Special James
H. Anderson,
Animal Common
PhD
Rights Sense
and Research: Must Prevail’
The advances that radiologic science has experienced in recent history have been earned through many means, one of them being animal research. Since the 1980s, animal research has come increasingly into the public eye, through the efforts of ammal welfare and animal rights activist groups. These groups, by their varied means, have exacted changes in how animals are used experimentally and how the public perceives such use. In some cases, their lobbying efforts have resulted in laws that raise the cost of research and provide little improvement in animal weLfare. Because of the financial and political power of these groups and the increasing public awareness of such issues, it is extremely important that the medical and scientific communities become more involved in educating the public on the importance of animal research and clarifying the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Equally important, the medical community must continue to adhere to high standards in research that involves animals. Index
terms:
ogists,
research
Radiology
Animals
1992;
Radiology reports
#{149}
Special
#{149}
Report
and
radiol-
184:647-651
animal
LTHOUGH
ways
been
has
al-
make
has
in interven-
increased
tional radiology, positron emission tomography, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The practice of using animals in medical imaging research changes
those experienced and basic science
similar
by other specialties. involve
to
clinical These
changes
largely
increased use and
regulations regarding the care of laboratory research
animals,
especially
adaptation
those
to
considered
favorites as pets, and recognition of the increased public awareness of animal rights and animal welfarerelated issues. These issues must be addressed by the general public as well as by the medical and scientific community. Although many of the changes that have taken place during the past iO years
have
and
welfare
ers
have
improved just
the
of research added
to
SOCIAL
applicable.
BENEFITS RESEARCH
OF
ANIMAL
overall
care
animals,
oth-
Animal rights activists often suggest that animal research is of little value in the understanding and conquering of disease. The following points are often mentioned: (a) Animals react differently from humans, and results from animal studies mislead scientists. (b) Much animal research duplicates previous work. (c) Computers can simulate many conditions for which
to
animals
substantially
the cost of research without necessarily resulting in improved conditions for the animals. Distinction must be made between animal welfare issues and those related to the more radical animal rights movement. Animal research has made major contributions to advance basic science and medical knowledge, and there is little doubt that if this research were to stop towould suffer. costs that must
be
weighed in any consideration of the importance of animal research (i). Scientists, physicians, and citizens must protect the opportunity to derive and apply medical advances deveboped through animal research. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the work is done in a humane manner, with as little pain and distress to the animals Also, more effort must
of alternatives
Information provided in the following pages describes some of the important issues that currently relate to the use of animals in research. These issues are not unique to radiology, but because they have an impact on the quality of health care delivery, they are of major concern to the scientific and medical community and the general public.
its presence of advances
when
use
animals
as a result
is undergoing
judicious
of academic
radiology,
day, human health These are the real
I From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Aye, 330 Traylor Bldg. Baltimore, MD 21205. Received February 5, 1992; revision requested February 28; revision received March 26; accepted March 30. Address reprint requests to the author. © RSNA, 1992
research a part
as possible. be made to
are
currently
being
used.
(d) Heart, cancer, and stroke research need only concentrate on means of preventing the diseases. There is no doubt that cases can be provided to support the above conclusions. Such cases, however, represent a small minority, and it would be inappropriate to disregard the vast majority of animal-related research that clearly has contributed and continues to contribute to better understanding, prevention, and treatment of diseases.
It would how animal
take volumes to document research has benefited
Abbreviations:
AMA = American Medical sociation, LD00 = dose necessary to produce death in 50% of the test population, PETA People USDA ture.
for the Ethical =
United
States
Treatment Department
As=
of Animals, of Agricul-
647
mankind.
Virtually
medical has
science
been
every
advance
in the 20th
achieved
either
in
century directly
or
indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments (2). The quality of medical care provided in the United States today is a direct resubt of both medical science-related research and basic science work. The importance of animal-dependent medical research is illustrated by the fact that of 70 Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology issued during this
century,
54 were
based
on
animal
research (2). Notable examples of major advances in medical science as a result of animal research include Wilham Harvey’s work on circulation, William Morton’s discovery of ether anesthesia, Robert Koch’s studies on bacterial origin of disease, the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best, Jonas Salk’s work on the polio vaccine, and Christiaan Barnard’s work in organ transplantation (3).
REGULATIONS LEGISLATION ANIMALS USED
AND GOVERNING IN RESEARCH
During the past iO years, major changes have taken place with respect to the use of animals in research. Although there is no doubt that some changes in laws and practices have improved conditions in which animals are used, many others have simply added unnecessary costs or increased bureaucratic paperwork associated with research. It is not always easy for the layman (and, for that matter, many clinicians and scientists) to appreciate just how much these changes may affect research and the quality of health care. Although radiologists as molecular
and many biologists,
scientists, may not
such nec-
essariby utilize animals directly in their work, their research will ultimately be affected. The available pool of federal funds for biomedical research is being effectively shrunk as new regulations are imposed, and this will have a negative impact on all areas of biomedical research and health care, even if the work does not involve use of animals (4). In the long run, the most important cost to the public is inferior health care. Each year, more and more bills addressing issues related to animal research make their way into state legislative agendas. Animal rights groups have focused attention on specific issues rather than on broader and more controversial subjects. Legislators
and
648
#{149}
policy
Radiology
decision
makers
often
find it easier to support a specific issue, such as decreasing the use of pound animals for research, than broader initiatives aimed at eliminating the use of all animals in research (5).
