Alternative Thinking About Animals in Research.

Abstract

Animals have been used as scientific research subjects since at least the 4th century BCE (Guerrini, 2003). Since then, there has been both support for and objections to that use. Some similarity between nonhuman animals and humans powers the arguments of both research advocates (who see animals as relevant models for human disease) and animal protectionists (who see animals as victimized, nonconsenting individuals). Taking into account both science and health care concerns, as well as to human and animal welfare, the authors of this commentary encourage the biomedical research community to ask at least three questions about the use of animals in research: • Has animal-based research helped advance the understanding of basic physiological and pathophysiological processes, reliably identified toxic substances, and advanced human and animal health care? • Has unchallenged reliance on animal-based research diverted resources from developing what might have and could become other methods of scientific investigation (nonanimal methods or new approach methods [alternatives]) that predict positive or negative health care outcomes with equal or greater effectiveness? • Lastly, who or what groups of people can most effectively champion the utility of nonanimal methods and their potential to replace or significantly reduce animal use after a controversy lasting more than two millenia?