So why is the Nobel Prize inspiring a blog, here? As with most Nobel Prize research, animal studies were integral to the researchers’ success.  In this case, yeast, cows and genetically modified mice were involved in the research process. Looking back, nearly all Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine have required some form of animal research. According to Americans for Medical Progress, in the past 34 years, all awards but one have been dependent on animal research.

The impact of this year’s prize-winning discovery could be big news for patients suffering from diabetes or brain disorders. The three researchers discovered that vesicles – membranous structures that store and transport cellular products – transport these materials to a precise target, similar to a fleet of ships. This is crucial to many processes – from the release of hormones in the body to brain communication. Defective vesicle transport systems are associated with diabetes and brain disorders – and knowing more about them could help us improve treatment options in these areas.

So congratulations to James Rothman, Randy Schekman and Thomas Sudhof for their Nobel Prize win, and for bringing research a step further.

What are your thoughts on the big Nobel Prize news? Let us know in the comments section below

The reasons for this are many and varied. For one thing, the low-hanging fruit was picked a couple of decades ago so the diseases for which we now need new therapies are the most difficult to treat. This requires a huge investment of time, effort and resources and call for a more collaborative approach to innovation.

For another thing, the cost of conducting research has risen at a time when the rewards are on the wane. A recipe for new drugs it is not.

Yet the world is facing fresh public health challenges due to shifts in demography and lifestyle. Our ageing population means conditions such as Alzheimer’s will become a much greater burden. At the same time diabetes rates are through the roof in develop – and in developing – countries across the world.

What’s this got to do with animal research?

Glad you asked. This slow-motion crisis is paving the way for new approaches to drug development.

One area which shows considerable promise is personalised medicines. The primary goal of research in this field is to develop medicines which are best suited to individual patients or to particular categories of patients. This would mean, for example, that if you had a certain gene, your doctor would choose the medicine most likely to work for people like you.

The push towards deepening our scientific knowledge in this area is changing how research is conducted. In search of more precise and predictive methods of treating people, scientists are developing new models for testing drugs.

Innovation through collaboration

The need for more open collaborative approaches is spawning exciting public private partnerships like the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). NEWMEDS – Novel Methods leading to New Medications in Depression and Schizophrenia – a five-year IMI project funded by the EU and pharmaceutical industry is committed to finding new treatments for psychiatric illnesses.

One of the key elements of the NEWMEDS project will be the search for better animal models. ‘Better’ means more accurate and predictive but using fewer animals.

The investment in better animal models which can more accurately represent human diseases should give scope for using fewer animals in the years ahead. Good news for delivering on scientists’ commitment to pursue the 3Rs of animal research – reduction, refinement and replacement.

Diabetes is a case in point. Around 350 million people worldwide are affected by diabetes and this number is rising steadily. Research using animal models has been central to pretty much all the therapies currently available for managing diabetes but the revolution in personalised medicine might help deliver better medicines using fewer animals. This is addressed by another IMI project, IMIDIA.

So, perhaps the headlines of recent years might be caused for concern given the essential role of the medicines sector in improving public health and generating wealth, but the concerted response for public and private players is cause for hope.

Crises can be catalysts for change. In the future, we could have better medicines developed using fewer animals.

Well, yes. International cooperation is climbing steadily up the agenda as scientists and policymakers from Europe, the US, China, Brazil and elsewhere share their views on how to support medical progress while making meaningful strides forward towards the 3Rs – reduction, refinement and replacement.

It makes perfect sense, regardless of your view of animal research. Collaboration is at the core of science; it’s where some of the best ideas come from. So if we are serious about finding therapies for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease we should encourage international cooperation.

And if we want to see the highest standards of animal welfare and the sharing of best practices – not to mention the adoption of viable non-animal testing methods by regulators – then a global approach is needed.

Fostering cooperation

That’s why it was encouraging to see experts and regulators from the US and China joining their EU counterparts for a conference in Brussels this month. The 8^th annual EPAA conference in Brussels took international cooperation as its theme and looked beyond Europe rather than focusing within. 

The Platform signed a memorandum of understanding with the US-based Institute for In Vitro Sciences dedicated to international dissemination of alternative techniques for safety evaluation, and the EPAA will provide up to €100,000 in sponsorship over two years to the IIVS to support training in several regions including China and Brazil.

Why should Europe care?

In this age of austerity, you might ask why Europe would want to help an American company to train scientists and regulators in China. Fair question! The answer is partly that better global standards will be good for medical research, good for animal welfare and good for us.

