Animal research opinions

[krodriguez]

Some people started talking about this already in another thread and I think it's such a huge issue that it deserved its own thread. So here is my opinion on the subject.....

I feel that right now it is necessary because computer models just aren't ready to take over. However after working in the biotech industry for the past 5 years I have to say I don't like the idea of animal research. I hated being responsible for killing hundreds of animals on a monthly basis. Overall I agree it is necessary and helpful. My biggest pet peeve however is when I hear people say so casually how they support animal research without really understanding what that means. I am not referring to people who have actually done the research because I know they understand. I just can't stand when my friends who were music majors or art history majors fight with me how they absolutely and completely support it when they've never had to kill an animal. I wish I could make them watch a video of a typical sac day or some of the animal models I had to work with and then ask them again if they support it. If they do then fine I just want them to fully realize what they are supporting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

As someone who has been in research and plans to continue (and I also work as a technician for all the lab and teaching animals, so I see firsthand how they are kept/treated, etc)

I don't think anyone LIKES the idea of animal research. We would all like a world where we would be able to find answers to our questions without using them. However, for example, can a computer model simulate how a vaccines will work in real animals? I doubt it. There will always be some things we will alwasy need actual animals for.

That being said, I absolutely abhor unnecessary research. Cosmetic procedures for one, and there are others that can be performed in many other ways (ie tissue growth and in vitro studies).

But when you come right down to it...if a disease pops up and we need to find a vaccine for it, or a new variant of some sort of pathological condition comes up...you had better believe we need to test on actual animals, because in vitro things will not cut it when you get down to the wire.

 

[rexosaurus]

As someone who has been in research and plans to continue (and I also work as a technician for all the lab and teaching animals, so I see firsthand how they are kept/treated, etc)

I don't think anyone LIKES the idea of animal research. We would all like a world where we would be able to find answers to our questions without using them. However, for example, can a computer model simulate how a vaccines will work in real animals? I doubt it. There will always be some things we will alwasy need actual animals for.

That being said, I absolutely abhor unnecessary research. Cosmetic procedures for one, and there are others that can be performed in many other ways (ie tissue growth and in vitro studies).

But when you come right down to it...if a disease pops up and we need to find a vaccine for it, or a new variant of some sort of pathological condition comes up...you had better believe we need to test on actual animals, because in vitro things will not cut it when you get down to the wire.

I couldn't have said this better myself! And as for the OP, how do you know your friends that are music majors don't understand what animal research stands for? I don't necessarily believe that you have to actually euthanize an animal in the name of research to be a proponent of the cause. If they understand that it betters human and animal health, brings better vaccines, increases the quality of life, etc., then maybe they don't have to know the intimate details to appreciate the animals that give their lives for us and other animals.

 

[BobDog]

As someone who has been in research and plans to continue (and I also work as a technician for all the lab and teaching animals, so I see firsthand how they are kept/treated, etc)

I don't think anyone LIKES the idea of animal research. We would all like a world where we would be able to find answers to our questions without using them. However, for example, can a computer model simulate how a vaccines will work in real animals? I doubt it. There will always be some things we will always need actual animals for.

That being said, I absolutely abhor unnecessary research. Cosmetic procedures for one, and there are others that can be performed in many other ways (ie tissue growth and in vitro studies).

But when you come right down to it...if a disease pops up and we need to find a vaccine for it, or a new variant of some sort of pathological condition comes up...you had better believe we need to test on actual animals, because in vitro things will not cut it when you get down to the wire.

First of all to the OP, we are NOWHERE near being able to simulate something as simple as the reaction of one cell to one stimulus using computers (let alone a complex organism composed of multiple cell types). Computer simulated/modeled systems are a long way off. The problem with any computer simulation is that you have to first understand the biology in order to program the computer to simulate that biology. We don't understand even a fraction of the biology of something like the immune system, which has been studied for a long time.

In regards to using tissue culture studies. Tissue culture has its place, especially for pre-clinical studies used to assess certain biological processes, but it can't be used for anything that is translational. The biggest problem with any in vitro study is that we put cells in a dish with other cells like themselves and then feed them as much good food (media) as they want. It is not realistic. In the body (especially in a pathogenic state), cells are exposed to hypoxia, changes in food supply, varying types of underlying matrices and interactions with other cell types. Even newer tissue culture systems that try to mimic the "real" environment of a cell are not always accurate because (like before) we still don't understand exactly what is important in the "real" situation. Unfortunately, the best way (for now) to mimic the "real" situation is in a "real" animal.

Having said that, there are real problems with animal models of most diseases. They are almost always artificially induced in animals that are 1. genetically homogeneous and 2. kept in cages in idealized environments (i.e. temp controlled, pathogen free). The best answer for translational work would be things like they are doing in comparative oncology where you are working with pet dogs who live in an environment similar to ours who have spontaneously occurring diseases. In these cases, the owners are looking for something to help their animal, the drug companies are looking for good, realistic data to support their drug and the vet/researcher is looking to advance the understanding and treatment of the disease. Still not realistic for all diseases and there is a chance that the work won't translate to humans, but it seems to have a better chance to translate than a mouse model. These types of studies would still be late trials, which would still require early toxicity, proof of principle type studies in mice.

Anyways, sorry for the really long answer, this is a subject I am very interested in. In the end, we just have to trust institutional controls like the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) to ensure that animal studies are absolutely necessary and are done humanely (they do a pretty good job of this, BTW). There is no real great answer, but for now the types of things that we have to do to advance treatments, animal studies are gonig to have to be done.

 

[VAgirl]

Excellent response, Bobdog. Thanks for taking the time to explain it so thoroughly and eloquently.

