|
Humane Research and Education
Trying to study human health by experimenting on animals is
not just cruel—it’s bad science. In the past year,
PCRM has continued to work tirelessly to reduce the use of animals
in research and education by using two strategies: advocating for
the use of humane and more effective non-animal methods, and conducting
our own research, both into the problems of animal tests and into
alternatives. In 2005, PCRM helped save thousands of animals from
being used in ethically and scientifically problematic experiments.
In
February, PCRM cardiologist John Pippin testified before the Food
and Drug Administration about how reliance on misleading animal
tests led to the Vioxx debacle. And in July, he testified at the
Institute of Medicine, outlining three promising alternatives—gene-based
methods, tissue engineering, and microdosing—that could help
eliminate the use of animals in testing drugs. Other PCRM scientists
testified at government hearings, served on government committees,
and shared information about alternatives in the Chronicle
of Higher Education, Nature, the British Medical
Journal, the New Scientist, and other prestigious
publications.
New Views on Animals
PCRM’s Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D., published a comprehensive
review of scientific research on birth defects, finding that animal
testing is little better than a coin toss when it comes to predicting
whether a substance will cause human birth defects. After examining
studies of 1,400 drugs and household chemicals, Dr. Bailey found
that tests predicted effects in humans only about 50 percent of
the time. His work was published in the European journal Biogenic
Amines.
 PCRM research scientist Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., tackled
the problem of animal experiments from another angle. An ethologist
by training, Dr. Balcombe educates the scientific community about
the surprisingly harsh stresses that animals undergo even in seemingly
benign laboratory conditions. He shared findings from two recent
studies—one
to be published in early 2006 in the journal Laboratory Animals—at
several conferences, including the American Society for Bioethics
and Humanities annual fall conference in Washington, D.C. His new
book on animal emotions, Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the
Nature of Feeling Good, is due out in May 2006.
PCRM also drafted
a petition requesting that the U.S. government make the use of
validated alternatives to animal testing mandatory, as it is in
Europe. And, together with the Institute for In Vitro Studies,
PCRM held a workshop in July in the Washington, D.C., area to study
alternatives to animal use in toxicity testing.
 Legal Action as an Advocacy Tool
Last
year, PCRM also publicized problems with animal tests by taking
several perpetrators to court. One lawsuit, filed against Merck & Company,
Inc., argued that the company was negligent for relying on tests
on animals to assess the safety of its painkiller Vioxx, which
caused thousands of deaths. The Associated Press, Bloomberg, and
dozens of other media outlets picked up the story, helping to inform
the public that animal testing is not just cruel, but can endanger
human health.
In April, PCRM filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court,
demanding the release of secret video footage from an Ohio State
University class nicknamed “Cruelty 101.” During the
class, students conduct gruesome experiments that aim to mimic
human spinal cord injuries by exposing the spines of mice and then
dropping weights on them. PCRM filed its lawsuit under the Ohio
open records law after the university ignored numerous requests
for video footage and documents pertaining to the class. More than
300 neurologists have joined PCRM in calling for an end to the
class; the lawsuit remains undecided as of this writing.
An Agent for Change
 Under the direction of senior toxicologist Chad Sandusky, Ph.D.,
PCRM made major progress in an ongoing campaign to reduce the number
of animals used in the U.S. government’s chemical toxicity
testing programs. In these tests, required by the Environmental
Protection Agency, researchers poison animals to try to determine
the toxicity of various chemicals for humans. PCRM’s legal
experts have filed lawsuits, which are proceeding through the courts,
to try to stop the program. Meanwhile, PCRM research staffers have
saved many animals by pushing Dow and other chemical companies
to avoid unnecessary tests.
PCRM also continued its efforts to
educate charitable givers about how to ensure their donations go
to health charities that don’t
test on animals, both through the Humane Charity Seal program and
other avenues. Humane Seal coordinator Kristie Stoick, M.P.H.,
worked with donors who wanted to help victims of the tsunami and
Hurricane Katrina direct their money to groups that don’t
test on animals. And PCRM kept up its campaign to educate the public
about the March of Dimes’ disturbing use of donors’ money
to fund useless birth defect experiments on monkeys, kittens, and
other animals. PCRM activists handed out more than 40,000 leaflets
to March of Dimes supporters in 175 cities.
