Michael Brooks

Here comes the science bit

The truth about animal testing

The use of animals in medical research is inevitable, but no one can deny that something needs to change.

By Michael Brooks Published 26 July 2012 12:26

A lab worker displays a bald mouse used in medical research. Photograph: Getty Images

Every summer, hundreds of thousands of women run the five-kilometre Race for Life to raise money for Cancer Research UK. They probably don’t like to think about it, but some of that money is spent on procuring animals for use in experiments.

The use of animals in medical research is inevitable. Every drug licensed for treatment has to be tested on animals. It’s not just a legal issue. Many of the cures we celebrate – and let’s remember that cancer is now more survivable than ever – were developed only because researchers were able to carry out experiments on animals.

In the 1990s, deaths from breast cancer dropped by nearly a third. Much of that success was due to the introduction of tamoxifen, a treatment that helps prevent breast cancer among those with a family history of the disease. The drug’s development involved research on rats and mice that explored how hormonal changes induce tumours.

Since its introduction, tamoxifen has been cited as part of the solution to animal experimentation: tests show that it kills human tumours grown in Petri dishes, demonstrating that such cell cultures are a good model for what happens in real patients.

Alternatives to animal testing are welcomed by all involved; this is not a zero-sum game. When the Home Office recently reported that the total number of animal testing procedures increased by 2 per cent in 2011, the campaigning group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) called it “another broken promise” from a government that had committed to reducing the numbers. In some ways, Peta is right. It would be a better world if alternatives to animal testing could be found sooner; we should applaud Peta for donating more than half a million pounds to labs trying to pioneer non-animal tests. But scientists are just as eager to get there.

Contrary to Hollywood stereotypes, scientists aren’t monsters. If you have ever received treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, some of the procedures involved were tested on rabbits in labs run by Robert Winston. Those rabbits, Winston says, were petted and stroked every day. Much of last year’s 2 per cent rise can be ascribed to a general increase in the levels of scientific research going on.

And not all of the reportable procedures are detrimental to animals’ well-being. Just putting an animal into any form of isolation – on its own in a cage – is classed as a “procedure” that must be reported. Breeding a genetically modified animal is also a procedure, whether or not the modification causes distress (most don’t).

There has been a rapid rise in the number of such breeding procedures because knocking out certain genes gives us an idea of how to find cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

In plain sight

That is not to say there aren’t unpleasant things going on. Yet “substantial” procedures account for only 2 per cent of the reported experiments. This is why all sides are keen to see a review of Section 24 of the Animals Act. Currently, no one can find out anything about what kinds of experiments are going on without making a Freedom of Information request. This understandably makes animal rights advocates angry and it makes scientists look sinister.

Take the case of cats. The number of cat “procedures” rose by 26 per cent over the past decade. That seems shocking, but most of the increase was due to studies on nutrition – testing claims of pet food manufacturers, for instance. When the secrecy surrounding that kind of work can lead to bombs under your car and death threats routinely dropping through your letter box, no one can dispute that something needs to change.

Michael Brooks’s “The Secret Anarchy of Science” is published by Profile Books (£8.99)

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Medical research Cancer Animal testing

More from Michael Brooks

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Fri, 2012-08-31 18:33 — anonymous coward (not verified)

Animal testing is essential because apart from human testing they are the only effective models of disease and function that exist. Assertions that animal testing is unnecessary are dishonest based on wishful thinking. All of modern medecine, surgical practice, theraputice and diagnostic devices are based on animal testing.

It should only take place whne there is potential benefit and no unnecessary suffering should occur but society needs to be firm in defending it as essential for progress in eliminating human and animal suffering.

The changes needed are in robustly refuting mis-information from anti-vivesectionists and defending those who workk to improve everyones life through research.

Fri, 2012-08-31 18:32 — anonymous coward (not verified)

Animal testing is essential because apart from human testing they are the only effective models of disease and function that exist. Assetions that animal testing is unnecessary are dishonest based on wishful thinking. All of modern medecine, surgical practice, theraputice and diagnostic devices are based on animal testing.

The changes needed are in robustly refuting mis-information from anti-vivesectionists and defending those who workk to improve everyones life through research.

Fri, 2012-08-31 18:31 — anonymous coward (not verified)

The change sneeded are in robustly refuting mis-information from anti-vivesectionists and defending those who workk to improve everyones life through research.

Fri, 2012-08-03 07:00 — Asian_Angelic

Meow! Purple rat hmmmmmmmm. ^_^

Fri, 2012-07-27 03:12 — rushu sueños (not verified)

although animal testing has a purpose that benefits us, we must also think that creates a genetic change itself and think they are living beings.
el libro de sueños

Thu, 2012-07-26 19:33 — Eric Ceilio (not verified)

An odd article from a science journalist - lots of assertions like "cures ... developed only because researchers were able to carry out experiments on animals" but no hints at why you believe the things you do. There have been a number of systematic reviews of the efficacy of animal experimentation and none that I have seen have concluded that there is good evidence that the experiments "work". The usual conclusions are that the experiments are either poorly designed, have poor predictivity of human response or both.

