Written by Emmanuel Kubwimana
University of Rwanda (UR)-Nyagatare Campus
IVSA Rwanda
Rwanda
3rd Winner of SCoVE Essay Competition: Animal Testing
Many people around the world are curious about using animals for research, testing, and education. Since science has improved, some of them are inquisitive about how animals are utilized in research, testing, and education. While others question whether their use in research, testing, and education is required or if it can be avoided. The purpose of using animals in research, testing, and education is to further the science that underpins it. Basically, the basic biological and medical research, the breeding of laboratory animals (primarily for research and developing new treatments), the development of new methods of diagnosis, and the safety testing of non-medical products used in the home, in agriculture, and in industry are all examples of using animals in research. Rodents (rats and mice) and non-human primates are among the laboratory animals used in research, testing, and educational purposes (monkeys, chimpanzees or other great apes). In biomedical research, rodents are extremely useful. Rats and mice make up about 95% of all lab animals. Animal testing is employed to create life-saving medical therapies for both people and animals, as well as to predict how drugs will interact with human bodies (Ellis et al., 2018). Animal studies are frequently necessary for research that aims to comprehend complex issues in disease progression, genetics, lifetime risk, or other biological mechanisms of a whole living system because it would be unethical, morally wrong, technically impossible, or too challenging to conduct such research on human subjects (Rodrigues, 2015). While education calls for the use of animals to aid students in truly understanding biological sciences beyond the realm of theory, essentially to be covered by practices. The use of animals in testing, research, and education is unethical and should be avoided. This is true even if it is challenging given the disparate perspectives of different cultures around the world. Since there are so many negative effects on the planetary health (for humans, animals, and the environment), as well as animal rights and welfare problems, these must be avoided(Fenwick et al., 2009). There are several strategies can be used to prevent using animals in research, testing, and education. Responsibility for considering the options (Replacement), strictly use the proportionality principle (responsibility for considering and balancing suffering and benefit), responsibility for considering reducing the number of animals (Reduction), increase the respect of animal dignity, responsibility for minimizing the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare (Refinement), responsibility for maintaining biological diversity, responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material, and strict use of animal laws in any scientific based field.
Responsibility for considering the options (Replacement). In details, this refers to approaches methods or strategies that do not involve the use of live animals. When there are alternatives available, researchers and other biomedical scientists are responsible for studying those alternatives for animal experimentation. When there are no good alternatives available, researchers and other biomedical scientists have to consider if the research can be postponed until a good alternative are developed instead of using animals. Researchers must take responsibility for the lack of alternatives and the urgency to find the answers right away if they want to continue doing animal experimentation, which should otherwise be banned (Baldelli et al., 2017). For example, this can be achieved through the use of the following and their combinations. The use of robots in teaching activities, utilizing tissues, entire cells, or isolated cells in vitro systems. Biochemically based systems, i.e. using artificial (macro) molecules as stand-ins for (reactive) toxicity targets. These techniques are known as "in chimico." Computer-based models and methods are frequently referred to as in silico. Use of non-testing methods like the "read-across" methodology and "omics" technologies such as transcript omics, proteomics, and metabolomics (Badyal & Desai, 2014). Considering that it frequently entails invasive treatments, the permitted use of animals in educational activities generates a lot of difficult questions. Considering that the ethical justification for this in veterinary educational programs is to advance medical knowledge, it is highly dubious. Furthermore, to avoid overusing animals and to uphold ethical values and animal rights, continuing medical education is changing more and more, and there is a growing demand for alternate surgical training techniques. As a result, educational institutions look for approaches to teach surgical practice that don't degrade the quality of their instruction or their use of animals (Andrade et al., 2015). In nutshell, to improve animal health law and ethics, it is just crucial to take into account alternatives to using animals in research, testing, and education.