While our goal of reducing—and
ultimately, eliminating—the
use of animals in medical research and education is immense, we
are heartened by our growing ability to effect positive change.
We look forward to an even more successful year in 2006.
Med Schools Go High-Tech—and Humane
PCRM has long encouraged medical schools to drop the use of live animals as teaching tools in favor of high-tech alternatives such as computer programs and simulators. Currently, only 22 medical schools in the country still use animals in their curricula, while 104 schools are now animal-free.
The surgery department at the University of Texas Health Science Center, in San Antonio, is a good example of the effectiveness of PCRM’s campaign. After being contacted by our staffers last fall, the department decided to stop using live goats to teach chest tube insertion and other techniques in three surgery classes. Instead, instructors will use a new teaching facility equipped with state-of-the-art simulators and virtual reality technology, which professors agree is better preparation for working on real patients. PCRM also confirmed that the medical schools at Brown University and Howard University have stopped using live animals.
In the coming months, PCRM will step up its efforts to convince the remaining schools still using animals that non-animal teaching methods are superior ethically and educationally. Given the popularity of new medical simulators such as SimMan and SimBaby—which spurred major stories on National Public Radio and in the New Yorker magazine in 2005—medical schools have no reason not to adopt modern alternatives.
PCRM Experts Debate at House of Commons
 In November, Britain’s House of Commons hosted two PCRM experts in a debate against two leading U.K. animal experimentation proponents. The debate was organized to help British lawmakers come to a decision about a parliamentary proposal to subject animal experiments to validation testing. Although British researchers kill an estimated 3 million animals each year, the government is far more restrictive than U. S. regulators as to what kinds of experiments may be conducted. For example, research on great apes has been banned since 1986, although it is still legal in U.S. laboratories.
John Pippin, M.D., and Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D., made the case that animal testing is unnecessary, inaccurate, and scientifically unsound. The two presented data on differences in how various species’ bodies handle drugs. For example, aspirin, the most commonly used drug in the world, causes birth defects in mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, and monkeys—yet is safe in human pregnancy.
On the flip side, many drugs that have been “proven” safe in animal tests (such as Vioxx) have been prescribed to humans with deadly results. In fact, more than 90 percent of new drugs shown to be safe and effective in animal studies are rejected in early clinical trials because of toxicity or inefficacy, PCRM’s experts told Parliament. “We must stop trying to unlock the door of human health with the wrong key. Animal experiments are the wrong key,” Dr. Pippin told lawmakers.
New Cruelty-Free Insulin Test Now Available Worldwide
 The cruelty-free insulin test kit developed by PCRM in 2004 is now commercially available to scientists worldwide through Linco Research, a leading manufacturer of testing supplies.
PCRM developed the test after launching a 2003 study examining the effects of a low-fat vegan diet on diabetes. The insulin test kits on the market at the time used antibodies created in a painful and disturbing way: antibody-producing cells are injected into the abdomens of live mice, turning the animals into living “factories.” Experts said there was no other way, but PCRM proved them wrong.
Dr. Barnard decided to create an alternative, developing insulin antibodies in test tubes instead of in mice. However, since test-tube culture methods often use fetal calf serum, a slaughterhouse byproduct that can harbor bacteria and viruses, PCRM collaborated with a laboratory to create a serum-free synthetic growth medium.
The resulting test kit was as accurate as Linco’s existing insulin testing method—or even more so. The company has licensed the method from PCRM to offer to researchers measuring insulin in scientific tests.
Megha Even, M.S., the PCRM research analyst who helped develop the test, presented it at a number of scientific meetings in 2005, including the conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the Biological Assay Development Conference. For more information about the kit, please visit www.lincoresearch.com/products/ezhiasf-14k.html.
Media
Center | Health | Research
| About PCRM | Catalog
| Join Us | Search
| Site Index | Home
The site does
not provide medical or legal advice. This Web site is for information purposes
only.
Full Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
|