The
accumulation
of a large
num-
ber of these more specific related regulations has dramatically driven up the cost of purchasing and maintaining animals for research. During 1991, 61 bills that would affect the use of animals in research, education, and testing were considered in 31 states (6). Many of these bills are aimed at limiting the testing of consumer products in animals. For such tests, rodents are often subjected to the Draize test or lethal dose (LD,o)-type tests, which have raised controversy relating to their necessity. In the Draize test, the relative toxicity of chemicals in products is evaluated by their ability to inflame or irritate the eye. Rabbits are often used for this test. The LD,o is an exposure response test for evaluation of acute lethality. Mice and rats are most often used for the test. Essentially, in the LD test, the dose of exposure to an agent that is necessary to produce 50% mortality in an animal population is measured. Efforts are under way at several institutions to develop new or improved alternatives to animals for testing the safety of cosmetic and household products. USE
OF
POUND ANIMALS RESEARCH
IN
Bills restricting the use of pound animals for biomedical research have been the most common and successful legislation initiated by animal rights activist groups in the past 10 years (6). At the time of this writing, 13 states prohibit releasing pound animals for research use (6). Each year, 10-16 million cats and dogs are destroyed in municipal pounds and shelters. Of these 10-16 million, only 130,000 (0.8%-1.3%) are used in research (7). This number will certainly decrease, because more and more state and local governments are passing
legislation
that
prohibits
the
use
of any pound animal for research purposes. In states where use of pound animals for research is prohibited, institutions must purchase animals and transport them from pounds in neighboring states or buy animals through private breeders. Dogs raised by private breeders cost several hundred dollars; dogs from local pounds are available for nominal fees. The concept of raising animals for no purpose
other
than
research
while
at the
same time not having access to pound animals that are going to be destroyed makes no sense. Restriction of pound
animal cost total
increases
the
of research, thereby reducing pool of funds available for
use
substantially
the other
important research. Animals will continue to be killed in pounds, and more will be raised for research. As a result, more (rather mals are killed (1). States that permit
release
than
fewer)
public
of animals
ani-
pound
for research
pur-
poses must be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Consideration currently is
being given to make it a federal requirement that pounds licensed by the USDA as dealers shall, before selling a dog or cat for research purposes, hold and care for that animal for a period of not less than 5 full days after acquiring the animal, excluding the day of acquisition and time in transit. This holding period shall indude at least one Saturday (7). This regulation would not apply to all animals
handled
those sell
by
pounds
to be released them
for
but
only
to dealers
research
to
who
purposes.
Be-
cause this may cause overcrowding and increased costs, however, pound authorities might decide not to provide animals for research. An increase in the
holding
period
for
the
small
number of animals sold to dealers will not change the fate of the remaining 99% of the lost and stray animals now being euthanatized. In fact, between 40% and 45% of the dogs and cats in pounds and shelters are not strays; they are brought there by their owners. In any event, the law is likely to increase the cost of random-source animals and decrease their availability for research (7).
ANIMAL
Since
RIGHTS ACTIVITIES
1980,
more
ACTIVIST
than
30 break-ins
and acts of vandalism against research facilities have caused millions of dollars in damage, and more than 100 acts of violence and thefts by animal rights activists have been reported by researchers and farmers (8, 9). Records representing years of work have been destroyed and researchers harassed
and and
of their
emotional
acts,
extreme
plea
animal
have compared human benefit moral equivalent struction
their families have been threatened (1). As part
to justify
rights
such
activists
the use of animals for as “speciesism,” the to racism (9). De-
of biomedical
facilities
September
and
1992
obstruction
sidered moral
of work is not only conpermissible, but becomes a duty of extreme animal rights
activists
(10).
eration
Front
The
radical
claimed
Animal
Lib-
its initial
terror-
ist act in the United States in 1982 and is believed to have committed more than 100 since then. Three of these acts have been designated terrorist
incidents
by the
Investigation
Federal
(10).
To
Bureau protect
of animal
research facilities against break-ins and terrorist actions, increased security measures have been implemented in many institutions. This presents another expense that could be put to better use in biomedical research. It is ironic that such security measures need to be imposed to allow research into the causes and prevention of disease to be conducted. Because of the more aggressive nature of many animal activist groups, amendments to the 1990 Food Security Act would make it a federal crime to terrorize and/or destroy publicly or privately funded research or farm animal facilities or to steal or release research animals from such facilities (11). These bills (both a house and senate version exist) stand a good chance at being passed during the 1992 session of Congress. Similar bills have been introduced and passed through state legislative action. Laws protecting research facilities, employees, and animals exist in 23 states (9). The need to solicit such legislation stems
directly
from
violence, and been attributed ist groups.
vandalism,
Eventually,
the burden security
the
destruction to animal
taxpayers
of funding systems
that have rights activthe
necessary
tical costly.
A good
184
Number
#{149}
for
annual
such
as this
and
operating
penses. Surely, such funds put to better use to support ful and important research heart disease, cancer, and problems. Implementation grams
$2
costs
will
ex-
could be meaningin AIDS, neurobogic of pro-
reduce
the
available pool of federal funds for biomedical research and have a negative impact on all areas of research, whether or not the research involves use of animals (4). It is imperative that more consideration be given to scrutiny of legislative measures that, under the disguise of animal welfare, are meant to place such a financial burden on conducting of research that the work becomes impractical. The general public must be made aware that such legislation is being considered and that its major goal is to increase the cost of animal research. An understanding of the motivations of many of the animal rights groups must take into account that their goal is to completely eliminate the use of animals in research. They are not just interested in issues relating to the care and use of laboratory animals and measures to minimize unnecessary suffering, that is, animal welfare. If this were the case, researchers and the vast majority of the general public would agree and provide enthusiastic support. The animal movement,
activists
however,
are
totally
is much
committed
to this goal. They believe that they are morally correct, and any opposing views must be morally wrong, leaving no room for compromise. Although individuals in these groups represent
a small
minority
of the
total
rate and emotionally distorted picture of animal research to children (1). The movement represents a well-organized, well-funded, politically powerful force with orchestrated and highly effective public relations, legislative, and financial strategies (12). The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claimed 12,000
the
members
group
grew
pop-
ulation, they effectively exert their influence to intimidate politicians, researchers, farmers, clothing manufacturers, merchants, and the general public. They have taken their message to the schools, presenting an maccu-
in 1983
(10).