Strictly use the proportionality principle (responsibility for considering and balancing suffering and benefit). The dangers of pain and suffering that laboratory animals will experience must be taken into account by researchers and other biomedical scientists, who must also evaluate these risks in light of how important it is to do study on animals, people, and the environment. They are accountable for determining whether the research will benefit people, animals, or the environment. The study's potential advantages must be taken into account, supported, and described in both the short- and long-term. This responsibility also comprises the duty to take into account the experiment's scientific merit and its potential for providing pertinent scientific benefits (EFPIA, 2008). Suffering can only be caused by animals if there is a counterbalance of substantial and probable benefits for animals, people or the environment. Research institutions must train researchers and other biomedical experts in appropriate models, and they have a duty to utilize the methods of analysis while preparing any animal studies because there are numerous ways to weigh the advantages and risks. With this strategy, it will be easier to avoid using animals for testing, research, and education while also protecting their welfare (Generosity, 2002). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of researchers and other biomedical experts to minimize any disruption to the natural behaviors of animals, even those that aren't used directly as test subjects in study, testing, or education, as well as the population and their surroundings. The majority of science and technology initiatives, such as those involving surveillance and environmental technology, may have an impact on the animals and their living conditions. When this happens, academics and researchers must work to uphold the proportionality principle, lessen any potential harmful effects, and apply it to scientific research. In brief, analysis of animal harm and outcomes resulting from the use of animals in diverse scientific contexts, including teaching activities, is essential and should continue to be applied in the medical sciences to promote animal health and welfare.
Responsibility for considering reducing the number of animals (Reduction). In fact, reduction includes any methods that employ fewer animals to accomplish the same goal, such as increasing the amount of data collected from each animal, minimizing the number of animals used in the initial operation, and/or restricting or eliminating the use of additional animals in the future. However, this choice is made when having animals is absolutely necessary. It is the obligation of researchers and other biomedical scientists to decide if it is appropriate to minimize the number of animals that an experiment plans to use and include only the number required to ensure the experiment's scientific validity and relevance to the results. Before the experiment, they must conduct literature research, think about potential designs, and carry out the necessary computations (EFPIA, 2008). According to Ormandy and Schuppli, elements like personal and cultural features, animal qualities, and research characteristics all have an impact on how people feel about animals and animal-based research, with the majority of individuals stating their support for the use of animals. These studies seek to understand how experts might minimize the use of animals in testing, research, and instruction (Ormandy & Schuppli, 2014). As a researcher, lecturer, or other scientists, it is advised to use painless euthanasia with a quick loss of consciousness, followed by cardiorespiratory arrest and damage to brain function if those few research animals are used (Ellis et al., 2018; Fox, 2000). To wind up, use of relatively few animals when necessary will be essential to avoiding the use of animals in biomedical research and educational activities and ensuring the continuation of life and wellness for them.
Increase the respect of animal dignity. In detail, we are not their kings, and laboratory animals are not our tasters. Because these creatures are frequently, consistently handled with a lack of respect and as if their value could be reduced to how valuable they are to humans, their rights are routinely, repeatedly violated. This holds true whether they are employed in studies that have a genuine chance of benefiting people or ones that are insignificant, redundant, useless, or imprudent (Regan, 1986). Animals have intrinsic values that must be respected, animals can feel pain, and their interests must be taken into account. Our treatment of all animals, including laboratory animals, reflects our attitudes and shapes our moral selves, according to some general opinions that animals do have a moral status. Regardless of the animals' worth or the interests they have as living, sentient beings, researchers and lecturers must respect their worth. They must show respect for them while deciding on topics, methodologies, and teaching techniques, when conducting additional study, and when imparting knowledge to students or other learners. In addition, they must provide each laboratory animal with care that is tailored to their needs. Moreover, when people are aware of animal values, they undoubtedly have a greater respect for animals and are less eager to work in industries involving animals. Briefly, it is important for everyone who wants to spread knowledge about medical science and research to take into account their morals before deciding to use them, as this will raise their dignity and minimize the need for testing.
