Animal Experimentation—When Do the Ends lustify the Means?
Number 5 January 30, 1984 In 1977, I became involved in the ani- Nevertheless, medical researchers to- mal experimentation controversy when day find their work threatened by an Nicholas Wade, then a reporter for Sci- “animal rights” movement, which seeks ence, used Science Citution index” data to curtail the use of animals in research. to assess the impact of some research Some of the observations by animal that had been questioned in the press.z rightists are outlined by prominent ac- Antivivisectionists accused a scientist at tivist Peter Singer in his book, Animu/ the American Museum of Natural Histo- .Liberatiorr. Singer suggests that most ry of mutilating cats for trivial scientific animal experiments are unnecessary. h gain. His experiments involved remov- He and other activists assert that animal ing endocrine glands, sectioning nerves, lab work often replicates already docu- and ablating brain tissues of domestic mented experiments, is not innovative cats and observing their subsequent sex- enough to merit publication, could be ual behavior. Our own citation analysis replaced by alternative methods, is per- showed that the literature reporting that formed for trivial purposes, or is inap- work was reasonably well cited, and propriate because the results cannot be therefore had some impact upon the re- translated to humans. Moreover, these search community.1 But although cita- activists claim that some experiments tion analysis can help us to evaluate the and tests are unnecessarily cruel, caus- impact of basic research, it cannot, alas, ing animals great pain and suffering for answer moral or ethical questions, little scientific gain. They add that whether on animal experimentation or facilities used may not be adequate for other issues. the proper care of the animals, and that There’s no question that experiments scientists ha} e little regard for the with animals have greatly advanced the animals they use, - frontiers of medicine over the years. For To refute such charges and promote example, the discovery of insulin, which the scientific community’s point of view, has proved so beneficial to diabetics, the National Society for Medical Re- was accomplished in part through exper- search (NSMR, 1029 Vermont Avenue, iments on dogs.~ Advances in the treat- NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 2C005) ment of pediatric vision disorders was founded in 1946.8 More recently, resulted from Hubel and Wiesel’s ex- scientists established the Association for periments with monkeys and cats.-t A re- Biomedical Research (ABR, 400-2 Tot- cent paper by Neal E. Miller, Rockefel- ten Pond Road, Suite 200, Waltham, ler LJniversity, New York, describes how Massachusetts 02154) in 1979. Both experiments with animals led to the groups promote freedom for researchers development of new drugs for the treat- to use laboratory animals without ex- ment of mental illness. < And this listing cessively restrictive regulations. To this is by no means exhaustive. end, they monitor pending legislation
26 concerning laboratory animals in the Keal putxlc debate over animal exper- US, and lobby on behaff of the scientific iments did not surface until the seven- communit y’s viewpoint. Membership in teenth and eighteenth centuries, when NSMR consists of research institutions European scientists began performing and concerned individuals, while surgery to advance their knowledge membership in ABR is limited to institu- of physiology. 12,IS Samuel Johnson tions. More will be said about these summed up the public outcry when he organizations later in this essay. wrote: The problem addressed by both sides in the controversy is not trivial. It is diffi- I know not that by living dissections cult to accurately determine how many any discovery has been made by which animals are used in scientific research a single malady is more easily cured. And if knowledge of physiology has around the world, but one estimate puts been somewhat increased, he surely the figure at about 250 million each buys knowledge dear.. .at the expense year,~ In the US alone, according to the of his humanity.ll National Institutes of Health (NIH), about 20 million animals per year are ac- In 1871, the British Association for the quired by various research institutions Advancement of Science issued guide- for scientific studies. This includes lines stating, among other things, that about 18,500,000 rodents, 400,000 rab- anesthesia would be used wherever pos- bits, 240,000 cats and dogs, 450,000 sible during animal experiments. This birds, and 30,000 primates.’~ These self-regulation mollified the critics until animals are used in basic research; ap- 1873, when a manual was published de- plied biomedical research; the develop- scribing experiments for the laboratory. ment of drugs; and the testing of con- The manual neglected to mention that sumer goods for toxicity, safety, irrita- anesthesia should be used, and public tion, mutations, cancer, or birth defects. furor ignited once again. 