to boast
an income
$6,793,809
(slightly
was
on fund-raising),
spent
65 employees,
rights
of for boto this
who
3
million
is between
for start-up
ap-
the as per-
would review all research proposals involving animals, to ensure that the proposed work does not duplicate other research. The program would Volume
$38
program
and
of this
appointees
this
rights
proach is the “Information Dissemination and Research Accountability Act,” which was introduced for the fourth consecutive Congress in 1991 (4). This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Research Accountability, which would consist of 20 presidential
$6 billion
broader and encompasses the general use of animals whether as pets or in zoos, for research purposes, or for commercial purposes including agriculture and hunting. The basis behind this philosophy does not rest with improvement of conditions under which animals are used, but rather with a very sincere emotional obsession to free animals from what is perceived to be human exploitation. There is no question that animal
cumbersome, example
for
and
to protect
groups hope to discourage by making research imprac-
to perform,
cost
expensive
animal research facilities against threats of animal rights activists, well as the cost of bringing the petrators to justice. It is a well-rehearsed strategy animal rights activists to lobby cal, state, and federal regulations increase the cost of research. In way, the scientists
bear
require modifications in the computer facility of the National Library of Medicine such that it could store, in full form, all biomedical information available since 1960 (4). The estimated
by nearly 1980s
and
over
a staff
in assets
a growth
of
million
operations
$2 million
were
$1.1
By 1990,
period
of
backed
(10). for
The
ani75
mal rights groups-more than were founded (10). By 1990, five groups, including PETA, Fund for Animals, Animal Protection Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, and Friends of Animals, commanded an income exceeding $15 million and assets of nearly $7 million (10). With this degree of financial backing, it is not difficult to understand how such a minority can exert influence. Some animal welfare groups agree that animal research is necessary and should continue, but that more attention should be paid to minimizing animal suffering, improving veterinary care, minimizing experiment duplication, and searching for alternative approaches (13). Public support for such groups may decrease if they are generally perceived to be aligned with the more radical factions that call for complete elimination of the use of animals in research as well as in commercial farming and in the clothing industry. In some cases, hard-line abolitionist groups are quietly but systematically augmenting their
financial
resources
by
aggressive
takeovers of larger, wealthier, and traditionally more conservative animal welfare organizations (12). A basic premise of the animal rights activists is that all animal research should be banned because it is unnecessarily cruel, pointless, repetitive, scientifically invalid, and a waste of money. Most Americans do not accept this. Most realize that animal research is necessary, and their major concern is that
alternative
approaches
be
con-
sidered and that all animals be treated humanely and with every effort to minimize pain and discomfort. The scientific community does not have the resources available to counteract the negative campaign against animal research conducted by the ammal rights groups, but every effort must be made to educate the general public on the importance of animal research in advancing medical science Radiology
#{149} 649
(14). This message, however, is not being adequately conveyed to the general public or to the legislators. Animal rights activists have presented a negative image of science and scientists
to the
public,
an
image
that
must
be countered (12). Never before have animal rights activists so threatened biomedical research (12). On the other hand, the scientific community must realize that there are isolated cases where arguments for improved animal laboratory conditions are valid. The vast majority of scientists using animals in research, however, are sensitive
to the
issues
and
desire
mea-
sures to improve the quality of laboratory animal care. The passing of the Animal Welfare Act in 1971 and the establishment of effective institutional animal care and use committees to set standards and monitor animal research have increased the amount of administrative bureaucracy associated with research, but they have also made scientists scrutinize the use of animals in research. Researchers are more aware of their obligations to minimize pain and distress
and
to consider
alternatives.
Improved conditions for procurement, transportation, and housing animals can only help to improve forts
to improve
research. though Use
medical
Scientists institutional
Programs
care
of ef-
through
realize that alAnimal Care and
are
welfare
of laboratory
assured
more
not
yet
perfect,
animals
completely
the
is being
now
than
ever before, and effective mechanisms are in place to enforce continued improvements (15). In light of this, scientists cannot and should not tolerate the abuse of radical groups who claim that animal research is unnecessarily cruel, pointlessly repetitive, and a waste of money.
tems
such
and
chemical
that
mimic
Just
as it is the
responsibility
to ensure
the
entists
proper
THE
of scicare
and
humane treatment of animals in research, it is also their responsibility to support all measures to develop and use alternatives to animals when appropriate. This concern must extend beyond research, tives to animal
use
to include in toxicity
and education. Consideration given to practicing the three is, reduction
in the
number
alternatesting
must be Rs, that of animals
used, refinement in their use, and placement of animals with alternatives when appropriate (16). use must be made of nonliving
650
Radiology
#{149}
Better sys-
re-
and
databases
physical
biological
A COMMONSENSE
systems
functions,
TO
vebopments grams that
in computer-based simulate anatomic
proand
physiologic processes should stimulate a reduction in the use of animals for instructional purposes. Instruction in the proper care and handling of various species may be complemented by exposure to the principles of animal use in research and testing and to alternative measures. This type of education
promotes
attitudes
ducive to the development tion of alternatives (17).
and
OF
ardy because of the increase lations concerned more with
the the
IN
commonsense search
to be developed.
needs
use
issues
of animals
in reThe
medical community must better inform the general public on how animal research has contributed to the quality of health care as we know it today
and
adop-
to the
In 1981, The Johns School of Hygiene Health, in Baltimore,
to the
the
con-
USE
THE
approach
surrounding
research health
RESEARCH
in reguraising
cost of research than in improving welfare of animals. A multifaceted
how
elimination
will affect the care. Researchers principles
bence
TO
ANIMALS
IN
It is time for the radiology community and organized groups to realize that biomedical research is in jeop-
the
ALTERNATIVES
APPROACH
USE OF ANIMALS RESEARCH
THE
as
well as computer programs that simulate biological functions and interactions (17). Alternatives in testing of products must include increased use of in vitro methods, which would be an important measure to reduce animal usage in research (17). Recent de-
and
of animal
future must
that
of adhere
scientific
research
ethics
excel-
dictate
that
users
of laboratory animals abide by the highest standards of humane care and treatment. Scientists must support measures to investigate and
Hopkins Univerand Public established the first center for alternatives to animal testing in the United States. Its primary aim is to forge and advance the field of in vitro alternatives to animal testing. The program funds over 100 research projects worldwide and is supported by over 75 corporations and federal agencies. The center is a source of important information regarding the appropriate use of ani-
implement the use of alternatives to animals in research when applicable, and they must voice their opinion regarding legislative bills that will not
mals
reaucracy
sity
in testing
ternatives. ternatives currently struck
and
the
status
of al-
A full range of viable alto animal testing does not exist, and a balance must be between
public
safety
and
the
desire to replace animal testing (18). Clearly, more support is necessary for programs that investigate in vitro alternatives
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
as epidemiologic
to the
use
of animals
for
testing and also for research and teaching. Another valuable resource for information regarding alternatives to animal use in testing, research, and education is the Animal Welfare Information Center, located at the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville, Maryland. The center also provides valuable information regarding the proper care and use of laboratory animals, training materials for laboratory animal personnel, new research methodologies, animal care and use committees, legislation and regulalions, and bioethics. The center has a large information database that accesses
more
information
than
500
databases
other
(19).
