many cases vivisection has proved an obstacle to medical progress, such as blood transfusions (delayed 200 years) and cornea transplants. In 1984 the inventor of the polio vaccine, Sabin, declared that “the prevention of polio was held back by a mistaken conception of the nature of the disease in humans, based on the wrong choice of experimental model, i.e. the monkey.” As for heart transplants, pioneering Professor Barnard confirms that he wasted two years by working on dogs who do not reject transplanted hearts, whereas humans do.

Cancer, the cause of around 25% of deaths, is the second-biggest killer in the western world after heart disease. Over a century of animal experimentation has failed to achieve any significant progress in this domain. Mice, the most commonly used subject, are far from the ideal model as they tend to develop different forms of cancers to humans. Modern research using in vitro methods focuses on the vital cycle of human cancerous cells and on how changes take place, in particular abnormal multiplication.

2. “What progress has been made using alternative methods ?”

A great deal : understanding of the blood circulation system, blood groups and the rhesus factor and, in anaesthetics, the action of chloroform, ether and nitrous oxide. Progress made in surgery includes removal of the appendix and kidney stones, operating techniques for “blue babies”, heart aneurysms, inguinal hernias and cataracts, removal of cancerous ovaries and sterile techniques. In epidemiology, the link between smoking and cancer, the causes of heart disease and of numerous other illnesses were all identified without recourse to animal experimentation, as was the identification and purification of insulin for the treatment of diabetes. In terms of medication, beta-blockers (to treat high blood pressure), digitalin (heart attacks), morphine (pain killer), quinine (malaria) and acetylsalicylic acid (the active ingredient in aspirin) were all discovered using alternative methods to animal experimentation.

Hip replacements were invented by John Chamley, who refused to experiment on animals. Orthopaedic surgeons still refer to his model. The first effective treatments for acute childhood leukaemia appeared in the 1940s, the result of clinical trials on human patients. One such drug, Methotrexate, is still widely used to treat leukaemia and other cancers. Sodium cromoglycate (Intal), used to prevent asthma, was discovered without the use of animal experimentation.

3. "Do some products react differently with humans than with animals ?”

Yes. Some of the most common are :
• Penicillin, which kills guinea pigs.
• Morphine, which soothes humans and rats but agitates cats and mice.
• Aspirin, which causes birth defects in cats.

Examples from nature include parsley, which is fatal to parrots, and salt which in excess quantities kills all species of birds, while Amanita phalloides (death cap fungus) is totally harmless to slugs and squirrels.

Another example is the number of micrograms of dioxin per kilo of body weight required to kill 50% of subjects during LD50 tests (LD = lethal dose):
• female rat, 45 micrograms per kilo
• male rat, 22 mg/kilo
• guinea pig, 1 mg/kilo
• hamster, 5,000 mg/kilo
The huge variations in toxicity for such similar animals is proof that such data cannot be transposed to human beings.

Certain chemical products do have a similar effect on all mammals: potassium cyanide for example is a poison for all mammals. But when it comes to human health, is it really wise to trust to coincidence?

4. "Does this mean certain products that prove harmless for animals can be dangerous for humans ?”

Yes. Tests on animals are not a reliable indication of human reaction to the same substances. Thousands of medications have been launched on the market that were later to prove dangerous for humans, a fact that animal experimentation had failed to reveal.

Teropterin was supposed to treat acute childhood leukaemia. Children who took this drug died faster than children who didnot: in addition to these human deaths, 18,000 mice had been sacrificed to test this drug.

Developed to treat heart disease, Eraldin was extensively tested on animals and satisfied the requirements of all the controlling authorities. None of these tests gave any indication of the side effects this drug was to have on humans: blindness, tumours, stomach troubles and painful joints.

Opren, used to treat arthritis, was cleared in all tests involving animals. It went on to kill 70 humans and cause serious side effects among 3,500 others including circulation problems and skin, eye, liver and kidney lesions. It was eventually withdrawn.

Thalidomide, prescribed to pregnant women suffering from morning sickness, caused some 10,000 babies to be born with malformations.

Clioquinol, used to treat diarrhoea, has caused 30,000 serious afflictions in Japan. It has led to blindness, paralysis and thousands of deaths throughout the world.

Osmosin was an anti-inflammatory drug that caused serious side effects among 650 patients and killed 20 others.

Let us conclude with the frightening example of Tamoxifen. An effective contraceptive for rats, it actually increased women’s fertility. Later clinical trials demonstrated its utility in the treatment of breast cancer, despite the fact it caused liver cancer among rats. It eventually proved to be carcinogenic for humans over the long term and was withdrawn from the market.

5. "So the difference between species is the only drawback ?"

No. Animal experimentation complicates and confuses data. Animals are not good “laboratory material.” The stress and distress of animals locked up in laboratories can influence results, as can differences in age, sex, diet, even the type of litter they are given! Results of an identical test can vary from one laboratory to another, and even within the same laboratory depending on the time tests are performed.

Anaesthetising drugs also confuse results, in particular in toxicology. Scientists have solved this problem: blatantly ignoring the law, which states that anaesthetics are obligatory except in specific cases (tests on painkillers), they experiment without first anaesthetising their subject. What if the animals suffer? No one will tell.

Finally, and most importantly, animal experimentation relies on animals whose diseases have been artificially induced and bear precious little resemblance to natural diseases. A cancer that has been artificially triggered does not correspond to a cancer that develops spontaneously.

6. "What methods provide an alternative to animal experimentation ?”

Research using animals is a science of the past. Scientists can choose among a range of modern, less costly and more reliable techniques. In vitro studies, cell and tissue cultures, computer modelling, and advanced molecular biological analysis all offer numerous advantages: results are obtained more quickly, and the experimental framework is easier to control. Such experiments focus on cells and molecules, producing far more relevant results of how chemicals and medication can function or cause harm (DNA studies).