But the full answer is also that Europe should encourage standards in medical research to rise in tandem across the globe. Not only does this help to discourage migration of research to areas with weak regulation, it also incentivises European industry to invest in non-animal methods – if companies are confident that these models will be acceptable to authorities around the world they are more likely to take the risk of developing them.  

Here at Animal Testing Perspectives we have been asking you about the future of research in Europe, pointing to some of the discouraging signs which suggest medical research was unwelcome here.

But at the EPAA conference it was tempting, at least for a moment, to imagine a future where Europe not only sets the standard for animal and non-animal testing but also brings others with it in a way that preserves its global competitiveness.

Are we being too optimistic? Let us know…

The EU research budget – a major source of support for medical science – is under serious threat and could be about to fall victim to a much wider political spat over public spending.

It’s an almighty row. The European Commission and the European Parliament would like the EU’s main research funding programme (to be known as ‘Horizon 2020’) to have a budget or around €80 billion over six years. National governments want to slash this in half to just €40 billion. The European Research Council (ERC) is also targeted by some EU leaders.

All of this takes place at a time when widespread austerity means national research budgets are shrinking too. For medical researchers, EU funds are often their best hope of securing funding for ambitious projects designed to push the boundaries of medical knowledge.

But scientists are not about to take this lying down. A group of Nobel prize winners have written an open letter calling for the research budget to be protected and a new petition – ‘No Research Cuts’ – has been launched by the Initiative for Science in Europe.

We’ve been discussing the future of medical research in Europe and whether the EU wants to be a research hub. The outcome of this debate – which is due to come to a head at a crunch November EU Summit – could provide the answer!

The EU also celebrated last week when Professor Serge Haroche, the recipient of a European Research Council (ERC) grant, picked up the Nobel Prize for Physics. Europe plans to increase ERC funding from €7.5 billion to €13 billion from 2012 to help “the very best researchers to conduct pioneering research across Europe”.

But what about health research? Well, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine went to researchers from Britain and Japan for their work on reprogramming mature cells into stem cells.

They basically found ways to trick cells into reverting back to their immature days when they had the potential to become other kinds of cells. It’s like they turned ‘adult’ cells which were set in their ways into teenagers that can become anything they want if they are given the right environment.

The point is that this work was done using frogs and mice.

In fact, over the past 40 years, every single Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine – with one exception in 1983 when a plant geneticist collected the award – has depended on animal studies.

As if that wasn’t enough, this year’s Nobel Prize for Chemistry went to US scientists whose work in genetically-altered mice could lead to new and better medicines.

We’ve been asking you what the future of animal research is in the EU. The question now is whether waving goodbye to animal research would mean farewell to Nobel Prizes in Medicine

Is Europe content to be a beacon for peace and a dab hand at physics while leaving excellence in medicine to scientists in the US and Asia?

Or could future Nobel Prizes go to breakthroughs in non-animal models for medical research? Would that be the kind of game-changing incentive needed to make a giant leap towards the 3Rs?

Share your thoughts!

The goal is to find ways of alleviating the symptoms of these conditions. We look at how trisomy changes neurological mechanisms and how it influences embryonic development, stem cells, and the programming and function of cells. We identify and target these mechanisms and hope to treat them through therapeutic drugs. These mechanisms are often similar to those affecting humans with comparable conditions.

We can hope to heal humans thanks to the mouse model. Ten years ago there were no real prospects for treating Down syndrome. Today, Roche is testing a new drug to reduce its symptoms, including problems with learning, memory and speech. Other drugs are on their way. Ten years of research mean that we now have several promising leads for treating Down syndrome.

The animals we use also allow us to do research on rare and very rare genetic conditions, those affecting as little as 1 in every 10,000 people. These include 17q21.31 and 16p11.2, two syndromes where a part of a chromosome is “deleted,” and ring chromosome 14, which results in difficult-to-treat epilepsy. The rarity of these conditions means that it can be difficult for doctors to know even what the typical symptoms and their intensity are. The animal experiments can help us determine what is representative and how these symptoms can be treated.

The Three R’s

We take very seriously our efforts to reduce as much as possible the degree of suffering and loss of life among our animals. We have mandatory training on animal handling and well-being before being allowed to work with them and this continues with “on the ground” training as we specialise.

In our work we follow the principles of reduction, refinement, and replacement. By reduction we mean that we follow tightly optimised procedures to reduce the number of animals we need to use. For example, we know exactly how many animals we need to detect a 20% difference between a test population and a “normal” reference population.

