Paradoxes of Animal Testing

Written by Nadya W

Universitas Gadjah Mada

IVSA Indonesia

Indonesia

2nd Winner of SCoVE Essay Competition: Animal Testing

Animal testing is paradoxical, and the perception diverges depending on one’s own interpretation with valid arguments from both sides. Animal experimentation dates back centuries ago, and human health crucially relies on animal experimentation. Animal research is defined as the use of animals in scientific research to develop new drugs, treatments, and products, as well as to test the safety of existing ones. In today’s society, the mere thoughts of reaction people might give just by mentioning the support of animal testing is unimaginable. Although animal experimentation has remained a highly controversial and heated topic amongst animal activists and scientists, nothing is inherently bad or good by its nature. There is still much prejudice regarding animal testing; therefore, careful evaluation should be routinely regulated to weigh the pros and cons.

Some argue that animal research is necessary in order to develop new drugs and treatments. In contrast, others insist it is a ruthless action and that alternatives should be used instead. Regardless, it was undeniably of paramount importance in many medical breakthroughs, including the invention of forceps, anaesthesia, vaccination, regulatory toxicology, comprehensive anatomy, and many more that enhance the quality of life for humans. However, recent technological advancements include:

1. Artificial intelligence is capable of predicting the mutation of a virus or is used to predict the effects of a substance on living organisms without the need for animal testing.

2. In vitro methods use cell cultures or other similar laboratory-based systems to test the effects of substances on living cells. These methods can be a less expensive and more efficient way to test the safety of a substance.

3. Microdosing is a method that involves administering a minimal amount of a substance to humans to test the substance's safety and efficacy. This can be a more efficient way to test the safety of a substance as it does not require large numbers of animals.

4. Human tissue and organ-on-chip technology are micro-devices that mimic the structure and functions of human organs and tissues, which can be used for drug development and toxicity testing.

Have proven that there is another alternative to obtain similar results. While some of these alternatives are still under development, they offer promise as a way to reduce the need for animal testing. However, it is worth noting that these alternatives are only sometimes suitable or applicable for some types of research and testing.

The amount of animal used for research varies greatly depending on its purpose, urgency, and approval. The pharmaceuticals industry uses the majority of animals, and almost half of the animal used in research is for the pharmaceuticals industry, with vaccines making up 15% of the total animal use, which is around 1,850,000; it only produces one substance per year. While other industries, such as cosmetics and food, only made up 0.05%(5,600) and 4%(500,000) of all animal use and subsequently produced 400 and 10 substances per year (Bottini & Hartung, 2009). It raises a pivotal question on the necessity of using an animal model in developing the vaccine. The recent pandemic shows that skipping a few testing that involves animals can speed up the production process and the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, protect millions of lives worldwide and prevent further disease progression. Under 'normal' circumstances, it will take ten to fifteen years in vaccine development from the discovery phase to market approval, of which two to four years is spent on preclinical testing in in vivo animal models (Ritskes-Hoitinga et al., 2022).

Nonetheless, it only took 12 months for the first COVID-19 vaccine to be approved. While various factors contribute to the swift and successful approval of the COVID-19 vaccine, such as international collaboration and global urgency, a more significant part of the rapid discovery can be associated with using non-animal alternatives throughout the development. Animals are used to test the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in many different ways, including administering the vaccine to the animal, monitoring the animal for any adverse reactions or changes in health, and then comparing the animal's response to that of a control group. Animal welfare is an important aspect to consider in vaccine development. It includes ensuring that the animals used in research are treated humanely, with minimal pain and suffering, and are provided with appropriate housing, nutrition, and veterinary care. It also includes minimizing the number of animals used in research and using alternatives to animal testing whenever possible. This process will require an extended time that hinders advancement.

Vaccine usage differs significantly from the use of therapeutic drugs. It is a widespread health intervention that may be utilized on healthy individuals, including infants and children. Since its discovery, vaccines have saved millions of lives worldwide. Therefore, safety testing is of the utmost significance while developing and manufacturing any vaccine. Safety issues are the sole arguments that justify the practice of using research animals despite the fact that an estimation of 92 percent of drugs that clear preclinical tests fail to proceed to the market. It includes drugs that classify animal testing as ‘critical’ (Akhtar, 2015). Recent research unfolds that animal experiments were in accordance only half of the time. Strictly speaking, in every experiment, there is only a 50 percent chance that the study would benefit humans (Akhtar, 2015).

Scientists and researchers argue that using animals is necessary in order to gather valuable information that cannot be obtained through other means, such as cell cultures or computer simulations. Albeit present-day researchers are more responsible and considerate of using an animal in their study, they have come a long way from using animals solely as tools without taking into account lab animal welfare, as stated by one of the most prominent philosophers in sixteenthcentury Baruch Spinoza, “use them as we please, treating them in a way which best suits us; for their nature is not like ours.” Animal welfare advocates still insist that using animals in research for whatever purpose is unnecessary and barbaric; hence alternatives should be used instead. They argue that with the latest technological progression, there are many substitutes for animal testing, such as in vitro methods or other means that can provide exact or similar information as animal testing while eradicating the suffering of animals.

