Which Of The Following Statements About Research With Animals Is Incorrect?
Brute inquiry has had a vital part in many scientific and medical advances of the past century and continues to help our understanding of various diseases. Throughout the world, people enjoy a meliorate quality of life considering of these advances, and the subsequent development of new medicines and treatments—all fabricated possible by animal inquiry. However, the utilise of animals in scientific and medical research has been a subject of heated debate for many years in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. Opponents to any kind of animal research—including both animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups—believe that animal experimentation is barbarous and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or benefit. In that location is no middle footing for these groups; they want the immediate and total abolition of all animate being research. If they succeed, it would take enormous and severe consequences for scientific research.
No responsible scientist wants to use animals or cause them unnecessary suffering if information technology tin exist avoided, and therefore scientists accept controls on the utilise of animals in research. More generally, the bioscience community accepts that animals should exist used for research merely within an ethical framework.
The UK has gone farther than whatsoever other country to write such an ethical framework into law by implementing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Information technology exceeds the requirements in the European Marriage's Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, which is at present undergoing revision (Matthiessen et al, 2003). The Deed requires that proposals for research involving the use of animals must be fully assessed in terms of whatsoever harm to the animals. This involves detailed test of the detail procedures and experiments, and the numbers and types of animal used. These are then weighed confronting the potential benefits of the project. This cost–benefit analysis is almost unique to U.k. fauna inquiry legislation; only German police force has a like requirement.
In addition, the UK government introduced in 1998 further 'local' controls—that is, an Ethical Review Process at inquiry institutions—which promote good animal welfare and humane science past ensuring that the use of animals at the designated establishment is justified. The aims of this additional review procedure are: to provide independent ethical advice, particularly with respect to applications for project licences, and standards of animal care and welfare; to provide support to licensees regarding fauna welfare and ethical bug; and to promote ethical assay to increase awareness of creature welfare issues and to develop initiatives for the widest possible awarding of the 3Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement of the utilise of animals in research (Russell & Burch, 1959). In exercise, there has been business that the Ethical Review Process adds a level of bureaucracy that is not in proportion to its contribution to improving animal welfare or furthering the 3Rs.
Thank you to some extensive opinion polls past MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006), we now take a good agreement of the public'south attitudes towards animal research. Although guild views animal inquiry as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a loftier proportion—84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005—is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory arrangement, people chose those that—unknown to them—are already part of the U.k. legislation. In general, they feel that animate being welfare should be weighed confronting health benefits, that corrective-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure loftier standards of welfare, that animals should be used simply if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely back up the existing regulatory system if they knew more than about information technology.
Unsurprisingly, medical general practitioners (GPs) are even more aware of the contribution that beast research has made and continues to brand to human being health. In 2006, a survey by GP Net showed that 96% of GPs agreed that brute enquiry has made important contributions to many medical advances (RDS News, 2006). The opinion poll as well sought doctors′ views about the safety testing of medicines. Well-nigh nine out of x GPs (88%) agreed that new medicines should be tested on animals before undergoing homo trials.
GP Net also asked whether GPs agreed that "medical research data can exist misleading"; 93% agreed. This outcome puts into context the results from another poll of GPs in 2004. Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP; London, UK), an anti-vivisection group, found that 82% had a "concern […] that animal information tin be misleading when applied to humans" (EMP, 2004). In fact, it seems that most GPs call up that medical inquiry in full general can be misleading; it is good scientific do to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism and avoid over-reliance on whatsoever 1 set of information or research method.
Another police, which enables people to become more information, might also assist to influence public attitudes towards animal inquiry. The Britain Freedom of Information (FOI) Human activity came into full forcefulness on 1 Jan 2005. Under the Deed, anybody can request data from a public body in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Public bodies include government departments, universities and some funding bodies such every bit the research councils. The FOI Deed is intended to promote openness and accountability, and to facilitate better public understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why and how they make decisions, and how they spend public money. There are 2 means in which data can exist made bachelor to the public: some information will be automatically published and some will exist released in response to individual requests. The FOI Act is retrospective then it applies to all data, regardless of when it was created.
