For many thousands of years, humans and animals have worked together and depended on each other for protection, livelihood, nourishment, comfort, and company.
Today their association has expanded from the farm, field, and hearth into the laboratory. There, because of their striking parallels to human systems and structures, animals serve as scientifically valid surrogates, or substitutes, for people in research, development and testing. These animals have made possible antibiotics, vaccines against diseases ranging from polio to Lyme disease, blood thinners and other cardiovascular therapies, pain-killers and many surgical procedures.
The laboratory rodent used in testing protects all our families from dangerous chemicals (by helping scientists identify them).
Animals themselves often benefit from the surgeries, drugs and vaccines developed. Similarly, the research of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences benefits animals because NIEHS research contributes to protecting the environment for all the life that shares the earth - companion animals, farm animals, wildlife, marine life - and plant life as well. All share an existence requiring freedom from pollutants in the air, soil and water.
But no matter how potentially beneficial the research may seem, before laboratory studies are begun, there are checks to assure that the work is really needed and doesn't duplicate other studies that as few animals as necessary are used... that their treatment is kind... that their surroundings and food are healthy and nutritious... and that veterinary care is at hand... as you will see in this booklet.And, as you will also read, NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program (which is headquartered at NIEHS) and other federal agencies have joined together to search out alternative test methods and approve any that prove reliable tests that would provide the accurate answers needed but with fewer animals or none at all. This effort is just beginning to show results.
Americans drink and use, in cooking and in baths and showers, gallons of water every day - gallons of clear, apparently safe water.
But how safe? Every chemical spill and agricultural runoff into lakes and rivers adds contaminants to ground and surface waters. Perhaps these are diluted enough to be relatively harmless. Perhaps not, at least over the long haul.
NIEHS toxicologists are pressing to find out if these low-level exposures may increase risks to pregnant women and their unborn children, and what role chemicals may play in the formation of cancers.
But people move from job to job and community to community. They do not live in anything approaching controlled environments, nor eat and drink the same things day after day. Thus, many illnesses and many observations of those illnesses are required to link a cause with a disease or effect. Animal studies, on the other hand, can help predict human health consequences before disease and death occur. These animal studies can thus help prevent a child or adult's death, disability or illness.
When a research team at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Laboratory of Toxicology began preparing for a study of the effect of toxic chemicals on male reproduction, they knew they first had to meet a series of requirements that precede every animal research project at the Institute:
Throughout the study, the animals are monitored by the research team and by the NIEHS Clinical Veterinarian. Twice each day, animal care technicians check for problems such as discomfort or disease. The IACUC also makes regular site visits to the animal facilities, including unannounced visits at any time. In addition to meeting federal laws and requirements, the NIEHS is fully accredited by the Association for Assessment Accreditation and Laboratory Animal Care International.
AAALAC accreditation provides administrators and the public with an independent assessment of animal care programs. AAALAC is a non-government organization that uses experts in the field to look at the care of research animals. This voluntary, formal accreditation ensures a standard of excellence well beyond the minimum required by law.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has many veterinarians on its staff. These trained animal health specialists have responsibilities throughout the institute, from setting research policies to the day-to-day animal care and welfare.
Understanding various animal species so well, the veterinarians can guide the choice of which rodent species is most appropriate.
One veterinarian is assigned full-time to oversee the health of all animals, including those that have had surgery. The Institute's Clinical Veterinarian is called whenever any animal is sick or seems to be having a problem.
"I like animals," the veterinarian said. "That's why I went into veterinary medicine. After college, I worked in research with lab animals. During that time the hepatitis B vaccine was developed through animal studies, and I realized what contributions animal research could make."
Another NIEHS veterinarian said, "My love of animals brought me to veterinary medicine. In general, the care of research animals is extraordinary."
"In working with many of our collaborating institutions, I feel that I have a strong voice about the proper care and use of animals in this research."
These veterinarians find their concern for human welfare fully compatible with their dedication to animal health.
The animal caregivers at NIEHS are responsible for cleaning cages and colony rooms on a regular schedule as well as feeding, watering and observing their charges. When an animal caregiver noticed that one of 80 mice she was raising for an experiment was not eating properly, she called the NIEHS Clinical Veterinarian.
"The mouse would go off to himself and draw up and shake. So I called the veterinarian right away. It turned out that the little mouse had a nervous condition. The Institute's Clinical Veterinarian always comes back and lets me know what was wrong.""
"I watch out for all the animals in my colony. If one is too small and gets pushed away from the food by the others, I put a dish with some food by him and make sure he gets something," said the veteran of 16 years as an animal caretaker. "Before I came to work here, I didn't realize how well laboratory animals are cared for. It is clear that my work is very much a part of the whole research process. Because I know why the animals are being used, I feel I work harder and take my work quite seriously. We would lose a lot of human lives if it weren't for this research."
Without the use of animals in research, neither human medicine nor veterinary medicine would have most of the drugs and vaccines that extend the lives and comfort of people, and of companion, farm and other animals. Psychiatry, neurology, surgery, public health and preventive health would not be remotely as advanced as they are today Polio, for example, would still be a major crippler throughout the world. We would be at the mercy of rabies, smallpox, tetanus, and diphtheria - all common killers in years past - as well as common measles and rubella (a once-common cause of birth defects)- chickenpox and Lyme disease. Animal research demonstrated the importance of Vitamin D in preventing rickets, the defective bone growth that used to plague infants and children. Animal research has resulted in insulin to control diabetes ... anesthesia to control pain ... tranquilizers ...lithium to treat bipolar swings ...the treatment of leprosy… organ transplantation and laparoscopic surgery.
In NIEHS' world of environmental health, here are a few of the benefits:
Before they will use tests that require few or no animals, scientists, businesses and regulators responsible for people's health and protection require assurance that the substitute or alternative tests work as well - or, maybe, better than - the standard anima tests.
