Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 71 (2015) 624
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph
Letter to the Editor Animal rights proposals
activists:
Misconceived
The reply letter of Baines and Stoddard (2014) to our earlier comment on animal rights and biomedical research (Vivarelli et al., 2014), summarizes the flawed arguments put forward by animal rights activists to completely distort reality and the public opinion of animal testing in biomedical research. Baines and Stoddard seem to consider animal based studies as rough and outdated methods, when compared to ‘‘modern research tools’’ described as ‘‘organs on chip’’, in silico methods, adaptive statistics, improved protocols, and the paramount use of in vitro cell cultures toward reducing animal testing. Here we would agree that that modern biotechnologies and interpretive models that simplify the complexity of multicellular organisms could be useful research tools (Guaitani et al., 2003). At the same time it should be equally clear to trained and straight thinking biologists that whatever many cultures of a few homologous cells could not reproduce the most complex interrelationships of physiologic signals that sustain living organisms. Cell cultures are not tissues, even less organs, let alone systems; and a living body is much more than a collection of its parts. The average human body contains some 40 trillion cells in more than 200 different types, assembled in an interwoven architecture of specialized organs, whereby a few homologous cells in a few microliters of in vitro cultures could not possibly be proposed as a plausible model of the whole system. This is a plain truth that cannot be forgotten in this current debate. Baines and Stoddard show how profound uninformed and mistaken they are when referring to animal models as a ‘‘crude black box’’, outdated by their superior research and testing models. Several in vitro techniques for the reproductive and developmental xenobiotic toxicity, such as Whole Embryo Culture Tests, Micromass Teratogen Test, Embryonic Stem Cell Test may have been proposed to reduce the number of animal labs (Schumann, 2010). Yet, in vitro tests however validated cannot reproduce and discover the broader range of potential adverse or repair events occurring in a living organism and needed to assess safety. We cannot afford to entertain the idea that animal-based studies are ‘‘second class science’’, or an ‘‘easier way’’, or that researchers involved in animal testing are ‘‘stuck in the dark age of science’’. Indeed, scientists who sought quick publicity with a minimum
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.020 0273-2300/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
effort of time, funds, and work, would not choose animal models, for they entail high costs, a qualified team, multiple hours caring for animals and their evaluations, plus all necessary ethical and institutional approvals. What Baines and Stoddard fail to acknowledge is the remarkable triumphs of this difficult but tested and widely followed scientific approach. If this were not the case, researchers would have abandoned animal testing long time ago. Directly or indirectly, all Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology relied on animal data. Animal research is responsible for the most important achievements in health-care, diagnostic and surgical techniques. The misconceptions of Barnes and Stoddard stand as an affront to rational science and to the ethics of all conscientious scientists who serve this science day after day with tireless dedication and pride. . . References Baines, J., Stoddard, G., 2014. Rebuttal to the letter to the editor regarding: the sympathy of policy-makers towards animal rights activists, and the future of biomedical research. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. Guaitani, A., Filippeschi, S., Garattini, S., 2003. Sparing animals and progressing in science. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 24 (12), 616–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tips.2003.09.014. Schumann, J., 2010. Teratogen screening: state of art. Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnol. 2 (3), 115–121. Vivarelli, F., Sapone, A., Canistro, D., Paolini, M., 2014. The sympathy of policymakers towards animal-rights activists, and the future of biomedical research. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
Fabio Vivarelli Donatella Canistro Clara Babot Marquillas Andrea Sapone Moreno Paolini Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, Via S. Donato 15, 40126 Bologna, Italy Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (F. Vivarelli) Available online 31 December 2014
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph
Letter to the Editor Animal rights proposals
activists:
Misconceived
The reply letter of Baines and Stoddard (2014) to our earlier comment on animal rights and biomedical research (Vivarelli et al., 2014), summarizes the flawed arguments put forward by animal rights activists to completely distort reality and the public opinion of animal testing in biomedical research. Baines and Stoddard seem to consider animal based studies as rough and outdated methods, when compared to ‘‘modern research tools’’ described as ‘‘organs on chip’’, in silico methods, adaptive statistics, improved protocols, and the paramount use of in vitro cell cultures toward reducing animal testing. Here we would agree that that modern biotechnologies and interpretive models that simplify the complexity of multicellular organisms could be useful research tools (Guaitani et al., 2003). At the same time it should be equally clear to trained and straight thinking biologists that whatever many cultures of a few homologous cells could not reproduce the most complex interrelationships of physiologic signals that sustain living organisms. Cell cultures are not tissues, even less organs, let alone systems; and a living body is much more than a collection of its parts. The average human body contains some 40 trillion cells in more than 200 different types, assembled in an interwoven architecture of specialized organs, whereby a few homologous cells in a few microliters of in vitro cultures could not possibly be proposed as a plausible model of the whole system. This is a plain truth that cannot be forgotten in this current debate. Baines and Stoddard show how profound uninformed and mistaken they are when referring to animal models as a ‘‘crude black box’’, outdated by their superior research and testing models. Several in vitro techniques for the reproductive and developmental xenobiotic toxicity, such as Whole Embryo Culture Tests, Micromass Teratogen Test, Embryonic Stem Cell Test may have been proposed to reduce the number of animal labs (Schumann, 2010). Yet, in vitro tests however validated cannot reproduce and discover the broader range of potential adverse or repair events occurring in a living organism and needed to assess safety. We cannot afford to entertain the idea that animal-based studies are ‘‘second class science’’, or an ‘‘easier way’’, or that researchers involved in animal testing are ‘‘stuck in the dark age of science’’. Indeed, scientists who sought quick publicity with a minimum
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.020 0273-2300/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
effort of time, funds, and work, would not choose animal models, for they entail high costs, a qualified team, multiple hours caring for animals and their evaluations, plus all necessary ethical and institutional approvals. What Baines and Stoddard fail to acknowledge is the remarkable triumphs of this difficult but tested and widely followed scientific approach. If this were not the case, researchers would have abandoned animal testing long time ago. Directly or indirectly, all Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology relied on animal data. Animal research is responsible for the most important achievements in health-care, diagnostic and surgical techniques. The misconceptions of Barnes and Stoddard stand as an affront to rational science and to the ethics of all conscientious scientists who serve this science day after day with tireless dedication and pride. . . References Baines, J., Stoddard, G., 2014. Rebuttal to the letter to the editor regarding: the sympathy of policy-makers towards animal rights activists, and the future of biomedical research. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. Guaitani, A., Filippeschi, S., Garattini, S., 2003. Sparing animals and progressing in science. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 24 (12), 616–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tips.2003.09.014. Schumann, J., 2010. Teratogen screening: state of art. Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnol. 2 (3), 115–121. Vivarelli, F., Sapone, A., Canistro, D., Paolini, M., 2014. The sympathy of policymakers towards animal-rights activists, and the future of biomedical research. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
Fabio Vivarelli Donatella Canistro Clara Babot Marquillas Andrea Sapone Moreno Paolini Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, Via S. Donato 15, 40126 Bologna, Italy Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (F. Vivarelli) Available online 31 December 2014