scientific
necessarily result in improved conditions for research animals. Terrorist acts associated with stealing animals
from research facilities and destroying research facilities as well as public and private property must be condemned, and violators must be prosecuted. More money must be targeted for research
tists
and
less
for
Radiologists can respond
animal
rights
ways.
their
unnecessary
associated
with
and
radiobogic sciento issues regarding
and
research
As individuals,
local,
sentatives
in several
they
state,
bu-
it.
and
to voice
can
national
their
write
repre-
opinion
re-
garding pending legislative bills that relate to animal research. Scientists and representatives of the medical community are often called to testify at local, state, and federal hearings relating to pending animal research legislation. There is no doubt that such involvement has helped to keep
is important and issues relating to
animal welfare clear from those aimed at elimination of the use of animals in research. Because of the high-profile lobbying
action
of animal pecially
and
financial
rights
groups,
important
that
backing
it is now the
es-
medical
and scientific community and organizations clearly define their position regarding animal research time to take a stand and responsible
Information
use
of animals
regarding
issues. defend
It is the
in research.
specific September
leg1992
islation can representative’s National
be obtained office
Association
through or through for
the the
Biomedical
Research, 818 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006. Another effective way to inform the public about the importance of medical research is for physicians and scientists to volunteer to speak to social, school, and church groups and inform the public of some of the more recent advances in medicine and research that may result in the future. Animal research policy statements from groups of organized radiologists might also be considered. Many major medical and scientific societies have already issued statements
regarding
their
policies
to assume
in defending biomedical
the use of animals research (21).
Scientists sponsibiities
assume when
a primary
two they
major reuse animals
in research. The first is to ensure that the use of animals is justified and that the information gained will advance
Volume
184
#{149} Number
3
1.
Science,
medicine
and
animals.
Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1991; 1-30. Use of animals in biomedical
challenge
and response.
Association
white
tion). Chicago: tion, 1989. 3.
research:
American
paper
(internal
American
Overcast T, Sales experimentation.
Medical
the
11.
B. Regulation of animal JAMA 1985; 254:1944-
4.
5.
6.
Nicoll CS. A physiologist’s views on the animal rights/liberation movement. Physiologist 1991; 34:303-310. Anderson J, Effmann EL. Editorial comment: laboratory animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:68. National Association for Biomedical Research newsletter. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association Dec 27, 1991. 7.
8.
9.
for Biomedical
National
Association
12.
search
alert newsletter.
National search,
Association Nov 21, 1991.
Animal
tights
Washington, for Biomedical
movement:
Washington,
DC:
cal Research
Publications,
Singer P. Animal for our treatment Avon, 1977.
illegal
Foundation liberation: of animals.
incidents.
1990.
extremists:
about
the animal
rights movement. Washington, DC: ington Legal Foundation Publications, 1990. National Association for Biomedical
Dec The
31, 1991. growing
Wash-
Re-
Washington,
DC: Na-
for Biomedical
Research,
power
a public
of the
animal
relations
Research,
rights
crisis for sci-
1987; 69-75.
13.
Satchell Magazine, 4-6.
14.
Rosner
15.
ing threatened by animal JAMA 1985; 254:1942-1943. Rozmiarek H. Current
M.
Do they have rights? The Baltimore Sun, Jan
F.
Is animal
16.
17.
18.
rights and
be-
groups?
future policies welfare. Invest
Orlans F. Research protocol review for animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:253258. Alternatives to animal use in research, testing and education. Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment, 1986; 3-13. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Newsletter
of the Johns
for Alternatives No. 2. Baltimore: 19.
Parade 13, 1985;
experimentation
regarding laboratory animal Radiol 1987; 22:175-179.
Public
Health,
Johns
Hopkins
Hopkins
Center
to Animal Testing. Vol 8, Johns Hopkins School of
1990. School
of Public
Health.
Newsletter of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Vol 9, No.
1. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins School of 1991. AMA Council on Scientific Affairs report: animals in research. JAMA 1989; 261:36023606. Smith S. Hendee W. Commentary: animals in research. JAMA 1988; 259:20072008.
Public
20.
Re-
for Biomedi-
new
to know
entists. Biomedical investigators handbook for researchers using animal models. Washington, DC: Foundation For Biomedical
Re-
DC:
America’s
movement:
Research,
for Biomedical
DT.
you need
search Newsletter. tional Association
Medical publicaAssocia-
Hardy
what
1949.
role
in
10.
References
2.
in support of responsible animal research. The American Medical Association (AMA), in a white paper issued in 1989, outlined the importance of animal research and its effect on quality of health care delivery (2). In a council report, the AMA summarized the numerous contributions of animal research to medicine and stated opposition to legislation, regulation, or social action that inappropriately limits animal research (20). In 1988, the AMA issued an appeal to American physicians
The second is to strive to improve the treatment and care of laboratory animals and to minimize any possible pain or distress they may experience (1). These two basic principles form a common sense approach to the use of animals in research and reflect the concern of the vast majority of scientists, physicians, and the American people. With regard to the issue of animal rights and research, common sense must prevail. U knowledge.
21.
