Animal Research: a Review of Developments, 1950–2000

WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2001

Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 1950–2000

Andrew N. Rowan The Humane Society of the United States

Franklin M. Loew Becker College

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2001

Part of the Animal Experimentation and Research Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons

Recommended Citation Rowan, A.N., & Loew, F.M. (2001). Animal research: A review of developments, 1950-2000. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 111-120). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 7CHAPTER 1950–2000

Andrew N. Rowan and Franklin M. Loew

Introduction ne can divide the debate over oft-quoted example (Bliss 1982). with a few minor retrenchment peri- the use of animals in research Opposition to the practice was spo- ods, up to the present time (see Fig- Oand testing into three broad radic and of little impact on policy ure 1). This growth led to an enor- periods. The first started in the 1860s makers, despite the support of such mous expansion in publicly funded and lasted until World War I. During powerful individuals as William Ran- research. In the private sector, the this period, animal research became dolph Hearst (owner of a newspaper discovery of penicillin and strepto- established as an important method empire) on the side of the anti-vivi- mycin led to a tremendous expansion of laboratory investigation and also as section societies. in pharmaceutical research and in the a significant source of public contro- The third phase of the animal size of the prescription drug industry. versy. For a variety of reasons very well research debate started around 1950. These expansions in government researched and analyzed by historians After World War II the government funding for biomedical research and Richard French (1975) and James became a major sponsor of scientific in private-sector investment in drug Turner (1980) (among others), the research, including biomedical re- discovery created an increase in de- public found the idea of deliberately search. The budget of the National mand for laboratory animals. inflicting harm on animals in order to Institutes of Health (NIH) grew dra- learn more about health and medi- matically and has continued to grow, cine particularly disturbing. In the United States, opposition to the use of animals in research appeared to peak around the 1890s and then began to decline. By the end of World War I, following the death in 1916 of two notable advocates for more regulation of animal research (Caroline Earl White of the American Anti-Vivi- section Society and Albert Leffing- well, M.D.), the animal research issue became marginalized and of relatively little consequence for politicians and policy makers. The second phase of the animal research debate lasted from around 1920 to 1950. During this period, animal research continued to develop as a means of discovering new biological data and as a route to potential cures—the discovery of insulin is an

111 may account for another 20–25 percent of the total. Drug discovery and the development of new medical devices and treatments may account for about 35 percent of all animal use with other (“basic”) research account- ing for the remaining 30 percent or so. Trends: Data from Great Britain and Europe Unfortunately we do not have good data on laboratory animal use in the United States, but the Home Office in Great Britain has required researchers to report their animal use since the passage of the first act regulating animal research in 1876. Originally, the Home Office counted the number of “animal experiments,” where an “experiment” was more or less equivalent to one animal. In 1987 the reporting system was changed and expanded as a result of a new cent of the national demand for labo- act (1986) regulating animal research. Trends in ratory animals. In Great Britain the Researchers were now required to testing of personal-care and house- report the number of “animal proce- Animal Use hold products accounted for fewer dures.” The reportable use of animals than 5,000 animal procedures in increased approximately 23 percent Animal User 1990, or around 0.15 percent of total because some uses of animals (for Categories animal use. Among commercial orga- example, the passaging of tumors) According to U.S. Department of Agri- nizations the vast majority of animal that had not been included under culture (USDA) statistics, animal use use is directed toward the discovery, “experiments” were included under is split almost evenly between com- development, and testing of new med- the definition of “procedure.” mercial and noncommercial users icines and therapeutics. The trends in animal use in Great (Newman 1989; Welsh 1991), al- Overall, laboratory animal use can Britain shown in Figure 2 reflect though these analyses leave out the be divided into six basic categories: changes in research during the twen- federal laboratories, which account education; drug discovery and toxicity tieth century. Briefly, the bulk of ani- for somewhere between 15 and 20 testing; the development and toxicity mal use prior to World War II came percent of national laboratory animal testing of other products; the testing from such laboratory activities as use. It seems as though the ratio of biological agents; medical diagno- diagnosis of disease and the produc- between commercial, noncommer- sis; and other research (immunology, tion and safety testing of various bio- cial, and government laboratories in microbiology, oncology, physiology, logical agents (for example, insulin; the United States may be around zoology, ethology, ecology, and a see Bliss 1982, page 172, for com- 45:40:15. In Great Britain commercial host of other disciplines and sub- ments on the search for rabbits to laboratories have always accounted disciplines). No statistics are suffi- standardize insulin batches in the for around two-thirds of the animal ciently detailed to provide an accu- early 1920s). After World War II, ani- use, with educational institutions rate estimate of how animal use is dis- mal use continued to increase due and government laboratories splitting tributed among these six categories. to many new drug discovery projects the remainder. However, diagnosis now represents a and an expansion in university-based Much attention has been focused on minor use of research animals (less research. In the 1970s animal use the use of animals in the testing of than 5 percent), while education prob- peaked and has been in decline for personal-care and household prod- ably accounts for less than 10 per- the last twenty-five years as the phar- ucts, although such use probably cent. Toxicity and safety testing of all maceutical companies moved from accounts for much less than one per- products (including drugs) and the drug development processes that production and testing of vaccines emphasized whole-animal studies to 112 The State of the Animals: 2001 discovery processes that began with studies in cells, cell extracts, and com- Table 1 puters. In addition, animal use in vac- NIH Extramural Grants and Research cine and biological development and testing declined. Animal Use in the United States The downward trend in animal use seen in Great Britain has also NIH U.S. Research Year Extramural Funding Animal Use NIH $/Animal been reported in the Netherlands (a ($ Millions, 1950) (Millions) 50-percent reduction since 1978), Switzerland (a 75-percent reduction 1957 69 17 4.06 since 1983), and Germany (a 40-per- 1970 379 ca.50 7.58 cent decline since 1989). 1992 937 ca.25 37.48 Trends in the United