 

[soxbox]

I just wanted to agree with all the above posters. I have been in the world of animal research for 5 years and as much as I wish there wasn't a need for it, there is. The majority of drugs/medical devices have to have some level of animal testing, if not extensive, to get through the FDA. For all the people against animal research, I wish that next time they were sick and took medicine, put their contact lenses in, had surgery, etc they would realize that if animals had not given their life for them, those items would not exist.

It is very hard to have to euthanize most, if not all, of the animals you work with on a daily basis. However, since I do not see animal research receding anytime soon (as mentioned before it is a necessary evil), I plan on pursuing lab animal medicine. These animals are giving the greatest sacrifice and I feel that I have a chance to at least be an advocate for these animals. I have come in at 2am to give my rats pain meds. All of my animals I make sure get the most humane treatment and treat each one, whether its a mouse or a sheep with the utmost respect.

I definitely understand people not wanting to be involved in research as it is not a field for everybody. But for people to make the blanket statement that they are against animal research really need to step back and take a look at where animal research has advanced medical technology. (dont get me wrong, i dont think animals should be used for anything frivilous ie: testing cosmetics).

sorry for the rambling, but this has been my life for a long time and i really have strong feelings that i couldnt quite get coherently out of my mouth today!!

 

[banditalfi]

Having said that, there are real problems with animal models of most diseases. They are almost always artificially induced in animals that are 1. genetically homogeneous and 2. kept in cages in idealized environments (i.e. temp controlled, pathogen free).

Loved your post BobDog, but I wanted to add that there is one other problem with using animal models, specifically for drugs targeted for human use - namely, that not all the pathways are completely homologous. Most people have heard about thalidamide - an example of a drug that had no side effects with rabbits, but horrible results in humans (well, one isomer, at least) - and another example is acetaminophen, which works well in humans, but can be tragic in other animals.

The bottom line seems to be that, although animal testing is by no means ideal, it is a necessary evil. Even though drugs can still have complications in humans after going through animal testing, the vast majority of these types of drugs are ruled out through testing.

 

[chris03333]

and another example is acetaminophen, which works well in humans, but can be tragic in other animals.

Just so you know acetaminophen is used widely in rodents (mice, rats), which were the first animal models tested and they do not have adverse effects.

I have seen the benefits of animal research first hand and realize that even the simplest things we take for granted (like band aids, those were developed in pig studies) are a result of advances made with these animals. I feel my best work is in keeping these animals happy.

I am a Lab animal medicine resident

 

[BobDog]

Just FYI thalidomide is actually making a comeback as a treatment in some types of cancers and a some autoimmune diseases due to its anti-angiogenic properties. Turns out that it is a potent teratogen but when used in non-pregnant adults it is actually not very toxic.

Your point is still completely valid and this is the reason that phase I clinical studies are designed to evaluate toxicity and side effects only (not treatment effects). I just throw the thalidomide thing out there as a bit of worthless trivia. =o)

 

[banditalfi]

Just so you know acetaminophen is used widely in rodents (mice, rats), which were the first animal models tested and they do not have adverse effects.

I have seen the benefits of animal research first hand and realize that even the simplest things we take for granted (like band aids, those were developed in pig studies) are a result of advances made with these animals. I feel my best work is in keeping these animals happy.

I am a Lab animal medicine resident

Chris - I completely understand, but I was trying to say that we have seen examples of drugs that work in some species, but not others. Just because something works in a rabbit does not mean it will work in a human (so I guess that's why we have human trials...)

 

[Electrophile]

I've done animal research for nearly 5 years (in undergrad and grad school with the same lab, a different lab just occasionally in vet school as my schedule allows). I almost constantly tried to come up with ways to treat the animals as humanely as possible. For instance, we didn't gavage the mice when feeding them a chemical (our research was on endocrine disruption), but fed it to them using corn oil and an electronic pipette. I was even experimenting with putting the corn oil solution on Cheerios so it would be even less stressful for the mice (like doughnuts!). I tried to kill them as quickly and cleanly as possible when we did so. Our culled mice were also donated to the raptor rehab project and the herpetological exhibit on campus. My two snakes also get fed culled experimental mice as they are better treated, humanely killed, and are less likely to be diseased than at a pet shop.

I likewise would go out of my way for the care of the animals. I remember one day discovering a cage of mice where the water bottle had leaked and flooded the entire cage. Poor guys looked like drowned rats, errr...mice. I was already running late and had to be somewhere, but instead of just leaving them until it was convenient, I got them a new cage, put them under a warming lamp, and hand dried them for 20 minutes with paper towels so they wouldn't get chilled. They were cute and fluffy afterwards. Anyways, I see animal research the same way I see food animals: it is a necessary evil and the very best we can do is treat them humanely and respect them for the very necessary services they provide.

 

[krodriguez]

Thanks for all of your opinions. It's great to hear from all of the lab animal people out here. Just to clarify my original post. I do believe animal research is necessary and I know that computer models will never compare (I guess I was referring to some posts back in the No Kill vs. Peta and HSUS thread). My point is just I wish we didn't have to use animals.

As for the friends I referred to, I know they have no idea what they are supporting because I've asked them and we have fought about it before. I'm sure there are music majors etc out there that know and care about the animals, but the people I'm talking about do not. None of them want to know. It's like slaughterhouses and the meat industry. People want to eat the meat but no one wants to see the animal slaughtered. I just think people should educate themselves about animal research instead of blindly supporting it. Everyone should truly understand what they are agreeing to. If everyone is aware of what happens to food animals and lab animals I think it will help to ensure they are treated properly. Obviously this statement excludes all of you who do animal research as I know you already understand. I am also glad that so many great people do animal research (something I've noted from my co-workers as well).