NZSM Online

Get TurboNote+ desktop sticky notes

Interclue makes your browsing smarter, faster, more informative

SciTech Daily Review

Webcentre Ltd: Web solutions, Smart software, Quality graphics

Feature

Animal Ethics

The debate over the ethics of animal research hasn't been completely stifled by violence and vandalism, but the main protagonists are keeping a low profile.

By Vicki Hyde, NZSM

Researchers are ducking for cover when the question of the ethics of animal experimentation comes up, frightened of being bombed and receiving abusive phone calls.

In New Zealand, there have been bomb attacks, arson attempts, break-ins and death threats against researchers and institutions. The perceived dangers of being targeted by some of the more militant animal-rightists have people scared.

One forthright animal-researcher has become more cautious about speaking publicly since marrying.

"When there was just me, a bomb would only get me, but now I've got a wife and a child, and I have to think of them," he says. "I do have to be circumspect, and it pains me not to be upfront."

Such caution makes any open discussion of the issue difficult, when researchers want to remain unnamed and research institutions don't want to be identified. This is not to say that the issue is being ignored.

Changes to the Animal Protection Act in 1983 required the establishment of Codes of Ethical Conduct, governing the welfare and humane treatment of animals. Additional regulations in 1987 saw the establishment of Animal Ethics Committees, consisting of researchers, vets, representatives from animal welfare groups and interested lay people.

Many of the institutions had already been operating such committees long before the law required them to do so.

"The scientific community has come to realise over the past ten years that they've got to have some sound reasons to do any form of experimentation on live animals," notes one committee member.

While the committees have gone some way towards alleviating concerns over the treatment of animals in New Zealand institutions, there remain criticisms.

Committee Concerns

Animal welfare and rights group Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE) are worried that, while the ethics committees have the power to make random checks and halt work at any time, this right is not used. Instead, SAFE says, the committees act more as a rubber-stamping procedure, with little actual interaction with the laboratories under their supervision.

Researchers dispute this.

"There is so much competition for resources, for funding, that no-one can get away without being examined. Nothing is taken lightly," says one.

In some committees, members are required to visit the animal units under their jurisdiction between meetings. This gives them an opportunity to question researchers outside the formal committee meetings, and to check on the condition of the animals. SAFE would like to see more of this done.

"Further problems include the selection of committee members who may not be impartial, misunderstanding of science jargon, and the weighting of the committee in favour of researchers," SAFE contends.

The question of impartiality has been a problem, particularly in the selection of the lay members of committees. Candidates from the farming community, for example, are seen as having a vested interest in animal experimentation.

"Clearly, the only unbiased person is someone who is totally ignorant," comments one committee member exasperatedly.

Even the position of animal welfare representative is not without controversy. Some animal rightists, worried that their views might be diluted, see SAFE representation on a number of ethics committees as questionable.

"They are by no means pushovers," says a researcher in their defense. "They take their job with a great deal of responsibility."

Name Calling

There is a certain degree of indignation amongst researchers and animal technicians that they have been depicted as people willing to cast aside ethics for the sake of research kudos or a market edge.

"It is my job as an animal technician to safeguard the animals in my care," protests one. "It's my job to ensure that they are as happy and comfortable as possible whilst in my care."

This has meant checking regularly on the animals, calling in a vet if any problems arise, and telling researchers that they have to abandon their experiments if necessary.

"There's never been any problem with having to fight a researcher over the good of his animals," the technician says.

Many of the arguments rage around the definition of animal welfare and who can claim to be an animal welfare supporter. Researchers feel that their personal and professional codes of ethics make them as much members of animal welfare groups as those belonging to the RSPCA or SAFE.

What researchers have difficulty in coming to grips with is the concept that animals have rights equal to those of humans, and thus should be treated with equal consideration and protection. This is a basic tenet of the animal rights movement, but one which is not necessarily espoused by more moderate animal welfare groups.

"Being required to be on the committee has put animal welfarists in a difficult position," admits an RSPCA representative. She feels that, as someone concerned every day with animal welfare, she has to temper her personal feelings with a pragmatic appreciation of the benefits of the research.

"In a perfect society you'd have no testing at all. I'd love that," she maintains. However, she believes that testing in certain cases is justified. Like many people involved in the issue, she believes that the harm involved in testing on animals for medical or research purposes is outweighed by the good that results. Also, like many people, she finds the thought of testing in a non-vital area, such as the cosmetics industry, impossible to justify.

Legal Requirements

The cosmetics industry has come in for harsh criticism concerning its use of animals in product development and testing. The tests are required by law, but increasing consumer pressure is encouraging cosmetic companies to avoid this procedure by using already-tested materials. Test-free products have a market advantage, but many of them have benefited from past animal research in the selection of their components.

Testing within New Zealand is relatively small-scale because, as with much industrial research, most of the products are developed and tested overseas. One area where tests are on-going is that of animal remedies. Dog vaccines, for example, are required by law to be safety tested before being distributed.

"You have to balance using half a dozen dogs to test the vaccine against protecting several thousand dogs," says a technician.

SAFE doubts the efficacy of animal vaccinations, stating that the claimed importance of such vaccinations comes from companies which are in the business of selling the vaccines. They suggest that vaccines are ineffective and can lead to immune system damage.

Ironically, the Auckland and Wellington SPCA societies, which support SAFE's contentions, both recommend animal vaccination. SAFE's rebuttal has also raised eyebrows with its statement that "many vets are now treating animals with an holistic approach emphasising diet and exercise supported by homoeopathic, herbal and acupuncture treatments."