12,13 By 1876, In addition, animafs are the subjects of animal welfare groups had pressured the psychological experiments and are also British Parliament into passing the used in medical and veterinary schools Cruelty to Animals Act. The law re- to demonstrate diseases or for surgery quired experimenters to be licensed by practice. the Home Secretary. Many kinds of ani- The ethics of humankind’s treatment mal experiments required special certifi- of animals has been the subject of dis- cation. However, by 1884 responsibility cussion throughout the ages. Philoso- for licensing recommendations was phers, scholars, and scientists—among placed in the hands of a scientific body, them Aristotle, Ren6 Descartes, Vol- the Association for the Advancement of taire, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aqui- Medicine by Research, and licenses nas, and Charles Darwin—grappled with were subsequently issued in large such moral and ethical questions as: Do numbers.lz,lJ animals have rights? How do humans dif- In the US, Henry Bergh founded the fer from other animals? Do animals American Association for the Preven- possess language, rational thinking, or tion of Cruelty to Animals in 1866.13 In self-consciousness? Do animals feel pain 1883, the first antivivisectionist society or suffer? Essays by these venerable was established in Philadelphia. Animal scholars have been compiled into a book welfare proponents concentrated their edited by Tom Regan, North Carolina efforts on state legislatures where, State University, Raleigh, and Singer. II thanks to scientific lobbying, restrictive More will be said about these questions bills consistently failed to pass. In the later in this essay. first decade of this century, the Ameri-
27 can Medical Association developed a asserts that the differences in physiology voluntary code regulating laboratory ex- between the rabbit eye and the human perimentation. lJ In 1966, the IJS Con- eye render test results invalid. Other gress passed the Animal Welfare Act. critics of the test charge that the scale Amended in 1970, the act regulates used to judge irritation is subjective and laboratory animal use by licensing the results are open to interpreta- research facilities and establishing mini- tion. 1~17 Still others make the arguable mum standards for the care of experi- point that cosmetics are too frivolous to mental animals. justify subjecting animals to pain. Today, animal rights organizations Another testing procedure found ob- continue to lobby for stronger measures. jectionable by critics is the LD50 test, At least 400 different animal rights orga- which measures toxicity—the degree to nizations now exist in the LJS, each with which substances are poisonous. LD50 is different concerns. Some oppose all the amount of a substance required to animal experimentation, while others kill half the test animals within 14 days. are interested solely in the protection of The American biometrician Chester I. household pets. Still others target Bliss is sometimes credited with stan- specific procedures as objectionable and dardizing the test in its present form attempt to change them. while a student at University College Recently, debate has focused sharply London in 1935. 1~ on two standard tests used extensively by Critics of the LD50 note that a hundred industry-the Draize test for eye irrita- animals may be used each time a sub- tion and the lethal dose 50 percent stance is tested, of which half will die. (LD50) test for toxicity. Both of these Since the test measures acute toxicity procedures use large numbers of labora- only, and cannot predict the long-term tory animals. effects of small doses, it may not apply to The Draize test measures the extent of drugs taken over a long period of time. injury a substance may cause to the eyes. Further, hundreds of variables affect the It was developed in 1944 in response to outcome of the test, including the sex, the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act of age, and health of the animals—and 1938. I’t This act requires that cosmetics even the lab’s caging practices. Finally, be free of substances which might injure according to Rowan, the test does not the user. Rabbits are the subjects of the indicate the cause of death, “which Draize test. One-tenth of a milliliter of a sometimes, in the case of a relatively substance is instilled in the conjunctival benign substance like distilled water, sac of the rabbit’s eye. The eyelids are results merely from the sheer bulk of the held together for one second. The rabbit dose.”lg is then released and examined periodi- In the US, LDX) has been used exten- cally thereafter. Is Although the law does sively in the pharmaceutical industry not specifically require the Draize test where it is generally believed