WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 5-1987 The Scientific Disadvantages of Using Random Source Animals for Research and Testing Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/annbib Recommended Citation "The Scientific Disadvantages of Using Random Source Animals for Research and Testing" (1987). Annotated Bibliographies. 1. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/annbib/1 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]. May, 1987 THE SCIENTIFIC DISADVANTAGES OF USING RANDOM SOURCE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AND TESTING THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 2100 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20037 May, 1987 THE SCIENTIFIC DISADVANTAGES OF USING RANDOM SOURCE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AND TESTING There should be no apology for the length of this document, for its sheer size is one reason for its importance. Consisting principally of refer­ enced excerpts from the published scientific literature, this documentation authoritatively refutes the assertion that unclaimed pet animals from shelters are needed for biomedical research and are scientifically appro­ priate for that purpose. This is the most extensive collection of such information currently available. The term "random source" refers to animals used in laboratory work which were not bred specifically for that purpose._ The use of such animals (in­ cluding unclaimed pet animals from pounds and shelters) for research and testing is a longstanding tradition, a practice still strongly defended by many scientists. In the preparation of this paper, several of these indi­ viduals at the National Institutes of Health and other research facilities were invited in writing to provide published evidence supporting this pos­ ition. Many op~niono were offered, but no empirical ~v~d~nQ~. Not one research study was forthcoming to support the claim that random source animals are good "animal models" as C:.Jmpared to purpose-bred animals or that certain studies h~quin~ the use of random source animals. Evidently, no .6 u.Qh do Qu.m~nta:Uo n ~wt.6 . As can be readily seen in the pages to follow, substantial opposition by credible scientists to the use of random source animals has a long and dis­ tinguished tradition of its own. In essence, the critique states that the genetic, medical and environmental histories of laboratory animals are extremely important factors in how they will respond to experimental or testing procedures. Thus, unnecessary and often costly problems are created when animals of unknown, uncontrollable, and highly variable random source backgrounds are used in the laboratory. The documentation is arranged in chronological order (1958-1986). For pur­ poses of saving space, the paragraph formatting of the original articles was not retained. Original emphases remain in italics while emphases added are underlined throughout. For those who advocate the continued utilization of unclaimed pets from animal shelters (and other random source animals) for research and testing, arguing that such use is both necessary and high quality science, the chal­ lenge posed by this scientific literature review is clear. Ironically, the weight of scientific autho~y continues to support the use of random source animals while the weight of scientific ~v~d~nQ~ clearly does not. 1 THE SCIENTIFIC DISADVANTAGES OF USING RANDOM SOURCE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AND TESTING "First. in order to obtain uniform and consistent results in experimental research. it is only logical to use animals in as uniform a state of health as possible .... From a practical standpoint, 100 percent of the pound dogs must be considered infested by intestinal worms and fleas. If the infestations are pronounced, the animals are apt to be ane:""lic, and even if their general appearance is not bad these animals are not good subjects for experimentation .... lf the results of the experiment are to be evaluated under the light of, first, the death or survival of the animal, second, the changes on its biologic processes, and third, the resulting pathology in its organs, one must try to avoid by all possible means strange mechanisms being added to the experiment proper .... lt may be argued that all this is expensive. Yes. progress is expensive but necessary. and in the final analysis jt is cheaper to do a thing right once than to do many things wrong many times." Dr. J .J. Perez-Alvarez. 1958. Some elements of error in experimental surgery. Surgery (Editorial) 43 (2): p. 310-312. "Are we to have standards of normalcy for the dog used in physiologic experimentation? Any diseased animals could well be delivered to the laboratory by a disinterested and untrained attendant in response to a telephone call for a normal dog .... The investigator, without further concern, proceeds to conduct an elaborate day-long experiment involving two or more assistants, several technicians, much expensive apparatus, numerous chemicals, glassware, recording paper, and many hours or days in the analysis of data. Results and conclusions are published which influence the opinions of others and establish physiologic phenomena for the 'normal' dog. Much of the data is often recognized years later as indicating that the dog was probably 'different' or 'not normal.' The 'normal' dog could be severely anemic. infested with fleas. lice. ticks. and intestinal parasites such as amoebae. He could have struggled to survive in a state of malnutrition in a poor neighborhood, without the care and attention necessary for normal growth and development. He may be influenced by an extreme sense of insecurity and anxiety .... Even more, consider the possible psychologic trauma produced by his captivity, transportation to the laboratory, neglect, and nonsympathetic care during his imprisonment .... Surely, a normal dog, accurately established as such by the necessary measures, is not too great a requirement for any investigation. Too often the requisites of performance of investigators. apparatus. and methods far exceed the requirements for the state of the health of the experimental animal. No matter how good the method or the performance of the apparatus, an abnormal animal is not suitable for obtaining results intended to define the normal state of health. True. science is concerned with the unknown. but the conditions of the study should be maximally known .... Normalcy should be supported by criteria of care and health in dogs as well as in man regardless of the demands on effort and funds. Treat not the dog like a dog but more like a man, or the experimental results will 'go to the dogs'." Dr. George E. Burch. 1959. Of the normal dog. Amer. Heart J. (Editorial) 58: p. 805-806. "As the cost of the experiments in which dogs are used tends to be very high in terms of apparatus and manpower, it is important to ensure that every possible care be exercised in the provision of healthy, disease-free dogs." 2 Dr. James A. Baker. 1961. Symposium: Production and management of dogs for research (Introduction). Proceed. of the Animal Care Panel 11 (4): p. 207. "Confusing clinical and histopathological data. with the resultant loss of valuable time and expense from the use of dogs with unknown histories and residue of previous infections, has led to the establishment of a controlled dog breeding kennel .... ln pharmaceutical research the reliability and significance of data from animal experimentation depend not only on the keenness of the individual or research team, but also on the uniformity of the laboratory animals which are employed .... A dog breeding program was initiated in 1955, when it became apparent that the quality of available dogs was not suitable, especially for toxicological purposes. Previous to this time, all dogs were purchased and were invariably in a poor state of health. To bring the dogs to a condition suitable for experimental study required a great deal of time in diagnosis, proper treatment, and in the improvement in their nutritional state. All of this, however, gave no assurance against erroneous results when the dogs were examined, grossly and histologically, for pathological changes. Because the history was unknown in any of the dogs. effects of previous infections could cause a confusing patholoaical picture." Dr. John E. Gilmartin. 1961. The establishment of a dog breeding kennel for pharmaceutical research. Proceed. of the Animal Care Panel 11 (4): p. 222-229. "Because of the high susceptibility of dogs to enzootic diseases during experimental procedures, it became apparent that such studies were impossible without disease-free animals .... Even healthy young animals, free from parasites and well immunized beforehand, are apt to succumb to distemper, hepatitis, or other enzootic diseases in the two or three months that immediately follow their exposure to radiation .... ln order to study the basic immunologic problems of marrow transplantations, free from the complications of intercurrent disease, we were obliged to set up facilities for dog care that permitted study of essentially disease-free animals .... lt is apparent that animals procured and studied in the manner outlined above is appreciably more expensive in initial cost than is the usual dog obtained from the city pound. However, long-term studies of dogs soon involve animals that represent a large investment in terms of the time of the professional personnel conducting the investigation, room and board for the dog, drugs, laboratory tests and so forth. The inadvertent death from disease of even a few such dogs not only represents a verv large financial loss but may invalidate an entire experiment. This accumulative cost is not usually considered in calculations of the cost of studies involving dogs. When the accumulative investment in time and overhead is taken into account. the relative insignificance of initial cost and relative economy of the units and animals described above becomes evident." Drs.