Animal Testing Perspectives » Misconceptions

Out of the lab and into the debate

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:15:40 +0000

Scientists are mobilising in an effort to have their voices heard in discussion of animal research

As part of our ‘Shall it stay or shall it go?’ campaign we’ve been asking you about the future of animal research in Europe.

Well it seems that some of the scientists who work in this area have given their verdict: they want it to stay and are more than a little worried about what they see as myths around animal studies.

The folks who run the Understanding Animal Research website have brought together concerned researchers from the UK to create the Science Action Network.

The group wants scientists to enter the debate which it says has been characterised by inaccuracies and confusion, partly because scientists have been reluctant to speak up.

They are asking scientists to give five minutes per week to reply to misinformation on the internet and social media channels. There’s even a dedicated Twitter hashtag – #ARnonsense – which they want scientists to use when debunking myths, and a Facebook page where researchers are encouraged to weigh in on videos and articles about animal science.

So, dear reader, the question is: will it work?

Are scientists the right people to discuss the ethics of animal research? Does the campaign target the right people through the right channels? What about the tone? Do you find it abrasive, irreverent – or both?

Jean-Claude Nouët: What does alternative mean?

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:37:48 +0000

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:

Animals react very differently from humans and therefore rendering the experiments unreliable

Admin — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:30:18 +0000

Animals and humans are both mammals, which means biologically they share the same basic types of organs – heart, lungs, liver, kidneys etc, and that work in the same way, controlled via the bloodstream and nervous system. There are minor differences too, however these can give scientists clues about diseases and how they might be treated.

Monkeys have been used to advance deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease; research with mice is helping develop new treatments for leukaemia and lymphoma; rabbits and cattle helped with cervical cancer vaccines, and goats in developing blood clotting agents from milk.

Around a third of medicines used by vets are also used in the treatment of humans.

Animals are kept in appalling living conditions

Admin — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:29:21 +0000

In reality research centres using animals must follow strict and detailed EU laws to ensure the most appropriate environment for laboratory animals and that their needs are met. For example mice and rats are housed in cages that contain shredded paper and pieces of wood to build nests and to find refuge. Animals also have opportunities to climb and explore. They are encouraged to perform their habitual activities, which reduce stress. Scientists have no reason to mistreat research animals and good reason for treating them well, because the use of unhealthy, stressed or frightened animals reduces the reliability of an experiment’s results. Staff are trained to handle the animals in a way that will reduce any potential stress.

Scientists are free to choose animals for research over alternative methods

Admin — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:28:56 +0000

Legislation demands that before any research study using animals can be approved, it must be evaluated from a moral and scientific standpoint, by an independent ethical committee. Scientists must submit a detailed report justifying the need, usefulness and relevance for animal testing as well as evidence that there are no alternative methods to perform the research. The ethical panels evaluate the likely harm to the animal versus the expected benefits of the project.

Animal welfare groups don’t care about humans

Admin — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:28:41 +0000

It’s a misconception that animal welfare groups who campaign for alternative testing and research methods, don’t care about human safety. They want the best legislation to ensure human safety, scientific testing and animal welfare.