that the for new cosmetics, the test is neverthe- test is mandated by federal law. Howev- less routinely performed. This is because er, at a recent Food and Drug Adminis- the law does require cosmetic manufac- tration (FDA) meeting there was consid- turers to label their products as “un- erable confusion on the matter. zo Indus- tested’ if the Draize test, or some other try and animal rights groups were both approved assay, is not performed. represented. Both were under the im- Animal welfare groups object to the pression that the LD50 testis required by Draize test on a number of grounds. An- the FDA. FDA officials denied this, drew N. Rowan, Tufts School of Veteri- however, and asserted that other tests nary Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, may comply with regulations. zt~In this
28 connection, the scientific community’s fects went undetected.g (p. 103) The sad efforts to reduce the number of animals truth is that the manufacturer of the used in the Draize and LD50 tests are drug performed no tests at all on preg- relevant. nant animals. zq Numerous tests of the A major criticism of animal exper- drug on animals, after it had already iments is that they don’t always apply to been taken by thousands of pregnant humans. One relevant controversy con- women, clearly demonstrated the drug’s cerns Depo-Provers, an injected contra- teratogenicity. Some animal rightists ceptive. Depo-Provers is used in 82 would have us eliminate such testing, countries to control population growth Another focus of debate over the va- and is approved by the World Health Or- lidity of animal studies is the recent sac- ganization. In the US, however, it may charin controversy. zs Studies on rats be prescribed only as a treatment for in- sufficed to convince the FDA that sac- operable endometrial cancer. Propo- charin may cause cancer in humans. But nents of the drug say that it is safe, and critics charged that a person would have they point to the experience of thou- to drink about 800 12-oz. bottles of diet sands of women who have already taken soda daily to consume the equivalent it.zl Opponents point to animal studies, amount administered to the test rats. which show the development of tumors Toxicological testing routinely relies on and other abnormalities. giving large doses to small groups of ani- Beagles were used to test the drug as a mals. Scientists reason that if large doses contraceptive. Many of them developed cause tumors in a significant number of breast tumors. But researchers now be- animals during their short lifetimes, a lieve that the healthy beagle’s breast may small dose administered over a longer contain a reservoir of microscopic tu- period can cause tumors in some mors. Over a long period of time, these people.zs tumors can grow and become malignant Some of the more emotional rhetoric if stimulated by progesterone, an ingre- from animal rights activists concerns the dient of Depo-Provers.zl Humans do treatment of laboratory animals. In not exhibit this trait, and in fact dogs are 1981, Edward Taub, Institute for Behav- no longer used to test contraceptive hor- ioral Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, mone preparations in the US. was prosecuted for the alleged mistreat- When results from a ten-year study of ment of the primates in his Laboratory.zb rhesus monkeys were released, two out Photographs offered at his trial showed of 52 animals had developed endometri- animals with mutilated limbs and open al cancer after receiving Depo-Pro- wounds. vera.zz This was surprising, since the Taub was investigating how monkeys drug is used to treat this disease. Never- cope with the loss of sensation when theless, the drug’s proponents assert that their forelimb sensory nerves are the onset of endometrial cancer in severed. His work would presumably be monkeys differs from that in humans, used to develop better rehabilitation and that the drug is safe and effective. 23 techniques for human stroke victims. Animal rightists sometimes cite the One consequence of Taub’s research was thalidomide case as one in which the that the monkeys inflicted wounds on results of animal studies did not apply to themselves. Although Taub was recently humans. Thalidomide, of course, is the exonerated of all charges,z7 his case tranquilizer which resulted in thousands served to focus public attention on of birth deformities before its removal laboratory conditions. from the market. There’s a popular mis- Scientists are often criticized for not conception that thalidomide had been trying alternatives to animal research. extensively ~ested, and its teratogenic ef- One reason they don’t may be inade-
