You are on page 1of 7

Baumann 1

Anna Baumann
Lisa Jones-Engel
BIO A 413 A
Nov. 9, 2017

America vs. Europe: Animal Testing and Why the USA Needs to Reform

Compared to Europe and their combined efforts, the USA is years behind in searching for

alternatives to animal testing and caring for their laboratory animals. While various multi-national

companies are working together in the European Union (EU) and beyond to enforce the agreed-upon

principles of ‘replace, reduce, and refine’; America’s biomedical industry is shrouded in secrecy. The

result is variation in the treatment of American research animals and insufficient cooperation among

institutions. America needs to improve the way it conducts biomedical research on animals, not only

because of animal welfare concerns but also to ensure the accuracy of the scientific studies conducted on

animals.

Before biomedical industries can be compared, key terms need to be defined. The guidelines

‘replace, reduce, and refine’ (3Rs) were first introduced by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959. They

improve animal welfare by replacing live animal research with other research methods: by reducing the

number of live animals used, and by refining the research process to cause less harm.1 Another term is

that of ‘animal welfare’. In this paper, the definition set by David Fraser, a University of British Columbia

professor, will be used. Fraser defines animal welfare as the intersection between biological health,

emotional well-being, and living in conditions as natural as possible.2 Animals should be kept from

suffering unnecessarily and the 3Rs should be used to gauge welfare concerns.

There are two major views on an animal’s place in society: the utilitarian and the animal rights

view. Both views assume humans and animals are worthy of respect. The utilitarian view, however, will

always put the human interests first. It follows the concept of the ‘good of the masses’, meaning some bad

1
Melanie L. Graham and Mark J. Prescott, “The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease,”
European Journal of Pharmacology, No. 759 (2015): 19-29. Accessed Nov. 5, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441106/.
2
David Fraser, “Understanding animal welfare,” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, No. 50 (2008): S1. Accessed Nov. 7, 2017,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4235121/.
Baumann 2

is justified if more good comes out of it.3 It is flawed and hard to judge, but it is the accepted standard for

justifying research in the USA. On the other side is the animal rights view, which posits that research

cannot be justified at the expense of animals. Melanie Graham, from the University of Minnesota,

proposes her own, hybrid view. She argues that an ethical approach needs to be weighed against the

relevance of the study. Animals can be used for research, as long as a certain level of welfare is always

maintained.4 This view is a valid combination of the two above, however, the problem remains: Who

decides what level of welfare is enough? That is difficult to determine!

Europe has made great strides in recent years to enforce the 3Rs. The European Federation of

Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations oversees most of the biomedical industry in Europe. The

Research and Animal Welfare group (RAW) was founded in 1980 to work with research facilities to

enforce the 3Rs in the EU. They work with the EU Directives 86/609 and 2010/63, which synchronize

national provisions of animal welfare and regulate study approval, mandate reviews, and regulate

housing/care requirements respectively, to enforce and improve the protection of animals used in science.

Member companies of these groups use animals only when no alternative exists.5 It is not clearly

regulated who decides what alternatives are sufficient. Furthermore, RAW uses key performance

indicators to help assess who is investing in the 3Rs effectively and seeks to promote internal and external

communication within companies to share information. RAW set up an animal testing blog to gather

differing perspectives and created a website with all the basic information about testing facilities in

Europe.6 Largely with the help of RAW, Europe’s pharmaceutical industry is succeeding in being more

open about their processes. There is even a documentary made about the Biomedical Primate Research

Center that lets the public view its facility.7 This sort of transparency is hard to find in the USA today.

With this openness comes the possibility of public criticism; the drive for change; and the sharing of

3
Melanie L. Graham and Mark J. Prescott, Eur J Pharmacol, 19-29.
4
Ibid.
5
Gill Fleetwood et al. “Making Progress and Gaining Momentum in Global 3Rs Efforts: How the European Pharmaceutical Industry is
Contributing,” American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, No. 54 (2015): 192-197, accessed Nov 5, 2017,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382624/.
6
Ibid.
7 “Experimenting on Animals: Inside the Monkey Lab,” VICE, 2015, YouTube, Accessed Nov. 1, 2017,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsPo53PCls.
Baumann 3

ideas. This will all lead to more rapid change and an efficient search for alternatives. While the European

system is nowhere near perfect and lacks oversight as well, it is much more efficient and open than the

system currently in place in the USA.

The system in America works differently. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

(IACUC) is responsible for approving all research studies involving animals and is comprised of

members from many different professions (both scientific and not). IACUC is responsible for ensuring

the humane handling, treatment, and care of any laboratory animal. Besides this, the USDA Animal

Welfare Act proposes that the smallest number of animals should be used when conducting experiments.8

IACUC holds much of the responsibility for ensuring animal welfare; oversight is limited because most

national primate research centers are closed to the public. Public monitoring cannot occur, especially

because of the lack of organized welfare groups. There is a clear divide in the US between scientists and

animal rights activists, with a minimal middle ground. When individual facilities determine which

alternatives are appropriate without public regulation, they are not likely to pick alternatives that are more

costly or take time. The largest search for alternatives in the US is happening at Johns Hopkins

University, a single institution.9 When compared to the multi-national RAW, this is a small entity. The

USDA Animal Welfare Information Center bulletin introduces examples of alternatives to animal testing

at the beginning of their report; they all come from Britain.10 It is telling that all these examples hail from

Europe. This bulletin also outlines the long and convoluted process necessary to propose and implement

an alternative to animal testing.11 Navigating this process must be very hard to accomplish without a

powerful group like RAW supporting you.

