Straying Away from Animal Testing

Animal testing exhibited in a lab

The basis for testing new medicines and other products on animals as a method for determining human safety follows the belief that a human life is valuable and should be protected at any cost. Yet, research has found that if a coin was flipped to judge how a human will respond to particular product or drug, that prediction would be equally as accurate as testing the drug on a nonhuman species (4). Such a low percentage of accurate human response prediction calls to question both the effectiveness and necessity of animal testing. Failed experiments continue to highlight the differences between animal and human genomes, and to continue testing animals would be counterproductive. The amount of animal testing in laboratories should be reduced, as it has scientifically become outdated by new technology that more accurately reflects the human genome.

Advocates of animal testing argue that animals are an accurate predictor of how humans will react to new drugs or medical products. However, the ongoing failure of experiments based off of animal testing demonstrates the falsehood of this argument . In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, approximately 10,000 babies were born with birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths occurred as a result of the disconnect between animal reactivity to a drug and assumed human reactivity (2). The drug that caused this tragedy, Thalidomide, was released to the market and was originally considered an effective solution for insomnia, and later an effective solution for nausea and morning sickness for pregnant women (2). The drug passed initial animal testing, and the reliance on animal testing allowed it to be released to the public (2). A more recent example of the dangers in predicting human behavior after animal behavior is the administration of a voluntary trial for the drug TGN 1412 in Britain. TGN 1412 was approved for human testing after success was seen in animal testing as an anti-inflammatory (3). The trial was performed in London on six healthy, young males. Hours after being injected with the drug, the six young men ended up in critical care as multiple organs began failing (3). Despite years of improved drug regulation since the thalidomide tragedy, the disconnect between the animal and human genome remains and the inference that animals serve as an accurate indicator for humans continues to be detrimental for human health.

In response to continued findings that animal testing does not serve as the best indicator for human safety, new technology is being pursued to serve as a replacement to such a dated practice. In vitro practices serve as the most commonly used methods for replacing animals in testing new medical products (5). In vitro testing involves the use of cell cultures in test tubes. The benefits of this method are that not only can researchers use human cells to predict human behavior, but they can also study human reactivity on the cellular level, which is important as cell cultures can demonstrate the lowest amount of concentration at which a substance causes damage to the cell (5). The new emphasis being placed on using only human based data in the scientific community has facilitated immense progress, specifically in the fields of vaccine development and testing, as well as therapeutic research (1). With the use of in vitro technology, a surrogate in vitro human immune system has been created to better assess the human immune response to a specific vaccine or drug (1). This method of scientific testing not only accurately reflects the human genome, but it also shortens the discovery time for human response predictions in drug and vaccine testing (1). This system of scientific testing has statistically produced more accurate pre-clinical data as compared to data gathered through animal testing (1).

In conjunction with the progress gathered through human cell based research, computer simulated models are also being developed to better mimic human response. Currently the most common form of using computer models in predicting human response is in the field of trauma, which has served to be a very useful tool for military operation (5). An example of this type of alternative is the Combat Trauma Patient Simulator, which can reproduce human hemorrhaging, amputations, burns and fractures (5). Previously, animals were used in order to develop methods to these trauma symptoms and underwent processes such as burning their skin to see the results of medications (5). With the use of innovations such as the Combat Trauma Patient Simulator, the necessity of animals in labs becomes impractical and the suffering of these animals resultantly would end.

Scientific tests such as cell culture and computer models serve as more accurate tests in that researchers can trace back to the root of any observed problems as they can monitor progressions throughout the entire research, whereas, with animals, problems could be attributed to a variety of undiscovered issues that may only pertain to a specific species (5). The emphasis being placed on transitioning away from animal testing and focusing more on the human condition has produced more accurate and effective data in a multitude of scientific fields. As a result of this progress, the need for animal testing has become obsolete.


Works Cited

1. Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing And Research."Plos ONE 6.9 (2011): 1-4. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Feb.. 2014.
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8f7f3331-ebb4-40d0-a144-e6c18dc23277%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4211

2. Fintel, Bara, Athena T. Samaras, and Edson Carias. "Helix Magazine." The Thalidomide Tragedy: Lessons for Drug Safety and Regulation. N.p., 28 July 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
http://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

3. Healy, Bernadine. "The Tribulation Of Trials." U.S. News & World Report 140.12 (2006): 66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&sid=6f80a016-eb4e-4d74-9e5a-b835c2d669c0%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=20273163

4. "Limitations and Dangers | Animal Use in Research." Limitations and Dangers | Animal Use in Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. 

http://www.neavs.org/research/limitations

5. RANGANATHA, N., and I. J. KUPPAST. "A Review On Alternatives To Animal Testing Methods In Drug Development."International Journal Of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 4.(2012): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
.http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=6f80a016-eb4e-4d74-9e5a-b835c2d669c0%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4108