By refine we mean making the animals’ lives as positive as possible. This means we emphasise non-invasive methods of experimentation and, when needed, we use anaesthetics and analgesics to reduce any pain felt. In terms of mutations, our animals do not undergo anything that doesn’t occur in nature. Human children with these genetic features are born naturally. If ever there are animals with very serious problems we can put them down (which I have not yet had to do).

Finally we try to replace animals where possible with other means, such as growing and experimenting with cells in Petri dishes. However, this is typically not useful for studying mental disabilities due to Down syndrome, such as long-term memorisation, interaction with space and objects, social recognition, thinking, and senses. For this cell cultures are no substitute. But we are “thrifty,” so to speak, in all we do, including our use of animals. We have to be very careful in how we keep and treat them. In Europe, and certainly in France where I work, the use of animals is very well regulated [hyperlink to French regulation].

There are some who say we don’t need animal testing anymore. But for the kind of research we do, there’s very little that can be achieved with cells in Petri dishes. We do it knowing that people will benefit. In the 1920s, research using dogs and bovines led to knowledge of insulin’s role in diabetes and to the creation of medical treatments (including for animals with diabetes). Today there are still countless diseases which we could treat better. We work knowing that in the end our research will help heal people and improve their lives.

During our two hours discussion, Professor Nouët touched on different aspects of the use of animals in scientific research, including alternatives and the 3Rs. We will be publishing parts of the interview over the coming weeks, however looking at your comments and questions over the past months, we thought the following topic was a good one to start with.

Professor Nouët, what does ‘alternative to animal testing’ mean exactly?

Rich Text AreaToolbarBold (Ctrl + B)Italic (Ctrl + I)Strikethrough (Alt + Shift + D)Unordered list (Alt + Shift + U)Ordered list (Alt + Shift + O)Blockquote (Alt + Shift + Q)Align Left (Alt + Shift + L)Align Center (Alt + Shift + C)Align Right (Alt + Shift + R)Insert/edit link (Alt + Shift + A)Unlink (Alt + Shift + S)Insert More Tag (Alt + Shift + T)Toggle spellchecker (Alt + Shift + N)▼
Toggle fullscreen mode (Alt + Shift + G)Show/Hide Kitchen Sink (Alt + Shift + Z)
FormatFormat▼
UnderlineAlign Full (Alt + Shift + J)Select text color▼
Paste as Plain TextPaste from WordRemove formattingInsert custom characterOutdentIndentUndo (Ctrl + Z)Redo (Ctrl + Y)Help (Alt + Shift + H)

A couple of months ago we had the privilege to go to Paris and interview Professor Jean-Claude Nouët, Honorary President and cofounder of the Ligue Francaise des Droits de l'Animal, éthique et science (LFDA).
During our two hours discussion, Professor Nouët touched on different aspects of the use of animals in scientific research, including alternatives and the 3Rs. We will be publishing parts of the interview over the coming weeks, however looking at your comments and questions over the past months, we thought the following topic was a good one to start with.

Professor Nouët, what does ‘alternative to animal testing’ mean exactly?
Path:

The people who work with laboratory animals are a compassionate bunch who would gladly use alternative methods if they could deliver the same results.

Like many people who do what I do, I’d quite like to become redundant. That is, I’d be content if my current job were made obsolete by advances in science.

As a vet in charge of laboratory animal science at a large research-based pharmaceutical company, I would be delighted if other mechanisms were available that could answer the questions we need to answer.

Nobody becomes a vet without first having a love for animals. For those of us who work with laboratories, we are the ones who guarantee round-the-clock care for the animals and safeguard their welfare.

Some people wonder how one can describe themselves as an animal lover yet do this kind of work. I give the example of my own wife who is a heart fibrillation survivor. Thankfully she leads a normal life, having taken a drug for 20 years now, and she is in great shape.

However, the reality is that the drug that has helped her stay healthy was developed through research on animals. We love cats in our house and I have to explain to my kids that a lot of the basic research that led to better treatments for their mother’s disease was actually done on cats and dogs.

The promise of unimaginable

As things stand today, it’s hard to imagine a world where animal research has been replaced with alternative methods. To be frank, I don’t foresee this happening any time soon, but such is the beauty of science that it tends to throw up all manner of unforeseen – even unforeseeable – advances.

Using animals is complicated but for much of our research, they are the best we have.

