RESEARCH * RECHERCHES
Both scientists and laymen in fight to defend animal-based research Evelyne Michaels M
any physicians have seen or treated patients with diabetes, but how
many know that the discovery of insulin nearly 70 years ago was based almost completely on experiments involving dogs? Dr. John Hay, professor of immunology and pathology at the University of Toronto and chairman of the Faculty of Medicine's Animal Care Committee, says that is but one
example. "Look at the procedures doctors do, the drugs we prescribe, even our most basic knowledge of how the body works", says Hay. He argues that without the gains in knowledge and skill acquired through animal-based research there would be no medical profession. But the future of animal experimentation is in jeopardy due to the well-organized efforts of the animal rights movement, which Hay says questions both the morality and necessity of using animals for research purposes. Some activists in North America and Europe have resorted to breaking the law to underscore their beliefs: labs have been raided, experimental animals released from their cages, equipment and records destroyed. Some researchers say Evel/en Michaels is a freelance writer living in Toronto. 982
CAN M ED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (9)
they have been harassed with threatening letters and phone calls from those claiming to represent the movement. Lobbyists have also worked to toughen or introduce regulations controlling the use of animals and this has made researchers' work more difficult and costly. For example, Hay says animals from pounds and shelters are no longer freely available for research purposes in many parts of the United States and some parts of Canada. Dr. Robert Harrison, director of otologic research at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, uses animals in his research into the causes of hearing loss and deafness. Although his experiments haven't been affected yet, he says researchers are feeling the heat from animal rights activists. For example, there may be delays while they await approval from various animal-care committees, or delays and added expense because of the lack of pound animals - some animals must now be brought to Canadian laboratories from the United States. Some researchers admit to feeling intimidated by possible harassment by extremists and Harrison says that although this is difficult to prove some scientists may push their research in other directions because of it. As a group, physicians over-
whelmingly support the responsible use of animals in research. In 1989 the American Medical Association surveyed 1579 doctors and found that 99% supported the use of animals in experiments "which contributed to medical progress"; 93% supported their use for medical education, 97% for basic and clinical research, 96% for drug testing, and 79% for the testing of other products such as cosmetics. The public is only slightly less supportive. A 1987 Gallup poll of more than 1000 Canadian adults found that two-thirds approved the use of animals "if there is a reasonable chance that such research will provide knowledge or benefit in the treatment of humans". When respondents were told that the lab animals would suffer little or no pain the approval level rose to 84%. Harrison says the scientific establishment is starting to change the way it handles this issue because researchers are becoming "less reactive and more proactive" as they respond to their opponents. How? By educating Canadians about the benefits of medical research involving animals and by reassuring them that the experiments are carefully monitored and evaluated. He says scientists must also explain that alternatives to animal experimentation cited by activists, such as the use of computer models and
9
Use of animals closely regulated The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) says that in 1986 researchers in Canadian universities and government and commercial laboratories used more than 2 million animals from 18 species for research, teaching and testing. Ninety percent of them were rats, mice, fish or birds, and less than 1% were dogs and cats. The CCAC, founded in 1968 by scientists and animal rights activists, works with research facilities to promote the responsible use of animals. The council supervises the activities of the animal-care committees
tissue cultures to test certain drugs or procedures, are rarely feasible. "In 99% of cases that is just pure pie-in-the-sky optimism", says Harrison. "The fact is you need biological systems to do biological research." Now a new, nonphysician voice is being added to this debate. An American organization, Incurably Ill For Animal Research (IFAR), says it speaks for those who have benefited from or hope to be helped by medical research. Recently an IFAR representative, Steve Carroll, spoke to a small group of physicians, researchers and students at the University of Toronto. A uniformed policeman was also in attendance, an example, says Carroll, of how inflammatory the debate has become. IFAR, which plans to expand to Canada, says researchers can't be the only ones to defend the need for responsible, animalbased experimentation: "It's really a people issue, one which affects everyone who depends on medical progress for their quality of life and sometimes for life itself." Carroll, who survived traumatic injuries sustained in a car
that must be in place in every facility that uses animals for teaching or testing. The committees must evaluate the ethics of proposed studies, set and oversee procedures that ensure animals don't experience unnecessary pain, and see that lab animals receive adequate and responsible veterinary care. Most of Canada's 16 medical schools provide some lessons on the care of laboratory animals, and the CCAC says such courses will soon be mandatory. Council representatives make spontaneous, unannounced visits to evaluate the work of the committees. Any
::.-
:;s:-.
:._....: :. . . ....
A basic difference in philosophy
accident, says his experience made him realize how much he owed to knowledge gained from research involving animals. Those opposed to the research say science has already made enough progress, that animals are no longer required. But, argues Carroll, dozens of diseases that afflict humans, including AIDS and many diseases that' affect animals themselves, have yet to be conquered. Carroll and many others who support the research say this de-
project or facility that doesn't meet research guidelines established by the CCAC risks losing its research funds. The University of Toronto's Animal Care Committee is elected by the faculty and represents many departments so that broad expertise will be available. The group also includes three veterinarians and a member of the community, a position currently filled by a clergyman. Researchers wishing to use laboratory animals must submit proposals to the committee; they cannot begin work without committee approval.
bate stems from a basic difference in philosophy: "Those who oppose it believe human needs should never outweigh those of other [species]. But we take a more balanced view. Of course, if you looked only at human welfare there would be animal experiments going on today that nobody would ever want to allow . .. On the other hand, to consider only the animals' well-being means there will be no progress against disease. It comes down to whether you believe the life of a rat is worth more than the life of a baby, and to me there's no debate about that." Hay and Harrison agree that the question is based on values and that physicians may, by virtue of their profession, possess certain ones that animal rights advocates do not. Why? Because, says Harrison, physicians are on the front lines, facing the suffering that research is meant to alleviate. "Yes, we have a responsibility to use animals in an ethical fashion. But to say, 'Let's stop all research to save them' is a ludicrous misplacement of our affection for living beings."u CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (9)
983
Both scientists and laymen in fight to defend animal-based research Evelyne Michaels M
any physicians have seen or treated patients with diabetes, but how
many know that the discovery of insulin nearly 70 years ago was based almost completely on experiments involving dogs? Dr. John Hay, professor of immunology and pathology at the University of Toronto and chairman of the Faculty of Medicine's Animal Care Committee, says that is but one
example. "Look at the procedures doctors do, the drugs we prescribe, even our most basic knowledge of how the body works", says Hay. He argues that without the gains in knowledge and skill acquired through animal-based research there would be no medical profession. But the future of animal experimentation is in jeopardy due to the well-organized efforts of the animal rights movement, which Hay says questions both the morality and necessity of using animals for research purposes. Some activists in North America and Europe have resorted to breaking the law to underscore their beliefs: labs have been raided, experimental animals released from their cages, equipment and records destroyed. Some researchers say Evel/en Michaels is a freelance writer living in Toronto. 982
CAN M ED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (9)
they have been harassed with threatening letters and phone calls from those claiming to represent the movement. Lobbyists have also worked to toughen or introduce regulations controlling the use of animals and this has made researchers' work more difficult and costly. For example, Hay says animals from pounds and shelters are no longer freely available for research purposes in many parts of the United States and some parts of Canada. Dr. Robert Harrison, director of otologic research at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, uses animals in his research into the causes of hearing loss and deafness. Although his experiments haven't been affected yet, he says researchers are feeling the heat from animal rights activists. For example, there may be delays while they await approval from various animal-care committees, or delays and added expense because of the lack of pound animals - some animals must now be brought to Canadian laboratories from the United States. Some researchers admit to feeling intimidated by possible harassment by extremists and Harrison says that although this is difficult to prove some scientists may push their research in other directions because of it. As a group, physicians over-