Health,
a new ethic New York:
Radiology
#{149} 651
H. Anderson,
Animal Common
PhD
Rights Sense
and Research: Must Prevail’
The advances that radiologic science has experienced in recent history have been earned through many means, one of them being animal research. Since the 1980s, animal research has come increasingly into the public eye, through the efforts of ammal welfare and animal rights activist groups. These groups, by their varied means, have exacted changes in how animals are used experimentally and how the public perceives such use. In some cases, their lobbying efforts have resulted in laws that raise the cost of research and provide little improvement in animal weLfare. Because of the financial and political power of these groups and the increasing public awareness of such issues, it is extremely important that the medical and scientific communities become more involved in educating the public on the importance of animal research and clarifying the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Equally important, the medical community must continue to adhere to high standards in research that involves animals. Index
terms:
ogists,
research
Radiology
Animals
1992;
Radiology reports
#{149}
Special
#{149}
Report
and
radiol-
184:647-651
animal
LTHOUGH
ways
been
has
al-
make
has
in interven-
increased
tional radiology, positron emission tomography, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The practice of using animals in medical imaging research changes
those experienced and basic science
similar
by other specialties. involve
to
clinical These
changes
largely
increased use and
regulations regarding the care of laboratory research
animals,
especially
adaptation
those
to
considered
favorites as pets, and recognition of the increased public awareness of animal rights and animal welfarerelated issues. These issues must be addressed by the general public as well as by the medical and scientific community. Although many of the changes that have taken place during the past iO years
have
and
welfare
ers
have
improved just
the
of research added
to
SOCIAL
applicable.
BENEFITS RESEARCH
OF
ANIMAL
overall
care
animals,
oth-
Animal rights activists often suggest that animal research is of little value in the understanding and conquering of disease. The following points are often mentioned: (a) Animals react differently from humans, and results from animal studies mislead scientists. (b) Much animal research duplicates previous work. (c) Computers can simulate many conditions for which
to
animals
substantially
the cost of research without necessarily resulting in improved conditions for the animals. Distinction must be made between animal welfare issues and those related to the more radical animal rights movement. Animal research has made major contributions to advance basic science and medical knowledge, and there is little doubt that if this research were to stop towould suffer. costs that must
be
weighed in any consideration of the importance of animal research (i). Scientists, physicians, and citizens must protect the opportunity to derive and apply medical advances deveboped through animal research. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the work is done in a humane manner, with as little pain and distress to the animals Also, more effort must
of alternatives
Information provided in the following pages describes some of the important issues that currently relate to the use of animals in research. These issues are not unique to radiology, but because they have an impact on the quality of health care delivery, they are of major concern to the scientific and medical community and the general public.
its presence of advances
when
use
animals
as a result
is undergoing
judicious
of academic
radiology,
day, human health These are the real
I From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Aye, 330 Traylor Bldg. Baltimore, MD 21205. Received February 5, 1992; revision requested February 28; revision received March 26; accepted March 30. Address reprint requests to the author. © RSNA, 1992
research a part
as possible. be made to
are
currently
being
used.
(d) Heart, cancer, and stroke research need only concentrate on means of preventing the diseases. There is no doubt that cases can be provided to support the above conclusions. Such cases, however, represent a small minority, and it would be inappropriate to disregard the vast majority of animal-related research that clearly has contributed and continues to contribute to better understanding, prevention, and treatment of diseases.
It would how animal
take volumes to document research has benefited
Abbreviations:
AMA = American Medical sociation, LD00 = dose necessary to produce death in 50% of the test population, PETA People USDA ture.
for the Ethical =
United
States
Treatment Department
As=
of Animals, of Agricul-
647
mankind.
Virtually
medical has
science
been
every
advance
in the 20th
achieved
either
in
century directly
or
indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments (2). The quality of medical care provided in the United States today is a direct resubt of both medical science-related research and basic science work. The importance of animal-dependent medical research is illustrated by the fact that of 70 Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology issued during this
century,
54 were
based
on
animal
research (2). Notable examples of major advances in medical science as a result of animal research include Wilham Harvey’s work on circulation, William Morton’s discovery of ether anesthesia, Robert Koch’s studies on bacterial origin of disease, the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best, Jonas Salk’s work on the polio vaccine, and Christiaan Barnard’s work in organ transplantation (3).
REGULATIONS LEGISLATION ANIMALS USED
AND GOVERNING IN RESEARCH
During the past iO years, major changes have taken place with respect to the use of animals in research. Although there is no doubt that some changes in laws and practices have improved conditions in which animals are used, many others have simply added unnecessary costs or increased bureaucratic paperwork associated with research. It is not always easy for the layman (and, for that matter, many clinicians and scientists) to appreciate just how much these changes may affect research and the quality of health care. Although radiologists as molecular
and many biologists,
scientists, may not
such nec-
essariby utilize animals directly in their work, their research will ultimately be affected. The available pool of federal funds for biomedical research is being effectively shrunk as new regulations are imposed, and this will have a negative impact on all areas of biomedical research and health care, even if the work does not involve use of animals (4). In the long run, the most important cost to the public is inferior health care. Each year, more and more bills addressing issues related to animal research make their way into state legislative agendas. Animal rights groups have focused attention on specific issues rather than on broader and more controversial subjects. Legislators
and
648
#{149}
policy
Radiology
decision
makers
often
find it easier to support a specific issue, such as decreasing the use of pound animals for research, than broader initiatives aimed at eliminating the use of all animals in research (5).