Advances in cell culture have taken us a long way but there are times when we need to see how a potential therapy responds to hormones and biochemicals from several organs of the body. The only option is to test the drug in a whole animal.

Of course, the research methods of the past are not as good as those available today. Perhaps in the future we’ll look back and think today’s methods to be primitive.

As I said in my last post, the beauty of science is its uncertainty.

According to the World Economic Forum/Harvard School of Public Health, the NCDs are responsible for 63% of all deaths and are currently the world’s main killer. Eighty percent of these deaths now occur in low- and middle-income countries. Over the next 20 years, NCDs will cost more than 22.68 trillion EUR, representing 48% of global GDP in 2010. The WHO European action plan 2012 – 2016 and the OECD both stress the importance of gathering research evidence in the battle against NCDs.

As far as cancer is concerned, for example, Cancer Research UK stated, in 2011: “Thanks to decades of research, survival from cancer has doubled in the last 40 years”. But this progress simply wouldn’t have been possible without animal research. At Cancer Research UK, research using animals is an unavoidable part of our efforts to beat cancer. For a start, it’s a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs (not just cancer drugs) are tested in animals before they’re given to patients, to make sure that they’re safe to use. In April 2012 the organisation Animal Aid has called for Cancer Research UK and other medical research charities to stop funding animal research. In a perfect world, animal research wouldn’t be necessary. But cancer kills more than 400 people every day in the UK, and all our work is aimed at reducing this death toll.”

However, in marking World Laboratory Animal Day on 28 April, animal activists in Hyderabad, India, called for an end to using laboratory animals and suggested moving towards computer-based alternatives. Speaking on the occasion, Dr. Anjani Kumar, director of the animal welfare division in the ministry of environment and forests said: “Though it is far-fetched, there is a hope that in the near future super-computers and DNA-based models could replicate the human body’s functions virtually to enable drug trials.”

When asked whether the animal activists will force the government to ban the use of animals in laboratories, Mahesh Agarwal, secretary for a city-based animal rights organization said: “I do not see any new technology replacing the use of animals in the laboratories. So, until such ways emerge, it would seem futile if we press for a ban on the method, which will seriously impact new drug discovery. What we can say is handle animals with care and less cruelty.”

At the core of the issue is the increasing refusal, as reported in the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere, of ferry companies and airlines to carry live mice, rats and rabbits intended for scientific research, following pressure from animal-rights campaigners.

UK Science Minister David Willetts has said that “it would be a pity” if the animal-transportation process was forced to be handed over to the military but, with Stena Line reportedly now having followed DFDS Seaways and P&O Ferries in prohibiting the carriage of test animals and thus closing the last available sea route for medical, researchers are despairing of the situation, given that no UK-based airline nor the Channel Tunnel operators will operate such a service.

The proportion of imported animals used in UK research is relatively small, but researchers stress that access to genetically modified strains bred overseas is vital for certain advanced research techniques. According to scientists, as they strive to improve understanding of diseases and to develop new treatments and cures, alternatives to using animals in research are sometimes not available. Moreover while the vast majority of animals used in the UK for research are bred in the UK, modern scientific research is highly collaborative and global. For example in certain research programmes it is essential that scientists share specific genetic strains of animals, which take a long time to breed. If their transport is stopped then researchers will have to recreate them, requiring the unnecessary use of many more animals over successive generations.

Most headlines put it stridently, with ‘not importing animals puts human lives at risk’ being the gist – Willetts, also speaking with BBC Radio 4's Today programme said that it was is “a serious problem that we do need to tackle”. He added that Britain should be proud of the fact that it developed many of the world's top drugs, and that scientists carrying out animal testing needed to be done so in carefully-controlled conditions complying to "high standards of animal welfare", which the UK Home Office is also very keen to stress. The European Commission, citing Regulation 1/2005, is also keen to stress the “effective monitoring tools in place”. So what are the animal rights campaigners trying to stop?

Essentially, research-animal transport supporters are asserting that a moratorium, as has been actively supported by animal rights groups, would in fact not improve animals’ welfare, given that longer routes and organisations with less experience would have to be used.

So which way now? Scientists are adamant that stopping the transport of animals would harm UK medical research but, with an issue that is as emotive as animal testing, and its opponents seemingly not prepared to budge an inch, Britain’s already overstretched armed forces may soon find themselves providing an unusual kind of taxi service.

Is this kind of animal rights activism improving or aggravating the welfare of animals? What’s your view?