Home > Campaigns > Animal experiments > Humane research > Special report: October 1997 |
|
Human Tissue: The Neglected Resource This editorial is taken from the New Scientist magazine in response to our Human Tissue Report. THE MEANS TO AN END It is every scientist's responsibility to avoid the unnecessary use of animals in experiments - there is nothing contentious about that. Governments everywhere generally support that view and reams of legislation seek to protect animals. But while there is broad agreement on ethical issues, there remain huge questions for scientists on the extent to which animals could be replaced in certain kinds of experiments. For governments, too, the questions are more practical than philosophical: how much of the taxpayers money should be spent on developing alternatives to animal research and where should the line be drawn? Already there are subtle differences in the regulation of experiments in different countries. An overall EU directive states that, "an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of the animal, is reasonably and practically available". The "reasonably and practically available" is, of course, intended to allow different nations to decide how far they will go. As in other matters, the Dutch seem to be going furthest. Their legislation states that: "No animal experiment shall be conducted for a purpose which, according to the consensus of opinion among experts, may also be achieved by means other than an experiment on animals..." No surprise then that the Dutch have also pushed further in collecting data on animal use. In doing so, they have hit on a largely unknown--or at least unrecorded--use of animals. Many lab animals (principally rats and mice) are reared solely to generate tissue for experiments. Because the animals are not experimented upon but are simply killed humanely, they have not figured in animal welfare statistics. But now these figures, which suggest that 14 per cent of animals used in research are those bred for their tissues, have attracted the attention of British antivivisection group Animal Aid. They are campaigning to slash these numbers and have come up with a seemingly practical way of doing so. They suggest, quite rightly, that human tissue could often provide a viable alternative. All the major nations already have large networks of tissue banks. There is huge demand for tissue--corneas for eye grafts, skin to replace burns, muscle and bone to repair ankles and knees, valves for hearts or whole organs for transplant. Nations in the former Soviet bloc are even selling postmortem tissue to the West and trade is flourishing. But tissue banks are almost wholly geared up to providing tissues for operations. Could the system be changed so that banks also collected and distributed additional tissue for research? With the right legal and administrative changes the answer is probably yes. Not only would fewer animals then be needed but research would benefit--human tissue is often a better test material in medical studies aimed at humans. It is a good sign to see practical thinking, rather than angry dogma, coming from an antivivisection group. Those holding the research purse strings should respond positively. What are the prospects for other areas using laboratory animals? The cosmetics industry is the public's favourite target but it is already wise to the preference for beauty without cruelty. Some companies rather disingenuously advertise that their cosmetics are produced without animal testing, meaning only that the product or its ingredients were tested by someone else in the past. But others are finding ways of working out the likely impact of new formulations without new tests. It is a pity that cosmetics companies cannot be persuaded to speed up progress by sharing expertise but, even so, available figures suggest cosmetics testing in Europe now accounts for well under 10 per cent of animals used in experiments. Cutbacks elsewhere will not be so easy to achieve. Huge numbers of animals are used in toxicity tests. Techniques that replace mammals with invertebrates and bacteria or, better still, human tissues, are being developed. Better computer models can also help testing. But demand for tests is rising as the public demands more information on the dangers of chemicals and genetic engineering provides new opportunities for drug companies. If the gap is to be closed and alternatives found to animal testing, then governments must come up with a lot more cash. The issue is not about principles but about the willingness of taxpayers to pay to get the job done. From New Scientist, 25 October 1997 © Copyright New Scientist, IPC Magazines Limited 1997 |
|
|
