In the news
21 Nov 2008
29 August 2007
Universities lag behind industry in replacing animal experiments
Universities are failing to take up the challenge of replacing their animal experiments with non-animal techniques, whilst industry has made significant strides forward, says an article to be published in the September issue of the international peer-reviewed journal BioEssays . Animal experiments conducted by industry in Britain have fallen significantly over several years, but those carried out by universities and medical schools have risen by 52% in the last decade.
The article is authored by eminent professors engaged in academic research in immunology, infection and pain, as well as the Dr Hadwen Trust’s Dr Gill Langley, one of the world’s leading authorities on non-animal replacement techniques . It signals to universities that they must increase efforts to replace animal research. Recent reviews of animal experiments demonstrating poor efficacy may be a catalyst for change .
Replacing animal experiments is a well-established concept in industry, especially in the pharmaceutical, chemical and cosmetics sectors. By contrast, in academia, animal use continues to rise and efforts to replace animal experiments are all too often poorly prioritised or focused. In areas where researchers have pioneered replacement efforts, some animal experiments have been successfully replaced, such as in neurological, reproductive and dentistry research. But elsewhere in the university sector progress has been unnecessarily slow.
Dr Gill Langley believes that lack of public scrutiny and external pressure has been a key factor.
Says Dr Langley:
“In recent years industry has started to respond actively to the replacement challenge in a way that we have yet to see within academia. In safety testing, particularly within the cosmetics, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, non-animal techniques are recognised as advanced methods that are more ethical and also more relevant to humans, as well as being quicker and cheaper solutions. There is a growing acknowledgement of the need to develop non-animal methods, with legislative reform and consumer pressure for cruelty-free choices both playing a key role in speeding up the pace of change. However, universities tend to be less accountable and more isolated from these external factors and as a consequence their animal use has continued to increase unabated.”
Since 1986, despite the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act enshrining the 3Rs of replacement, refinement and reduction of animal experiments, there has been a 62% increase in university animal research ― which now accounts for 44% of Britain’s animal procedures. In the same period animal testing has virtually halved in the commercial sector .
Professor Anthony Jones (University of Manchester) identifies lack of investment as another significant factor:
“Funding constraints play a significant role in delaying the advancement of replacement methods in academia. However some universities, such as my own, are beginning to make substantial investments in this area. More collaboration between academia and industry could help replace more animal experiments whilst also developing better-focused therapies for patients.”
Recent systematic reviews of the value of animal research have indicated poor transferability of results to patients. For example a systematic review of 76 highly cited animal studies published in seven leading journals found that only 37% translated into successful human trials3. This growing scientific imperative may encourage universities to change their attitude towards non-animal research.
The Dr Hadwen Trust has many years’ experience of funding university researchers to develop replacement methods, and has often encountered the view that replacing animals in fundamental biological research is more difficult than in industry testing. However, with commitment, foresight and determination, technical difficulties and attitudinal barriers can be overcome – as the charity’s impressive portfolio of research and record of successes show .
“As much as anything,” says Dr Langley “replacing animal experiments is about a cultural challenge requiring a flexible and forward-thinking approach. Resistance to change is the enemy of innovation and many within academia need to radically re-think their approach to animal use. No-one is pretending that industry isn’t responsible for massive animal testing, but if academia had achieved the same rate of progress as we’ve seen within the commercial sector over the last twenty years, not only would thousands of animals’ lives have been spared, but medical research would have benefited enormously from more advanced and relevant techniques.”
In 2005, European industry and the European Commission joined forces to create the ‘European partnership to promote alternative approaches to animal testing’ (EPAA) . Industry associations from the pharmaceuticals, chemicals, cosmetics and biotechnology sectors embarked on this initiative to collectively support the development of new non-animal methods. Regrettably, no such coalition of effort focused on replacements yet exists within academia.
Notes to Editor
