Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_030
J. Gluck
After years of science education, teaching experience, and research practice, which focused on the use of non-human primates as potential models of human psychological disorders, a young student in my primate behavior class amiably, but insistently, suggested my preparation was incomplete. She asked me to read Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, which had been published two years earlier, in 1975. I had been lecturing in class about the effects of early experience on the rhesus monkey’s (Macaca mulatta) social and intellectual development, and my descriptions of the invasive research interventions and behavioral consequences encouraged her to make the book suggestion. I said I would try to find the time, but that I was busy. She handed me a fresh new copy of the book saying, “This is for you.” She made it clear that she was not loaning me her copy but wanted the book to be part of my professional library. Over the following weeks while describing this event to colleagues, many also involved in animal research, I asked them if they had read Professor Singer’s book. While some had heard of it, no one had actually read it. “Why should I do that?” was a common tone of the comments. After all, our experimental standards were quite clear and seemed self-evidently valid. That is, if any interesting and, therefore, valuable research question could not be tested in humans for ethical reasons, then it could be evaluated in animal models. Progress required risk, and progress was urgently needed. This powerful drive to know and understand nature, so as to improve the welfare of human beings, was what the bioethicist Paul Ramsey (1976) called, the research imperative, to emphasize its motivational dominance. In response to the student’s questioning looks as we saw one another in class, and out of respect for her serious intention, I did finally read Animal Liberation. The chapter titled, Tools for research or what the public doesn’t know it is paying for, quickly trapped my attention. Three of the assertions of the chapter were: (1) The raw descriptions of the experimental manipulations done to animals revealed a shocking emotional callousness on the part of investigators; (2) The extent of the harms, which the animals were required to absorb, seemed excessive in comparison with the many obvious or even trivial facts discovered; (3) It was estimated that after all the experimental effort and
{"title":"Afterword: Evidence over Interests","authors":"J. Gluck","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_030","url":null,"abstract":"After years of science education, teaching experience, and research practice, which focused on the use of non-human primates as potential models of human psychological disorders, a young student in my primate behavior class amiably, but insistently, suggested my preparation was incomplete. She asked me to read Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, which had been published two years earlier, in 1975. I had been lecturing in class about the effects of early experience on the rhesus monkey’s (Macaca mulatta) social and intellectual development, and my descriptions of the invasive research interventions and behavioral consequences encouraged her to make the book suggestion. I said I would try to find the time, but that I was busy. She handed me a fresh new copy of the book saying, “This is for you.” She made it clear that she was not loaning me her copy but wanted the book to be part of my professional library. Over the following weeks while describing this event to colleagues, many also involved in animal research, I asked them if they had read Professor Singer’s book. While some had heard of it, no one had actually read it. “Why should I do that?” was a common tone of the comments. After all, our experimental standards were quite clear and seemed self-evidently valid. That is, if any interesting and, therefore, valuable research question could not be tested in humans for ethical reasons, then it could be evaluated in animal models. Progress required risk, and progress was urgently needed. This powerful drive to know and understand nature, so as to improve the welfare of human beings, was what the bioethicist Paul Ramsey (1976) called, the research imperative, to emphasize its motivational dominance. In response to the student’s questioning looks as we saw one another in class, and out of respect for her serious intention, I did finally read Animal Liberation. The chapter titled, Tools for research or what the public doesn’t know it is paying for, quickly trapped my attention. Three of the assertions of the chapter were: (1) The raw descriptions of the experimental manipulations done to animals revealed a shocking emotional callousness on the part of investigators; (2) The extent of the harms, which the animals were required to absorb, seemed excessive in comparison with the many obvious or even trivial facts discovered; (3) It was estimated that after all the experimental effort and","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124014175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_022
K. Jayne, Adam See
Behavioral research on non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) can involve the study of their evolution and natural behavior, cognitive abili ties and psychological constructs, or welfare and response to stressors, among other areas of natural animal behavior. Behavioral research on animals is also carried out to model human behavior, for example in psychological studies and pharmacological models, as well as for comparative purposes to under stand differences and similarities between species. This chapter focuses on the former-where ethology moves into the laboratory environment to model the behavior of free living animals-however, some of the discussion is also rel evant to the laboratory animal model in general because of the very nature of using laboratory animals as "models". For further discussion on animals used to model disease or within pharmacology in particular, see the following chapters in this Volume: Archibald, Coleman and Drake (2019, Chapter 18); Bailey (2019, Chapter 19); Carvalho et al., (2019, Chapter 16); Greek and Kramer (2019, Chap ter 17); Pippin, Cavanaugh and Pistollato (2019, Chapter 20); and Ram (2019, Chapter 15). For more on animal models within psychology, see Shapiro (1998). In comparison to other scientific procedures, such as those within biomedi cal research, modeling the behavior of wild animals in the laboratory can involve
对非人类动物(以下简称动物)的行为研究可以包括对它们的进化和自然行为、认知能力和心理结构、福利和对压力源的反应等自然动物行为的研究。对动物的行为研究也被用于模拟人类行为，例如在心理学研究和药理学模型中，以及用于比较目的以了解物种之间的异同。本章主要关注前者——行为学进入实验室环境，对自由生活的动物的行为进行建模——然而，由于使用实验室动物作为“模型”的本质，一些讨论也与一般的实验室动物模型相关。有关用于模拟疾病或药理学的动物的进一步讨论，请参阅本卷中的以下章节:Archibald, Coleman和Drake(2019，第18章);贝利(2019，第19章);Carvalho et al.，(2019，第16章);希腊和克莱默(2019，第17章);皮平、卡瓦诺和皮斯托拉托(2019，第20章);和Ram(2019，第15章)。关于心理学中动物模型的更多内容，请参见Shapiro(1998)。与其他科学程序相比，例如生物医学研究中的程序，在实验室中对野生动物的行为进行建模可能涉及
{"title":"Behavioral Research on Captive Animals: Scientific and Ethical Concerns","authors":"K. Jayne, Adam See","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_022","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral research on non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) can involve the study of their evolution and natural behavior, cognitive abili ties and psychological constructs, or welfare and response to stressors, among other areas of natural animal behavior. Behavioral research on animals is also carried out to model human behavior, for example in psychological studies and pharmacological models, as well as for comparative purposes to under stand differences and similarities between species. This chapter focuses on the former-where ethology moves into the laboratory environment to model the behavior of free living animals-however, some of the discussion is also rel evant to the laboratory animal model in general because of the very nature of using laboratory animals as \"models\". For further discussion on animals used to model disease or within pharmacology in particular, see the following chapters in this Volume: Archibald, Coleman and Drake (2019, Chapter 18); Bailey (2019, Chapter 19); Carvalho et al., (2019, Chapter 16); Greek and Kramer (2019, Chap ter 17); Pippin, Cavanaugh and Pistollato (2019, Chapter 20); and Ram (2019, Chapter 15). For more on animal models within psychology, see Shapiro (1998). In comparison to other scientific procedures, such as those within biomedi cal research, modeling the behavior of wild animals in the laboratory can involve","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128796535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_015
A. Knight
Researchers have sought to understand the mechanisms of human health and disease, for as long as the latter has existed. Serious interest in the structure and functioning of the human body has been evident at least since the ancient Greeks. However, the investigations of Greek physicians into human anatomy and physiology were greatly hampered by social taboos about dissecting hu man corpses (von Staden, 1989). But non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals), were not so revered or feared. Some dissected their corpses, while others, such as Alcmaeon of Croton (sixth-fifth century, BCE), prac ticed surgical or other invasive procedures on the living ( Court, zoos; Maehle and Trohler, 1990 ), and conducted some of the first animal experiments ever recorded. Almost two millennia passed before such social dogmas were seriously ques tioned. The Renaissance heralded a new era of scientific inquiry, during which Flemish physician and surgeon Vesalius (1514-1564) began to source human cadavers for dissection illegally. He discovered that a number of anatomical structures believed to exist, following animal dissections, were unexpectedly absent in humans. His highly accurate anatomical descriptions challenged the authoritative texts of classical authors (O'Malley, 1964). Throughout the seventeenth century the spirit of scientific inquiry grew and with it, experimentation on living animals. Some surgical investigations and demonstrations that predated anesthesia were infamously cruel and caused widespread social controversy. However, French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650 ), famously rebutted such critiques, claiming that animals were merely mindless automata, i.e., "machine-like" (Descartes, 1989 ); their cries were of no greater moral consequence than the squeals of a poorly-oiled machine. Nevertheless, by the end of the seventeenth century, the question of animal suffering and the acceptability of such procedures had become an increasingly