Responsibility for minimizing the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare (Refinement). In details, researcher and other biomedical scientists have the responsibility to assess the expected effect on laboratory animals. These people have to lessen the risk of suffering and provide excellent animal welfare. Suffering includes pain, hunger, malnutrition, thirst, abnormal cold/heat, fear, stress, illness, injury, and restrictions to where the animal can't be able to behave naturally and normally. The animal that suffers the most should be the basis for a researcher's evaluation of what constitutes a significant degree of pain. If there is any doubt about the suffering that the animals will endure, then the animals must be taken into account. Researchers and other individuals working with live animals must possess complete, up-to-date paperwork on each animal. This entails having an understanding of the biology of the relevant animal species and being willing to be able to properly care for the animals (Rodrigues, 2015). Additionally, there are hazards before and after the actual suffering, such as those associated with breeding, transportation, trapping, euthanasia, labeling, anesthesia, and stabling, which researchers and other biomedical scientists must take into account. This means that all researchers must consider the demands of adaption periods prior to and following an experiment (Iki,et al., 2015). For instance, some scientists, like as Regan, refer to the "pulsing anguish of the chimp with electrodes placed deep in her brain" as an example of cruelty to experimental animals and may cause sudden death after operation (Regan, 1986). This man keeps stating that the superfluous use of animals is unethical because of the negative effects it has on both the animals and the researchers who utilize the animals for their experiments. The issue of "lack of ethical self-examination," which is "common and typically involves the denial or avoidance of animal pain, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research animals," is also a problem (Gluck & Kubacki, 1991). To sum up, when considering any action to be taken, scientists, teachers, and other biomedical professionals should refrain from using animals and instead promote animal welfare by minimizing the possibility of suffering.
Responsibility for maintaining biological diversity. In fact, two factors contribute to the species' decline. habitat loss as well as genetic diversity loss Although habitat loss can occur naturally, humankind is mostly responsible for genetic variation. Depending on their research objectives, some academics and biomedical scientists use threatened or endangered animals, which can result in their extinction and be recorded in history (Titley et al., 2017; Townsend, 1998). For example, when utilized in any relevant biomedical research or educational activity, non-primate animals like monkeys, chimpanzees, etc., which are scarce in some parts of the world, see a steady decline in numbers until they eventually vanish entirely. Furthermore, some laboratory animals are also prey for other species in the ecosystem. When researchers and other biomedical scientists capture animals in their natural habitats, extinctions that are already existing have an impact on the environment and some animal lives. They are accountable for making sure that using laboratory animals doesn't interfere with or jeopardize biological diversity. This implies that they must take into account the effects on the stock and their entire ecology. When there is credible and uncertain knowledge that the inclusion of animals in research, testing and teaching activities and the use of certain methods may have ethically unacceptable consequences for the stock and the ecosystem as a whole, researchers and other biomedical scientists must observe the precautionary principle (Fernandes & Pedroso, 2017). Briefly, in order to preserve the natural environment and prevent hunger among wild animals, researchers and other biomedical scientists should refrain from using animals in their work.
Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material. In detail, leave some well-preserved and packaged samples (archived samples) when doing research or teaching a course to the relevant students using animals so that they can be used by other persons of interest without using animals once more. It is the duty of academics and researchers to facilitate the exchange of data and materials from all animal experiments and to ensure that the research findings are transparent. To avoid conducting the same animal tests repeatedly, transparency and sharing are crucial. Transparency is essential for data dissemination and is a duty of researchers. Data release to the public depends on it. Negative outcomes of animal experimentation must to be made widely known. Negative findings should be communicated to other researchers or biomedical scientists in order to inform them of which experiments are not worthwhile pursuing, shed light on poor research designs/methods, and contribute to a decrease in the use of animals in research, animal testing, and educational activities. In conclusion, anyone working in these scientific domains must use the same information (such as archived samples) and materials either at the same time or at a separate time in order to avoid using animals for research, testing, or education.
