The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UK?s leading medical research charity that funds and promotes exclusively non-animal research techniques to replace animal experiments
The Dr Hadwen Trust today
The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UKs leading medical research charity that
funds and promotes exclusively non-animal research techniques to
replace animal experiments. Our vital work benefits humans with the
development of more relevant and reliable science whilst also
benefiting laboratory animals. The Dr Hadwen Trust is a registered
charity established in 1970; registered charity number 261096.
Many millions of animals such as mice, dogs, rabbits, primates, guinea
pigs and cats continue to be used in laboratory experiments, all of
which are classified by the Home Office as having the potential to
cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The Dr Hadwen Trust
believes that deliberately subjecting sentient animals to physical and
psychological pain and distress is ethically unsupportable. Animal
testing is also scientifically unsatisfactory because differences
between people and animal species can give rise to misleading results.
We want medical research to succeed in finding treatments for human
health problems. To achieve that goal we fund research projects at
universities and institutes that combine the highest humane principles
with the best scientific standards. The Dr Hadwen Trust has supported
research in a range of fields including epilepsy, breast cancer,
meningitis, asthma, diabetes, drug testing, arthritis, Parkinsons
disease, lung injury, whooping cough vaccine testing, dentistry, heart
disease, tropical illness, fetal development and pregnancy, brain
tumours and AIDS.
The Dr Hadwen Trust also actively advises on and promotes the wider
use of non-animal methods through publications, published research,
education and the media. Our Science Director, Dr Gill Langley, served
for eight years as a member of the British governments Animal
Procedures Committee which advises the Home Secretary on animal
experimentation matters. She has also advised the government on the
introduction of the new EU chemicals legislation (REACH), and has been
an invited expert on initiatives of the European Commission and of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Dr
Langley currently represents the Dr Hadwen Trust as a member of the
Replacement Advisory Group of the British National Centre for the
Three Rs (Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of animals in research).
Frequently Asked Questions23 Aug 2007
http://www.drhadwentrust.org/faqs
Your Frequently Asked Questions Answered
1. What are animal experiments?
2. How many animals are used around the world?
3. What types of animals are used?
4. What do the animal experiments involve?
5. What are animal experiments for?
6. Do animals suffer in experiments?
7. Whats wrong with animal experiments?
8. Doesnt the UK have the toughest animal experiments law in the
world?
9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?
10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube
or a cell culture?
11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they
used alongside?
12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?
13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to
do it?
14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trusts work different from other medical
research charities?
15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity
develops?
16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested
medicines?
17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law
requires them for new drugs?
18. Are animal experiments required by law?
19. Havent animal experiments resulted in medical advances?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What are animal experiments?
Animal experiments (also known as vivisection) are defined in the
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as any scientific procedures
performed on a living animal likely to cause them pain, suffering,
distress or lasting harm. At present, the Act defines an animal as
any animal with a backbone; plus the octopus.
back to top
2. How many animals are used around the world?
An estimated 180 million animals are used in experiments every year
across the globe. Not all countries keep accurate records of their
animal use, and some official figures are likely to be underestimates.
In the USA, for example, 80% of animals used (birds, rats and mice)
are not included in official figures at all. Across Europe an
estimated 13 million animals are used each year, with the UK (nearly 3
million animals) consistently the largest user of laboratory animals.
In many cases (including the UK) there are other significant omissions
in official statistics. For example, in the UK animals who are bred
for research, but subsequently not used, will be killed as surplus
but not appear in the statistics. Also excluded are animals killed
purely for biological products such as blood, or those involved in
longer term experiments after the initial first year (any subsequent
years of suffering simply disappear from the statistics). The public
has a right to know the true number of animals being used each year by
the animal research community, and the government should implement
complete transparency.
(See factsheets in right hand column for latest statistics).
back to top
3. What types of animals are used?
Many different animal species are used for animal experiments around
the world including rats, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, cats,
dogs, mini-pigs, primates, goats, sheep, birds, fish etc.
back to top
4. What do the animal experiments involve?
The experiments animals are used in are wide-ranging but can involve
poisoning; disease infection; wound infliction; application of
skin/eye irritants; food/water/sleep deprivation; subjection to
psychological stress; brain damage; paralysis; surgical mutilation;
induced organ failure; genetic modification and associated physical
deformity; burning; and electric shocks. Animals may die as part of
the experiment or are killed afterwards for post mortem examination.