{"title":"Critically Evaluating Animal Research","authors":"A. Knight","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_015","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have sought to understand the mechanisms of human health and disease, for as long as the latter has existed. Serious interest in the structure and functioning of the human body has been evident at least since the ancient Greeks. However, the investigations of Greek physicians into human anatomy and physiology were greatly hampered by social taboos about dissecting hu man corpses (von Staden, 1989). But non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals), were not so revered or feared. Some dissected their corpses, while others, such as Alcmaeon of Croton (sixth-fifth century, BCE), prac ticed surgical or other invasive procedures on the living ( Court, zoos; Maehle and Trohler, 1990 ), and conducted some of the first animal experiments ever recorded. Almost two millennia passed before such social dogmas were seriously ques tioned. The Renaissance heralded a new era of scientific inquiry, during which Flemish physician and surgeon Vesalius (1514-1564) began to source human cadavers for dissection illegally. He discovered that a number of anatomical structures believed to exist, following animal dissections, were unexpectedly absent in humans. His highly accurate anatomical descriptions challenged the authoritative texts of classical authors (O'Malley, 1964). Throughout the seventeenth century the spirit of scientific inquiry grew and with it, experimentation on living animals. Some surgical investigations and demonstrations that predated anesthesia were infamously cruel and caused widespread social controversy. However, French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650 ), famously rebutted such critiques, claiming that animals were merely mindless automata, i.e., \"machine-like\" (Descartes, 1989 ); their cries were of no greater moral consequence than the squeals of a poorly-oiled machine. Nevertheless, by the end of the seventeenth century, the question of animal suffering and the acceptability of such procedures had become an increasingly","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123162691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_023
J. Pawlowski, D. Feinstein, M. Crandall, S. Gala
Hands-on skills training in biomedical education has traditionally relied on the use of more than g million live vertebrate animals each year in the United States (us) alone (Patronek and Rauch, 2007), and more in other countries around the world, ranging from performing minor surgical manipulations and pharmacological interventions to managing major traumatic gunshot wounds, bum injuries, and dismemberments. Recently, however, a paradigm shift has taken place that has seen the full replacement of animal use in civilian medical school curricula and skills-training programs in various countries, along with significant reductions and replacements of animal use in comparable military training drills. The embrace of simulation-based biomedical training has been spurred, in part, by improvements in technological realism that accurately mimics human anatomy and physiology, financial burdens involved with run ning animal laboratories, heightened public awareness and ethical objections
{"title":"Modernizing Biomedical Training: Replacing Live Animal Laboratories with Human Simulation","authors":"J. Pawlowski, D. Feinstein, M. Crandall, S. Gala","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_023","url":null,"abstract":"Hands-on skills training in biomedical education has traditionally relied on the use of more than g million live vertebrate animals each year in the United States (us) alone (Patronek and Rauch, 2007), and more in other countries around the world, ranging from performing minor surgical manipulations and pharmacological interventions to managing major traumatic gunshot wounds, bum injuries, and dismemberments. Recently, however, a paradigm shift has taken place that has seen the full replacement of animal use in civilian medical school curricula and skills-training programs in various countries, along with significant reductions and replacements of animal use in comparable military training drills. The embrace of simulation-based biomedical training has been spurred, in part, by improvements in technological realism that accurately mimics human anatomy and physiology, financial burdens involved with run ning animal laboratories, heightened public awareness and ethical objections","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122551062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_008
Arianna Ferrari
Generally, an animal experiment can be defined as an intervention on an animal, which causes suffering, harm, and distress, for scientific purposes. In this definition, animal experiments differ from more general scientific inves tigations concerning animals, such as observational studies in the wild in the fields of ethology or conservation, in which animals are involved but may not be harmed. Nowadays, the use of the term vivisection, in the case of animal ex periments, is very controversial. This term originally referred to the cutting of living bodies for scientific purposes and has a long conceptual history (Maehle, 1992 ). In ancient times, it was used for referring to experiments on animals as well as on humans. Only in modern times, it became a colloquial term for all animal experiments and was much used by opponents in the nineteenth century, as the criticism of animal experiments became organized in a politi cal movement (Maehle, 1990 ). Many opponents to animal experiments, nowa days, use the term deliberately in a political sense, connecting to past animal protection movements ( e.g., the international Citizens' Initiative Stop Vivisec tion, cf. Rippe, 2009 ). Animal experimenters, on the other hand, oppose the term on the grounds that there is no chirurgical exploration of living animals in experiments ( e.g., German Research Foundation, DFG, 2016). Currently, animals are used in different ways for scientific purposes: they are used in basic research; in education in a variety of biomedical disciplines, including veterinary medicine; as so-called disease models, to mimic different diseases, mostly human ones; as test subjects in different test settings; in vet erinary medicine; in behavioral and cognitive ethological studies; as bioreac tors to produce fluids or bodily parts which contain therapeutic substances for human beings (i.e., "gene-pharming"); and as sources of cells, tissues, and
