THERE is plenty of data on animal experiments. In Britain, the Home Office
has just published its annual statistics on the use of animals in research, and
the 1999 figures make for an exhaustively informative read. You can learn, for
example, that one greyhound and 492 606 mice were used for biological research.
You can also see that, compared with 1998, the number of experiments done on
cats rose by 29 per cent, or that eye irritation tests fell by 11 per cent.
But what you can鈥檛 find out is how many animals suffered鈥攁nd how much
they suffered. In the US, the wealth of animal experimentation data also fails
to illuminate the degree of suffering. Although the two countries monitor animal
experiments in very different ways, critics say that both are flawed. Martin
Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Washington DC says
that when it comes to assessing trends in animal pain and distress, both methods
make it difficult to tell if the plight of lab animals is improving or
worsening.
Now the US government, in response to prodding by the HSUS and other animal
rights groups, is proposing a new reporting system that reveals how much animals
are suffering. Activists argue that such information is essential. They say it
could show the public that scientists really are making strides in reducing
animal pain and distress, and encourage other researchers to do the same.
Advertisement
鈥淪ince we have this mandate to reduce animal pain, we should be able to plot
it and follow trends each year to see if it鈥檚 taking place,鈥� says Barbara
Orleans, an ethicist at Georgetown University, also in Washington DC.
Under the current American system that鈥檚 impossible, she says. 鈥淭he official
data, as far as I鈥檓 concerned, is virtually meaningless.鈥� Over the past 20
years, the US government has required institutions to annually report how many
animals they鈥檝e used in experiments. For each species, they must indicate how
many animals suffered no pain, how many suffered pain and were given
painkillers, and how many suffered unalleviated pain.
But the categories say nothing about how much pain the animals actually
experienced. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e not asking the right questions,鈥� Orleans says. She has
plotted the number of animals in each category from 1989 to 1998 and found that
the percentages have remained fairly constant in the US, despite advances in the
care of lab animals over the past decade. Each year, about 60 per cent
experience no pain, about 35 per cent have pain treated with drugs, and about 6
per cent have unalleviated pain. 鈥淚t鈥檚 pointless to go on collecting this data,鈥�
she says.
In contrast, countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands are able to
show measurable declines in animal suffering because their governments collect
data on whether the pain experienced by animals is mild, moderate, or
substantial. That鈥檚 the kind of system that the HSUS wants to see installed in
the US.
Britain has a qualitative system like this, but the way the government
collects data makes it difficult to figure how many animals there are in each
category, says Barbara Davies of the Research Defence Society in London.
Companies or researchers get permission from the Home Office to use animals in
experiments by applying for a project licence. 鈥淚n that licence you have to
estimate the worst suffering that might be experienced by any animal in that
project,鈥� explains Davies. Based on that worst-case scenario, the project
licence is then classified in a 鈥渟everity band鈥� of mild, moderate or
substantial.
The annual statistics on animal experimentation reveal how many licences were
granted in each severity band. Last year, for example, there were 3481 project
licenses, of which around 40 per cent were in the mild pain and distress
category, a little over 50 per cent were in the moderate band, and just under 2
per cent were in the substantial band. But each project licence can cover any
number of animals, ranging from one to a thousand
鈥淚f it comes to counting animals, it鈥檚 just impossible,鈥� says Davies. And
even if individual numbers were available, they could be misleading, she claims.
For example, the data might suggest that all those animals in the highest
severity band experienced substantial pain and suffering, but this would not
necessarily be true. Even so, animal rights campaigners wish they had some way
to find out how many animals really do experience moderate to substantial pain.
鈥淲e have no feel for the numbers of animals involved,鈥� says Gill Langley of the
Dr Hadwen Trust, which funds animal-free research. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got enormously
detailed statistics, just not on the pain and distress. It鈥檚 long been a concern
that we don鈥檛 have those figures.鈥�
One similarity between the US and British systems is that both ask
investigators to predict the level of pain a project will entail. But Stephens
of the HSUS thinks that an ideal reporting system would include data collection
to see what actually happens to the animals once a research project has started.
It鈥檚 possible that the animals suffer a great deal more鈥攐r a great deal
less鈥攖han expected.
But Barbara Rich of the National Association for Biomedical Research in
Washington DC thinks proponents of a new reporting system in the US expect too
much of it. 鈥淎ny data collection of this size is going to be an estimation at
best and it鈥檚 going to have its flaws,鈥� Rich says. 鈥淭he question is, what would
be better?鈥�
That question is especially important now that the US government is
considering making rats, mice and birds part of this reporting system for the
first time. In the past, officials have said that collecting such information on
the vast numbers of small animals used in the US would be prohibitive. But now a
legal challenge is working its way through the courts as a college student takes
on the US Department of Agriculture over the care of lab rats
(快猫短视频, 8 July, p 21).
And government officials are trying to assess
what extra resources they would need to collect information on small animals. So
a revised system might soon involve many, many more animals than ever
before.
Rich argues that the 鈥渕ild, moderate and severe鈥� pain and distress categories
proposed by the US government will be too subjective and won鈥檛 tell the layman
any more than the current system. 鈥淧ain and distress are very subjective
subjects. Giving us more categories to ponder may not help,鈥� Rich says. 鈥淵ou can
make no inference about the quality of the pain monitoring or relief.鈥�
But Stephens believes that an improved monitoring system, even if it still
had some flaws, could make a difference to the lives of lab animals.
Public opinion would certainly now favour any change that led to less suffering for lab animals
(快猫短视频, 22 May 1999, p 26).
But the same people are no doubt in favour of research to beat breast cancer. The
difficult task facing researchers is to do the experiments while inflicting the
least possible pain and suffering.
New developments will provide alternatives to using live animals in research.
In March this year the Food and Drug Administration announced it would accept
data on the corrosiveness of chemicals based on artificial skin tests rather
than live animal tests. Fast, sensitive immunological tests will allow other
studies to be done more quickly and enable animals to be killed before pain
becomes excessive.
But these will not be the whole answer. After all, how will researchers test
painkillers without pain? 鈥淣o one likes to think of people or animals suffering
needlessly,鈥� says Rich. The provision of clear information on how much animals
are suffering would be a start in calming such fears.
