Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

Is animal testing ever justified?We think not and here is why… It is Ethically Wrong The treatment of animals has come a long way from what it used to be. However, there still remains the fundamental argument that testing on animals is immoral. ¡ Moral status can be defined as ”the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life” (1). Animals can experience pain, stress, fear, anxiety as well as pleasure and happiness and are therefore entitled to the moral status we humans share. This simply means we do not have the right to kill or use animals as objects to further our interests. ¡ Despite being specifically protected, cats, dogs, horses and primates are still being used in invasive medical research (2). ¡ In 2018, 14.7% of animal tests involved moderate pain or suffering, and 3.6% involved this at a severe level (3). ¡ It is barbaric that intelligent, feeling animals continue to be subjected to unnecessary testing when there are so many established and progressive alternative non-animal methods. 1. Stanford. 2010. HOPES Huntington's Disease Information. [Online]. Available from: https://hopes.stanford.edu/animal-research 2. Home office. 2019. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2018. [Online]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835935/annual-statistics-scientific-procedures-living-animals-2018.pdf 3. https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/uk-statistics/ Image: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/dogs-laboratories/ It is Wasteful …. ¡ In 2018, 3.52 million procedures were performed on animals in the UK. The animals included: mice, fish, rats, birds and specifically protected species (cats, dogs, horses and primates) (2). ¡ In pharmaceutical development, around 95% of drugs fail, despite extensive preclinical animal tests (4). ¡ A survey of 271 animal studies from 1999 to 2005 by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) found the majority of animal studies were biased and poorly designed, therefore compromising the validity of the results (5). This means animals are not only suffering for the sake of humans, but many results are unreliable predictors for human treatments and cannot be used. ¡ This is subsequently extending the suffering of humans who are waiting for new treatments as the animal data is misleading. 4. BMJ. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? 2014. 2014;348:g3387 PLOS ONE 4(11): e7824s N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, et al. (2009) Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. …. And Can Be Costly ¡ Animal tests can last from months to years, with costs reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars (6). ¡ Costs are comparatively lower in vitro à For example, sister chromatid exchange (6): o Animal test = $22,000 o In vitro test = $8,000 ¡ Despite this, in 2012, the government administered just £5.46 million to the National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research, out of an annual science budget of £4.6 billion (7). ¡ Furthermore the fact 95% of drugs fail following preclinical animal work is of great financial cost to pharmaceutical companies. Due to this loss, European drug companies have reduced their dependency on animal research data by up to 25% from 2005 to 2008 (4). 6. https://www.hsi.org/news-media/time_and_cost/ 7. https://www.hsi.org/news-media/home_office_stats_071613/ 4. BMJ. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? 2014. 2014;348:g3387 Models Used Are Unreliable …. ¡ Systematic reviews have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans (8). ¡ A 2013 review showed that 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans (9). ¡ Why? ¡ Disparatestrains and species ¡ Differingodels for inducing injury ¡ Small group, with weak statistical power ¡ Poormethodology 8. Knight, Andrew (May 2008). "Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human (2): 89–96.. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials. 9. Greek, Ray; Menache, Andre (11 January 2013). "Systematic Reviews of Animal Models: Methodology versus Epistemology(3): 206–21.onal Journal of Medical Sciences. …. And Can Be Distressing • Non-human primates are used in toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behaviour and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. • They are highly intelligent animals that form complex social relationships, they experience emotions in a similar way to humans à they can suffer in the same way as us. • In a survey in 2003, it was found that 89% of singly-housed primates exhibited self-injurious or abnormal stereotypyical behaviours including pacing, rocking, hair pulling, and biting among others (10). 10. Lutz, C; Well, A; Novak, M (2003). "Stereotypic and Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Macaques: A Survey and Retrospective Analysis of Environment and Early Experience". American Journal of Primatology. Animal Data Is Often Questionable ¡ Average rate of successful translation from animal models to clinical cancer trials is less than 8% (11). ¡ One analysis of studies using live rat, mouse and non-human primates showed 41% of their reports did not include an objective or hypothesis, or the number and characteristics of animals used à “many peer-reviewed, animal research publications fail to report important information regarding experimental and statistical methods” (5). ¡ Various animal-based studies show a lack of reproducibility, which raises scientific integrity problems as well as endangering “public trust”, which may in turn affect funding (12). 5. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, et al. (2009) Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLOS ONE 4(11): e7824 12. Pritt SL, Hammer RE. The Interplay of Ethics, Animal Welfare, and IACUC Oversight on the Reproducibility of Animal Studies. Comp Med. 2017;67(2):101-105. Unreliability Can Have Serious Consequences ¡ Tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke ¡ Thalidomide and birth defects ¡ Corticosteroids and birth defects ¡ TGN1412 disaster 2006 ¡ Rofecoxib on the heart ¡ CEP-1347 the revolutionary PD medication ¡ Dimebon and Alzheimer's 13. Attarwala, H. (2010) TGN1412: From discovery to disaster J Young Pharm. 2(3):332-6. 14. Up to 140,000 heart attacks linked to Vioxx . New Scientist, 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6918-up-to-140000-heart-attacks-linked-tovioxx.html#.VTDOWZN9zfYThere Are Suitable Alternatives …. Organoids • Mini 3D models of organs produced from stem cells • Human tissue and Patient tissue • Reduction and ReplacementThere Are Suitable Alternatives …. In Silico • Used to plan experiments • Developments could remove the need for Preclinical toxicology animal testing • Limited by current processing power