States to 1990 be greatly reduced or replaced alto- For example, during the 1980s Hoff- What little data are available for gether. Second, concern for animal man–La Roche reduced its animal use research animal use in America indi- welfare grew dramatically in the sec- at its New Jersey research campus cate that the pattern seen in Europe ond half of the twentieth century and from around 1 million to 300,000 per can also be seen in the United States. led to changes in practice and regula- year without reducing its research A survey of animal use in the United tion. These changes emphasized the output (in terms of new drug candi- States conducted under the auspices need for more attention to animal dates) at all (Anonymous 1990). of the International Committee for welfare and the promotion of alterna- The claim that research animal use Laboratory Animal Science in the late tives to the use of animals. Third, all has gone down has been challenged 1950s found that about 17 million lab- aspects of research became more (for example, see Orlans 1994) and is oratory animals were used in 1957. In expensive, including the purchase not easy to prove conclusively. One the late 1960s, surveys by the Institute and maintenance of the disease-free has to draw inferences from USDA for Laboratory Animal Resources animals now needed for good Annual Reports and from other (ILAR) of the National Research Coun- research. Finally, the pharmaceutical sources. However, the information is cil reported that 40–50 million ani- companies changed their drug discov- not particularly reliable, and the mals were being used annually. Thus, ery programs to rely less on random USDA Annual Reports only account there appears to have been a substan- screening of chemicals in large num- for 10 percent or less of total research tial increase in animal use after World bers of animals and more on mecha- animal use (Welsh 1991). This is War II. From 1957 to 1969, NIH fund- nistic studies in non-animal systems. because research facilities are not ing of extramural research increased six-fold in constant dollars, thus a large increase in animal use over this period is hardly surprising. From 1970 to the early 1990s, we estimate that laboratory animal use declined by about 50 percent from its peak in the early 1970s. This halving of research animal use occurred despite the doubling of NIH extramural funding from 1969 to 1991. It appears that several factors led to the reduction—both in actual numbers and in terms of the number of animals required per unit of funding (see Table 1: dollars spent per animal increased ninefold, indicating a general decline in the research demand for animals). First, new scientific techniques (for example, radioimmunoassay and cell culture) were developed and improved to the point where animal use could

Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 1950—2000 113 Trends in the United States since 1990: The Genetic Engineering Impact While overall laboratory animal use has declined substantially, laboratory mice use has been going up in the last five to ten years. The larger research institutions have begun to house more mice, and annual inventories have increased dramatically (see trends for NIH intramural animal use in Figure 4). Note that mouse use fell from 670,000 in 1965 (DHEW 1966) to a low of 295,000 in 1991. In 1997 mouse use had risen to 647,000. However, this does not mean that “research use” of mice has necessari- required by the USDA to disclose al reports submitted to the USDA by ly increased. 1 their use of rats, mice, and birds . In NIH indicate that rats and mice Judging from conversations with addition, individual reports to the accounted for 95.1 percent of all ani- animal care professionals, it appears USDA vary in their thoroughness mal use in 1983 but at the end of that researchers are creating many and accuracy, and some institutions 2000 account for more than 98 per- new strains of mice using genetic- (including federal laboratories, which cent of animal use (however, see engineering techniques. These mouse do not have to report numbers) may details of NIH use in “Trends in the strains are not available from com- not be included in the annual compi- United States since 1990,” below). mercial suppliers. Therefore, the lation because their reports were Other studies support the idea that institutions have to maintain breed- turned in late or not at all. Nonethe- laboratory animal use has declined. ing colonies of these unique strains in less, one can glean some trend infor- The ILAR reported a 40-percent their own facilities to provide a con- mation from the USDA reports if one decrease in the number of animals tinuing supply. Even if a particular focuses exclusively on the six types of used in the United States in the ten strain is not being used at a given animals (dogs, cats, primates, rab- years between 1968 and 1978, based moment, the research scientist may bits, guinea pigs, and hamsters) that on ILAR’s national surveys (NIH still want to maintain it for a possible have been counted regularly since the 1980). Various large companies (for future project. A researcher who may 1970s (see Figure 3). example, Hoffman–La Roche and need no more than 50 of a unique Figure 3 indicates that the number Ciba Geigy) have reported substantial strain of mice a year has to maintain of these animals used annually has declines in animal use since 1980 a breeding colony that might total fallen from a peak of 1,869,000 in (Anonymous 1990). A study of U.S. 500 or more. The surplus mice are 1985 to 913,000 in 1998. The varia- Department of Defense (DOD) labo- either kept as breeding stock or euth- tion in the use of these animals ratory animal use (Weichbrod 1993) anized, but they are still counted as between 1976 and 1985 is probably indicates that the DOD reduced its part of the annual inventory of ani- due more to reporting and tabulation use of laboratory animals (including mals. Universities also seem to be deficiencies than to real annual fluc- rats and mice) from 412,000 in 1983 increasing their colony sizes to main- tuations in animal use. The annual (OTA 1986) to 352,000 in 1986, to tain more unique strains of mice (see, ILAR surveys between 1968 and 1970 267,000 in 1991 (a 35-percent decline for example, Southwick 2000 and the reported an average of 3 million dogs, in nine years). The National Cancer note that Baylor University has spent cats, primates, rabbits, guinea pigs, Institute reported that in looking for $42 million to triple its rodent hold- and hamsters used. Therefore, it cer- anti-cancer drugs it had eliminated ing capacity to 300,000). Laboratory tainly appears as though, among the use of several million mice annu- rodent breeding has long been a rela- these six types of animals, there has ally by switching from the standard tively wasteful process in terms of ani- been a substantial decline in use. It mouse model to a battery of human mal life, and even in economic terms, may be that if there has even been a tumor-cell lines (Rowan 1989). it is relatively inefficient. decline in use of rats and mice, it is not so great (see “Trends in the Unit- ed States since 1990,” below). Annu-