There are several problems associated with animal testing, varying from ethical concerns, disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, physiology and genetics distinction across species, and cost-inefficiency. De-bunking each one will give a better understanding of the drawback of using animal testing. Many people consider using animals for testing inhumane as it subjects animals to pain, suffering, and death. It raises endless curiosity about the possibility of keeping up with the ethical procedure. Another concern is regarding the limitations in terms of predictivity for the human result. Some argue that most results from animal testing may not accurately predict how a substance will affect humans, as animals may respond differently to drugs and chemicals than humans. Factors associated with stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by laboratory procedures and environments can also significantly affect the result (Akhtar, 2015).

Cost inefficiency is highly regarded as the primary hurdle for many scientific breakthroughs. Breeding and management of the animals made up the majority of the cost. Research animal use in experimentation varied from zebrafish to non-human primates, and approximately more than 100 million are used annually (Nurunnabi et al., 2012). The need for more standardization regarding the number of animals used in a given study and different standards across laboratories can lead to varying results, potentially damaging the human population. There are no aligned regulations between countries or regions. Thus, creating plenty of unnecessary tests that did not require the use of animals. The inconsistencies leave the door open to animal testing.

Additionally, reflecting on the COVID-19 pandemic. Animal testing is time-consuming and holds up the development and approval of new vaccines. It is lengthy due to several factors, including planning and preparation, testing protocols, monitoring and evaluating results, data analysis, and ethical considerations. Before beginning testing, researchers must first design and plan the study while obtaining the necessary approvals and permissions to acquire the animals that will be used in the study. Depending on the institutions, the administration process might need to be revised to obtain permission. Testing protocols must be carefully designed to ensure that the results are accurate and reliable, which often involves multiple rounds of testing, with each round designed to test a specific aspect of the product or substance being tested. Apart from that, researchers must closely monitor the animals throughout the testing process to ensure that they are not suffering unduly and to assess the effects of the substance being tested on the animals. This can take a significant amount of time monitoring and evaluating results. After the testing is complete, researchers must analyze the data to determine if the tested substance is safe. This can be time-consuming as large amounts of data must be reviewed and evaluated. Additional time and resources are spent on ethical considerations, as animal testing is a highly regulated field with strict guidelines to ensure that the welfare of the animals is protected. All factors mentioned above contribute to the lengthy process of animal testing and are necessary to ensure an accurate and reliable result. Per contra, many scientists and researchers believe that emerging new technology could help to reduce the number of animals used in a study. However, complete elimination is not foreseeable for the years to come. There are still plenty of studies that require the usage of animals, such as vaccines. The complexity of the production processes and the interaction with multiple agents makes it intrinsically complex to produce a protective or therapeutic immune response that is impossible to reproduce in vitro, making the use of animals an unavoidable requisite. Animal models are essential for studying several aspects of vaccinology, including the disease's cause, distribution, and transmission, the host immune system's response to infection and vaccination, and the length of induced immunity.

In conclusion, the use of animals in research, testing, and education is a controversial topic. Whether it can be avoided or not depends on the specific research. However, there is a general consensus that the use of animals should be minimized as much as possible, and alternatives should be sought whenever possible. It is important to note that many organizations, institutions, and governments are working to minimize the number of animals used in research and to find alternatives to animal testing.

References

Acosta, A., Norazmi, M. N., Hernandez-Pando, R., Alvarez, N., Borrero, R., Infante, J. F., & Sarmiento, M. E. (2011). The Importance of Animal Models in Tuberculosis Vaccine Development. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences : MJMS, 18(4), 5-12. https://doi.org/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328939/

Akhtar, A. (2015). The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079

Akkermans, A., Chapsal, J., Coccia, E. M., Depraetere, H., Dierick, J., Duangkhae, P., Goel, S., Halder, M., Hendriksen, C., Levis, R., Pinyosukhee, K., Pullirsch, D., Sanyal, G., Shi, L., Sitrin, R., Smith, D., Stickings, P., Terao, E., Uhlrich, S., . . . Webster, J. (2020). Animal testing for vaccines. Implementing replacement, reduction and refinement: challenges and priorities. Biologicals, 68, 92-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2020.07.010

Bottini, A.A. and Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought... on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 26(1), pp.3-16. doi: 10.14573/altex.2009.1.3.

Nurunnabi, A.S.M., Afroz, R.D. and Alam, S.N. (2012). Animal research in medical science: pros and cons.“. Health Science” J PMC, 2(1), pp.28-33.

Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., Barella, Y., & Kleinhout-Vliek, T. (2022). The Promises of Speeding Up: Changes in Requirements for Animal Studies and Alternatives during COVID- 19 Vaccine Approval–A Case Study. Animals : An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 12(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131735