The EPAA is an independent platform which brings together the European Commission and industry groups to collaborate on implementing the 3 Rs Declaration. It has been running since 2005 and has done a lot to bring together people who don’t talk as much as they should – like companies and regulators, or scientists and EU officials.

Last year’s event put the focus on ‘reduction and refinement’ while this time around the spotlight is on Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) in animal research.

ITS can be tricky to define but is essentially a way to connect animal research methods, non-animal testing techniques and computer-based modelling to advance the cause of our old friends, the 3Rs.

Last month the EPAA ran a workshop on ITS so the annual conference is a natural follow-on from that.

The discussion will look at how ITS can be applied in a way that delivers efficient science-based results while reducing the use of animals, but at the same time meeting the growing demands of authorities and legal risk assessors.

Given Europe’s current obsession with innovation and competitiveness, it will be interesting to see whether ITS can really be the silver bullet that delivers all the information scientists need without compromising on speed, cost, or product safety. Plus, given that we’re in Brussels, one wonders what the EU can do to promote the use of appropriate ITS?

Can public and private stakeholders work together on non-competitive projects that will ultimately benefit all, perhaps along the lines of the Innovation Medicines Initiative?

The conference programme looks busy so hopefully we’ll get some answers on 9 November. We’ll be attending with a video to capture feedback from the day.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) competition theme this year is ”Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) and their impact on the implementation of the 3Rs”. It will be interesting to read the winning article as ITS doesn’t necessary mean non-animal alternatives.

The winning entry should help to inform the wider policy community and decision-makers and general public about the opportunities and challenges of Integrated Testing Strategies, including limitations, offered by scientific and technological progress.

Find out more and submit your essay.

We will be linking to the final article and seeking feedback from the community about the winner’s point of view.

In online searches, animal testing is the most commonly used term and is used to represent any use of animals by scientists. However animal testing actually refers to the use of animals to test a substance – a drug, cream or chemical – that will be released into the environment. The substance is tested to see if it works, how it distributes in the body and whether it is toxic. Fewer than 20 per cent of lab animals are used for this purpose and it is a legal obligation demanded by various authorities before performing human testing (clinical trials).

‘Testing’ is done by the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry and academics. I was surprised to learn that the pharmaceutical industry is keen to stop animal testing and is actively looking for reliable replacements that will not compromise patient safety.

Animal experimentation is a general term to describe both testing and research and has a negative connotation. The term vivisection, is also negative and mainly used in the UK. It is associated to any type of animal-related testing and research. However vivisection actually refers to the dissection of living animals; the definition includes human surgery. In previous times this was done without anesthesia.

While the proportion of animals used for testing is declining, the proportion of animals used in ‘research’ is growing.

Animal research is carried out by the biomedical community – the pharmaceutical industry and academia. In terms of research, scientists are not obliged to do studies with animals, they use animals as models to better understand diseases and find ways to influence the cause of them. Essentially they look for an animal that has a disease similar to man, either naturally occurring or one that they can recreate through genetic modification. This is not testing, where an animal is exposed to compounds, this is research and accounts for 60 – 80% of the animals are used.

We regularly hear about medical advancement for diseases like cancer, which are reported in the press –“research with mice has uncovered a cure for x disease”. Yet do we, the general public, consciously make this connection between medical breakthroughs and the use of animals?

Some argue that it doesn’t matter what you call it, as animals are still suffering for the protection of man. However I think it’s important that we understand the terminology and use it properly to ensure we know what we fighting for, or against, and how this might impact our own lives.

Also read:

Finding the right balance between animal welfare & human welfare

What’s driving the increase in animal research?