114 The State of the Animals: 2001 Summary animal research have changed sub- port dropped dramatically (Plous In general, the animal protection stantially since then. 1996). While a large majority of the (and research) communities can take In general, polls indicate that about respondents supported the use of heart from the trends in animal use. 75 percent of the public “accepts” the dogs or primates in observational The use of most laboratory animals use of animals in research, while about research and a majority supported (except primates, some farm animals, 60 percent “supports” the practice. research involving confinement, a and mice) is on the decline. Although Support for the use of animals changes large majority opposed the use of mouse use is currently on the according to the type of animal used dogs or primates in research involving increase, new developments in cryo- and the area of research involved. pain or death. The swing was just as genic technologies for storing ova, There is much less support for the use large for research on rats, but the semen, and fertilized embryos should of dogs or primates than for the use of respondents tended to be less con- bring the numbers down again in mice and rats, and the more useful cerned about the use of rats in general. the next decade. In fact, even with the research is perceived to be, the Some idea of recent trends in pub- the increase in mouse breeding in more support there is. For example, lic attitudes can be gleaned from research laboratories, overall use in a 1985 poll, 88 percent would National Science Board (NSB) sur- may not yet have increased. In Great accept the use of rats but only 55 veys. In 1985 the NSB added a ques- Britain, where the use of genetically percent would accept the use of dogs. tion on animal research to its regular modified animals (mostly mice) has In the same poll, only 12 percent survey of public attitudes to science. increased from 50,000 a year in 1990 opposed the use of animals in medical The public was asked if it agreed or to more than 500,000 a year in 1998, research on cancer or diabetes, but disagreed with the statement: “Scien- total animal use has fallen from 3.2 27 percent opposed the use of ani- tists should be allowed to do research million to 2.7 million animal proce- mals in allergy testing (FBR 1985). that causes pain and injury to animals dures over the same period. Thus, the The public is also concerned about like dogs and chimpanzees if it pro- use of genetically modified animals the treatment of research animals, duces new information about health appears to have replaced—rather and a majority supports a strengthen- problems.” This is a deliberately than added to—laboratory animal use. ing of federal regulations and the loaded question in that the costs are development and promotion of alter- high (pain and injury to high-status natives. There are indications (but no animals), but the research is posited national poll data) that the public is as providing benefits in the form of Public Attitudes far less supportive of animal research new information relevant to human to Animal if the animals are perceived to experi- health care. The results of a series of ence distress or suffering. In a survey surveys are presented in Table 2. The Research of adults in Britain, it was found that data in the table endorse the idea In 1949 a poll commissioned by public support for animal research that public support for animal the National Society for Medical dropped by about 20 percent if the research is weakening, especially if Research (NSMR) found that the animals experienced pain, illness, or compared with the survey data from public was very supportive of animal surgery (Aldhous et al. 1999). In a 1949 (NSMR 1949), when more than research—85 percent approved of survey of psychologists in the United 80 percent of respondents supported the use of animals in research and States (only a small percentage of the use of dogs in research. However, only 8 percent disapproved (NSMR whom actually do animal research), it the NSB and 1949 surveys are not Bulletin 1949). Recent surveys indi- was reported that for research that strictly comparable. cate that public attitudes toward involved pain, injury, or death, sup- In conclusion, the public is more