In response to the FOI Act, the Abode Function now publishes overviews of all new animal research projects, in the form of anonymous project licence summaries, on a defended website. This means that the Uk now provides more than public information virtually animal research than whatsoever other country. The Research Defence Club (RDS; London, U.k.), an system representing doctors and scientists in the debate on the utilise of animals in research and testing, welcomes the greater openness that the FOI Act brings to discussions about fauna inquiry. With more than and reliable information well-nigh how and why animals are used, people should exist in a better position to fence the issues. All the same, there are concerns that extremist groups will try to obtain personal details and information that can identify researchers, and use information technology to target individuals.
As a Firm of Lords Select Committee report in July 2002 stated, "The availability to the public of regularly updated, good quality data on what animal experiments are done and why, is vital to create an temper in which the issue of fauna experimentation tin can be discussed productively" (Business firm of Lords, 2002). Indeed, co-ordinate to a report on public attitudes to the biological sciences and their oversight, "Having data and perceived honesty and openness are the two key considerations for the public in order for them to have trust in a organization of controls and regulations near biological developments" (MORI, 1999b).
In the by five years, in that location have been four major UK independent inquiries into the use of animals in biomedical research: a Select Committee in the House of Lords (2002); the Animate being Procedures Committee (2003); the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005); and the Weatherall Committee (Weatherall et al, 2006), which specifically examined the use of non-human primates in scientific and medical inquiry. All committees included non-scientists and examined evidence from both sides of the debate. These rigorous independent inquiries all accepted the rationale for the use of animals in research for the benefit of homo health, and concluded that beast research can be scientifically validated on a case-by-case ground. The Nuffield Council backed the 3Rs and the need for clear information to support a constructive argue, and further stated that violence and intimidation against researchers or their allies is morally wrong.
In improver, the Advertizement Standards Authority (ASA; London, Uk) has investigated and ruled on 38 complaints made since 1992 almost published literature—leaflets and brochures—regarding claims well-nigh the validity or otherwise of creature enquiry and the scope of culling methods. In 34 out of 38 cases, they found against the anti-vivisectionist groups, either supporting complaints nearly anti-vivisectionist literature, or rejecting the complaints past anti-vivisectionists almost the literature from medical organizations. Only four complaints against scientific/medical inquiry literature have been upheld, not because the scientific discipline was flawed but as a event of either semantics or the ASA judging that the advert savage exterior the UK remit.
All the same, seemingly respectable mainstream groups however peddle dangerously misleading and inaccurate information well-nigh the use of animals in research. As previously mentioned, EMP deputed a survey of GPs that showed that the "majority of GPs now question the scientific worth of brute tests" (EMP, 2004). The raw data is available on the website of EMP'southward sister group Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA; Los Angeles, CA, U.s.; AFMA, 2004), merely their analysis is and then far-fetched that the polling visitor, TNS Healthcare (London, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland), distanced itself from the conclusions. In a statement to the Coalition for Medical Progress (London, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland)—a group of organizations that support fauna research—TNS Healthcare wrote, "The conclusions drawn from this enquiry by AFMA are wholly unsupported by TNS and whatever research findings or comment published by AFMA is not TNS approved. TNS did not provide any interpretation of the data to the customer. TNS did non give permission to the client to publish our data. The data does not support the interpretation made by the customer (which in our opinion exaggerates annihilation that may exist institute from the data)" (TNS Healthcare, 2004). Nonetheless, EMP has used its analysis to lobby government ministers and misinform the public.
Approximately 2.7 million regulated creature procedures were conducted in 2003 in the Uk—half the number performed 30 years ago. The tight controls governing creature experimentation and the widespread implementation of the 3Rs by the scientific customs is largely responsible for this downwardly tendency, as recognized recently past then Home Part Government minister, Caroline Flintstone: "…new technologies in developing drugs [take led] to sustained and incremental decreases in some types of animal utilise over recent years, whilst novel medicines take connected to be produced. This is an achievement of which the scientific community can be rightly proud" (Flint, 2005).