To provide such assurance, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, along with other research and regulatory agencies, established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods.
ICCVAM organizes the peer review of proposed "alternative" methods. Expert panels of scientists are assembled to review the data on new test methods using fewer animals, or ideally no animals. The experts review the data to decide if an alternative method is a valid substitute for the usual test method. If the alternative passes muster, ICCVAM endorses its use by government and regulated businesses.
In its first action, in 1998, an ICCVAM panel peer-reviewed an alternative way to test products to see if they are likely to cause allergic contact dermatitis, a major problem for workers in industry and consumers of cosmetics, cleansers and other household products. This problem and another group of skin inflammations called irritant contact dermatitis cost industry and employees as much as $1 billion a year, if lost workdays and associated losses of productivity are included. The peer review was open to the public. It accepted as valid the claims made for a test called the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. The test uses half to a third as many animals. It can be done in a week rather than the traditional tests three to four weeks.
* ICCVAM was established by NIEHS, along with the associated National Toxicology Program, which is headquartered at NIEHS, and the:A later review in January 1999accepted the claims for a non-animal test of the corrosiveness of chemicals to human skin. The alternative test called Corrositex, uses a synthetic skin instead of exposing large numbers of rabbits to chemicals.
Following the scientists' review and acceptance of the claims for a test, the member regulatory agencies* that have used or required the old test can make use of the review data to change their own requirements - a necessary bureaucratic process often requiring a formal announcement and public comment. Both of these alternative, animal-sparing tests have now been accepted by the major U.S. regulatory agencies. The reviews of alternative test methods continue and in some cases the new methods not only reduce the animals used but provide improved safety results and/or provide the results more quickly.
For five years of leadership in developing alternative methods, NIEHS' William S. Stokes, D.V.M., received recognition in1998 from the Humane Society of the United States under its Russell and Burch Awards program for outstanding contributions toward the advancement of alternative methods of toxicity testing.
A second NIEHS effort to reduce the number of animals involves the development of rodents whose genes have been manipulated so that they quickly and more accurately react to various toxins. These gene-altered mice promise to reduce the time and number of animals required to see if a chemical is safe.
A third effort makes use of the fact that poisons affect our genes.
After obtaining a library of the patterns of gene reactions to known poisons, NIEHS scientists hope to be able to test new chemicals to see if they form the same patterns of gene reactions and thus are likely to be poisonous too.
The new work utilizes millions of cloned genes set out in regular piles on a glass slide.
A fourth activity involves using fish and frogs and their tissues, rather than warm-blooded animals, for some tests.
In looking at new achievements and goals, we should not overlook an outstanding achievement of the 1970s - the development of the Ames test which uses a strain of bacteria to detect mutagens and some causes of cancer which occur directly through genetic mutation. This non-animal test is now required by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and many government regulatory agencies around the world, before a chemical or drug can be marketed. The test was developed by biochemist Bruce N. Ames of the University of California-Berkeley. Dr. Ames heads a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences research center at the university. With colleagues, in the 1990's, he developed a more sensitive Ames II test. Work on the test was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the NIEHS, both units of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The goal of course, is to eliminate as much animal testing as possible - and eventually, perhaps, all of it. Until then, dedicated veterinarians and scientists in and out of government are seeking to use animals in fewer numbers, wisely, carefully, humanely, and with the greatest benefit to Life.
Myth: Current federal regulations do not protect laboratory rodents.
Fact: The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 made Public Health Service Policy the law. The Public Health Service Policy specifically regulates the care and use of all vertebrate animals used in research, testing and education, giving mice and rats the same protections given primates, cats, and dogs. The U.S. Public Health Service supports approximately 40 percent of all biomedical research in this country.
Myth: Scientists are concerned only about their research, not about the welfare of the experimental animals.
Fact: Good science and good animal care are inseparable. Stressed or mistreated animals are not good research subjects. Instances of animal abuse are rare. Substantial evidence exists to show that animal research is conducted ethically and that federal and institutional humane guidelines are being followed.
Myth: Institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCS) are rubber stamp committees that do little to guard the welfare of animals.
Fact: Under law, if an IACUC rejects a project because of concerns about animal welfare, no one in the organization can overrule this decision. Federal and state inspections confirm that institutions with active and properly constituted IACUCs do very well in animal care and use. For the small number of institutions cited for deficiencies and violations, federal funding may be suspended.
Myth: Animal experiments are needlessly duplicated.
Fact: Unnecessary experiments are prevented both by rigorous scientific peer review of research proposals and by economic constraints. Projects are evaluated to assure that the absolute minimum number of animals is used. Computerized data bases are checked to assure that the projects would not unnecessarily duplicate previous research. Competition for funding assures that redundant experiments are unlikely to be approved.
Myth: There are reliable alternatives to animal experiments, and animal research is no longer necessary.
Fact: Cell culture techniques, computer modeling, and other non-animal research approaches have an important and growing role in biomedical research. Yet, with all the promise they hold, they cannot in the foreseeable future replace whole animal models in any comprehensive fashion. They cannot reproduce the intact biological systems provided by laboratory animals; their isolated results may bear little relation to the integrated results of whole, intact systems.
For additional information on NIEHS see: http://www.niehs.nih.gov
Respect For Life, NIH Publication #90-3170, Updated June
2000
Graphics in this publication include poster art developed for the NIH Animal
Research Advisory Committee.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
/ National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
NIEHS is found on the Internet at www.niehs.nih.gov
Our publications are not copyrighted and may be reproduced without permission. However, we do ask that credit be given to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.
Factsheets
and Pamphlets
Environmental Health Info
Last Modified 12/26/2000
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |