Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70 (2014) 577–578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph

Letter to the Editor The sympathy of policy-makers towards animal-rights activists, and the future of biomedical research

Over the last decades, the European biomedical community has labored intensely to develop uniform procedures for the use of research animals, aiming at clarifying ethical guidelines while ensuring ever improved human disease models for research and drug discovery. Unfortunately, these efforts have faced relentless opposition from animal rights advocates, who have used seductive and emotional slogans to garner a substantial measure of public and political following. Thus today, while ‘‘the care and compassion for drug-addicts rarely brings a winning vote’’, ‘‘the care for animals has the strong consensus of most public opinion’’ (Nature, 2014). Indeed, there is a real danger that politicians allied with the animal rights movement could sell off entire segments of biomedical research that are critical to human and animal welfare. Directive 2010/63/UE of the European Commission was drawn up with great difficulty over many years, to eliminate disparities among laws and regulations of member states regarding animal experimentation, and with an eye to improve the quality of science and the public’s confidence in the use of research animals. Most animal welfare standards in the new Directive are similar to those prevailing in the U.S. However, methods for assuring compliance differ, and a few provisions exceed US requirements. For example, the Directive covers mollusks, whereas in the US research with invertebrates is not subject to government oversight, which may affect eventual US and European joint research projects. Of much greater concern is the displacement of traditional housing standards with the ‘‘environmental enrichment’’ provisions foreseen by the EU directive. Because the validity and reproducibility of experimental outcomes depend on housing conditions, the data obtained under such provisions will be different than those obtained under traditional housing (Macrì et al., 2013). Thus, if ‘‘environmental enrichment’’ causes responses different from traditional experimental setups, it would further aggravate the already difficult interpretation, extrapolation, and credible divulgation of scientific results. We can only imagine what could happen if the EU directive were to be transposed with great disparity among the various states of the Union. In Belgium, researchers are fighting their own government, which asked the European Commission to be more restrictive than the EU Directive, to forbid the use of nonhuman primates in addiction research, and to stop all nonhuman primate uses (Nature, 2014). Indeed, if policy makers should buy animal rights arguments that drug addiction is a social rather than medical problem, it could mean the end of all studies in the field. Nature, in a recent editorial, asserts: ‘‘if the science of addiction can be questioned, then why bother pursuing medical cures based on scientific research?’’ (Nature, 2014). Clearly, the granting of special animal care stanhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.07.005 0273-2300/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

dards to member states would collapse the management of multicenter studies involving different states. In fact, a research program granted by EU on these terms would border on the laughable. Again, the notice that the cargo carriers FedEx and UPS will not ship mammals and nonhuman primates for laboratory use (Wadman, 2012), together with similar bans made previously by airlines and ferry companies, is an alarm bell for the entire biomedical scientific community (Nature, 2012). Such a refusal places Italy, for instance, in a paradoxical situation. The Italian Parliament, under animal rights pressures, has transposed the EU directive into national law with the decree 26/2014, which imposes a drastic reduction of animal experimentation, and with few exceptions prohibits experiments on unanesthetized animals, studies on addiction and xenotransplantation, educational uses (except for medical doctors and veterinarians), as well as the breeding and marketing of cats, dogs, and nonhuman primates. One of the immediate consequences of the decree is that research animals will have to be imported, a daunting task if international carriers do not cooperate (Wadman, 2012; Nature, 2012). Foreign procurement difficulties further imply that long and exhausting travel will surely compromise animal welfare, contrary to the respect of animal values that the European Union tries to promote. Beyond doubt, the most relevant scientific results published in the last decades indicate a simple truth, leaving little room for other interpretations: namely that progress in biomedical research necessitates experiments on animals, including nonhuman primates. Nowadays scientists can certainly count on in vitro and in silico tools, which however, could never receive the label of ‘‘alternative methods’’ but only that of ‘‘complementary methods’’ at best. The leading science journal Nature recently published a paper showing a quadriplegic moving a robot arm by his CNS command alone, surely a feat that would not have been possible without studies based on primate models (Hochberg et al., 2012). On the whole, the transposing of the EU Directive into member states should endeavor to minimize differences in animal handling norms, should encourage scientific collaboration, and should refrain from exceptions that would compromise the advancement of scientific research and of medical progress. References Hochberg, L.R., Bacher, D., Jarosiewicz, B., Masse, N.Y., Simeral, J.D., Vogel, J., Haddadin, S., Liu, J., Cash, S.S., van der Smagt, P., Donoghue, J.P., 2012. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485, 372–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11076. Macrì, S., Ceci, C., Altabella, L., Canese, R., Laviola, G., 2013. The Directive 2010/63/ EU on animal experimentation may skew the conclusions of pharmacological and behavioural studies. Scientific Reports 3, 2380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ srep02380.

578

Letter to the Editor / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70 (2014) 577–578

Nature, 2014. Editorial: Animal farm. Europe’s policy-makers must not buy animalrights activists’ arguments that addiction is a social, rather than a medical, problem. Nature 506, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/506005a. Nature, 2012. Editorial: Return to senders. The bid to halt air transport of lab animals poses an imminent threat to biomedical research. Nature 489, 336. Wadman, 2012. Lab-animal flights squeezed. Nature 489, 344–345. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1038/489344a.



Fabio Vivarelli Andrea Sapone Donatella Canistro 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 10 July 2014

The sympathy of policy-makers towards animal-rights activists, and the future of biomedical research.

The sympathy of policy-makers towards animal-rights activists, and the future of biomedical research. - PDF Download Free
201KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views