whelmingly support the responsible use of animals in research. In 1989 the American Medical Association surveyed 1579 doctors and found that 99% supported the use of animals in experiments "which contributed to medical progress"; 93% supported their use for medical education, 97% for basic and clinical research, 96% for drug testing, and 79% for the testing of other products such as cosmetics. The public is only slightly less supportive. A 1987 Gallup poll of more than 1000 Canadian adults found that two-thirds approved the use of animals "if there is a reasonable chance that such research will provide knowledge or benefit in the treatment of humans". When respondents were told that the lab animals would suffer little or no pain the approval level rose to 84%. Harrison says the scientific establishment is starting to change the way it handles this issue because researchers are becoming "less reactive and more proactive" as they respond to their opponents. How? By educating Canadians about the benefits of medical research involving animals and by reassuring them that the experiments are carefully monitored and evaluated. He says scientists must also explain that alternatives to animal experimentation cited by activists, such as the use of computer models and
9
Use of animals closely regulated The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) says that in 1986 researchers in Canadian universities and government and commercial laboratories used more than 2 million animals from 18 species for research, teaching and testing. Ninety percent of them were rats, mice, fish or birds, and less than 1% were dogs and cats. The CCAC, founded in 1968 by scientists and animal rights activists, works with research facilities to promote the responsible use of animals. The council supervises the activities of the animal-care committees
tissue cultures to test certain drugs or procedures, are rarely feasible. "In 99% of cases that is just pure pie-in-the-sky optimism", says Harrison. "The fact is you need biological systems to do biological research." Now a new, nonphysician voice is being added to this debate. An American organization, Incurably Ill For Animal Research (IFAR), says it speaks for those who have benefited from or hope to be helped by medical research. Recently an IFAR representative, Steve Carroll, spoke to a small group of physicians, researchers and students at the University of Toronto. A uniformed policeman was also in attendance, an example, says Carroll, of how inflammatory the debate has become. IFAR, which plans to expand to Canada, says researchers can't be the only ones to defend the need for responsible, animalbased experimentation: "It's really a people issue, one which affects everyone who depends on medical progress for their quality of life and sometimes for life itself." Carroll, who survived traumatic injuries sustained in a car
that must be in place in every facility that uses animals for teaching or testing. The committees must evaluate the ethics of proposed studies, set and oversee procedures that ensure animals don't experience unnecessary pain, and see that lab animals receive adequate and responsible veterinary care. Most of Canada's 16 medical schools provide some lessons on the care of laboratory animals, and the CCAC says such courses will soon be mandatory. Council representatives make spontaneous, unannounced visits to evaluate the work of the committees. Any
::.-
:;s:-.
:._....: :. . . ....
A basic difference in philosophy
accident, says his experience made him realize how much he owed to knowledge gained from research involving animals. Those opposed to the research say science has already made enough progress, that animals are no longer required. But, argues Carroll, dozens of diseases that afflict humans, including AIDS and many diseases that' affect animals themselves, have yet to be conquered. Carroll and many others who support the research say this de-
project or facility that doesn't meet research guidelines established by the CCAC risks losing its research funds. The University of Toronto's Animal Care Committee is elected by the faculty and represents many departments so that broad expertise will be available. The group also includes three veterinarians and a member of the community, a position currently filled by a clergyman. Researchers wishing to use laboratory animals must submit proposals to the committee; they cannot begin work without committee approval.
bate stems from a basic difference in philosophy: "Those who oppose it believe human needs should never outweigh those of other [species]. But we take a more balanced view. Of course, if you looked only at human welfare there would be animal experiments going on today that nobody would ever want to allow . .. On the other hand, to consider only the animals' well-being means there will be no progress against disease. It comes down to whether you believe the life of a rat is worth more than the life of a baby, and to me there's no debate about that." Hay and Harrison agree that the question is based on values and that physicians may, by virtue of their profession, possess certain ones that animal rights advocates do not. Why? Because, says Harrison, physicians are on the front lines, facing the suffering that research is meant to alleviate. "Yes, we have a responsibility to use animals in an ethical fashion. But to say, 'Let's stop all research to save them' is a ludicrous misplacement of our affection for living beings."u CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (9)
983