Information technology can also be used to analyse vast databases on how diseases evolve throughout the world, using information from epidemiology studies.

More and more scientists are turning to these techniques and abandoning animal experimentation, just as they are abandoning the first wave of animal cell cultures in favour of human cells, the only means of obtaining results that can be directly applied to humans. And yet they are then validated by comparing them with data obtained from animals, whose validity has never been ascertained through any form of comparison.

7. "Would you rather your child die than an animal ?"

The question isn’t to choose between people and animals, but between good and bad science. Vivisection, source of inaccurate and dangerous results, wastes huge amounts of precious time and resources. Furthermore, experimenting on animals has never done away with the need to experiment on humans in the final stages of toxicity and effectiveness testing.

Helping our children means employing all possible means to prevent the causes of illness and suffering, not allowing ourselves to be influenced by those who promote animal testing for their own financial gain and try to convince us that obsolete and inaccurate methods can save lives.

One example of pointless and wasteful experimentation: scientists take young monkeys from their mothers and ill-treat them to observe their reaction. Their conclusion – that ill-treatment and lack of care results in psychological disorders – is hardly a major revelation! It in no way justifies either the suffering of countless animals, or the huge amounts of money invested. Meanwhile, projects to help abused and abandoned children are deprived of the funds they so desperately need.

8. "Is all research money well spent ?”

Not all research is essential, as many scientists themselves admit: useless repetition, research of no real value performed essentially to obtain recognition or financing. In the world of science, the only way to survive is to publish results, and hard luck for wasted animal lives and public money.

Science has often been reluctant to accept new ideas. Our ancestors refuted Copernicus’s theory that the earth rotated around the sun. They poured scorn on Galileo. Vivisection continues to exist because the scientific community is jealous of its power and because powerful firms are eager to go on selling their chemicals, medication, etc., whatever reservations they may have about their safety.

9. "Animal experimentation guarantees the safety and reliability of a product."

If that were true there wouldn’t be so many serious accidents, and so many drugs withdrawn from the market. There are thousands of examples of products that were cleared by animal testing, only to reveal they were toxic for humans.

British scientists conducting cancer research were apparently satisfied to note a 37% correlation ratio between their model, the rabbit, and a human. Flipping a coin gives a better chance of success!

American laboratories don’t know what to do with their chimpanzees. Even Man’s nearest cousin doesn’t develop AIDS. They themselves have admitted that every two hundred “useless” primates cost them US$1 million each year (Science, April 1997).

A recent study, carried out over seven years by the highly respected Uppsala University in Sweden, and based on data from 84 international laboratories, revealed that the results of innocuousness tests for AIDS treatment drugs on other species are less reliable than tests on human cells. By using these alternative methods, the study demonstrated that toxicity estimates were 50% more accurate than results obtained using live animals.

10. "Isn’t animal experimentation necessary for human organ transplants ?”

The general public usually views transplants as significant medical progress. However, the majority of the most common transplants, i.e. heart, kidney and liver, could be avoided by preventive medicine and a healthier lifestyle. This is the most sensible and effective way to fight the illnesses and diseases that make such transplants necessary.

When a transplant is necessary, human organs are quite clearly preferable to animal organs. The human immune system violently rejects all transplanted animal organs. Scientists are trying to produce animals with human DNA to prevent this rejection. Phenomenal amounts of money have been spent trying to overcome these obstacles. Meanwhile, no information campaigns on how to prevent the illnesses that necessitate transplants have been launched.

Animal-to-human transplants are extremely dangerous as they result in the formation of new recombining viruses (formed between the viruses of the two species), which could one day spread with devastating results. Studies have shown that transmissible porcine viruses could not be removed from the transplanted organs, and therefore risked contaminating the human “beneficiary” (Nature, vol 389, October 16, 1997).

11. "We kill animals for plenty of other reasons. What difference is there between killing a pig for food and experimenting on it for human benefit ?"

Animals suffer for many dubious "reasons", but they suffer more and far longer in laboratories. Anyone who owns a cat or dog knows how stressed their pet becomes when taken to the vet’s. Now imagine what that must be like day in and day out, without the comfort of a loving owner. A cat can be left with electrodes in its brain for months on end. A dog can be made to absorb chemicals during toxicology trials lasting an entire year. One Voice legally obtained the release of macaques that had been living in the same tiny laboratory cages for over 20 years.

Were it indispensable, vivisection would still be morally unjustifiable. But it is not indispensable, as animals are not the right choice for scientific experimentation. Animals are made to suffer in experimentation not for the good of humankind, but for the profit of the firms that supply them, and huge companies that have vested interests in the medico-pharmaceutical trade.

12. Animal experimentation is an unnecessary evil.

Because animal experimentation does not satisfy its scientific function, products that are harmful to humans, but did not reveal their toxicity on animals, are put on the market, and this isn’t just limited to medication. How many fungicides, insecticides, pesticides and weed-killers would be banned if we really knew just how much damage they are doing to the environment and to the consumers of agricultural produce? In 1997, an increase in brain cancer cases due to pesticides was revealed among French farmers. And just how many food additives are carcinogenic? Yet they have all been tested on animals by “professionals.”

Statistics, in particular for France, reveal increased numbers of cancer cases. Powerful chemical firms have too much to lose to allow more reliable alternative methods to cast doubt on their products. Instead of investing in prevention, the market is flooded with harmful products, then more are sold to treat the illnesses caused by the first.

It is technically possible, scientifically preferable, and morally necessary to put a stop to animal experimentation.

Translation : Sandra Petch