Animal test , also known as animal experiments , animal research and in vivo test , is the use of non-human animals in experiments that attempt to control the variables that influence the behavior or biological systems under study. This approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environment. Experimental research with animals is usually done at universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defense companies and commercial facilities that provide animal testing services for industry. The focus of animal testing varies on a continuum of pure research, with a focus on developing basic knowledge of an organism, for applied research, which may focus on answering some questions of great practical importance, such as finding a cure for a disease. Examples of applied research include testing of disease treatment, breeding, defense and toxicology research, including cosmetic testing. In education, testing in animals is sometimes a component of biology or psychology subjects. This practice is organized at various levels in different countries.
It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals - from zebra fish to primates - ranges from tens to more than 100 million. In the European Union, vertebrate species represented 93% of the animals used in the study, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. With one estimate, the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million. Rats, mice, fish, amphibians and reptiles account for over 85% of animal studies.
Most animals were euthanized after being used in the experiment. The sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are breeding, while minorities are captured in the wild or supplied by merchants who get them from auctions and pounds. Proponents of animal use in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that almost every medical achievement in the 20th century depends on the use of animals in several ways. The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States argues that animal studies can not be replaced by sophisticated computer models, which can not handle the very complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms and the environment. Animal rights and some animal welfare organizations - such as PETA and BUAV - question the need and legitimacy of animal testing, arguing that it is cruel and poorly regulated, that medical advancement is actually held back by a model of misleading animals that can not be predicted with certainty. effect on humans, that some tests are obsolete, that the cost is greater than the benefit, or that the animal has an intrinsic right to not be used or harmed in the experiment.
Video Animal testing
Definition
The terms Maps Animal testing
History
The earliest reference to animal testing is found in the writings of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BC. Aristotle and Erasistratus were among the first to experiment on living animals. Galen, a 2nd century Roman physician, dissected pigs and goats; he is known as "the father of life surgery". Avenzoar, a 12th-century Arab doctor in the Spanish Moorish also practiced dissection; he introduced animal testing as an experimental method to test surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.
Animals have been repeatedly used through the history of biomedical research. In 1831, the founders of the Dublin Zoo were members of the medical profession who were interested in studying animals while they were alive and when they died. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the theory of medical germs by inducing anthrax in sheep. In the 1880s, Robert Koch infected rodents and guinea pigs with anthrax and tuberculosis. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning. In World War I, German agents infected sheep bound to Russia with anthrax, and inoculated donkeys and horses from French cavalry with cork gland disease. Between 1917 and 1918, the Germans infected with donkeys in Argentina were tied to American troops, resulting in the deaths of 200 donkeys. Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. On 3 November 1957, a Soviet dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then administered to humans. The human ability to change animal genetics took a major step forward in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammals, by integrating DNA from the SV40 virus into the mice genome. This genetic research developed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.
Toxicological tests became important in the 20th century. In the 19th century, the laws governing drugs were more relaxed. For example, in the US, governments can only ban drugs after a company is sued for selling products that harm customers. However, in response to the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster in which eponymous drugs killed more than 100 users, the US congress passed a law requiring testing of drug safety on animals before they could be marketed. Other countries enact similar regulations. In the 1960s, in reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy, further legislation was passed that required safety testing on pregnant animals before drugs could be sold.
Historical debate
As experiments in animals increase, especially the practice of vivisection, as well as criticism and controversy. In 1655, advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that "the agonizing torture of living organisms puts the body in an unnatural state". O'Meara and others argue that animal physiology can be affected by pain during vivisection, making results unreliable. There are also objections on ethical grounds, arguing that the benefits to humans do not justify damage to animals. The initial objection to animal testing also comes from another angle - many people believe that animals are inferior to humans and so different that the results of animals can not be applied to humans.
On the other side of the debate, those who support animal testing argue that experiments on animals are needed to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard - sometimes known as "prince vivisectors" and the father of physiology, and whose wife, Marie FranÃÆ'§oise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883 - famously wrote in 1865 that "life science is the hall the incredible and dazzling that can only be achieved by passing through a long, horrible kitchen ". Arguing that "animal experiments... are entirely conclusive for toxicology and human hygiene... the effects of these substances are the same in humans as in animals, except for different degrees", Bernard establishes animal experiments as part of standardized scientific methods.