Strict use of animal laws in any scientific based field. The way that people use animals around the world has an effect on their welfare. Some of them intentionally or with knowledge of all relevant laws commit inappropriate or illegal acts. As a result, as biomedical professionals, both the researchers and the research managers are required to abide by a number of laws, regulations, international conventions, and agreements pertaining to the use of laboratory animals. Anyone who wants to conduct animal studies should get familiar with the existing regulations (Fernandes & Pedroso, 2017). Anyone who violates the norms and regulations of the use of animals in these fields without approval from ethical consideration should face serious penalties in research, animal testing, and education. Furthermore, the use of animals in research and other related scientific fields will be restricted by the severe enforcement of animal rules in this area. To do this, help institutions care for and use animals in ways that are deemed to be scientifically, technologically, and humanly suitable, and help researchers fulfill their duty to organize and carry out animal experiments in accordance with the highest ethical, scientific, and moral standards (Rowan, 2011). Finally, strongly enforcing norms and regulations will lessen the use of animals in experiments, testing, and other educational activities.
All in all, animal use in any setting related to biomedicine should be avoided at all costs due to the numerous harmful effects that it has. However, this is both important and feasible. The use of animals in research, testing, and education can be prohibited in the following various ways. Increased consideration of the options, strict adherence to the proportionality principle, consideration of reducing the number of animals, increased respect for the dignity of animals, mitigation of the risk of suffering and improvement of animal welfare, preservation of biological diversity, consideration of openness, transparency from data and material sharing and strongly application of animal health laws in biomedical animal related studies. More work should be done globally to forbid the use of animals in any type of scientific study by different organizations, in particular the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Researchers are responsible for monitoring the welfare of these lab animals, preventing any form of pain or suffering, and other associated problems. At the same time, the animal consideration research committee in each nation should be making sure that the researchers and other scientists actually abide by the laws and standards pertaining to animal rights and welfare in their work.
References
Badyal, D. K., & Desai, C. (2014). Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 46(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.132153
Baldelli, I., Massaro, A., Penco, S., Bassi, A. M., Patuzzo, S., & Ciliberti, R. (2017). Conscientious objection to animal experimentation in Italian universities. Animals, 7(3), 1– 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7030024
de Andrade, G. M., Lopes, H. D. P., Felício, S. J. O., do Carmo, V. M., & Matos, E. P. (2015). Experience report on teaching surgical technique without animal use. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, 30(5), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-865020150050000010
EFPIA. (2008). Making sense of animal research. The Value of Improving the Productivity of the Dru.
Ellis, J., Hall, M., Ong, P., Wege, L., Paterson, N., & Smith, C. (2018). Animal Testing at Dalhousie University : A brief insight into social , economic , and environmental effects of nonhuman animal testing. 1–24.
Fenwick, N., Griffin, G., & Gauthier, C. (2009). Animal Welfare Bien-être des animaux. 50(May), 523–530.
Fernandes, M. rassi, & Pedroso, aline ribeiro. (2017). Animal experimentation : A look into ethics , welfare and alternative methods. 63(11), 923–928.
Fox, M. A. (2000). The Case against Animal Experimentation. Organization & Environment, 13(4), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026600134008
Generosity, C. (2002). The Ethics of Animals. BBC Website, 8(3). http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml
Gluck, J. P., & Kubacki, S. R. (1991). Animals in Biomedical Research: The Undermining Effect of the Rhetoric of the Besieged. Ethics & Behavior, 1(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0103_1
Iki, et al. (2015). Advance Publication Experimental Animals. Ormandy, E. H., & Schuppli, C. A. (2014). Public attitudes toward animal research: A review. Animals, 4(3), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4030391
Regan, T., “A case for animal rights”, in M. W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (eds.), Advances in animal welfare science, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington DC, 1986/87, pp.179-189, [p. 188]).
Rodrigues, R. (2015). Principles and approaches in ethics assessment The use of animals in research. June, 1–30.
Rowan, A. N. (1979). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. In Journal of Medical Primatology (Vol. 8, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1159/000460187
Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L., & Turner, E. C. (2017). Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions. PLoS ONE, 12(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189577
Townsend, P. (1998). Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Animals. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1(2), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0102_8