Table 2 Public Attitudes to Animal Research

1985 1988 1990 1993 1996

Support 63 53 50 53 50

Oppose 30 42 45 42 46

Don’t Know 7 5554

Source: National Science Board 1987–1997

Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 1950—2000 115 concerned about the use of animals early efforts at passing legislation pro- the release of pound animals to in research today than at any time in moted the British act as a model for research institutions or abolished the the last fifty years. Research causing American legislation. There were practice altogether. At the federal pain and distress arouses particular hearings in 1962, but little progress level, two more scandals about animal disquiet among both the general pub- was made until February 1966, when research in 1981 and 1984 led to a lic and those with scientific training. a Life magazine exposé of deplorable public clamor for more regulation. conditions in the compound of a New legislation was subsequently dog dealer, “Concentration Camp for passed by the U.S. Congress in 1985. Changes Dogs,” spurred the U.S. Congress into One of the bills required the NIH to action. By July 1966 the Laboratory upgrade its requirements for animal in Animal Animal Welfare Act (LAWA) had been research oversight and the other passed and signed into law. amended the AWA to require more Research However, this legislation regulated attention to protocol review and the only the acquisition and handling of reduction of animal pain and distress Oversight animals by dealers and did not in laboratories. These were major address how animals were cared for developments, analogous to the 1966/ from 1950 or used in laboratories. The LAWA 1970 federal legislation. to the Present was amended in 1970 (and its name The critical elements of the 1985 In 1950 the only national organiza- changed to the Animal Welfare Act, or legislation were the focus on animal tions focusing on the animal research AWA) to include oversight of the care pain and distress, attention to the use issue were the three major antivivi- of research animals in research insti- of alternatives, the establishment of a section organizations (the National, tutions. The USDA was still restricted network of Institutional Animal Care American, and New England Anti-Vivi- from “interfering” in how researchers and Use Committees (IACUCs), and section Societies). None of the other chose and conducted their research the requirement that investigators large animal protection groups was projects using animals. Rats and had to justify why and how they want- prepared to tackle the issue in any mice, which accounted for about 90 ed to use research animals. The AWA sustained way. However, this was soon percent of all laboratory animals, still included a clause that protected to change. New organizations such as were excluded from regulatory over- academic freedom (in essence), but the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) sight by order of the secretary of agri- now researchers were no longer free and The Humane Society of the Unit- culture. Nonetheless, the AWA began to pursue a particular scientific puz- ed States (HSUS) (founded in 1951 to have an impact and led to zle however they wished. They had to and 1954, respectively) made the ani- improved standards of housing and obtain permission from an institu- mal research issue a major focus of care in laboratory facilities. tional animal care committee. In their work. In 1975 the publication of Peter seeking permission to use animals, For the most part, these groups Singer’s book Animal Liberation was they had to take into account the focused on what they regarded as the another major landmark in animal costs to the animals and articulate to inadequate care of laboratory ani- protection challenges to animal some extent how the proposed bene- mals, but the AWI also actively pro- research. The book empowered ani- fits of the project outweighed those moted the idea of the Three Rs (alter- mal protectionists, providing them costs. For the most part, the search natives) described in a 1959 book by with clear, logical arguments that for new knowledge remains sufficient William Russell and Rex Burch (Rus- helped to launch the modern animal to justify the confinement of animals sell and Burch 1959). By the late rights movement. In the decade in cages and their later euthanasia, 1960s, the idea of alternatives had after the book appeared, more than but it no longer provides carte entered the mainstream of animal a dozen national animal rights blanche for the investigator to do protection thought in the United groups were founded, and most whatever he or she pleases. States and was actively advanced in developed programs against animal Legislative and legal battles contin- public materials (see “The First Forty research. These groups also were ued into the 1990s. Activists cam- Years of the Alternatives Approach” more likely to challenge how animals paigned against “pound seizure,” elsewhere in this volume for more were used (under the slogan “No product safety testing, and the treat- information on alternatives). cages, not better cages”), and the ment of nonhuman primates, and they Animal protection groups focused concept of alternatives became an led the debate on whether research on the need for some sort of federal ever more powerful element in ani- should be covered under state anti- regulatory oversight of animal mal protection campaigning. cruelty laws, the right of private citi- research. Unlike Great Britain, there Pressure continued on federal and zens to sue for enforcement of the was no law governing how laboratory state legislators to tighten the laws AWA, and student rights regarding animals could be used or treated. The controlling animal research. Several dissection and animal experimenta- states either repealed laws permitting tion. Since 1987 approximately one-

116 The State of the Animals: 2001 Table 3 Significant Milestones in Animal Research Oversight in the United States

1963 Production of first edition of The Guide for 1985 Introduction of revised Public Health Service policy the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals on the use of animals in research requiring the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use 1965 Formation of American Association for the Committees (IACUCs) for any institution receiving Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) Public Health Service funds for animal research. as a self-regulating body of scientific organizations Amendments to the AWA requiring all registered 1966 Passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act research institutions to establish an IACUC to (LAWA), overseeing treatment and acquisition oversee animal research and approve proposed of dogs and cats destined for research protocols. Institutions were required to pay particular attention to minimizing pain and distress and to 1970 Amendments to LAWA, changing its name to the finding alternatives to potentially painful research. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and extending its reach into research institutions. Specifically, the AWA 1989 Promulgation of regulations implementing 1985 promoted the idea of “adequate veterinary care” AWA amendments and led to considerable growth in the influence and knowledge of laboratory animal veterinarians

