Institutional Regulation of Animal Research

There is a broad misconception that scientists are sociopaths, torturing animals for sheer enjoyment and have free reign to inflict as much pain as is humanly possible. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. Any and all animal work conducted on vertebrate animals is heavily regulated, and rightly so. As an animal researcher one of my top priorities is to make sure that I treat the animals as compassionately as I can, and this is a shared priority among most members of the research community.

Any experiments to be conducted are written up for approval by the institution's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The IACUC protocol is then examined by an impartial board of volunteers, and is either passed so that the experiments can begin, or is returned asking for amendments. In many institutions, the IACUC protocol can go through several round of amendments before being approved.

Here are some of the things we have to address:

-Number of animals used. We must use enough animals for the study to be statistically significant, but also not use any more than are necessary.
-Minimization of pain and suffering. Any procedures conducted must be done so in a manner that minimizes discomfort, physical or emotional, that the animals may feel.
-Utilization of the least sentient animal possible. We are required to use the least intellectually, physically and emotionally developed species of animal as is possible for our studies. In most cases we will use mice or rats, although for some studies more advanced species are required.
-Humane end point. If at any time in the study an animal's suffering becomes too great, we must euthanize the animal.
-Relevance and dosage of any medications or experimental drugs, and their potential adverse effects on the animals.
-General significance of the study, and whether it will make a genuine contribution to the pre-existing body of knowledge.

After the study is approved, researchers are monitored by animal facility staff frequently, and periodic inspections are required. Any failure to adhere to the protocol or other forms of abuse are generally very quickly addressed, and depending upon the nature of the offense, can have a wide variety of consequences. In general, researchers don't want to enter that kind of territory, so strive to adhere to all regulations. Most breaches are accidental, although there are rare exceptions.

Although many anti-animal research activists say (and believe) that animal research is a free-for-all in which scientists can inflict any imaginable torture on lab animals, this is simply untrue. Early animal research was not well-regulated, and it's true that much undue suffering occurred. However, any activity with animals is now very regulated and is constantly monitored.

As scientists, we can sometimes grumble about the additional time it takes to file an IACUC protocol, and be subjected to inspections and testing. However, I believe that these things are relevant and necessary, and I am most certainly not alone. The scientific community as a whole is very cognizant of laboratory animals' needs, and strives to meet those needs as much as is possible.

Extremist animal rights activists

Animal rights extremists employ exaggerated, often ridiculous protest tactics in order to get attention and make their views known. This is very effective, but because of the backwards logic, asinine tactics and polarized views extremists take, any reasonable argument is typically overshadowed, and is not recognized by the general public, or in my case, the establishment being protested. Furthermore, because extremists are the best known animal rights activists, it has become a general assumption that this is the norm for animal rights activists, which discounts anything that even a reasonable activist might have to say. In this way, extremists actually discount their cause.

We as researchers have naturally become leery of animal rights activists, and when approached, will typically not give any more information than is absolutely required by law. Why? Because anything we say can and will be blown out of proportion, embellished and falsely interpreted to be used against us. By creating this state of hostility, ARAs have themselves closed the doors to animal facilities and compromised any possibility for negotiation or open dialogue.

Some ARAs are more rational, and have been able to have honest public discussions with researchers, and these discussions have actually been quite productive on both sides of the table. I hope that more of this can continue, and that the days of firebombing laboratories, wanted posters, costumed protesters and splattered red paint will someday be behind us.

Alternatives 3: Computer Modeling/Simulations

Computer modeling, simulations and other software programs are an invaluable tool for preliminary data, as they help to predict what may happen in experimental conditions. They allow researchers to quickly and cheaply predict the outcomes of an experiment, ideal chemical compounds and adverse side effects to these compounds, and any number of other things.

However, these techniques only suffice for preliminary predictions of what may happen, at best. Sometimes the software may be inherently flawed and may not be able to take all variables into account. Most importantly, there are many variables that are not known, and therefore CANNOT be accounted for in software modeling. Particularly in the whole organism, we don't understand everything that is going on (hence the need for ongoing research). Therefore, we have no way of predicting with 100% accuracy how a physiological process occurs, how disease states may be altered by experimental conditions or therapeutics, and many other important experimental questions. Computer modeling can perhaps predict the response of a known set of variables, but we do not know all of these variables and how they interact, and thus cannot predict what will occur in the body.

