Animal testing and animal cruelty are not one and the same.
There has certainly been cases with overlap, and there is certainly the potential for overlap. However there is also animal testing going on all of the time where there are no welfare concerns. The reason my university employs a veterinarian is to monitor the welfare/treatment of the animals, and to monitor the ethics of that research. Nothing happens without this vet approving it, and she is constantly checking up on everything to make sure it is still meets her standards.
I'm going to take a guess that you have not been heavily exposed to this area of vet med. Now would be a great time to do some research and talk to people in that area (luckily we even have some on the forum!) to get some more facts, and hopefully get some more understanding of what animal testing actually entails.
I'm going to take this moment to tag
@Lab Vet who I'm sure can contribute some healthy knowledge to this thread
🙂
Sure, BeautifulBritishColumbia, I'll step in here.
The great majority of products and substances approved by the FDA for use in people and animals are first tested in
In vivo systems. All scientists, be they veterinarians or not, are bound by the following animal welfare maxim: Reduce, Refine, Replace. Whenever possible, scientists and the organizations that employ them are morally obligated to reduce the quantity of animals used in any given experiment, refine the procedures to which animals are subjected, and ultimately replace animal use with
In vitro platforms or digital simulations (the ultimate goal for all of those involved with animal experimentation).
At this stage of technological development, animal models can't simply be 'done away with' (despite what dubious media sources would have you believe- I'm looking at you, PETA). Many disease processes are multi-factorial and far too complicated to accurately reproduce in a petri-dish or via a computer program. Who knows where science will be in 100 years? Hopefully to the point where
In vivo models are no longer required. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. As such, strict regulations govern animal use at every step of the process. The use of living, sentient beings in research is a privilege, not a right.
There are two major federal laws that dictate the use of animals in research; the US Animal Welfare Act and the Health Research Extension Act (also known as the PHS policy). In a 1985 addendum, the AWA mandated that all projects involving animals (with the exception of certain species) be approved and overseen by committees (typically termed 'Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees,' IACUCs) consisting of scientists, at least 1 veterinarian with specialty training in laboratory animal species, a member of the lay public, and an individual unaffiliated with the home institution. Scientists proposing experiments are required by law to detail every planned procedure, as well as the living conditions, to which animals are subjected in extensive reports called protocols, which an IACUC can then approve or reject. IACUCs also inspect animal housing, and monitor procedures as they occur to ensure that the original protocol is being adhered to. Deviation requires official review and approval by the committee. The 1985 HREA extended coverage to those species not protected by the purview of the AWA. Violations of these acts entails serious consequences. For federally-funded labs, grant funding can be withdrawn, necessitating a complete cessation of research activities. This action = certain death for a lab.
Laboratory animals have access to veterinary care 24-7. If an institution is large and supports extensive research activities, one or several specialist veterinarians boarded by the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) oversees their care and research use. Some institutions have several. The program with which I worked during the summer of 2016 had 10 ACLAM-boarded vets on site, in addition to three residents in training for their ACLAM boards. Veterinary coverage was available any day of the week, at any hour of the day and night. Staff clinicians rotated weekend and evening coverage much like a companion animal emergency practice.
Lab animal vets care deeply for the well-being of their animal charges, as do the overwhelming majority of scientists. Sometimes, animals are subjected to discomfort for scientifically-justified purposes. In all but the rarest of cases, this pain is well-controlled, and animals are humanely euthanized. In rare instances (only in cases of scientific justification and intense scrutiny), animals are subjected to discomfort without analgesia. These are uncommon, and difficult to watch. They are typically conducted to evaluate the efficacy of analgesic therapies on the alleviation of pain. A scientist can't tell if an analgesic works unless pain exists prior to but is absent following administration of a drug. Such studies are an unfortunate necessity.
To the OP- Have you ever taken a medication (OTC or prescription) to treat an ailment or had surgery of any kind? How about someone you love? None of these advances would ever have been possible without research involving animals. Does Merck use animals in its testing of novel pharmaceutical products. Yes, it does- and I completely support Merck scientists in doing so. I am very proud to be a card-carrying member of the lab animal community. Professionals in this elite group are some of the most caring, empathetic individuals I have had the good fortune to meet. I had a successful career in biomedical science (academic and industrial research) prior to attending veterinary school. In fact, I returned to school in my mid-30s specifically to pursue a career in lab animal medicine. Lab animal people (be they vets or otherwise) are a very passionate bunch. You won't find anyone lukewarm working in this industry.
It is your right, OP to support animal research or not. Before casting your vote, however, I implore you to educate yourself on the facts and speak to professionals actively involved in caring for lab animals. Please consider the countless human and animal lives that have been saved as a result of this sacrifice, and decide whether this important work is justified. When you do, be sure that you can look the victims/families of cancer, AIDS, sickle-cell anemia, and dozens of devastating diseases in the eye when you hand down your judgment.
Please feel free to contact me directly or post your questions/comments here. Laboratory animal medicine is my life and love. I am more than happy to engage in thoughtful dialog.
@kcoughli is another individual committed to the welfare of research animals. Anything to add? I'd welcome your input and perspective.
!