{"title":"Contesting Animal Experiments through Ethics and Epistemology: In Defense of a Political Critique of Animal Experimentation","authors":"Arianna Ferrari","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_008","url":null,"abstract":"Generally, an animal experiment can be defined as an intervention on an animal, which causes suffering, harm, and distress, for scientific purposes. In this definition, animal experiments differ from more general scientific inves tigations concerning animals, such as observational studies in the wild in the fields of ethology or conservation, in which animals are involved but may not be harmed. Nowadays, the use of the term vivisection, in the case of animal ex periments, is very controversial. This term originally referred to the cutting of living bodies for scientific purposes and has a long conceptual history (Maehle, 1992 ). In ancient times, it was used for referring to experiments on animals as well as on humans. Only in modern times, it became a colloquial term for all animal experiments and was much used by opponents in the nineteenth century, as the criticism of animal experiments became organized in a politi cal movement (Maehle, 1990 ). Many opponents to animal experiments, nowa days, use the term deliberately in a political sense, connecting to past animal protection movements ( e.g., the international Citizens' Initiative Stop Vivisec tion, cf. Rippe, 2009 ). Animal experimenters, on the other hand, oppose the term on the grounds that there is no chirurgical exploration of living animals in experiments ( e.g., German Research Foundation, DFG, 2016). Currently, animals are used in different ways for scientific purposes: they are used in basic research; in education in a variety of biomedical disciplines, including veterinary medicine; as so-called disease models, to mimic different diseases, mostly human ones; as test subjects in different test settings; in vet erinary medicine; in behavioral and cognitive ethological studies; as bioreac tors to produce fluids or bodily parts which contain therapeutic substances for human beings (i.e., \"gene-pharming\"); and as sources of cells, tissues, and","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130205869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_016
R. Ram
The ethical arguments against animal experimentation remain ever-strong. In addition, the scientific case against the use of animals in research grows more compelling, with exponential progress in the development of alterna tive methods and new research technologies. The Dutch authorities recently announced an ambitious, but welcome, proposal to phase out "the use of labo ratory animals in regulatory safety testing of chemicals, food ingredients, pes ticides and (veterinary) medicines" by 2025, as well as "the use of laboratory animals for the release of biological products, such as vaccines" (Netherlands National Committee for the protection of animals used for scientific pur poses, NC ad, 2016 1 p. 3). National government departments ( e.g., the United Kingdom, UK, Home Office) have stated that alternatives to animals are now considered necessary for scientific as much as ethical reasons, also conceding that pressure exists within the research community to use animals in order to get published. Furthermore, only 20% of animal tests across the European Union (Eu) each year are conducted to meet regulatory requirements, with the vast majority carried out as basic research (including basic medical research) or breeding of genetically modified (GM) animals at academic institutions (European Commission, 2013b ). Despite the strength of both scientific and moral arguments, animal re search continues to increase worldwide, especially given the rising trend in use of GM animals. A Catch 22 situation also exists, with regulators largely refusing to break with tradition and continuing to accept only animal data, even when robust human-based data exists. Additionally, when new animal-free, human-relevant methods are developed, regulators often insist that research still be performed on animals; this is considered to be one of the major barri ers to achieving change and, in turn, results in an industry reluctant to invest
反对动物实验的伦理争论一直很激烈。此外，随着替代方法和新研究技术的发展呈指数级增长，反对在研究中使用动物的科学理由越来越令人信服。荷兰当局最近宣布了一项雄心勃勃但受欢迎的提议，即到2025年逐步淘汰“在化学品、食品成分、杀虫剂和(兽药)药物的监管安全测试中使用实验动物”，以及“在生物制品(如疫苗)的释放中使用实验动物”(荷兰国家科学用途动物保护委员会，NC ad, 2016年1页3)。英国(UK, Home Office)表示，现在考虑到科学和伦理原因，动物的替代品是必要的，同时也承认，为了发表论文，研究界存在使用动物的压力。此外，整个欧盟(Eu)每年只有20%的动物试验是为了满足监管要求而进行的，其中绝大多数是作为基础研究(包括基础医学研究)或在学术机构进行转基因(GM)动物育种(欧盟委员会，2013年b)。尽管科学和道德上的争论都很有力，动物研究在世界范围内继续增加，特别是考虑到使用转基因动物的趋势不断上升。另一种进退两难的情况也存在，监管机构基本上拒绝打破传统，继续只接受动物数据，即使存在可靠的基于人类的数据。此外，当新的无动物、与人类相关的方法被开发出来时，监管机构往往坚持要在动物身上进行研究;这被认为是实现变革的主要障碍之一，进而导致行业不愿投资