In 1896, physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon says "The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types of Theodore Roosevelt described when he says, 'Common sense without conscience can cause evil, but a conscience without common sense can lead to ignorance, which is the servant of evil. ' "The division between pro and anti-animal test groups first became public attention during Brown Dog marriage in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over warning for suspected dogs.
In 1822, the first animal protection law was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the Crime Against Animals Act (1876), the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. This law was promoted by Charles Darwin, who wrote to Ray Lankester in March 1871: "You ask me about my opinion about vivisection, I quite agree that it is justifiable for a real inquiry into physiology, but not for cursed curiosity and disgusting subjects that make me sick of horror, so I will not say another word about it, otherwise I will not sleep until night. "In response to lobbying by anti-vivisectionists, several organizations were established in Britain to defend animal research: The Physiological The Society was formed in 1876 to provide the physiologist "mutual benefit and protection", the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research was formed in 1882 and focused on policy-making, and the Research Defense Society (now Understanding Animal Research) was formed in 1908 "to uncover facts on animal experiments in this country; ting for the welfare of mankind from such experiments. and the great salvation of human life and health that is directly attributed to them ".
The opposition to the use of animals in medical research first appeared in the United States during the 1860s, when Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), with the first specialized American anti-vivisection organization the American Anti-Monitoring Agency AAVS), was founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spreading of grace was the main cause of civilization, and the surgery of living beings was cruel. However, in the US antiviviseksionist efforts are defeated in every legislature, surrounded by superior organizations and the influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the issuance of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, in 1966.
Care and use of animals
Rules and laws
The regulations that apply to animals in the laboratory vary among species. In the US, under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Law and Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals , published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure may be performed on animals if it can be declared with success that it is scientifically justified. In general, researchers are required to consult an institute veterinarian and the Institutional Use of Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which each research facility is required to maintain. IACUC must ensure that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiment does not need duplication, and that pain relief is given unless it will interfere with the study. IACUC organizes all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the US. Although the provisions of the Animal Welfare Law do not include rodents and birds bred, these species are equally governed under the Public Health Service policy governing IACUCs. The Public Health Service Policy oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC conducts infectious disease research on non-human primates, rabbits, rodents, and other animals, while the FDA's requirements include the use of animals in pharmaceutical research. The Law on Animal Welfare (AWA) is enacted by the USDA, while the Health Department regulations are imposed by OLAW and in many cases by AAALAC.
According to a US Department of Agriculture report of 2014 on the Inspector General's report (OIG) - which saw the supervision of animal use over a three-year period - "some of the Institutional Organic Care and Utilization Committee... do not approve enough, monitor, or report on experimental procedures in animals". OIG found that "as a result, animals do not always receive basic human care and care and, in some cases, pain and distress are not minimized during and after the trial procedure". According to the report, within three years, nearly half of all American laboratories with the regulated species were cited for AWA violations relating to improper IACUC surveillance. USDA OIG made similar findings in its 2005 report. With only 120 inspectors, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees over 12,000 facilities involved in research, exhibition, breeding, or animal trade. Others criticize the composition of IACUCs, insisting that the committee consists mostly of veterinary researchers and university representatives who may be biased towards animal welfare issues.
Larry Carbone, an animal veterinarian in the laboratory, wrote that, in his experience, IACUC took their work very seriously apart from the species involved, although the use of non-human primates always brings up what he calls the "special attention red flag." A study published in Science magazine in July 2001 confirmed the low reliability of IACUC's review of animal experiments. Funded by the National Science Foundation, a three-year study found that the university's uninformed animal utilization committee and personnel did not make the same consent decisions as those made by animal committees that knew the universities and personnel. In particular, blind committees more frequently ask for more information than agree to the study.
Scientists in India protest new guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission to ban the use of live animals in universities and laboratories.
Numbers
Accurate global numbers for animal testing are difficult to obtain; An estimated 100 million vertebrates experiment worldwide each year, 10-11 million of them in the European Union. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that the annual global forecast ranges from 50 to 100 million animals. None of the numbers include invertebrates such as shrimp and fruit flies.
