Animal research is critical to the understanding of how and why diseases happen, and the development of safe and effective medicines.  In fact, the American Medical Association acknowledges “virtually every advance in medical science in the 20^th century, from antibiotics and vaccines to antidepressant drugs and organ transplants, has been achieved either directly or indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments.”  So, not just one or two things, or even a handful.  Virtually everything.

But, despite that, animal research is not an easy topic to write about.  It’s emotive.  Animal rights organizations control the rhetoric, and the images they portray of animal research are horrific. And yet these are the images that people are most likely to see, because fear of personal and institutional attacks by animal activists has driven animal research to be hidden. The ”real” story is never shared. Researchers, institutions and companies inadvertently belittle the significant contribution of animals to scientific progress by trying to hide that they’re even involved in it.

So what’s the result, when the only view of animal research displayed to the general public is negative? The general public say they don’t support the use of animals in research.  And it’s not surprising  – they don’t hear about the positives, and the images they do see are courtesy of the animal rights organizations, and they seem to show animals being tortured. Who says “Yeah, that’s fine,” when they’re presented with images like that? Sociopaths, that’s who.

So why am I involved in this debate? Well, I am a toxicologic pathologist. I work in the pharmaceutical industry. I have a degree in veterinary medicine and worked as a veterinarian in clinical practice before I did a PhD and a specialist qualification in pathology. As a toxicologic pathologist, my job is to assess how safe new medicines are in animals before we give them to people. After we have given the animals a course of the medicine we are testing, the animals are humanely euthanized (in the same way your pet would be put to sleep by a veterinarian if it was very sick), and I examine samples of their organs to determine if there has been any damage from the medicine we are testing – a regulatory step imposed by governmental agencies worldwide to ensure that pharmaceutical companies are doing their job to bring safe and effective medicines to patients. From there, we can decide whether the new medicine is safe to test in human patients. I’m not talking about seeing if a new mascara will make your eyes water, I’m talking about medicines – medicines that will (hopefully) cure your cancer, prevent you from going blind, or treat your asthma.

I am a veterinarian by training, and first and foremost that is what I remain – my care for animals has not changed with my change in job title. Animals are sentient beings – they can feel pain, discomfort. They can be happy  (as far as we can tell). So, how do I rationalize what I do now? I guess I think of the “greatest good” – I have moved away from caring for individual pets, sports animals, and herds of farm animals, to developing drugs that not only improve health and save the lives of large numbers of people, but ultimately may filter into veterinary medicine to directly help animals too. I feel it is a little like the ‘algorithmic mortality’ they talk about in self driving cars – in the context of an unavoidable accident, the car’s computer should act to minimize the loss of life.

Do I think that using a relatively small number of animals to understand a disease and develop a new medicine that will positively impact the life of millions of patients is OK? Yes (well, as long as we do the animal research in an ethical and humane manner).  But do I like using animals for research? No. You know what though? That probably makes me a pretty good person to do this job, because I am constantly advocating for the animals we use, coming up with suggestions for how we can use fewer animals and handle and house the animals better to make their lives in research the best they can possibly be.

In animal research, we talk a lot about the “3Rs” – not reading, writing and arithmetic, but reduce, replace and refine. In research, this means that whenever we look to using animals for our work, we see how we can reduce the numbers of animals used or if we can use a “lower order species” (e.g. fish vs. mice); we try to replace animals with other models (such as cell culture models, in vitro assays, ‘organs on a chip’), tools and tests when available (and work to develop these techniques when they’re not); and we refine animal experiments to improve housing and welfare and minimize any pain and distress. In some countries (including the UK and the wider EU – which have some of the tightest animal welfare regulations in the world), the requirement for evidence of implementing the 3Rs in animal research is actually a legal one.

Can research animals be happy? Well, they can’t actually tell us, but they definitely look like they can be.  Check out this clip of some research beagles, or these ones of research monkeys and their “swimming pools.” Animals don’t really have a concept of tomorrow – they’re all about the here and now. If you can keep them free from pain

and injury, give them food and water, keep them in comfortable housing in a situation that allows them to express normal behaviors, and you make sure the animals are not fearful or distressed (through gentle handling and positive reinforcement training), they’re usually very content. Central to all of this is the attitude of the people working with the animals – there has to be an overriding culture of care. People who work as animal technicians, caring for these research animals on a daily basis, are usually in it because they love animals! They work long hours, over weekends and holidays, and the work is probably not going to make them rich. But these are the often unsung heroes who work every day to make sure that the animals are as happy and comfortable as they can be.

We’ve talked about how to make them happy, but they are research animals, and sometimes the research we are doing can make them sick – because of the medicine we are testing or the disease we are modeling. Before any animal research starts, it must be approved by institutional committees – and in some counties, also by governmental organizations (such as the Home Office in the UK). The level of potential distress is set based on the “procedures” involved in the research project, and a corresponding veterinary treatment plan is put in place.

So how do we tell if an animal is distressed and what do we do if they are? Animals are checked multiple times a day by animal technicians who know their normal behaviors and temperament, and if the animals are exhibiting any signs of pain, discomfort, or distress, a veterinarian is called. Animals are treated, given pain meds, and if we are unable to keep them comfortable, they are humanely euthanized – just as any pet would be. It’s important to note that a “procedure” in the context of animal research can be as mild as an injection, or as severe as an organ transplant. Even just breeding a genetically modified animal is classified as a procedure, because genetic changes to an animal may make it sick. In 2014, for example, 50% of all procedures in the UK involved the breeding of genetically modified mice – basically very expensive mice getting it on.

You don’t actually have to trust me about animal research. Some organizations are really putting themselves out there – they’re showing pictures and films or their facilities and work, they’re giving tours. They’re letting their scientists talk about their research and how animals are used in it. Most of these programs are in the UK right now, but the trend of transparency is spreading: more and more organizations are standing up, lifting their heads above the parapet, and not only acknowledging that they use animals in their work, but actually showing the animals – take a look at these websites for examples.

So finally, it’s OK to be passionate about animal welfare. In fact, it’s great! Have opinions about the use of animals in research, and the way research animals are kept and treated.  Some people don’t think like me – I understand that.  They would find my opinions “speciesist” and feel that the life of a single fish, or mouse, or dog is as important as the lives of the patients we strive to treat. If you are completely prepared to avoid doctors and medicines for yourself and your family, to prevent yourself from benefiting from medical advancements discovered in animals, I admire you for sticking to your beliefs (although I’d like to point out that this is pretty much impossible).  But for everyone else, I encourage you to be aware of differences in standards, practices and regulations in the care and use of research animals between countries – and push for your country to adopt the highest standards of care and the most stringent regulations. Advocate for compassionate animal use and the implementation of the 3Rs.  But make sure your thoughts and opinions are based on facts, and not propaganda. And remember that, for now at least, animal research remains a critical tool for investigation into how and why diseases happen, and for the development of safe and effective medicines to treat disease – and if you think that the world still needs those, then we still need animal research.

Share