29 quate training in the alternative design metatxmc systems neectect to ctevelop ac- of experiments. Biologists, for example, curate assays. Primary cell cultures are may not know which problems are good isolated directly from living animals, candidates for nonanimal experi- They can be maintained for only a few ments. ~~ Bernard Dixon notes that re- days, but do retain most complex meta- searchers stick with established tech- bolic activity. Rockefeller scientists are niques. Doctoral students must be sure working on both types of cultures in that the methods they use are sanctioned their search for alternatives.~z by advisers. Thus, an adviser must be One approach under study is based on familiar with the approach being tried. a characteristic of inflammatory re- This works against using no} el experi- sponse-rnacrophages, cells that engulf mental methods. zv and consume foreign material, migrate In response to pressures exerted by to areas of injury. This migration can be animal rights activists, the scientific measured in vitro in a specially designed community is looking for ways to allevi- chamber. D.M. Stark, Laboratory Ani- ate animal suffering. Many universities, mal Research Center, Rockefeller including Tufts, Medical College of [University, is studying how cultured Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins, and macrophages react to fluids from cell Rockefeller, have established research cultures which have been exposed to programs to study alternatives to animal various irritants. Ideally, the migratory testing, ~t)The Johns Hopkins Center for response toward these culture fluids can Alternatives to Animal Testing was be correlated with the already estab- established with a $1 million grant from lished in vivo response.~~ the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrances Another approach involves the devel- Association and $300,000 from Bristol- opment of a preliminary screening test Myers. A $750,000 grant from Re~km, for irritants. Borenfreund exposed file Inc., the cosmetics firm, supports the different cell lines to a group of about 40 quest for alternatives to animal research potentially toxic agents. Her results cor- at Rockefeller [University’s Laboratory related well with already published Animal Research Center. Draize data, but the test might be dif- The Rockefeller scientists are working ficult to standardize. Her colleague, toward creating a replacement for the J. Walberg, uses another approach.~j Draize test. Their efforts involve the de- He collects cells shed in the washing of velopment of cell culture assays that eyes from rabbits exposed to various mimic the complexities of the living ani- alcohols of known irritancy. The cells mal. According to Ellen Borenfreund, are recovered by centrifugation, Rockefeller LJniversity, the assays have counted, fixed, stained, and examined several requirements: they must be easy by microscope. Again, results were to standardize so that reproducibility found to parallel the Draize test. In this among laboratories is assured, and “they case, although animals were still used, a must be capable of detecting toxicity standard could be developed eliminating over a large spectrum of chemically dif- the need for repeated testing, thus re- fering toxicants and target tissues. ”~1 ducing the number of rabbits exposed.]~ The reproducibility of assays is a dif- Several researchers have recently ficult problem. Two different types of published methods for reducing the cell cultures are used in this kind of number of animals used in the LD50 test. research—cell lines and primary cul- E. Schutz and H. Fuchs, Hoerst Com- tures.~1 Cell lines isolated from tumors pany, Frankfurt, Federal Republic of can be maintained over generations and Germany, found that three male animals exchanged between laboratories. How- per dose were all that are needed to de- ever, they may not have the specific termine toxicity rather than the five ani-
30 reals of each sex now used.J~ H. Miiller before they have to be tested on mice.~ and H.-P. Kley, Byk Gulden Lomberg In a recent article, Nancy L. Geller, Co., Konstanz, Federal Republic of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Cen- Germany, assert, “A 50-75 percent re- ter, New York, notes that statistical duction of expenditure in animal methods can minimize the number of material is possible in most LD5,1 deter- animals needed by contributing to the minations. ”J5 Other researchers are pur- adequate design of experiments. J~ suing cell culture alternatives to the A recent article in Chemical & Engi- LD5(J. neering NewN9 reviewed many alterna- Culture assays have already proved a tives to animal research. Many of the sci- successful alternative to some types of entists quoted in thk article express op- animal testing. The Ames test is one timism that the number of animals used well-known example.s~ This test is an in research can be significantly reduced. unobtrusive alternative to direct expo- They are not, however, sanguine about sure. Bacteria in an extract of rat liver the chances of replacing animal ex- are exposed to potential carcinogens. periments entirely. Their sentiments are These bacteria cannot make a