The government say that most experiments are of mild to moderate
severity, but we believe they underestimate suffering.
back to top
5. What are animal experiments for?
Broadly speaking and world-wide, animals are used in research into
human and animal diseases, and in basic research to expand human
knowledge. Animals will also be used to test (and develop) consumer
and industry products: these can include cosmetics, household
cleaners, food additives and colourings, food products,
pharmaceuticals, medical devices, industrial and agro-chemicals.
back to top
6. Do animals suffer in experiments?
Yes, an experiment on a living animal only needs to be licensed by the
UK government if it has the potential to cause pain, suffering,
distress or lasting harm. (see the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986).
Animals are capable of experiencing both physical pain and suffering
as well as psychological harm like fear (including, for some species,
anticipation of harm), boredom or depression. Suffering can be caused
not only by the experimental procedure, but also due to the unnatural
and often stark laboratory environment, handling or excessive noise or
light.
back to top
7. Whats wrong with animal experiments?
The Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to animal experiments for ethical and
scientific reasons. As well as causing pain and suffering, animal
experiments are unreliable because of differences between different
animal species, including humans.
UK law recognises that animals used in research are capable of
experiencing pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. These
sentient animals are unable to give their consent and do not
personally benefit from the experiments. Beyond physical pain, animals
can be harmed by confinement, frustration, fear, isolation, and loss
of life experiences unavoidable for animals confined in laboratories
and used in experiments. The Dr Hadwen Trust does not believe that
animal experiments are ethically supportable.
The scientific objections to animal experiments are based on the
problem of species differences and the artificiality of the diseases
induced in them, which make results from animal experiments of dubious
value to humans. A major weakness of medical research on animals is
the differences between species, which can make results from one type
of animal inapplicable to another. Some of these variations are known
and can perhaps be taken into account; but others, such as reactions
to new drugs or the function of an area of the brain, are not yet
discovered in these cases, the results from animal experiments can
be seriously misleading.
(See factsheets in right hand column).
back to top
8. Doesnt the UK have the toughest animal experiments law in the
world?
We often hear the UK government and research industry claim that the
UK has the toughest legislation and tightest restrictions in the world
when it comes to protecting laboratory animals. The Dr Hadwen Trust
questions this claim for a number of reasons.
Firstly it would be misleading to give the impression that the
legislation governing animal experiments, the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986, is a piece of animal welfare legislation. Its
purpose is not only to limit what scientists can inflict on animals
and thereby offer them protection, but also to afford legal protection
to scientists who would otherwise fall foul of animal protection laws
such as the 1911 Protection of Animals Act. It is under the 1986 Act
that animal experiments are licensed and defined as procedures likely
to cause an animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
Secondly, the claim that the UK has the strictest legislation in the
world is based rather more on assumption than fact. It is undoubtedly
true that some countries in the world have very little legislation in
place governing animal experiments and consequently very few
restrictions. However, whilst the UK and other EU member states do
have comprehensive legislation, this still imposes relatively few
restrictions compared with the animal suffering it permits. Simply
having legislation in place doesnt necessarily mean that it is for
the benefit of laboratory animals, or that it is effectively
implemented in laboratories.
Thirdly, the governments claim to the strictest law on animal
experiments is unsubstantiated. Germany, The Netherlands and
Switzerland all have legislation at least as tough as the UKs.
back to top
9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?
There is a range of different methods that can be used to replace
animal experiments. These include cell and tissue cultures, analytical
technology, molecular research, post mortem studies, computer
modelling, epidemiology (population studies), ethical clinical
research with volunteer patients and healthy subjects, and the use of
microbes such as bacteria.
(See factsheets in right hand column).
back to top
10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube
or a cell culture?
Non-animal research rarely simply replaces like for like. Instead we
use a different approach in order to replicate the whole body
scenario, replacing each type of animal experiment with a whole range
of non-animal techniques that are used in combination. When it comes
to studying the whole animal it is wrong to assume that animals are
the best choice, or that they are necessary to solve every medical
problem. The ethical clinical study of the whole relevant organism
that is humans is much more useful and relevant than an animal
model.
back to top
11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they
used alongside?