Having said that, I fully support computer models for educational purposes. For example, high school biology students hardly need to cut up dead frogs in order to understand basic organ systems and concepts that are already fully known. On the other hand, clinicians and other professionals in training to actually practice medicine or conduct other patient procedures need practice on the real thing, which at times requires the use of animals.

Alternative 2: The Human Genome

One argument I've heard a few times is that if we have mapped the human genome, we should not need to do animal research. This is a flawed argument for a number of reasons.

The human genome, for the unacquainted, is the sequence of all of our DNA, or genetic material. At first glance, it might make sense that if we know about all of our DNA, which serves as a blueprint for the body's characteristics and activities, we dot need to do experiments. However, this is far more complicated than it appears. First of all, the sequence of our DNA does not even tell us with 100% accuracy what portions actually encode genes - it's just a sequence of letters, although there is some available software. However, even assuming total accuracy, we don't know when, where, why and how genes are expressed, how long they are expressed or what role they play in physiology. The genome is a marvelous tool for basic predictions and characterization of genes, but it is by no means the end-all; in fact, it's just a beginning. We need to look at a living cell to begin to understand what is taking place, and then, as previously mentioned a whole organism model to determine it's potential relevance in medicine.

Alternatives 1: Cell Culture

Over the next few days, I'm going to discuss a few alternatives to animal research, and in that context, the necessity of an animal model in addition to the alternatives.

One question that I've seen lot concerns cell culture. Those not familiar with life sciences research ask why we still need to use animals when we can culture human cells. I'll start by explaining what exactly cell culture, also known as tissue culture is.

Cell culture is essentially growing cells isolated from a clinical (human) or an animal sample, on a petri dish. The dish has a special coating that allows the cells to attach, and there they form a layer similar to that found in an organ, such as the linings of the intestines. However, cells don't naturally grow on plastic. In order to grow at all, the cells have to be stimulated with growth factors, in far excess to that found in the human body, or in some cases, factors that are not in the human body at all in normal conditions. Secondly, even with growth factors, normally dividing cells from the human body do not grow, at least not at an appreciable rate and over long periods of time. Cells have to be immortalized, either by an artificial procedure in the lab, or by an innate capability, usually found in cancer cells. You can see that these cells are not normal, and that there are many conditions unlike that of the body, such as growing on a piece of plastic.

Also, in the body, cells talk to one another. More than one kind of cell is found in the body; often times, there are cell types that we aren't even aware of - all of the cells in a tissue culture arise from one single cell and are identical. The different cells send one another signals that change how the recipient cells behave. These changes can mean that these cells behave very differently towards a new therapeutic than they would in tissue culture. These and other variables cause for results found in tissue culture to sometimes differ greatly from those in whole organism systems.

So in conclusion, we do every study possible in a tissue culture model and any preliminary data is obtained this way. However, in order to know whether our developments are actually relevant in medical treatment, we have to test them in a whole organism first. I've heard animal rights activists say that they will subject themselves to the testing, or that inmates, braindead people or any other number of human alternatives are options; in my opinion this is just a smoke screen and a gimmick to get attention. Very, very few people would voluntarily subject themselves to experimentation, and if they did, there would certainly be some legal consequences for us! The same would apply if we took treatments directly to the clinic and tried them on unwitting patients.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog! I have started this blog to discuss the important topic of animal research. This is a controversial subject for a variety of reasons, but what obscures both sides of the debate is a lack of understanding. Often emotions run high, both for animal rights activists and people like me, and concrete evidence and reasoning are cast aside.

I am an animal researcher in the cancer field. In order to protect my own personal safety and the identity of my institution, I will remain anonymous. I will, however, discuss the institutional regulations and procedures that I, and every other animal researcher in the nation, am subject to. I will also discuss the things that REALLY happen behind closed doors, on an ordinary, day-to-day basis.

I welcome comments and feedback from both proponents of the issue. However, I do not believe in being hateful, making accusations, calling names or using foul language, and I won't engage in that kind of discussion. That having been said, I do welcome all comments and will rarely, if ever, censor what people have to say. I will try to respond to comments, although I'm very busy so if I don't reply, please don't take it personally!

I will post daily both with general, long-standing debates and breaking news, so check back often! Again, I do welcome all feedback, so please feel free to send me comments or suggestions