The
accumulation
of a large
num-
ber of these more specific related regulations has dramatically driven up the cost of purchasing and maintaining animals for research. During 1991, 61 bills that would affect the use of animals in research, education, and testing were considered in 31 states (6). Many of these bills are aimed at limiting the testing of consumer products in animals. For such tests, rodents are often subjected to the Draize test or lethal dose (LD,o)-type tests, which have raised controversy relating to their necessity. In the Draize test, the relative toxicity of chemicals in products is evaluated by their ability to inflame or irritate the eye. Rabbits are often used for this test. The LD,o is an exposure response test for evaluation of acute lethality. Mice and rats are most often used for the test. Essentially, in the LD test, the dose of exposure to an agent that is necessary to produce 50% mortality in an animal population is measured. Efforts are under way at several institutions to develop new or improved alternatives to animals for testing the safety of cosmetic and household products. USE
OF
POUND ANIMALS RESEARCH
IN
Bills restricting the use of pound animals for biomedical research have been the most common and successful legislation initiated by animal rights activist groups in the past 10 years (6). At the time of this writing, 13 states prohibit releasing pound animals for research use (6). Each year, 10-16 million cats and dogs are destroyed in municipal pounds and shelters. Of these 10-16 million, only 130,000 (0.8%-1.3%) are used in research (7). This number will certainly decrease, because more and more state and local governments are passing
legislation
that
prohibits
the
use
of any pound animal for research purposes. In states where use of pound animals for research is prohibited, institutions must purchase animals and transport them from pounds in neighboring states or buy animals through private breeders. Dogs raised by private breeders cost several hundred dollars; dogs from local pounds are available for nominal fees. The concept of raising animals for no purpose
other
than
research
while
at the
same time not having access to pound animals that are going to be destroyed makes no sense. Restriction of pound
animal cost total
increases
the
of research, thereby reducing pool of funds available for
use
substantially
the other
important research. Animals will continue to be killed in pounds, and more will be raised for research. As a result, more (rather mals are killed (1). States that permit
release
than
fewer)
public
of animals
ani-
pound
for research
pur-
poses must be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Consideration currently is
being given to make it a federal requirement that pounds licensed by the USDA as dealers shall, before selling a dog or cat for research purposes, hold and care for that animal for a period of not less than 5 full days after acquiring the animal, excluding the day of acquisition and time in transit. This holding period shall indude at least one Saturday (7). This regulation would not apply to all animals
handled
those sell
by
pounds
to be released them
for
but
only
to dealers
research
to
who
purposes.
Be-
cause this may cause overcrowding and increased costs, however, pound authorities might decide not to provide animals for research. An increase in the
holding
period
for
the
small
number of animals sold to dealers will not change the fate of the remaining 99% of the lost and stray animals now being euthanatized. In fact, between 40% and 45% of the dogs and cats in pounds and shelters are not strays; they are brought there by their owners. In any event, the law is likely to increase the cost of random-source animals and decrease their availability for research (7).
ANIMAL
Since
RIGHTS ACTIVITIES
1980,
more
ACTIVIST
than
30 break-ins
and acts of vandalism against research facilities have caused millions of dollars in damage, and more than 100 acts of violence and thefts by animal rights activists have been reported by researchers and farmers (8, 9). Records representing years of work have been destroyed and researchers harassed
and and
of their
emotional
acts,
extreme
plea
animal
have compared human benefit moral equivalent struction
their families have been threatened (1). As part
to justify
rights
such
activists
the use of animals for as “speciesism,” the to racism (9). De-
of biomedical
facilities
September
and
1992
obstruction
sidered moral
of work is not only conpermissible, but becomes a duty of extreme animal rights
activists
(10).
eration
Front
The
radical
claimed
Animal
Lib-
its initial
terror-
ist act in the United States in 1982 and is believed to have committed more than 100 since then. Three of these acts have been designated terrorist
incidents
by the
Investigation
Federal
(10).
To
Bureau protect
of animal
research facilities against break-ins and terrorist actions, increased security measures have been implemented in many institutions. This presents another expense that could be put to better use in biomedical research. It is ironic that such security measures need to be imposed to allow research into the causes and prevention of disease to be conducted. Because of the more aggressive nature of many animal activist groups, amendments to the 1990 Food Security Act would make it a federal crime to terrorize and/or destroy publicly or privately funded research or farm animal facilities or to steal or release research animals from such facilities (11). These bills (both a house and senate version exist) stand a good chance at being passed during the 1992 session of Congress. Similar bills have been introduced and passed through state legislative action. Laws protecting research facilities, employees, and animals exist in 23 states (9). The need to solicit such legislation stems
directly
from
violence, and been attributed ist groups.
vandalism,
Eventually,
the burden security
the
destruction to animal
taxpayers
of funding systems
that have rights activthe
necessary
tical costly.
A good
184
Number
#{149}
for
annual
such
as this
and
operating
penses. Surely, such funds put to better use to support ful and important research heart disease, cancer, and problems. Implementation grams
$2
costs
will
ex-
could be meaningin AIDS, neurobogic of pro-
reduce
the
available pool of federal funds for biomedical research and have a negative impact on all areas of research, whether or not the research involves use of animals (4). It is imperative that more consideration be given to scrutiny of legislative measures that, under the disguise of animal welfare, are meant to place such a financial burden on conducting of research that the work becomes impractical. The general public must be made aware that such legislation is being considered and that its major goal is to increase the cost of animal research. An understanding of the motivations of many of the animal rights groups must take into account that their goal is to completely eliminate the use of animals in research. They are not just interested in issues relating to the care and use of laboratory animals and measures to minimize unnecessary suffering, that is, animal welfare. If this were the case, researchers and the vast majority of the general public would agree and provide enthusiastic support. The animal movement,
activists
however,
are
totally
is much
committed
to this goal. They believe that they are morally correct, and any opposing views must be morally wrong, leaving no room for compromise. Although individuals in these groups represent
a small
minority
of the
total
rate and emotionally distorted picture of animal research to children (1). The movement represents a well-organized, well-funded, politically powerful force with orchestrated and highly effective public relations, legislative, and financial strategies (12). The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claimed 12,000
the
members
group
grew
pop-
ulation, they effectively exert their influence to intimidate politicians, researchers, farmers, clothing manufacturers, merchants, and the general public. They have taken their message to the schools, presenting an maccu-
in 1983
(10).