The USDA/APHIS has published animal research statistics in 2016. Overall, the number of animals (covered by the Animal Welfare Act) used in research in the US rose 6.9% from 767,622 (2015) to 820,812 (2016). This includes both public and private institutions. By comparing with EU data, where all vertebrate species are calculated, Speaking on Research estimates that about 12 million vertebrates are used in research in the US by 2016. A 2015 article published in the Medical Ethics Journal , argues that the use of animals in the US has increased dramatically in recent years. The researchers found this increase was largely the result of increased dependence on genetically modified rodents in animal studies.
In 1995, researchers at the Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 14-21 million animals were used in American laboratories in 1992, a reduction of the 50 million high used in 1970. In 1986, the US Congressional Technology Assessment Office. reports that animal estimates used in the US range from 10 million to over 100 million annually, and that their own best estimate is at least 17 million to 22 million. In 2016, the Department of Agriculture recorded 60,979 dogs, 18,898 cats, 71,188 non-human primates, 183,237 guinea pigs, 102,633 hamsters, 139,391 rabbits, 83,059 farm animals, and 161,467 other mammals, a total of 820,812, a figure covering all mammals. except for rats and mice raised with purpose. The use of dogs and cats in US research declined from 1973 to 2016 from 195,157 to 60,979, and from 66,165 to 18,898, respectively.
In GB, the Home Office data shows that 3.87 million procedures were performed in 2014. 3,569 procedures use non-human primates, down more than 50% since 1988. "Procedures" refer here for experiments that may take several minutes, some month, or year. Most animals are used only in one procedure: animals are often euthanized after an experiment; But death is the end point of some procedure. The procedures performed on animals in GB in 2016 are categorized as -
- 38% (1.51 million) rated as sub-threshold
- 4% (0.16 million) rated as non-recovery
- 38% (1.48 million) rated as lightweight
- 16% (0.63 million) rated as moderate
- 4% (0.15 million) rated heavy
The 'heavy' procedure is, for example, any test in which death is the expected endpoint or death, while the 'light' procedure will be something like a blood test or an MRI scan.
The Three R's
The Three R's (3R's) are guiding principles for the more ethical use of animals in testing. It was first described by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959. 3R's state:
- Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods rather than animal methods whenever possible to achieve the same scientific objectives. These methods include computer modeling.
- Reduction refers to a method that allows researchers to obtain a comparable level of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
- Refinements that refer to methods that lighten or minimize the potential for pain, suffering or distress, and improve animal welfare for the animals used. This method includes non-invasive techniques.
3R has a wider scope than simply encouraging alternatives to animal testing, but aims to improve animal welfare and scientific quality where animal use is inevitable. 3R is now implemented in many testing companies worldwide and has been adopted by various parts of the legislation.
Despite the widespread acceptance of the 3Rs, many countries - including Canada, Australia, Israel, Britain and Germany - have reported increasing use of experimental animals in recent years with increased use of mice and, in some cases, while fish reported a decrease in the use of cats, dogs , primates, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Together with other countries, China has also increased the use of transgenic animals, resulting in an increase in overall animal use.
Invertebrates
Although more invertebrates than vertebrates are used in animal testing, this study is largely unregulated by law. The most commonly used invertebrate species are Drosophila melanogaster , fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans , nematode worms. In the case of C. elegans, the body of the worm is completely transparent and the exact lineage of all cells of the organism is known, while the study in the fly D. melanogaster can use various genetic tools amazing. These invertebrates offer several advantages over vertebrates in animal testing, including their short life cycle and the ease with which to accommodate and learn in large numbers. However, the lack of adaptive immune systems and their simple organs prevent worms used in some aspects of medical research such as vaccine development. Similarly, the fruit fly immune system is very different from humans, and insect diseases may differ from those of vertebrates; However, fruit flies and wax worms can be useful in research to identify new virulence factors or pharmacologically active compounds.