fourth of the states have seen the tually the decision was thrown out by animal protection movement in the introduction of bills to end the use the appeals court because the defen- next fifty years? of animals for educational purposes. dants were deemed not to have stand- On the other side, research scientists ing to sue for legislative relief. have campaigned for protection of In the last few years, a second Issues of research facilities against break-ins lawsuit, filed by the Alternatives and vandalism. Research and Development Founda- the Next In the last decade, the USDA tion to require USDA oversight of became more aggressive in pursuing mice, rats, and birds used in research, Few Decades violations of dog and cat acquisition has been wending its way through the by dealers for sale to research labora- courts. Eventually, the courts found Pain and Distress tories. As a result, the number of that one of the plaintiffs, a student While overall animal use has “random source” dogs and cats used who had used rodents in college labo- declined substantially, there has in research is down to about 50,000 a ratory exercises, had standing, and been less attention paid to the ques- the way was cleared for the case to go year (compared with 500,000 a year tion of reducing pain and distress. forward on its merits. At this point, in the late 1960s). Similarly, while there have been There have been a number of legal the USDA sat down with the plaintiffs to negotiate a settlement (the USDA developments in laboratory animal challenges to the manner in which agreed to issue a proposal to regulate anesthesia and analgesia, the larger the USDA is overseeing research ani- rats, mice, and birds under the AWA). issue of developing ways to measure mal use. In January 1992 a U.S. Dis- Research lobbyists were alarmed by animal pain or animal distress so trict Court decided that the USDA’s the fact that these negotiations were that such states can be identified exclusion of rats, mice, and birds conducted in secret and were able to and addressed when they occur is from coverage under the AWA was persuade the Senate Appropriations still in its infancy. Scoring schemes arbitrary and capricious and in viola- Committee to attach language to the have been developed (see Hendrik- tion of the law. In February 1993 the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s sen and Morton 1999 for reviews)— same federal judge determined that appropriations bill. This language and it has been suggested that the regulations developed to ensure prevented the USDA from taking any weight loss could be used as an index psychological well-being for primates action on the rats, mice, and birds of distress (Dallman 2000)—but and exercise for dogs were inadequate issue for one year (until September there are no agreed-upon measures because regulated institutions were 30, 2001). of animal distress that could be allowed to develop their own stan- In sum, legislative and regulatory applied in the laboratory. Perhaps dards. The judge ordered the USDA oversight of research animal use has distress (and pain) are too complex to redo the regulations. The USDA expanded considerably since 1950 for anyone ever to develop an appealed the judge’s ruling, and even- (Table 3). What are the animal unequivocal empirical measure, but research issues that will engage the Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 1950—2000 117 all should make more of an effort to tists, and animal care professionals 1997. As noted above, Baylor Univer- detect distress and then to alleviate involved with laboratory chimpanzees sity has increased the size of its facil- it when it occurs. for the “retirement” of many of these ity and can now house 300,000 mice, The HSUS launched an initiative chimpanzees into appropriate sanctu- or three times its previous capacity. aimed at generating more attention aries. Estimates of the number that Apart from the natural concern to detecting and eliminating pain and might be retired immediately range that the animal protection movement distress (HSUS 2000). The initiative from 100 to more than 500. As of late would have with this growth in labo- has already produced some results. 