"Biological scientists shouldn't be closed to alternative methods, provided they are shown scientifically to be efficacious," notes one scientist. He believes that the tendency to dismiss lightly the benefits of animal and human health research comes from a lack of appreciation of the advances made over the last century.

"It's easy to underestimate the extraordinary progress that has been made," he says.

Much of that progress has been in the pharmaceutical area, where animal testing is still a legal requirement. Given a viable alternative, pharmaceutical companies would be delighted to move away from animal testing, on both ethical and economic grounds, according to a technician.

The cost of performing animal tests can be considerable, particularly where procedures such as the lethal dose 50 (LD50) are required. In this, doses are increased until 50% of the animal group is killed by the substance, as a means of testing lethality.

There are concerns that some of the delays in adopting alternatives to animal testing have come about as a result of the slow movement of legal bureaucracy.

One researcher contends that government departments are slow to respond to new developments in technology that would enable a reduction in animal usage. Scientific criticism of the LD50 test cropped up over 20 years ago, but it took a further 18 years before regulatory bodies began to change the rules requiring such procedures.

Adopting Alternatives

A growing number of alternatives to using live animals in testing procedures are being developed and implemented. The technologies, and increasing pressure to use them, have seen animal experimentation totally phased out of some areas.

"There has been big progress made in developing alternatives," says a senior academic involved in animal research. "Animal welfare groups and animal rights groups have played a significant role in encouraging this."

Animals were once used extensively for testing hormones, but sensitive protein-based immunological techniques have eliminated the need for this. Pregnancy tests once relied on reactions in frogs and rabbits to human chorionic gonadotropin, but now use monoclonal antibodies.

"The analytical use of animals has declined as other analytical techniques have become more specific and more robust," says a researcher.

Tissue culture techniques have been able to reduce the numbers of animals required for testing products, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. A great deal of initial screening can be performed using tissue cultures. The problem arises when products or treatments have to be taken a stage further in preparation for commercial use. The complex changes that a substance undergoes within a living body cannot be mirrored with tissue culture techniques.

A great deal of medical training which once used animals now relies instead on computer programmes and video sessions.

"A lot of the animal experiments that were part of the 4th and 5th year course have been videoed," notes one Medical School staffer. However, videos cannot give a completely adequate feel for the sort of techniques required in a real surgical situation.

It has been suggested that the bulk of surgical experience can come from training on human cadavers, rather than on live animals. While working on inanimate material can provide training in many procedures, it suffers from the same problem as other alternatives, as it cannot mirror the realities of working on a body that is living, breathing and bleeding. The same follows for veterinary training.

Researchers do keep a close eye on the alternatives to animal research. Victoria University's code of ethical conduct, like many others, states explicitly that live animals may only be used where there is no alternative satisfactory method. Part of the procedure for checking an application for animal-based research involves looking at possible alternative methods and carefully studying the experimental statistics to reduce the animal numbers to a minimum.

Avoiding Duplication

SAFE would like to see greater emphasis on literature searches, being concerned that much research is inadvertently duplicated. The RSPCA representative hopes that greater access to shared databases will provide a greater chance for researchers to be aware of previous experiments and to use those results rather than running new trials.

"The trick is to make sure the research hasn't been unnecessarily duplicated," comments one researcher. He sees duplication of research as an unlikely issue, given the very slim chances that an experimental setup will be repeated exactly.

It appears unlikely that animal experimentation will ever be completely acceptable to all parties. Instead, researchers do their best to answer the demands of their own consciences and those of their peer groups. In the process, they are trying to avoid the attention of the small number of animal rightists willing to resort to violence, while maintaining contacts with those groups who are willing and able to work for change.

"The key to progress is dialogue on both sides, and there's no dialogue if someone's got their hand on a detonating device."

Statistics Snarl

The statistics of animal research are a tangled mess at the moment. MAF has been collecting the information for the past five years on behalf of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). However, changes in the time periods over which the statistics were taken and in the animals to be included have resulted in a murky picture. Both researchers and animal welfare groups are concerned that clear statistics on the number of animals used in New Zealand are difficult to obtain.

Researchers generally agree that the number of animals used is dropping, primarily as a result of using alternative testing procedures and because of the greater awareness of the costs of animal research. Ironically, the statistics appear to show an actual increase in animal testing. SAFE is worried that this may mean more animals are being tested than previously. Researchers suggest the increase is partially explained by more and more organisations reporting their animal testing practices.

"More people are becoming aware of their responsibilities under the Act," notes an NAEAC member.

It can be difficult to determine where the line is drawn. A vet implanting embryos in farm cattle would not report that; a vet implanting embryos to show students how it is done would. The general understanding is that reporting is required where research, testing or teaching are involved. There has been an increase in reported testing in areas which would not once have been considered animal experimentation.

One example of the latter is the use of farm animals at agricultural research institutions. If 100 sheep are grazed on one type of pasture and their body weights compared to 100 sheep grazed on a different pasture, then that "experimentation" may enter the official statistics.

"About 90% of the animals used are used for very minor things, so it can be quite misleading," the NAEAC member says. She adds that the total number of animals used in New Zealand in 1989 was 292,108, but is quick to point out that this figure includes fish eggs and poultry eggs.

Animal ethics committee members are concerned at the emphasis placed on sheer numbers.

"If to keep the statistics down you use the animal time and time again and place it under greater and greater stress, that's not what we want to do," says one committee member. The preferred approach may see more animals used, but with less stress per animal.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.