to boast
an income
$6,793,809
(slightly
was
on fund-raising),
spent
65 employees,
rights
of for boto this
who
3
million
is between
for start-up
ap-
the as per-
would review all research proposals involving animals, to ensure that the proposed work does not duplicate other research. The program would Volume
$38
program
and
of this
appointees
this
rights
proach is the “Information Dissemination and Research Accountability Act,” which was introduced for the fourth consecutive Congress in 1991 (4). This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Research Accountability, which would consist of 20 presidential
$6 billion
broader and encompasses the general use of animals whether as pets or in zoos, for research purposes, or for commercial purposes including agriculture and hunting. The basis behind this philosophy does not rest with improvement of conditions under which animals are used, but rather with a very sincere emotional obsession to free animals from what is perceived to be human exploitation. There is no question that animal
cumbersome, example
for
and
to protect
groups hope to discourage by making research imprac-
to perform,
cost
expensive
animal research facilities against threats of animal rights activists, well as the cost of bringing the petrators to justice. It is a well-rehearsed strategy animal rights activists to lobby cal, state, and federal regulations increase the cost of research. In way, the scientists
bear
require modifications in the computer facility of the National Library of Medicine such that it could store, in full form, all biomedical information available since 1960 (4). The estimated
by nearly 1980s
and
over
a staff
in assets
a growth
of
million
operations
$2 million
were
$1.1
By 1990,
period
of
backed
(10). for
The
ani75
mal rights groups-more than were founded (10). By 1990, five groups, including PETA, Fund for Animals, Animal Protection Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, and Friends of Animals, commanded an income exceeding $15 million and assets of nearly $7 million (10). With this degree of financial backing, it is not difficult to understand how such a minority can exert influence. Some animal welfare groups agree that animal research is necessary and should continue, but that more attention should be paid to minimizing animal suffering, improving veterinary care, minimizing experiment duplication, and searching for alternative approaches (13). Public support for such groups may decrease if they are generally perceived to be aligned with the more radical factions that call for complete elimination of the use of animals in research as well as in commercial farming and in the clothing industry. In some cases, hard-line abolitionist groups are quietly but systematically augmenting their
financial
resources
by
aggressive
takeovers of larger, wealthier, and traditionally more conservative animal welfare organizations (12). A basic premise of the animal rights activists is that all animal research should be banned because it is unnecessarily cruel, pointless, repetitive, scientifically invalid, and a waste of money. Most Americans do not accept this. Most realize that animal research is necessary, and their major concern is that
alternative
approaches
be
con-
sidered and that all animals be treated humanely and with every effort to minimize pain and discomfort. The scientific community does not have the resources available to counteract the negative campaign against animal research conducted by the ammal rights groups, but every effort must be made to educate the general public on the importance of animal research in advancing medical science Radiology
#{149} 649
(14). This message, however, is not being adequately conveyed to the general public or to the legislators. Animal rights activists have presented a negative image of science and scientists
to the
public,
an
image
that
must
be countered (12). Never before have animal rights activists so threatened biomedical research (12). On the other hand, the scientific community must realize that there are isolated cases where arguments for improved animal laboratory conditions are valid. The vast majority of scientists using animals in research, however, are sensitive
to the
issues
and
desire
mea-
sures to improve the quality of laboratory animal care. The passing of the Animal Welfare Act in 1971 and the establishment of effective institutional animal care and use committees to set standards and monitor animal research have increased the amount of administrative bureaucracy associated with research, but they have also made scientists scrutinize the use of animals in research. Researchers are more aware of their obligations to minimize pain and distress
and
to consider
alternatives.
Improved conditions for procurement, transportation, and housing animals can only help to improve forts
to improve
research. though Use
medical
Scientists institutional
Programs
care
of ef-
through
realize that alAnimal Care and
are
welfare
of laboratory
assured
more
not
yet
perfect,
animals
completely
the
is being
now
than
ever before, and effective mechanisms are in place to enforce continued improvements (15). In light of this, scientists cannot and should not tolerate the abuse of radical groups who claim that animal research is unnecessarily cruel, pointlessly repetitive, and a waste of money.
tems
such
and
chemical
that
mimic
Just
as it is the
responsibility
to ensure
the
entists
proper
THE
of scicare
and
humane treatment of animals in research, it is also their responsibility to support all measures to develop and use alternatives to animals when appropriate. This concern must extend beyond research, tives to animal
use
to include in toxicity
and education. Consideration given to practicing the three is, reduction
in the
number
alternatesting
must be Rs, that of animals
used, refinement in their use, and placement of animals with alternatives when appropriate (16). use must be made of nonliving
650
Radiology
#{149}
Better sys-
re-
and
databases
physical
biological
A COMMONSENSE
systems
functions,
TO
vebopments grams that
in computer-based simulate anatomic
proand
physiologic processes should stimulate a reduction in the use of animals for instructional purposes. Instruction in the proper care and handling of various species may be complemented by exposure to the principles of animal use in research and testing and to alternative measures. This type of education
promotes
attitudes
ducive to the development tion of alternatives (17).
and
OF
ardy because of the increase lations concerned more with
the the
IN
commonsense search
to be developed.
needs
use
issues
of animals
in reThe
medical community must better inform the general public on how animal research has contributed to the quality of health care as we know it today
and
adop-
to the
In 1981, The Johns School of Hygiene Health, in Baltimore,
to the
the
con-
USE
THE
approach
surrounding
research health
RESEARCH
in reguraising
cost of research than in improving welfare of animals. A multifaceted
how
elimination
will affect the care. Researchers principles
bence
TO
ANIMALS
IN
It is time for the radiology community and organized groups to realize that biomedical research is in jeop-
the
ALTERNATIVES
APPROACH
USE OF ANIMALS RESEARCH
THE
as
well as computer programs that simulate biological functions and interactions (17). Alternatives in testing of products must include increased use of in vitro methods, which would be an important measure to reduce animal usage in research (17). Recent de-
and
of animal
future must
that
of adhere
scientific
research
ethics
excel-
dictate
that
users
of laboratory animals abide by the highest standards of humane care and treatment. Scientists must support measures to investigate and
Hopkins Univerand Public established the first center for alternatives to animal testing in the United States. Its primary aim is to forge and advance the field of in vitro alternatives to animal testing. The program funds over 100 research projects worldwide and is supported by over 75 corporations and federal agencies. The center is a source of important information regarding the appropriate use of ani-
implement the use of alternatives to animals in research when applicable, and they must voice their opinion regarding legislative bills that will not
mals
reaucracy
sity
in testing
ternatives. ternatives currently struck
and
the
status
of al-
A full range of viable alto animal testing does not exist, and a balance must be between
public
safety
and
the
desire to replace animal testing (18). Clearly, more support is necessary for programs that investigate in vitro alternatives
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
as epidemiologic
to the
use
of animals
for
testing and also for research and teaching. Another valuable resource for information regarding alternatives to animal use in testing, research, and education is the Animal Welfare Information Center, located at the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville, Maryland. The center also provides valuable information regarding the proper care and use of laboratory animals, training materials for laboratory animal personnel, new research methodologies, animal care and use committees, legislation and regulalions, and bioethics. The center has a large information database that accesses
more
information
than
500
databases
other
(19).