certain echoed by NSMR. Testifying on behalf amino acid, histidine. If, after exposure, of the society before a committee of the histidine is detected, it is assumed that US House of Representatives, S.M. the chemical under study affected the Wolff, Tufts [University School of DNA and caused the change. It there- Medicine, pointed out that the word fore could cause changes in living things. “alternative” is really a misnomer de- The Ames test has been discussed in a scribing adjunct methodologies to be previous essay .37 used side by side with traditional animal In addition to cell culture alternatives, testing, not replacing it entirely .40 scientists are working on replacement Thus, the new techniques will still techniques that rely on computer model- leave us with the ethical question of ing. Corwin Hansch, Pomona College, whether we have the right to use animals California, uses “quantitative structure for experiments at all. A related and activity relation analysis, ” a method that more profound question is whether or makes preliminary estimations of the not animals possess “consciousness” in toxicity or efficacy of compounds. the sense that humans do. Does human Hansch converts structural characteris- consciousness differ from that of ani- tics into numbers allowing for more mals in kind, or only in degree? Donald precision than do pictures of molecules. R. Griffin, Rockefeller University, an Comparison of the numbers can tell ethologist, examines these questions in researchers which differences between his 1981 book, The Question of Animai two compounds are significant.a~ A wareness.~1 To efficiently use this technique, a Griffin begins by summing up the pre- large data base containing the chemical vailing scientific orthodoxy regarding structures of known molecules is re- animal consciousness: “The current sci- quired. For example, the National Can- entific Zeitgeist almost totally avoids cer Institute uses structure activity anal- consideration of mental experience in ysis to find new antitumor drugs. All new other species, while restricting attention reported compounds are compared with to overt and observable behavior and the structures of 55,000 known com- physiological mechanisms.”d I (p. 1) pounds. Any compound with an unusual Throughout the book, Griffin cites a structure is analyzed chemically. If ac- huge body of literature which reflects cepted as a potential new drug, it is the assumption that nonhuman ani- tested on cancerous mice. This elimi- mals, with the possible exception of the nates about half of the new compounds great apes, are incapable of any thought
31 or behavior which has not been geneti- would hnd reasonable: ““None oi this im- cally programmed. plies that human beings can treat ani- Griffin does not share this assump- mals as they choose. Perversion—and tion, although he does not argue the op- corruption of human values—undeni- posite view. He merely demonstrates ably comes from pointless cruelty to that experimental evidence gives us no animals . . .. But there are simply no con- reason to assume that evolutionary de- sistent or universal principles that imbue velopment is anything but a continuum. animals with ‘rights’ as exercised by According to Griffin, a view of the humans. ”Jz animal kingdom which has humankind The scientific community recognizes somehow qualitatively detached from that it must be conscientious in provid- other species is not necessarily sup- ing humane care for experimental ani- ported by the evidence.ql mals, or else lose public credibility. Griffin examines those human attri- Most scientists make every reasonable butes alleged by philosophers and scien- effort to keep their laboratory animals tists to set the human species apart from comfortable and disease free. However, all others. These include symbolic com- other motivations exist. As C.R. Coid, munication, self-awareness, anticipa- Clinical Research Center, Harrow, Mid- tion of future events, and so on. Griffin dlesex, England, points out, “Scientists shows that experimental evidence either can do without the frustrations and addi- suggests that even such “lower” species tional costs arising from the use of ani- as honeybees possess some or many of mals infected with pathogens or harbor- these attributes or that no conclusions ing microorganisms which may interfere about the presence or absence of these with experiments. ”~~ attributes can be drawn. Jl Under the Animal Welfare Act, the Nowhere in his book does Griffin ad- LJS Department of Agriculture’s Animal dress the implications of hls work on the and Plant Health Inspection Service ethics of using animals in scientific re- (APHIS) insures that laboratories follow search. Still, one wonders if an animal’s humane standards. This service, consist- possession of awareness would endow it ing of diligent, well-trained inspectors, with “rights” which exempt it from being has been threatened with budget cut- the subject of scientific experiments. backs. NSMR in concert with four other A recent unsigned editorial in Nature scientific orgamzations fought to main- presents a defense of the use of laborato- tain APHIS intact.