2000, a bill to provide funding for ratory mouse use, transgenic animals During 2000 there were five national such sanctuaries had passed the U.S. might also experience more distress meetings involving laboratory-animal- House of Representatives and awaited because they suffer from specific care professionals that focused either action in the Senate. Unfortunately, deficits caused by genetic modifica- exclusively or to a significant degree despite very similar goals, consider- tion. However, we have little specific on the pain and distress issue. The able distrust still exists among the information on the potential distress Federation of American Societies of various protagonists (both scientific experienced by genetically modified Experimental Biology organized a and animal protection) seeking to mice. Apart from a general exhorta- workshop on the topic that concluded establish chimpanzee sanctuaries. tion to ICUCs to consider the effects that animal distress was too complex This distrust has already been one fac- of a particular gene manipulation on a concept to define or measure unam- tor (another is the development of animal well-being, there has appar- biguously. The USDA announced its problems with moving individuals of ently been no systematic attention to intention to try to develop a workable an endangered species from one the issue by animal care profession- definition of animal distress and to country to another) in a pharmaceu- als. The reality is still that mice are revise its current pain and distress tical company’s decision not to pur- small creatures that are easy to over- reporting system. sue funding the retirement of some look and that tend to be given rela- The HSUS intends to continue to European chimpanzees to a new sanc- tively limited clinical care in most press forward with its initiative and to tuary in the United States. It is very research facilities2. The whole ques- develop contacts and allies within the likely that the number of chim- tion of the effects of genetic manipu- research community who will support panzees in active research programs lation is an issue to which the animal the development of a more aggressive will continue to fall. What is not so protection movement is going to have program to detect and eliminate ani- certain is whether appropriate sanc- to pay particular attention. In the mal distress in the laboratory. tuaries can be built and funded immediate future, advances in cryo- for those chimpanzees who should genic technology could greatly Primates already be in permanent retirement. reduce the sum total of animal dis- Approximately 50,000 primates (1,700 tress by allowing research institutions of which are chimpanzees) are in U.S. Genetically Modified to “store” new strains of genetically research facilities. In the past few modified mice as frozen embryos rather Animals than as colonies of living animals. years, challenges to the use of pri- Developments in transgenic technol- mates in research have intensified in ogy have led to an explosion in the Reducing Animal both the United States and worldwide. number of mice being kept in the The Third World Congress on Alterna- larger research institutions in the Numbers tives in Bologna, Italy, in 1999, fea- United States. Scientists are very While the number of genetically mod- tured a session based on the proposal excited about some of the possible ified animals in laboratory facilities that the use of primates in laborato- research projects they might be able continues to rise both in the United ries should be “zeroed out.” In the to explore using genetically engi- States and in Europe, the number of United States, various animal activist neered mice (and perhaps rats). For actual animal procedures recorded in groups have begun to campaign for example, scientists have identified Great Britain has declined. In the last such a “zero option” for research pri- about fifty genes linked to heart few years, however, the decline in pro- mates. On the other hand, primate enlargement, or hypertrophy, in mice, cedures has slowed down and may research enjoys a certain cachet in the 60 percent of which were previously even have stopped. Nonetheless it United States that makes it very unknown to be associated with this appears as though research on genet- unlikely that a campaign to end it will condition. In the past five to ten ically modified mice is still replacing succeed anytime soon. years, mouse inventories have dou- (rather than adding to) research The most promising front on pri- bled at many research institutions. using standard laboratory mice. mate research in the United States For example, at NIH, the number of Europe is still discussing the idea of involves laboratory chimpanzees. mice recorded in the annual report setting targets for reducing animal Widespread support exists among ani- for the USDA jumped from just under use (by 50 percent, according to one mal protection organizations, scien- 300,000 in 1991 to over 600,000 in proposal, but no one is sure of what

