Animal Welfare and Human Values

Five: Animal Experimentation: The Alternatives

66 Animal Welfare and Human Values 3Rs).7 Wherever possible invasive animal research should be replaced by other forms of study; techniques should meanwhile be developed to permit a reduction in the numbers used and to refine existing methods so that pain and suffering are reduced. It is probable that many, if not most, responsible scientists accept the general legitimacy of those principles today, although, of course, there is significant disagreement on what is and is not possible, what is and is not appropriate. It is here that the expertise and specialized knowledge of scientists becomes indispensable. The educated layperson lacks the training of the scientist and cannot acquire it without becoming a scientist. Nonetheless, the scientist must be constantly reminded by the layperson of the importance of pursuing the objectives. It is here that the radicals perform a decided disservice to the cause of the animals. Having successfully aroused public indignation against the worst features of animal experimentation they continue to castigate animal researchers per se rather than to seek out and denounce the irresponsible ones. Indeed, unwisely and counterproductively, the Toronto Humane Society unsuccessfully attempted to bar animal researchers and their spouses from membership (along with a variety of other animal users). They did not consider the invasiveness of the research, its objectives or the humanity of the researcher as relevant considerations. It was a blanket prohibition. In fact, of course, it is animal researchers themselves who have developed the less invasive alternatives to in vivo animal experimentation. It is the animal researchers themselves who have done a great deal to improve the lot of the research animal. To take but one recent example of the greatest potential benefit, Professor Jacob Sivak of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, received a $25,000 grant in June of 1991 to test industrial chemicals on eyes from cattle killed for meat. If the research is successful, and the indications are positive, then there would no longer be any justification for continuing the use of the infamous Draize and LD50 tests for cosmetics, home, industrial or agricultural purposes. We do not want to leave the impression that the lot of the research animal is a happy one and that all problems are solved or are about to be solved. They are not. Indeed, Michael Balls and Jacqueline Southee have reported disturbing trends in the other direction.8 Successes in replacement, reduction and refinement, however, depend upon cooperation with, rather than antagonism to, the research establishment itself. Unfortunately,the radicals make enemies of the researchers. The 7 W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (London: Methuen). 8 Michael Balls and Jacqueline Southee, "Reducing Animal Experiments by Questioning their Necessity," in David Paterson and Mary Palmer, eds., The Status of Animals (Wallingford: CAB International, 1989), pp. 111-22. Animal Experimentation: The Debate 67 researchers are constrained to take up the cudgel in defence to prove how right they always were. They are constrained to defend their traditional aims and methods. Moderates, on the other hand, work with the research establishment to bring about the appropriate changes. They are able to interact and persuade rather than drown in bombast. It is with such an approach that many improvements have already been achieved, and the scientists themselves have played an essential role in bringing this about. In the United Kingdom from 1977 to 1989, inclusive, the number of scientific procedures using live animals reduced each year, reaching a figure of 3.3 million in 1989 (the last year for which data are available), a reduction of 5 per cent from the previous year. The comparable figure for Canada with somewhat less than half the British population is approximately 2 million. The British figure for 1984 was 4.5 million. Thus there was a reduction of some 26 per cent in a five-year period. Some 85 per cent of the animals employed in 1989 were rodents. Point four per cent of the experiments were for cosmetics testing—a great deal less than the radicals would have us believe—and 6.7per cent were on safety testing of substances (0.1 per cent household products, 2.6 per cent industrial products, 2.4 per cent agricultural products). Seventy-one per cent of procedures involved "medical, veterinary, dental or other biological research," according to the British Home Office. Fifty per cent of all procedures were applied medical research, dominated by drug development and testing. Sixtyper cent of procedures were carried out...