~~ ry animals that does not depend on the Responsible laboratories follow question of consciousness. The anony- guidelines outlined in Guide for the Care mous author writes: “We should resist and Use of Laboratory Animals pre- the temptation of viewing the natural pared for NIH by the Institute of Labora- world as a blissful, magical kingdom, tory Animal Resources, National Re- save only for man, a clod with heavy search Council.~s The purpose of the boots trampling the flowers. The 4sen- guide is “to assist scientific institutions in tient, purposeful’ creatures of the wild using and caring for laboratory animals lead difficult, violent, parasitized and in ways that are judged to be profession- short lives. Man’s exploitation of ani- ally appropriate. ”ds Topics covered are mals for his own survival is hardly a per- quite diverse. The guide is very specific. verse departure from the natural For example, it recommends the amount order.’”rz of caging space required for different The anonymous author (the Washing- animal species, exercise, etc. ton office of Nafure says that editor John By adhering to the guide’s criteria, an- Maddox did not write the essay) con- imal research facilities can be accredited cludes with a statement most scientists by the American Association for Ac-
32 credhation of Laboratory Animal Care stitution, was also proposed. Several (AAALAC), 2317 Jefferson Street, Suite versions called for all federally sup- 135, Joliet, Illinois 60434.46 A nonprofit ported research facilities to be ac- corporation, the Council on Accredita- credited by the AAALAC.@ Univer- tion reviews applications for accredita- sities fear that it would cost $500 million tion and conducts on-site visitor’s in- to bring all NIH supported laboratories spections. Criteria are so stringent that up to AAALAC standards. An addition- relatively few—only 422—laboratories al provision states that a 50 percent share have achieved it. However, full accredi- of NIH funds now going to work involv- tation by AAALAC is accepted by NIH ing animals be diverted to fund non- as assurance that animal facilities follow animal substitutes, a move that could Department of Health and Human Ser- severely restrict research. 5I vices policy on laboratory animals when As we noted earlier, scientists have evaluating research grants. The National also responded by establishing NSMR Science Foundation, the Department of and ABR. In its early days, NSMR de- Defense, and other federal funding fended scientists against antivivisection- agencies require that grantees perform- ist publicity by the Hearst newspaper ing research on warm-blooded animals chain. Subsequently, through its assis- comply with the standards established tance in the founding of the AAALAC, by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and and its watch over legislation affecting the NIH guide.iT scientific freedom, NSMR has effective- While the scientific community ac- ly combated the emotional rhetoric cepts voluntary controls, most scientists characterizing thk controversy. NSMR adamantly oppose any further legislation takes a reasoned approach. It stands for that interferes with the design or prog- the use of nonanimal methods when ress of experimentation. Walter C. Ran- these have been proved effective. But it dall, president, American Physiological believes that these techniques wifl nearly Society, called “unfortunate” the notion always be used as adjuncts to animal that restrictive federal legislation was testing. It is against restrictive legislation needed despite easily verifiable trends but for responsible laboratory animal that marked reductions have taken place care. In addition, NSMR documents the in the use of animals in research and test- benefits to humankind of laboratory ing.~ In recent years, several versions of animal experimentations a bill designed to put more teeth into To keep its members abreast of its ac- laboratory regulation have been intro- tivities, NSMR publishes a newsfetter, duced in the US Congress .@f’~ Rats and the NSMR Bulletin, ten times a year. Re- mice, exempt from regulation under the cent issues analyzed the proposed legis- present Animal Weffare Act, would be lation affecting lab animal management, included under most new versions. One announced upcoming conferences of in- provision directed government agencies terest, reported on the outcome of the to look for and use methods of research Taub case, and followed antivivisection- and testing that reduce the use of warm- ist activities .sz.sj blooded animals—a design scientists The ABR keeps its member organiza- regard as “clumsy interference with the tions abreast of legislative developments conduct of research.’”fg In addition, through two newsletters. One, Regula- animal care requirements would be tory Alert, is published at irregular inter- made stricter. vals, whenever new legislation is pro- The establishment of an “animal ex- posed in Congress. Recent issues have periment review board” at each institu- discussed the so-called Walgren Amend- tion, staffed by scientists and at least one ment which, if it becomes law, would nonscientist not connected with the in- give the recommendations in the NIH