Some invertebrate systems are considered an acceptable alternative to vertebrates on the early discovery screen. Because of the similarity between the innate immune system of insects and mammals, insects can replace mammals in some types of research. Drosophila melanogaster and Galleria mellonella hookworms have been essential for the analysis of the virulence properties of mammalian pathogens. Wormworms and other insects have also proven valuable for the identification of pharmaceutical compounds with favorable bioavailability. The decision to adopt such models generally involves lower levels of biological similarity with mammals for significant gains in experimental throughput.
Vertebrata
In the US, the number of rats and mice used is estimated from 11 million to between 20 and 100 million per year. Other rodents commonly used are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species due to their size, low cost, ease of handling, and rapid reproductive rates. Mice are widely regarded as the best model of human-derived disease and share 99% of their genes with humans. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be produced to order and can provide models for a variety of human illnesses. Mice are also widely used for physiology, toxicology and cancer research, but genetic manipulation is much more difficult in mice than in mice, which limits the use of these rodents in basic science. More than 500,000 fish and 10,000 amphibians are used in the UK by 2016. The main species used are zebrafish, Danio rerio, translucent during their embryonic stage, and African frogs, Xenopus laevis . More than 20,000 rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004. The Albino rabbit is used in eye irritation test (Draize test) because rabbits have less tearflow than other animals, and the lack of eye pigment in albino makes the effect easier to visualize. The number of rabbits used for this purpose has dropped substantially over the past two decades, in 1996, there were 3,693 procedures in rabbits for eye irritation in the UK, by 2016 this number was only 128. Rabbits are also often used for the production of polyclonal antibodies.
Cat
Cats are most commonly used in neurological research. 18,898 cats were used in the US in 2016, about one-third of those used in experiments that have the potential to cause "pain and/or distress" despite only 0.1% of cat experiments involving potential pain relief by anesthesia/analgesics.
Dog
Dogs are widely used in biomedical, testing, and educational research - especially beagle dogs, as they are gentle and easy to handle, and allow comparison with historical data from beagle dogs (Reduction techniques). They are used as models for human and animal diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States. The most common use of dogs is in the safety assessment of new drugs for human or animal use as the second species after testing in rodents, in accordance with the rules laid down in the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceutical Registration for Human Use. The US Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare report shows that 60,979 dogs are used in USDA registered facilities by 2016. In the UK, according to the UK Homeland Office there are 4,932 procedures in dogs by 2016. Of other EU dog users, Germany performed 4,491 procedures in dogs by 2015 and France performing 2,852 procedures by 2014, in both cases representing less than 0.2% of the total number of procedures performed on animals in their respective countries.
Non-human primates
Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies on AIDS and hepatitis, neurological studies, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. They are caught in the wild or raised. In the United States and China, most primates are animals cultivated domestically, while in Europe most are imported for specific purposes. The European Commission reports that in 2011, 6,012 monkeys were tested in European laboratories. According to the US Department of Agriculture, there are 71,188 monkeys in a US laboratory by 2016. 23,465 monkeys are imported into the US by 2014 including 929 captured in the wild. Most of the NHPs used in the experiments were apes; but marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys are also used, and baboons and chimpanzees are used in the US. By 2015, there are about 730 chimpanzees in US laboratories.
In one survey, it was found that 89% of primates living in single homes showed self-defeating or abnormal stereotypical behaviors including pacing, rocking, pulling hair, and biting among others.
The first transgenic primate was produced in 2001, with the development of a method that can introduce new genes into rhesus macaque. This transgenic technology is now being applied in the search for treatment for Huntington's genetic disorder disease. Important research on non-human primates has been part of the development of polio vaccine, and the development of Deep Brain Stimulation, and their toughest non-toxicological use currently occurs in the monkey AIDS model, SIV. In 2008, a proposal to ban all primate trials in the EU has sparked a heated debate.
Source
Animals used by laboratories are mostly supplied by specialized dealers. Different sources for vertebrate and invertebrate animals. Most laboratories breed and raise flies and worms themselves, using strains and mutants supplied from several major storage centers. For vertebrates, sources include breeders and traders such as Covance and Charles River Laboratories that provide wildly hunted and caught animals; businesses that trade wild animals such as Nafovanny; and traders who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters also provide laboratories directly. Large centers are also available to distribute genetically modified animal strains; The International Knockout Mouse Consortium, for example, aims to provide knockout mice for each gene in the mouse genome.
