A summary of the arguments for and against vivisection

See LaFollette and Shanks (1995). The authors discuss: different kinds of animal models; the need for a causal model to justify animal research; benefits foregone by animal testing safety laws (aspirin); benefits achieved that could have been obtained by alternative methods (e.g. human experiments); limited improvements in human lifespan attributable to vaccines; and the limited role of vaccines in eliminating diseases.

Specific claims made for and against vivisection

After sifting through the literature in favour of animal experimentation (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002; European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002; The Research Defence Society, 2004), and against it (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 1998; Greek and Greek, 2000; Americans For Medical Advancement, 2002; The Medical Research Modernization Committee; and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, 2004), as well as "open" groups with members from both sides of the debate, such as The Boyd Group (2003) and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2001), I have decided to summarise the valid factual claims made by both sides.

Much of what we know about the human brain comes from neuroscience research on monkeys. Image courtesy of Research Defence Society, U. K..

In favour of animal testing:

• It is undeniably true that a large number of medical advances could never have been made without research performed on live animals. These advances include treatments for anthrax, rabies, rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, whooping cough and leprosy; the prevention of polio, diphtheria, measles, tetanus and rubella; the discovery of insulin and Rh factor; the development of antibiotics, anticoagulants, modern anaesthesia and open heart surgery; advances in organ transplantation; and the sequencing of the human genome (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). For instance, studies involving the use of "approximately 9,000 monkeys, 150 chimpanzees and 133 human volunteers ... were necessary to solve many problems before an oral polio-virus vaccine could become a reality", according to its developer, Dr. Sabin (cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002);
• Animal research also lays the foundation for treatment of other diseases. While it is true that HIV causes AIDS only in human beings, it is also true that "we would be in absolute, utter darkness in AIDS if we hadn't done decades of basic research into animal retroviruses" (C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Additionally, medicines taken by AIDS patients would not have been developed without animal testing (cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002);
• Arguably, human mortality rates would be much higher if animal research had never taken place. Smallpox and other epidemics would continue to kill large numbers of people worldwide; tens of millions would die prematurely death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure due to lack of medication to control their high blood pressure; most people with insulin-dependent diabetes would die; children with acute lymphocytic leukemia would die in the absence of chemotherapy (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002);
• For the time being, "animal studies remain a necessary part of research and testing procedures, which lead to the development of new medicines and vaccines. The reason is that alternative methods cannot simulate an entire organism, even in combination" (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002). For instance, alternative procedures "cannot give scientists a reliable assessment as to how substances will interact in complex organisms or how surgical procedures and implants will affect other parts of the body" (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002, http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=75). Also, only experimentation on live animals can show if a product is safe for pregnant women. The harm caused by thalidomide is due to the fact that relevant studies on pregnant animals had not been performed. Subsequently, "every test of the drug on pregnant animals, regardless of species, showed that it caused birth defects" (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002);
• Animal testing has also led to substantial medical benefits to animals. "Over 80 medicines originally developed for humans are now used to treat pets, farm animals and wildlife, including anesthetics, tranquilizers and painkillers" (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Treatment for parasites; prevention of heartworm; vaccines for rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, tetanus, parvo virus and infectious hepatitis; anthrax skin grafts for wounds, and surgery for traumatic injuries are just a few benefits that would not be available to animals without animal testing.

• While animal experimentation has undoubtedly saved many lives, it is a relatively cost-inefficient way of doing so. Today's medicine is largely based on cure rather than prevention (BUAV, 1999). Arguably, many more lives could be saved if research funds were re-allocated to finding preventative measures. It can also be argued that "the progress of science is slowed as money that could be better spent on clinical studies and the development of more reliable in vitro studies is wasted on animal tests" (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 1998). "The amount of money dedicated to alternatives is minuscule when compared with the amount put into animal research. For example, while tens of millions of pounds are pumped into animal testing, the Home Office set aside for the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a mere 259,000 pounds during 1998-1999, and 265,000 pounds for 2000-2001, for research into the 3Rs[reduction, refinement and replacement - measures proposed to minimise distress to animals caused by animal testing]" (BUAV, 2004).
• Most major breakthroughs in medicine have been initiated not by study in animal models, but by autopsy and clinical studies (Greek and Greek, 2000);
• Animal experiments are a very imperfect predictor of dangers to human beings. The correlation between harmful effects in human patients and the results of animal experiments is only about 5 to 25%. (BUAV, 1999). Many products that could save large numbers of human lives never make it onto the market because of existing safety regulations. Some life-saving drugs, such as aspirin and penicillin, would never have been approved for human use had today's tough safety regulations been in force when they were invented;
• Conversely, products that are harmful to human beings sometimes have no adverse effects on laboratory animals. It was human (not animal) studies that highlighted the link between smoking and lung cancer, and diet and colon cancer (BUAV, 1999). Over-reliance on animal models has slowed the recall of drugs that doctors in the field knew to be harmful to human beings. Soon after its release, doctors realised that thalidomide was causing birth defects and warned the company, but the drug could not be recalled until it was shown to cause birth defects in an animal model (Greek and Greek, 2000). The introduction of health warnings on cigarette packs was also delayed by researchers' inability to induce lung cancer in laboratory animals exposed to cigarette smoke. Thousands of human lives were lost as a result;
• Many drugs that were approved after animal testing have had to be withdrawn from the market after killing or harming human patients. Every year roughly 100,000 Americans die of adverse reactions to drugs that proved, in animals, to be perfectly safe (Greek and Greek, 2002);
• Historically, for certain diseases (e.g. polio) human clinical research provided a complete model which quickly led to the development of a suitable vaccine, whose availability to the general public was delayed (causing the loss of thousands of lives) by conflicting animal studies, which side-tracked researchers, causing them to misinterpret mechanisms of disease transmission;
• A considerable amount of animal testing is performed to test the safety of products for which safe and effective alternatives already exist (household products, cosmetics, "me-too" drugs) as well as products whose use by human beings can be considered as a vice (tobacco products - see BUAV, 2000).