33 guide the force of law;~d and the recent American Veterinary Medical Associa- efforts of animal rights groups to push tion. The Annals of the New York Acad- legislation which would divert huge emy of Sciences recently devoted an en- sums of federal research money from ex- tire issue to the role of animals in bio- periments on animals to investigations medical research, sg while as far back as into whether those experiments actually 1967 the American Journal of Public duplicate previous work.~s Health devoted part of an issue to the The other ABR newsletter, Update, is benefits of using animals in research. ~ published about twice a month. It pro- Information on cell culture alternatives vides follow-up information on the prog- can be found throughout the biological ress of legislation previously reported in and biomedical journal Literature. Regulatory Alert. Recent Updates have It may seem obvious to many Current reported on a request from se~eral ~JS Conrenfs” readers that research on lab- senators to the General Accounting Of- oratory animals has contributed greatly fice to study the enforcement of the Ani- to the advance of medical science and mal Welfare Act,~6 and the progress of a the well-being of humankind. Unfortu- bill which would forbid the Department nately, these contributions may be too of Defense from using dogs and cats to obvious for our own good. Randall cor- train combat surgeons.sq rectly identifies the activities of the Another organization, the Scientists’ animal rights activists as posing a major Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW, threat to the future of medical re- P.O. Box 3755, Washington, DC 20W7), search. ~1 Yet in reviewing the literature was established by scientists and social for this essay, I was surprised at how the scientists to “provide scholarly input, critics of animal research dominate the collect scientific facts and make objec- popular literature on this subject, While tive analysis of animal welfare issues. ” one can find cogent defenses of animal SCAW has sponsored its own confer- research in the scholarly literature, it is ence on review procedures for animal in the political arena where the battle is experimentation. s~ One speaker at the being fought. conference, Michael W. Fox, Institute While the existence of NSMR and for the Study of Animal Problems, ABR is encouraging, what is needed is Washington, DC, has suggested that for more individual scientists to become journal editors should reject papers re- involved in public education, lest regula- porting research which used inhumane tions interfering with experimental de- methodology. s~ He suggests that jour- sign are imposed on us. It is clear that nals publish guidelines for the proper use scientists can never be complacent on of laboratory animals. At least one jour- the issue of laboratory animals. nal, the American Journal of Physiolo- gy, does publish such guidelines. ***** Several journals deal with laboratory animal issues. The Journal of Animal My thanks 10 Terri Freedman and Science covers animal welfare topics on Esther Surden for their help in the occasion, as does the Journal of the preparation of this essay. 1984 1s1
REFEltENCES
1. Gariield E. Citation analysis and the anti-~ ivisection controversy, part 1. An ase,sment of Lester R. Aronson’s citation record. part 11. fikwlys qf an inji,rrnuttori .s 34 3. Bantfng F G & Best C H. The internal secretion of the pancreas, J, l.ah. Clin. Med. ‘7:251-66, 1922. 4. Lettvht 1 Y. “Filling out the forms”: an appreciation of Hubel and Wiesel. Scwnre 214:5 [8-20, 1981. 5. Mffler N E. [Understanding the use of animals in behavioral research: some critical iw.ues, Ann. NY A cad. Sri. 406113-8, 1983. 6. Singer P. Anima/ /iberation, New York: New York Re~iew, 1975, 301 p. 7. Fox M W. Relurning (o Eden: animal rights and human resporrsibi{ity. New York: Viking Press, IWO, 281 p, t!. Grafton T S. The founding and early history of the National Society for Medical Research. LalI Anim. .%i. 34:759-64, 19S0, 9. RolHn B E. Anima/ ri,ghm and hunm” mora/ity. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1981, 182 p. 10, National Academy of Sciences. Natmnal .surve,p of laboratory animui facilities and resources. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, March 1980, NIH Publ. No. S0/2091. 