Alternative methods are regularly replacing animal experiments and
have already saved the lives of millions of animals worldwide. For
example, cell cultures have replaced the use of monkeys in polio
vaccine production; pregnancy tests are now conducted in test-tubes
instead of in rabbits; batches of insulin are analysed chemically and
not by tests in mice; and cell culture methods have replaced the use
of thousands of live mice in the production of monoclonal antibodies.
Alternative techniques have the potential to replace more animal
experiments and offer more humane and better quality research, but
sufficient political and scientific will is required to un-tap that
potential quickly for the benefit of everyone.
back to top
12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?
Every country has different legislation and not all countries impose a
requirement to use alternative methods. For example, in the USA (the
worlds largest laboratory animal user) although researchers must
consider replacement techniques, there is no legal requirement forcing
them to use them. This means that if a researcher experiments on
animals even though there is an accepted total non-animal replacement,
they will not be breaking the law. In countries like Japan and China,
legislation is very weak or non-existent.
The situation is different in the UK and the rest of the EU, but by no
means perfect. The law does say that if an alternative method exists
(which includes reduction and refinement as well as replacement), it
must be used. However, the Dr Hadwen Trust is not convinced that this
is robustly or effectively enforced or monitored.
Much is made of the requirement to demonstrate that non-animal
approaches have been considered. Yet in practice, this amounts to
little more than a few lines on an application form claiming that
non-animal techniques are not available, without even any obligation
to justify that conclusion. The credibility of this claim is assessed
by the Home Office Inspectorate as part of the application process,
but because there is no central database of all non-animal techniques,
the assessment relies purely on the knowledge and memory of the
individual Inspectorate, only one of whom has specialist knowledge of
replacements.
At present, new animal experimenters undergo a training course which
is only an introduction to important issues. The consideration and
implementation of replacement methods is covered only very
superficially. Many established researchers doing animal experiments
have never even attended a training course.
There can be delays between the development of a non-animal technique
and it being widely accepted and therefore used to replace animal use.
For example, in regulatory toxicology a replacement method must go
through a long process of formal validation to demonstrate that it
works. This in itself can take years, but even after it has been
declared an officially validated method, it doesnt automatically
replace animal experiments. In the EU, for example, member states can
still resist replacing the animal test until it has achieved
acceptance at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation &
Development) which sets international test guidelines. Achieving OECD
approval can take years.
So whilst it sounds impressive to state that researchers are required
to use non-animal techniques when they are available, in reality
significant political and regulatory hurdles remain for replacing
toxicity tests. However, basic and medical research (such as that
funded by the Dr Hadwen Trust) is not carried out to meet regulatory
requirements, and so non-animal methods developed in these research
areas do not need to undergo a formal validation procedure. They can
be used to replace animals much more quickly.
back to top
13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to
do it?
Animal experiments continue for a number of reasons. These can include
an unwillingness to change from a traditional and familiar research
method; a lack of knowledge or expertise in non-animal techniques; a
lack of suitable resources or funds to conduct humane research; as
well as the resistance of those with vested interest in continuing
animal research (such as animal suppliers and contract testers). In
some instances, animal tests are effectively a legal requirement, for
example in the marketing of a new drug. Sadly, animals continue to be
seen as cheap, available and disposable tools in the laboratory, and
so may be used in preference to more sophisticated or technically
demanding non-animal methods. Finally, more work is needed to develop
additional replacement techniques.
back to top
14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trusts work different from other medical
research charities?
Unlike most other charities, the Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to all
animal experiments both on ethical and scientific grounds. We believe
animal experiments are inadequate, and that faster medical progress
will be made by developing and utilising advanced, non-animal research
methods. The Dr Hadwen Trust is very unusual in that it works to
exclusively promote and develop non-animal techniques to replace
animals. We have one of the strictest ethical funding criteria in the
world, and we will not fund research that is conducted on living
animals, or animal cells and tissues. All the projects we fund aim to
both replace animal experiments and further medical research, thus
helping both people and animals.
back to top
15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity
develops?
We encourage all our researchers to present their work at conferences
and to publish their findings in scientific journals. To date, some
200 reports of our research have been published in scientific journals
around the world.
We also organise scientific meetings and speak at international
conferences ourselves, and we submit evidence to official enquiries on
animal experiments and alternatives. The Dr Hadwen Trust distributes
an annual Science Review to more than one thousand scientists and
other key individuals, and hosts a technical website
(www.scienceroom.org) to educate and engage scientists in our work.
back to top
16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested
medicines?