118 The State of the Animals: 2001 the starting date should be). The Unit- science. In the end, greater attention ical Ethics, University of Birming- ed States lacks the necessary report- to animal welfare will not harm bio- ham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.) ing structures that would permit the medical research, it will enhance both The Humane Society of the United tracking of accurate trends in labora- its productivity and its reputation in States (HSUS). 2000. Taking ani- tory animal use. However, both scien- the eyes of the public. mal welfare seriously: Minimizing tific organizations and the animal pain and distress in research ani- protection movement have an inter- Notes mals. Washington, D.C.: HSUS, Ani- est in using as few animals as possible mal Research Issues Section. 1 and in eventually eliminating their In 2000 the USDA, in a settlement forced by National Institutes of Health (NIH). a legal challenge, agreed to promulgate regula- use altogether (as a representative for tions to include rats, mice, and birds. However, 1980. National survey of laboratory the Foundation for Biomedical the U.S. Congress then inserted language into animal facilities and resources. In Research stated to the Boston Globe). the Agriculture Appropriations bill that delayed NIH Publication No. 80-2091. Wash- any implementation of the agreement for at least The challenge (and the policy con- a year. ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of flict) resides in deciding what would Health and Human Services. 2 be an appropriate timetable and how Also, in settings more familiar to most citi- National Science Board (NSB). zens, mice and rats are usually considered to be much effort should be put into such a vermin and thus there is the implicit sense that 1986–1997. National Science goal. Nonetheless, one can guarantee these creatures are not as worthy of attention. Board: Science and Engineering that there will continue to be pres- Opinion polls usually find that the public is not as Indicators. 1986, 1989, 1991, concerned about the use of mice and rats as they sure from both external and internal are about the use of dogs or primates, for example 1994, 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. sources on research institutions to (cf. Herzog, Rowan, and Kossow in this volume). Government Printing Office. reduce laboratory animal inventories National Society for Medical Research and use. (NSMR). 1949. Bulletin. Literature Cited Newman, A. 1989. Research versus Aldhous, P., Coghlan, A., and Copley, animal rights: Is there a middle Conclusion J. 1999. Let the people speak. Ani- ground? American Scientist 77: There is no question that consider- mal experiments: Where do you 135–137. able progress has been made in draw the line? New Scientist, 22 Office of Technology Assessment. reducing laboratory animal use and May, 26–31. 1986. Alternatives to animal use in in improving the welfare of laboratory Anonymous. 1990. Statistics on the research, testing, and education. animals in the last fifty years. Three Rs. The Alternatives Report Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Improvements in veterinary health 2(2). (Available from the Tufts Cen- Printing Office. management have, for example, elim- ter for Animals and Public Policy.) Orlans, F.B. 1994. Data on animal inated a considerable amount of dis- Bliss, M. 1982. The discovery of experimentation in the U.S.: What ease that would have caused animal insulin. Chicago: University of they do and do not show. Perspec- distress. Higher standards of veteri- Chicago Press. tives in Biology and Medicine 37: nary care mean fewer animals die Dallman, M.F. 2000. Stress and energy 217–31. before or during the research from balance: The rationale for and utility Plous, S. 1996. Attitudes towards the unrelated disease and fewer animals of measuring body weight. Present- use of animals in psychology are needed for a particular project. In ed at FASEB Workshop, August. research and education: Results addition, new research technologies Foundation for Biomedical Research from a national survey of psycholo- and improvements in existing tech- (FBR). 1985. Members of the Amer- gists. American Psychologist 51: niques mean that more data can be ican public comment on the uses of 1167–80. (Also see 1998 paper at generated from many fewer animals animals in medical research and http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/ than was the case in 1950. testing. Washington, D.C.: FBR. meetings/pain/plous.htm.) There is no question that much French, R.D. 1975. Antivivisection Rowan, A.N. 1989. Scientists should more progress is possible. Improve- and medical science in Victorian institute and publicize programs to ments in monitoring animal distress England. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton reduce the use and abuse of ani- will benefit both the animals and the University Press. mals in research. Chronicle of High- scientific projects in which they are Hendriksen, C.F.M., and D.B. Morton. er Education, April 12, B1–3. used. Primate housing is far from 1999. Humane endpoints in ani- Russell, W.M.S., and R.L. Burch. ideal. Keeping a large monkey in a mal experiments for biomedical 1959. The principles of humane small cage for years at a time cannot research. Proceedings of the Inter- experimental technique. London: be regarded as acceptable. Laborato- national Conference, 22–25 Novem- Methuen. ry animal numbers are still very high ber, 1998, Zeist, The Netherlands. Singer, P. 1990/1975. Animal libera- and we need aggressively to pursue (Inquiries to CFMH, RIVM, P.O. Box tion. New York: Random House/ ways to continue to drive those num- 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Nether- New York Review of Books. bers down while still promoting good lands; or DBM, Centre for Biomed- Animal Research: A Review of Developments, 1950—2000 119 Southwick, R. 2000. Animal rights groups gain ground with subtler approaches worrying researchers. Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27. Turner, J. 1980. Reckoning with the beast. Baltimore: Thorsons Pub- lishers. U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare (DHEW). 1966. The care and management of laboratory animals used in programs of the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare. Washington, D.C.: DHEW Division of Operations Analysis, Office of the Comptroller. Weichbrod, R.H. 1993. Animal use in Department of Defense research facilities: An analysis of “Annual Reports of Research Facility,” filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986–1991. Doctoral dissertation/partial fulfillment, Waldon University Institute for Advanced Studies, Maryland. Welsh, H. 1991. Animal testing and consumer products. Washington, D.C.: Investor Responsibility Research Center.

120 The State of the Animals: 2001