SEVERAL million rabbits, mice and rats are destined to die in the name of science over the next 10 years. To some people, this is an unforgivable slaughter. To others, animal testing is the only adequate way to test new treatments for diseases and ensure that drugs and other new chemicals are safe.
But in the past few weeks, governments have been quietly signing deals that could dramatically affect this highly emotional and polarised debate. There are signs that those in power are finally paving the way for a global movement that could one day consign experiments on live animals to history.
The impetus has come from an unexpected source: the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the private 鈥渃lub鈥� of the world鈥檚 richest nations. In May, OECD members agreed for the first time to approve four new tests for chemical safety that don鈥檛 rely on live rabbits and rodents (see 鈥淭he rise of the 鈥榯hree Rs'鈥�). These four tests alone could spare millions of animals each year from undergoing lab procedures.
Advertisement
The decision is a triumph for the OECD, which some critics say should shoulder most of the blame for the slow progress in introducing alternatives to animal testing. The organisation鈥檚 strict voting system means that every member has to agree to a test before they can all start using it as a recognised standard.
鈥淎t the OECD, if one person won鈥檛 play ball, discussion stops,鈥� says Michael Balls, outgoing chairman of the European Union鈥檚 European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. In an ECVAM report due out this week, Balls condemns the slow rate of progress. In Britain, a report due next week from the House of Lords is also expected to call for more research into alternatives.
But while other campaigners agree that replacements for animal tests aren鈥檛 appearing fast enough, they say the recent decisions by the OECD signal a new era in establishment attitudes. 鈥淭he first [new tests] going through the OECD are setting a precedent that will build confidence in the alternative techniques,鈥� says Gill Langley, scientific adviser to the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, a charity backing replacement of lab animals. 鈥淚 hope that as these new tests come on-stream, new methods will be accepted more quickly.鈥�
So what鈥檚 been holding things back? One country must bear particular responsibility for the OECD鈥檚 past lethargy, says John McArdle, director of the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation in Apple Valley, Minnesota. He points the finger at the US and its Environmental Protection Agency, the federal body charged with protecting American citizens and the environment from hazardous chemicals.
Consider the notorious 鈥渓ethal dose 50鈥� (LD50) test for acute toxicity. Groups of animals receive successively higher doses of a chemical till at least half of a group dies. The OECD had to wait until 2000 for the EPA to acquiesce so that it could abandon the test, despite other countries rejecting it years ago.
The EPA鈥檚 reticence stems from plain old conservatism, lack of organisation and mistrust of anything new, according to Richard Hill, who represents the agency at OECD meetings. Many animal tests have become entrenched through years of use, he says, and there is no quick process for bringing in alternatives.
Hill says that things are finally changing, however, mainly thanks to the government-wide Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), created in 1997 to bring federal agencies together. 鈥淔or the first time, we had a forum where we could talk about what鈥檚 good and what鈥檚 bad about old and new methods,鈥� says Hill. For example, the EPA organised a workshop in February to teach industry and government researchers how to switch from the LD50 test to alternatives that use only up to nine animals instead of 25.
But critics claim this is not enough, and say that US law must change to match the legislation in Europe that forces labs to use alternatives to animal tests whenever they become available. Worse, says McArdle, changes to the US Animal Welfare Act two months ago have relegated rats, mice and birds to 鈥渘on-animal鈥� status, meaning they鈥檙e no longer protected by welfare legislation, despite being used in 95 per cent of animal experiments.
Hill admits there is less impetus in the US than in Europe to push for in vitro testing. But he says that there are simply no alternatives in some cases. For example, in vitro tests to see whether chemicals harm the eye have consistently failed to measure up. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 matter if you want in vitro methods, because sometimes you can鈥檛 have them 鈥� the science is not there,鈥� he says.
And there鈥檚 the rub. 鈥淭he bottom line is that new methods must provide at least the equivalent protection for human health and the environment, or preferably better,鈥� says Fred Stokes of ICCVAM. 鈥淚t would be irresponsible to adopt new methods that don鈥檛 do this.鈥� Balls agrees. 鈥淚f you replace tests, they鈥檇 better work or you鈥檇 have another thalidomide on your hands.鈥�
But overall there is wide agreement that much more can be done to lessen the pain and suffering caused to animals in medical research. Animal welfare proponents say one reason why the US is dragging its feet is that the American public is less vociferous than people in Europe when it comes to opposing animal testing. 鈥淚t鈥檚 much more in-your-face over here,鈥� says Bob Combes, scientific director of Britain鈥檚 Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME).
The other major barrier to alternatives is a lack of funding, and that鈥檚 not confined to the US. There is a classic mismatch between what the public demands and what governments provide, says Herman Koeter, a stalwart who for years has run the OECD鈥檚 programme to provide guidelines on animal testing.
He says the number of proposed non-animal tests is drying up, primarily because regulatory authorities and government labs aren鈥檛 developing new ones. Most new alternative tests are being developed by industry or private charities.
Langley says that the British government allocates less than 拢60,000 a year for researching alternatives. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a joke,鈥� she says. It is also a false economy, because alternative tests are faster and cheaper than those using animals.
Yet it looks as though governments are at last taking animal welfare seriously, and a significant number of the old tests may finally be on the way out. This year, animal welfare charities have been allowed to sit in on the OECD meetings for the first time, through an umbrella group called the International Council on Animal Protection in the OECD. 鈥淚t鈥檚 fantastic,鈥� says Langley. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a vote, but I think it鈥檒l help change the tone and background against which these decisions are taken,鈥� she says.
Just weeks ago, the council secured a major victory, convincing member states to prioritise the validation of a new technique for assessing how carcinogenic chemicals are. Traditionally, between 500 and 1000 rodents are needed to test each chemical, over a period of two years. The new test uses cells from Syrian hamster embryos and gives a result in days. 鈥淚t would save a massive amount of money and thousands of animals,鈥� says Langley.
And last week, in response to the widespread desire for change, animal welfare groups, politicians, and scientists gathered at a European Commission meeting to galvanise support for other alternative tests.
鈥淭he groundswell towards non-animal testing has been building for decades and is beginning to accelerate,鈥� says Langley. All that鈥檚 now required is money to support the new ideology.