Improving animal welfare can be mutually beneficial for everyone. An example of this is when

scientists trained 16 macaques in 14 days to voluntarily be restrained into a primate chair. In primate

studies, it is often necessary to restrain animals into a chair with their head immobilized to gather data.
8
Stacy L. Pritt and Robert E Hammer, “The Interplay of Ethics, Animal Welfare, and IACUC Oversight on the Reproducibility of Animal
Studies,” Comparative Medicine, No. 67 (2017): 101-105. Accessed Nov. 5, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402729/.
9
“Search for Alternatives,” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Accessed Nov. 4, 2017,
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/searchalt/index.html.
10
“Searching Bibliographic Databases for Alternatives,” Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin. Vol. 12, No. 3-4 (2006): 3-6. Accessed
Nov. 4, 2017, https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3338/lps3338/www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v12n3/V12N34final2.pdf.
11
Ibid.
Baumann 4

The traditional method of teaching restraint involves a surgery to install a pole into the primate skull. The

pole is then attached to the top of the chair and their head is restrained into an opening at the top of the

chair which closes so they cannot move. This new method sought to train the primates without resulting

to surgical implants using positive reinforcement techniques. Little tasks were built on each day until the

primates were fully trained: They would sit, present their head to be restrained in five minutes, and sit

calmly in the chair for an extended period of time.12 While more research needs to be done comparing this

to the traditional method and how they both affect stress levels, this method is less invasive, cheaper, and

safer than surgical procedures. It is also unarguably better for animal welfare since the animal can live in

captivity more easily, with less procedures performed on it and less pain. Training them with positive

reinforcement perhaps takes more time, but is still cheaper and as effective as the traditional method since

the same goal is reached.

Animal welfare is not only important for ethical reasons, it is also important for scientific

accuracy because it improves research. Stress affects physiology. It can, for example, effect blood

glucose, which is often important in diabetes studies. If primates can be trained to cooperate with handlers

and to have positive relationships, the whole lab atmosphere will become less stressful, improving the

outcome of the study.13 In addition to lowering the negative experiences animals have, positive ones

should increase. Stress hormones have immunosuppressive effects; so refining studies is crucial for

accurate results.14 Beyond this, having test animals live enriched lives will make study results more

accurate. Humans that are part of medical studies live enriched lives, experiencing more than just the

inside of a cage. The primate model will become more applicable to humans if primates engage in

enrichment activities during studies as well.

America has a long way to go to catch up with Europe and the transparency that can be found in

their biomedical research facilities. Transparency is crucial to encouraging change and sharing ideas for

12
Eliza-Bliss Moreau, Jacob H. Theil and Gilda Moadab, “Efficient Cooperative Restraint Training With Rhesus Macaques,” Journal for the
Application of Animal Welfare Science, No. 16 (2013): 98-117, Accessed Nov. 5, 2017,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692558/.
13
Melanie L. Graham and Mark J. Prescott, 19-29.
14
Ibid.
Baumann 5

alternatives to animal testing. With the current system in place in the USA, change is hard to achieve. The

system is too complex. However, change is necessary because we have a duty to ensure animal welfare

during biomedical experimentation and also to get accurate results without the interference resulting from

bad conditions. Therefore, America needs to reform.


Baumann 6

Works Cited

“Experimenting on Animals: Inside the Monkey Lab,” VICE. 2015. YouTube. Accessed Nov. 1,

2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsPo53PCls.

Fleetwood, Gill, Chlebus, Magda, Coenen, Joachim, Dudoignon, Nicolas, Lecerf, Catherine,

Maisonneuve, Catherine and Robinson, Sally. “Making Progress and Gaining Momentum

in Global 3Rs Efforts: How the European Pharmaceutical Industry is Contributing.”

American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. No. 54 (2015): 192-197. Accessed

Nov 5, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382624/.

Fraser, David. “Understanding animal welfare.” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. No. 50 (2008):

S1. Accessed Nov. 7, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4235121/.

Graham, Melanie L, Prescott, Mark J. “The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-

benefit analysis in animal models of disease.” European Journal of Pharmacology. No.

759 (2015): 19-29. Accessed Nov. 5, 2017.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441106/.

Moreau, Eliza-Bliss. Theil, Jacob H. and Moadab, Gilda. “Efficient Cooperative Restraint

Training With Rhesus Macaques.” Journal for the Application of Animal Welfare

Science. No. 16 (2013): 98-117. Accessed Nov. 5, 2017.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692558/.

“Searching Bibliographic Databases for Alternatives.” Animal Welfare Information Center

Bulletin. Vol. 12. No. 3-4 (2006): 3-6. Accessed Nov. 4, 2017.

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3338/lps3338/www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v12n3/V1

2N34final2.pdf.

“Search for Alternatives.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Accessed Nov. 4,

2017. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/searchalt/index.html.

Pritt, Stacy L. and Hammer, Robert E. “The Interplay of Ethics, Animal Welfare, and IACUC

Oversight on the Reproducibility of Animal Studies.” Comparative Medicine. No. 67


Baumann 7

(2017): 101-105. Accessed Nov. 5, 2017.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402729/.

You might also like