{"title":"Extrapolation of Animal Research Data to Humans: An Analysis of the Evidence","authors":"R. Ram","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_016","url":null,"abstract":"The ethical arguments against animal experimentation remain ever-strong. In addition, the scientific case against the use of animals in research grows more compelling, with exponential progress in the development of alterna tive methods and new research technologies. The Dutch authorities recently announced an ambitious, but welcome, proposal to phase out \"the use of labo ratory animals in regulatory safety testing of chemicals, food ingredients, pes ticides and (veterinary) medicines\" by 2025, as well as \"the use of laboratory animals for the release of biological products, such as vaccines\" (Netherlands National Committee for the protection of animals used for scientific pur poses, NC ad, 2016 1 p. 3). National government departments ( e.g., the United Kingdom, UK, Home Office) have stated that alternatives to animals are now considered necessary for scientific as much as ethical reasons, also conceding that pressure exists within the research community to use animals in order to get published. Furthermore, only 20% of animal tests across the European Union (Eu) each year are conducted to meet regulatory requirements, with the vast majority carried out as basic research (including basic medical research) or breeding of genetically modified (GM) animals at academic institutions (European Commission, 2013b ). Despite the strength of both scientific and moral arguments, animal re search continues to increase worldwide, especially given the rising trend in use of GM animals. A Catch 22 situation also exists, with regulators largely refusing to break with tradition and continuing to accept only animal data, even when robust human-based data exists. Additionally, when new animal-free, human-relevant methods are developed, regulators often insist that research still be performed on animals; this is considered to be one of the major barri ers to achieving change and, in turn, results in an industry reluctant to invest","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127118047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_018
R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer
Every year, and in countries around the world, significant time and resources are devoted to the noble cause of developing drugs to treat and cure human disease. With rare exception, drug interventions cannot reach commercial ization without safety and efficacy having first been demonstrated in animal models. The intention of regulations, which require the use of animal models in such contexts, is to ensure that only safe and effective drugs end up being used by patients. Similarly, it is standard practice for researchers to employ animal models in their attempts to understand the way diseases present and progress in humans. Unfortunately, there exist serious theoretical and empiri cal concerns regarding the standard practice of using non-human animals to model human response to perturbations, such as drugs and disease. These concerns are important because conducting disease research and drug devel opment in a manner that is not supported by science will have suboptimal implications for the humans who rely on that research, which encompass the entire population. Based on complexity science, modem evolutionary biology, and empirical evidence, we demonstrate that animal models have failed as predictors of human response. That is, animal models do not and cannot have acceptably high predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. By this we mean that animal modeling, as a methodology, is for all practical pur poses not predictive of human response to drugs and disease; and hence it should be abandoned in favor of human-based research and testing, such as personalized medicine, a new field that takes into account the unique genetic make-up of each individual patient.
{"title":"The Scientific Problems with Using Non-Human Animals to Predict Human Response to Drugs and Disease","authors":"R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_018","url":null,"abstract":"Every year, and in countries around the world, significant time and resources are devoted to the noble cause of developing drugs to treat and cure human disease. With rare exception, drug interventions cannot reach commercial ization without safety and efficacy having first been demonstrated in animal models. The intention of regulations, which require the use of animal models in such contexts, is to ensure that only safe and effective drugs end up being used by patients. Similarly, it is standard practice for researchers to employ animal models in their attempts to understand the way diseases present and progress in humans. Unfortunately, there exist serious theoretical and empiri cal concerns regarding the standard practice of using non-human animals to model human response to perturbations, such as drugs and disease. These concerns are important because conducting disease research and drug devel opment in a manner that is not supported by science will have suboptimal implications for the humans who rely on that research, which encompass the entire population. Based on complexity science, modem evolutionary biology, and empirical evidence, we demonstrate that animal models have failed as predictors of human response. That is, animal models do not and cannot have acceptably high predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. By this we mean that animal modeling, as a methodology, is for all practical pur poses not predictive of human response to drugs and disease; and hence it should be abandoned in favor of human-based research and testing, such as personalized medicine, a new field that takes into account the unique genetic make-up of each individual patient.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126510682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：