As a physical scientist I cringe when I read of animals as "models" for human disease. A model is a powerful scientific tool - a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that can be tested. Once we find a single case where the model fails we have to look at why, hopefully modify and strengthen the model. The real power of a good model is its ability to predict. None of this is true of "animal models" of human disease so the use of the word "model" is an attempt to borrow some of the credibilty of real science and apply it to pseudo-science. After thalidomide was found to cause birth defects in humans a large range of different species were tested and because a small number did show responses similar to humans this is claimed as a success for animal testing and is widely quoted as an example to show how "essential" it is. Of course, if those same small set of animals always mimiced the human response there would be some predictability, but they don't. Animals are more often chosen because of their ease of breeding and handling (mice, rats) than because of their proven similarity to humans. The example of tamoxifen is another often quoted as a success for animal testing. There is an in depth refutal of that argument here http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_experiments//2630//

If the case for animal experiments is so strong, why not publish anonymised project license applications so that the public could comment on them before they are granted? So many studies appear to be repeating previous work, answering questions that would be better answered (or are already answered) by human population epidemiology or have too high costs for any potential benefit (e.g developing a new food colourant). Secrecy is allowing public funds as well as animal lives to be pointlessly wasted,

Wed, 2012-08-15 13:40 — LynneB (not verified)

Also, your link regarding Tamoxifen is full of careful spin and sometimes what appears to be simple misunderstanding. For example,

"Tamoxifen acts in breast cancer therapy by blocking the action of oestrogen in breast tissue. In monkeys, and rats at low doses, tamoxifen also acts as an anti-oestrogen but in mice, dogs, and rats at high doses, the drug has the opposite effect, behaving like an oestrogen. These anomalies prompted the following comment from an eminent Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology: ‘…significant species variation has been observed in target tissue response to oestrogens and antioestrogens making it hazardous to predict therapeutic activity in the human by extrapolation of effects in experimental animals...’"

First: this leaves out the crucial concepts in biology of "dose-response curve", which is, in reality, never to be ignored, and certainly not ignored with Tamoxifen. Second, this is a faux "authoritative quote", an attempt at using a form of "argument from authority" (as in, "see, even an EMINENT RESPECTED RESEARCHER thinks this has problems!") but with no attribution or citation or any identifying information at all, no-one can follow that up to see if (a) there are crucial parts of the statement or discussion which have been deliberately left out, or (b) whether it is even a real quote at all.

See the problem there?

If the case AGAINST animal testing is so strong, why do the majority of anti-testing organisations and arguments seem to rely on dishonest tactics and incomplete information?

Wed, 2012-08-15 13:21 — LynneB (not verified)

I don't think you quite understand. Animals are (not always, but often) a model for human disease because we have such a huge number of basic biochemical functions in common; but the main reason we test is not to *prove*, but to *eliminate*.

Almost 90% of potential treatments are eliminated at the animal testing stage. Go read that number again: 90%.

The reason is simple: chemicals that work very well in cells in a petri dish either do not work nearly as well as hoped in the full complexity of a living organism, or they work but do have very major, serious side effects that outweigh the potential benefit.

If you want to eliminate animal testing, then what you are proposing is that this initial step of discovering that things do not work as desired in a living organism be shifted to humans. You really think that's a good idea, when you are just complaining about the fact that the downside of thalidomide wasn't discovered until too late?

As to why proposals for research aren't put out for public approval: that's because too many members of the public have no idea why things are done, and react based on a flawed understanding. Case in point.

Thu, 2012-07-26 21:14 — Manno Stefano (not verified)

No: the animal test for Talidomide failed because there weren't used pregnant mices, it was an error, certainly, but this absolutely doesn't mean the animal research doesn't work.

Thu, 2012-07-26 22:17 — Eric Ceilio (not verified)

Another baseless assertion. In 1962, Seller (Seller, Mary. 1962. Thalidomide And Congenital Abnormalities. The Lancet 280 (7249):249-249) studied rats, mice and rabbits and observed no abnormalities in the rats, mice, and silver-grey rabbits. This lead Seller to state:

. . .negative results in this respect may prove to be no indication that the drugs are safe for human use . . . Consequently the most satisfactory method at the present time, and in the light of the thalidomide experience, of dealing with drugs with an unknown effect in the pregnant woman, would appear to be not to administer them except if absolutely life-saving.

Since thalidomide, Seller's advice, which is consistent with the basic science behind Karnofsky's law, has been standard of care for human medical practice.

Thu, 2012-07-26 17:07 — Turnip Ghost (not verified)

PETA is crazy. It's the latest version of the Non-Conformist conscience, another Thing White Middle Class People Like. Its membership is about as vibrantly diverse and ethnic as skim milk, even among young people in the US where over 1/4 of those under 35 are non-White.

Thu, 2012-07-26 14:33 — Dan Lyons (not verified)

'Only' 2% of experiments are classified as 'substantial' because, as the Home Office has admitted in Judicial Review proceedings, they have decided (presumably for pro-animal research PR purposes) that only 2% will be classified as 'Substantial'. The severity classifications of projects and procedures are, sadly, not determined on their objective merits. The Home Office has vigorously defended 'moderate' classifications of experiments that are clearly at least 'substantial' - i.e. where several primates were found dead or in a collapsed state.

Furthermore, secrecy dates back to the 1880s when Home documetns relating to the licensign of animal experiments were placed under 100 year restriction, long before 'extremism' got going. The extreme secrecy is about manipulating the public perception, not personal safety.

I've certainly not seen any real enthusiasm for full openness from animal research institutions (would be nice if true). They could publish redacted project licences and study reports now if they were sincere on this.

Thu, 2012-07-26 12:50 — Alex Baldwin

"When the secrecy surrounding that kind of work can lead to bombs under your car and death threats routinely dropping through your letter box, no one can dispute that something needs to change."

This sentence doesn't make any sense. It would be openness about the research that would lead to those things, secrecy is supposed to prevent them. With that said, I don't understand some of the charges of "secrecy" about animal research (e.g. the application to the Cardiff case). When the research is publicly funded then it is published and available to be read by anyone. In what way is that then "secret"?