No it would only be hypocritical if you had a cruelty-free
alternative, but chose to use the animal tested product.
Unfortunately, all new medicines undergo extensive animal testing as a
regulatory requirement before they are widely used in humans.
Therefore, consumer choice has effectively been taken away from us.
Almost everything has been tested on animals somewhere, at some time:
even water, salt and olive oil!
If lack of consumer choice means we cannot avoid using medicines that
have been tested on animals, it does not negate our right to oppose
animal research per se.
Just because animals were used to test a medicine, does not mean that
its discovery or development depended upon animal experiments or that
animal experiments were a useful part of the process. Nor does it mean
that it is impossible in the future for drug development to be free of
animal use. Animal testing cannot ensure the safety or effectiveness
of a new medicine, as this is only established after it has been
widely used in patients. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests
ultimately fail to be suitable for humans.
Some anti-vivisectionists do choose to reject the use of all orthodox
drugs but this is a purely individual choice. It should not perpetuate
the erroneous view that ending animal experiments means an end to
modern medicine. It does not. We accept the need to use drugs now
whilst working to make changes for the future, based on the firm
belief that non-animal methods offer a safer and more reliable route
to developing drugs and treatments.
back to top
17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law
requires them for new drugs?
The making and testing of new medicines is only one aspect of medical
research (comprising 24% of all UK animal experiments in 2005), but
its not what the Dr Hadwen Trust does. Most of our research is
focused on understanding different human illnesses their causes, how
they develop, and the underlying features that might allow them to be
prevented, diagnosed earlier, or treated more effectively. This is
sometimes known as fundamental medical research.
Much of this kind of medical research normally involves investigating
how the body functions in health and disease, by artificially causing
selected symptoms of human illnesses in other animals. We are finding
new ways to investigate illnesses without resorting to animal
experiments.
Some of our research aims at developing advanced non-animal methods to
replace the animal tests currently required by legislation or by
regulatory agencies.
back to top
18. Are animal experiments required by law?
The law does not require any of the animal experiments conducted in
efforts to discover the causes, diagnosis or development of human
illnesses. The animal experiments carried out just to discover new
knowledge are not required by law either. However, in the development
and safety testing of products such as medicines, dangerous chemicals,
disinfectants and pesticides, there are European laws which currently
specify that companies should conduct a range of animal tests. As new,
non-animal methods are developed, the testing requirements can be
altered and animal tests replaced.
One example is the replacement of rabbit tests for skin corrosion by
chemicals, with a test-tube method. However, there is considerable
resistance to change. Pressure must be maintained on regulatory
agencies and companies, so that the development and acceptance of
alternative methods is prioritised and streamlined.
back to top
19. Havent animal experiments resulted in medical advances?
Animal experiments have been a part of medical research for centuries,
and many millions are conducted every year. It would be absurd if some
of those experiments had not led to some progress, especially in the
18th and 19th centuries when so little was known about how human and
animal bodies function. However, due to species differences and other
limitations of animal experiments for predicting what happens in
humans, very many experiments on rats, mice, rabbits, primates and
other animals have produced misleading information. The governments
advisory committee has admitted that the validity of animal
experiments cannot be assumed and would need to be demonstrated on a
case-by-case basis. Where the reliability of animal experiments for
medical progress has been independently analysed, many were shown
either to have been conducted badly or to have wrongly predicted human
outcomes.
For some diseases where little progress has been made in spite of
decades of animal experiments, the conclusion must be that the animal
models are failing to elucidate the human condition, and may well have
obscured our understanding of it. There are numerous examples of
animal research delaying medical progress because results from animal
studies have sent research in the wrong direction. For example, the
recently revealed deficiencies of the mouse and rabbit models of
multiple sclerosis (MS) provide a reason why research into this
disease has remained largely unproductive over many decades.
Animal experiments are fraught with difficulties arising from species
variations and the artificiality of animal models of disease. There
is little objective evidence so far of their reliability or their
relevance to human outcomes. By contrast, at the start of the 21st
century, non-animal techniques have become the cutting edge of medical
research. Animal experiments are being replaced by a range of
non-animal methods that as well as being more humane, frequently prove
cheaper, quicker and more effective as well as saving lives.
date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:53:34 +0100
author: Gloria
|