Later a flow of significant reduction, the number of regulated animal procedures stabilized from 1995 until 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, the use of genetically modified animals—predominantly mice—led to a 1–2% annual increase in the number of animals used (Dwelling house Office, 2005). Nonetheless, between 1995 and 2005, the growth in UK biomedical inquiry far outstripped this incremental increase: combined industry and regime inquiry and evolution (R&D) spending rose by 73% from £2,080 million to £3,605 million (ABPI, 2007; DTI, 2005). Animal research has plain go a smaller proportion of overall bioscience and medical R&D spending in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. This shows the commitment of the scientific community to the evolution and use of replacement and reduction techniques, such as figurer modelling and homo cell lines. Nevertheless, beast research remains a pocket-sized, but vital, part of biomedical enquiry—experts approximate information technology at about x% of total biomedical R&D spending.
The principles of replacing, reducing and refining the employ of animals in scientific research are cardinal to UK regulation. In fact, the authorities established the National Eye for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs; London, UK) in May 2004 to promote and develop loftier-quality inquiry that takes the 3Rs into account. In support of this, then Science Minister Lord Sainsbury announced in 2005 that the Centre would receive an additional £i.v million in funding over the side by side three years.
The ultimate aim of the NC3Rs is to substitute a significant proportion of animal enquiry by investigating the evolution of alternative techniques, such as man studies, and in vitro and in silico studies. RDS supports this aim, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect this to exist possible in every area of scientific research in the immediate future. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not still exist, progress is likely to be deadening. The main obstacle is withal the difficulty of accurately mimicking the complex physiological systems of whole living organisms—a claiming that will be hard to meet. There has been some progress recently imitating single organs such equally the liver, but these demand further refinement to make them suitable models for an entire organ and, fifty-fifty if validated, they cannot represent a whole-body system. New and promising techniques such as microdosing besides accept the potential to reduce the number of animals used in inquiry, simply over again cannot supercede them entirely.
Anti-vivisectionist groups do non have this reality and are campaigning vigorously for the adoption of other methods without reference to validation or acceptance of their limitations, or the consequences for human health. Creature-rights groups besides disagree with the 3Rs, since these principles even so let for the apply of animals in enquiry; they are only interested in replacement. Such an approach would ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee written report, and would not bargain with public concerns about animate being welfare. Notwithstanding this, the development of alternatives—which invariably come up from the scientific community, rather than anti-vivisection groups—will necessitate the connected use of animals during the research, development and validation stages.
The scientific community, with detail commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry, has responded past investing a large amount of money and effort in developing the science and technology to replace animals wherever possible. All the same, the development of direct replacement technologies for animals is a slow and difficult process. Even in regulatory toxicology, which might seem to be a relatively straightforward task, about xx different tests are required to appraise the take chances of any new substance. In improver, introducing a non-animal replacement technique involves not simply development of the method, simply also its validation by national and international regulatory authorities. These authorities tend to be conservative and tin can take many years to write a new technique into their guidelines. Even and then, some countries might insist that animal tests are carried out if they have not been explicitly written out of the guidelines. Society should push authorities to quickly adopt successfully validated techniques, while realizing that pushing for adoption without total validation could endanger human health.
Despite the inherent limitations of some not-creature tests, they are notwithstanding useful for pre-screening compounds earlier the animal-testing stage, which would therefore reduce rather than replace the number of animals used. An instance of this is the Ames examination, which uses strains of the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium to determine whether chemicals cause mutations in cellular Dna. This and other tests are already widely used as pre-screens to partly supplant rodent testing for cancer-causing compounds. Unfortunately, the in vitro tests can produce false results, and tend to be used more to understand the processes of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity than to replace animal assays. However, at that place are moves to replace the standard mouse carcinogenicity assay with other animate being-based tests that crusade less suffering because they use fewer animals and practice not take equally long. This has already been achieved in tests for acute oral toxicity, where the LD50—the median lethal dose of a substance—has largely been replaced past the Fixed Dose Procedure, which was developed, validated and promoted between 1984 and 1989 by a worldwide collaboration, headed past scientists at the British Toxicological Society (Macclesfield, UK).