1I. Reg.an T & Sfnger P, eds. An{ma/ righ!s and human ob[iga( ions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.250 p. ]2. French R D. A nti,,it,isectio” and medical science in Victorion .rnciety. Prince(on, NJ: Princeton Uniwsrsity Press, 1975.425 p. 13. Sechzer J A. Historical issues concerning animal experimentation in the llnited States, SO,,. Sri. Med. 15F: 13-8, 1981. 14. Draize 1 H, W’oodard G & Calvery H O. Methods for the study of imitation and toxicity of substances appfied topically (o the skin and mucous membranes, J. Phurmacol. Exp. The.. 82:3’77-93, 1944. 15. Rowan A. The Draize test: political and scientific issues. Comet. 7echno/. 3(7):32-7, 1981, 16. ------The L)raize te.~t: a critique and proposal., for altematires, Washington, DC: Humane Society of the 1{nited States. (Brochure, ) March 1980. 16 p. 17. ------The Draize test: the search for al(ematives, Co.vnef. Techno/. 4(6):30-3, 1983. 18. Bfiss C f. The calculation of [he dosage-mortality curve, Ann, App/, Bio/. 22: 13+67, 1935. 19. Row an A N. The LD50 test: a critique and suggestions for ahernati} es, Pharmaceu[. Technol, 5(41:65-6: MM: 89-94, 1981. 20. Sun M. Lots of talk about LD5(I, Science 222:1106, 1983, 21. BenagJano G & Fraser 1. The Depo-Provers debate. Commentary cm the article “Depo-Provers. a critical analysis. ” Conlracep[ton 24:49.3-528, 1981. 22. lntematfonal Research and Development Ccmporatfon. Long.wrm intramuscular study m monkeys. [ Inpublished report, 17 September 1979. 23 Sun M. Depo-Pro\era debate reis up at FDA. Science 217:424-8, 19X2. 24. The Sunday Tfmes, London. Sf[(fer the children: the .sIor.v of thalidmtde. New York: Viking Press. 19?9. 209 p. 25. Culffton B J. Fight mm proposed saccharin ban will not be settled for months Science 196:276-8, 1977, 26. NIH suspends funding of researcher charged with animal cruelty, Elmmience 31:714-5, 1981. 2-, Maryland Appeals Court clears Dr. Tauh of animal cruelty charge. Naf Sac Med. Re.~. ffu//. 34(71: [; 3, 19fi3. 28. fiansch C. A quantimtiie approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships. Accoun[. Chem, Rer. 2:232-9, 1969, 29. Dixnn B. Animal experiments. time for a new approach. (Paterson D & Ryder R D, eds. ) Animo/r’ rixhts-a .r.vmpo.wum. Arundel, (lK: Centaur Press 1979. p. ln~-~b. 30, Hcdden C. New focus on replacing animals in the lab. Science 215:35-8, 1982. 31, Borenfreund E. Progress in alt ernati~ es 10 Draim testing. Lecture at the seminm for science writers on Pro,qre.n in alternatives ICI an[mo[ te.rt{n~ 2 June 1983. New York. 4 p. 32, Stark D M. Introduction. Lecture at the seminar for science writers cm Progress in alternative.v (o anima/ Ieszing. 2 June 1983. New York. 6 p. 33. Wafberg J. Exfoliative cytology m a refinement of the Draim eye imitancy test. Tmrico/. .LeH, 18:49-”S5, 1983. 34, SchUtz E & Fuchs H. A new approach t{) minimizing the number of animals used in acute toxicity testing and optimizing the information of test results Arch. ‘To.rid. 51 :19~-220. 1982. 3S, MUIIer II & Kley H.P. Retrospect\ e study O“ the reliability of an “approximate LD50” determined with a small number of animals. Arch. 7oxico/ 51:189-96, 1982. 36. Ames B N, McCann J & Yamasakl E. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the salmt~nella’mammalian microsmm mutagenicity test, Mufat, Re.r. 31:347-64, 1975. 37. Garffefd E, Risk analysis, part 2, How, we evaluate the health risks of toxic substances in the environment. E.s.m.w of an infc~rma[ion .w-ien/t!/. Philadelphia. ISf Press, 1983. Vol. 5, p. 659-65. 3ii Gelfer N L, Statistical strategies for animal ccrnsmation. Ann. NY A cad .$(/. 405:20-.31, 1983. 39, Dagani R. Alternative methods could cut animal use in toxicity tests. Chem Fng. News 61(441 :”-13. 1983. 35 40. US House 01 Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology. lke o{ animols in medical re,~earch and (estin~, 97th Cong,, Ist. %ss, (October 13-14, 1981. ) (Testimony of Wolff S M,) Y4. Sci. 2:qqh8, 41. Grififn D R. I’he questton of unimal anureness. New York: Rockefeller t University Press, 19fll. 209p. 42. What righ[, for animals? Nawi-e 306:522, 1983. 43. Cold C R, Selection of animals suitable for biomedical in}t’stigations. J. J/o.) SCM’ Med. ~l:(l~s-”, 1978, 44. Reynolds O E. Statement for American Institute of Biological Sciences et al. to the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural De\elopment & Related Agencies, I IS Ho”se of Representatives, 3(1 March 1%+2,Washington, DC, 7 p. 45. Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, Institute cd Laboratory Anlmaf Resources, National Research Councif. Guide for (he ‘are and use of Iahora[or,v an;mals (Brochure.) NIH Publ, No 80-2.J, April 198(1. 46, American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Anbmd Care, (Information pamphlet. 1 loliet. fL. AAALAC. II p, 47. (Ise of animals in research a reminder Na~ Sci F’ounda~inr~ BI(// IO+ I ):2, 1982. 48. Randall W C. Ttstimony for American Physiological Socitnv on S,h57. “Impro\ed Standards for Lah,mitmy Animals Act” prdsented [(] the {IS Senate Commillee 36