scientific
necessarily result in improved conditions for research animals. Terrorist acts associated with stealing animals
from research facilities and destroying research facilities as well as public and private property must be condemned, and violators must be prosecuted. More money must be targeted for research
tists
and
less
for
Radiologists can respond
animal
rights
ways.
their
unnecessary
associated
with
and
radiobogic sciento issues regarding
and
research
As individuals,
local,
sentatives
in several
they
state,
bu-
it.
and
to voice
can
national
their
write
repre-
opinion
re-
garding pending legislative bills that relate to animal research. Scientists and representatives of the medical community are often called to testify at local, state, and federal hearings relating to pending animal research legislation. There is no doubt that such involvement has helped to keep
is important and issues relating to
animal welfare clear from those aimed at elimination of the use of animals in research. Because of the high-profile lobbying
action
of animal pecially
and
financial
rights
groups,
important
that
backing
it is now the
es-
medical
and scientific community and organizations clearly define their position regarding animal research time to take a stand and responsible
Information
use
of animals
regarding
issues. defend
It is the
in research.
specific September
leg1992
islation can representative’s National
be obtained office
Association
through or through for
the the
Biomedical
Research, 818 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006. Another effective way to inform the public about the importance of medical research is for physicians and scientists to volunteer to speak to social, school, and church groups and inform the public of some of the more recent advances in medicine and research that may result in the future. Animal research policy statements from groups of organized radiologists might also be considered. Many major medical and scientific societies have already issued statements
regarding
their
policies
to assume
in defending biomedical
the use of animals research (21).
Scientists sponsibiities
assume when
a primary
two they
major reuse animals
in research. The first is to ensure that the use of animals is justified and that the information gained will advance
Volume
184
#{149} Number
3
1.
Science,
medicine
and
animals.
Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1991; 1-30. Use of animals in biomedical
challenge
and response.
Association
white
tion). Chicago: tion, 1989. 3.
research:
American
paper
(internal
American
Overcast T, Sales experimentation.
Medical
the
11.
B. Regulation of animal JAMA 1985; 254:1944-
4.
5.
6.
Nicoll CS. A physiologist’s views on the animal rights/liberation movement. Physiologist 1991; 34:303-310. Anderson J, Effmann EL. Editorial comment: laboratory animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:68. National Association for Biomedical Research newsletter. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association Dec 27, 1991. 7.
8.
9.
for Biomedical
National
Association
12.
search
alert newsletter.
National search,
Association Nov 21, 1991.
Animal
tights
Washington, for Biomedical
movement:
Washington,
DC:
cal Research
Publications,
Singer P. Animal for our treatment Avon, 1977.
illegal
Foundation liberation: of animals.
incidents.
1990.
extremists:
about
the animal
rights movement. Washington, DC: ington Legal Foundation Publications, 1990. National Association for Biomedical
Dec The
31, 1991. growing
Wash-
Re-
Washington,
DC: Na-
for Biomedical
Research,
power
a public
of the
animal
relations
Research,
rights
crisis for sci-
1987; 69-75.
13.
Satchell Magazine, 4-6.
14.
Rosner
15.
ing threatened by animal JAMA 1985; 254:1942-1943. Rozmiarek H. Current
M.
Do they have rights? The Baltimore Sun, Jan
F.
Is animal
16.
17.
18.
rights and
be-
groups?
future policies welfare. Invest
Orlans F. Research protocol review for animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:253258. Alternatives to animal use in research, testing and education. Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment, 1986; 3-13. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Newsletter
of the Johns
for Alternatives No. 2. Baltimore: 19.
Parade 13, 1985;
experimentation
regarding laboratory animal Radiol 1987; 22:175-179.
Public
Health,
Johns
Hopkins
Hopkins
Center
to Animal Testing. Vol 8, Johns Hopkins School of
1990. School
of Public
Health.
Newsletter of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Vol 9, No.
1. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins School of 1991. AMA Council on Scientific Affairs report: animals in research. JAMA 1989; 261:36023606. Smith S. Hendee W. Commentary: animals in research. JAMA 1988; 259:20072008.
Public
20.
Re-
for Biomedi-
new
to know
entists. Biomedical investigators handbook for researchers using animal models. Washington, DC: Foundation For Biomedical
Re-
DC:
America’s
movement:
Research,
for Biomedical
DT.
you need
search Newsletter. tional Association
Medical publicaAssocia-
Hardy
what
1949.
role
in
10.
References
2.
in support of responsible animal research. The American Medical Association (AMA), in a white paper issued in 1989, outlined the importance of animal research and its effect on quality of health care delivery (2). In a council report, the AMA summarized the numerous contributions of animal research to medicine and stated opposition to legislation, regulation, or social action that inappropriately limits animal research (20). In 1988, the AMA issued an appeal to American physicians
The second is to strive to improve the treatment and care of laboratory animals and to minimize any possible pain or distress they may experience (1). These two basic principles form a common sense approach to the use of animals in research and reflect the concern of the vast majority of scientists, physicians, and the American people. With regard to the issue of animal rights and research, common sense must prevail. U knowledge.
21.
Health,
a new ethic New York:
Radiology
#{149} 651