Furthermore, prison cell-culture based tests take considerably reduced the apply of rodents in the initial screening of potential new medicines, while speeding up the process then that x–20 times the number of compounds can be screened in the same period. A leading cancer charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research (Harrogate, U.k.), funded research into the use of cell cultures to understand meliorate the cellular mechanisms of prostate cancer—assuasive researchers to investigate potential therapies using fewer animals.
Microdosing is an heady new technique for measuring how very small-scale doses of a compound move effectually the body. In principle, it should be possible to use this method in humans and therefore to reduce the number of animals needed to study new compounds; however, it too has limitations. By its very nature, it cannot predict toxicity or side furnishings that occur at higher therapeutic doses. Information technology is an unrealistic hope—and a false claim—that microdosing can completely replace the use of animals in scientific research; "animal studies will notwithstanding be required," confirmed the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME; Nottingham, UK; FRAME, 2005).
However, equally with many other advances in not-animal research, this was never classified as 'alternatives research'. In full general, at that place is no dissever field in biomedical research known as 'alternatives inquiry'; it is 1 of the highly desirable outcomes of good scientific research. The claim by anti-vivisection campaigners that inquiry into replacements is neglected but reflects their ignorance.
Skillful scientific discipline and good experimental pattern also help to reduce the number of animals used in research as they allow scientists to assemble data using the minimum number of animals required. Still, practiced scientific discipline also means that a sufficient number must exist used to enable precise statistical analysis and to generate meaning results to prevent the repetition of experiments and the consequent need to use more animals. In 1998, FRAME formed a Reduction Committee, in function to publicize effective reduction techniques. The data nerveless by the Committee then far provides information about the overall reduction in animal usage that has been brought nearly past the efforts of researchers worldwide (FRAME Reduction Commission, 2005).
For example, screening potential anti-cancer drugs uses the and so-called hollow-fibre system, in which tumour cells are grown in a tube-similar polymer matrix that is implanted into mice. Drugs are then administered, the tubes removed and the number of cells determined. This system has increased the corporeality of information that can exist obtained per animal in some studies and has therefore reduced the number of mice used (Double, 2004). In neuroscience, techniques such every bit cooling regions of the encephalon instead of removing subsections, and magnetic resonance imaging, have both helped to reduce the number of laboratory animals used (Royal Lodge, 2004).
Matching the number of animals generated from breeding programmes to the number of animals required for research has likewise helped to reduce the number of surplus animals. For case, the cryopreservation of sperm and oocytes has reduced the number of genetically modified mice required for breeding programmes (Robinson et al, 2003); mice lines exercise not have to be continuously bred if they can be regenerated from frozen cells when required.
Although animals cannot yet be completely replaced, it is of import that researchers maximize reduction and refinement. Sometimes this is accomplished relatively easily by improving creature husbandry and housing, for example, by enriching their environment. These simple measures within the laboratory aim to satisfy the physiological and behavioural needs of the animals and therefore maintain their well-beingness.
Another important gene is refining the experimental procedures themselves, and refining the management of pain. An cess of the method of administration, the effects of the substance on the animal, and the amount of handling and restraint required should all be considered. Furthermore, careful treatment of the animals, and assistants of appropriate anaesthetics and analgesics during the experiment, tin can aid to reduce whatever pain experienced by the animals. This culture of care is achieved not simply through strict regulations but also by ensuring that beast technicians and other workers understand and adopt such regulations. Therefore, adequate training is an important aspect of the refinement of animal research, and should continually be reviewed and improved.
In decision, RDS considers that the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified. The benefits of animal enquiry have been enormous and it would take severe consequences for public health and medical research if information technology were abased. Nevertheless, the use of the 3Rs is crucial to continuously reduce the number and suffering of animals in research. Furthermore, a good regulatory government—as found in the UK—can assist to reduce farther the number of animals used. Therefore, we support a salubrious and continued debate on the use of animals in enquiry. We recognize that those who oppose animal experimentation should be free to voice their opinions democratically, and nosotros look forwards to constructive word in the future with organizations that share the middle ground with us.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/
Posted by: holladaywillith.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Which Of The Following Statements About Research With Animals Is Incorrect?"
Post a Comment