In the US, Class A breeders are licensed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to buy animals from "random sources" such as auction, pound seizures, and newspaper advertisements. Some Class B dealers have been accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping, a practice known as bunching. It was part of a public concern over the sale of pets to a research facility that the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act ushered in - the Trade Senate Committee reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been taken from the Veterans Administration facility, Mayo Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools. The USDA recovered at least a dozen pets stolen during raids at a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.
Four states in the US - Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa - require their shelters to provide research facilities for animals. Fourteen countries explicitly prohibit such practices, while the rest allow or do not have relevant laws.
In the European Union, animal sources are governed by the Council Directive 86/609/EEC , which requires laboratory animals to be specially bred unless they have been legally imported and not wild animals or wild animals.. The last requirement may also be excluded by special arrangements. In 2010 the Directive was revised with EU Directive 2010/63/EU. In the UK, most of the animals used in the experiments were bred for purposes under the 1988 Animal Protection Act, but wild-caught primates could be used if special and special justification could be established. The United States also allows the use of wild-caught primates; between 1995 and 1999, 1,580 wild baboons were imported into the United States. More than half the primates imported between 1995 and 2000 were handled by Charles River Laboratories, or by Covance, who was the sole importer of primates to the US.
Pain and suffering
The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering, and the capacity of animals to experience and understand it, is the subject of much debate.
According to the USDA, in 2016 501,560 animals (61%) (excluding rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) are used in procedures that do not include more than pain or distress shortly. 247,882 (31%) animals are used in a procedure where pain or distress is relieved by anesthesia, while 71,370 (9%) is used in the study which will cause pain or distress which will not be relieved.
Since 2014, in the UK, each retrospective research procedure is assessed for severity. The five categories are "sub-threshold", "mild", "moderate", "severe" and "non-recovery", the latter is a procedure in which animals are sedated and then killed without restoring consciousness. In 2016, 38% (1.51 million) rated as sub-threshold, 4% (0.16 million) rated as non-recovery, 38% (1.48 million) rated as light, 16% (0.63 million) were rated as moderate and 4% (0.15 million) rated as severe.
The idea that animals might not feel pain when humans feel it back to the 17th century French philosopher Renà © Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they are less aware. Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, lead author of two US federal laws regulating animal pain relief, wrote that researchers remained unsure in the 1980s whether animals had been ill, and veterinarians trained in the US before 1989 only taught to ignore the pain in animals. In his interactions with other scientists and veterinarians, he is regularly asked to "prove" that the animals are conscious, and provide a "scientifically acceptable" basis to claim that they feel ill. Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently now becomes a minority view. The academic review of this topic is more vague, noting that despite the argument that animals have at least a simple conscious mind and feelings have strong support, some critics continue to question how a reliable animal's mental condition can be determined. The ability of invertebrates to experience pain and suffering is less clear, however, laws in some countries (eg Britain, New Zealand, Norway) protect some species of invertebrates if they are used in animal testing.
In the US, the text that defines animal welfare regulations in animal testing is the Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . It defines the parameters governing animal testing in the US. It states "The ability to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom... Pain is a suppressor and, if not relieved, can cause unacceptable levels of stress and distress, in animals." The guidelines state that the ability to recognize symptoms painful symptoms in different species are very important in applying pain relievers efficiently and that it is important for people caring for and using animals to be fully familiar with these symptoms. On analgesic subjects used for pain relief, the Guidelines state "The most appropriate selection of analgesics or anesthesia should reflect professional judgment to best meet clinical and humane requirements without sacrificing the scientific aspects of the study protocol." Thus, all the problems of animal pain and sadness, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, require regulatory issues in accepting animal protocol approval.
Euthanasia
The regulations require that scientists use as few animals as possible, especially for terminal experiments. However, while policymakers regard suffering as a major problem and view animal euthanasia as a way of reducing suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue that the life of laboratory animals has intrinsic value. The rules focus on whether a particular method causes pain and suffering, not whether their death is undesirable in itself. The animals were euthanized at the end of the study for sample collection or post-mortem examination; during the study if their pain or suffering falls into certain categories deemed unacceptable, such as depression, non-responsive infections, or large animal failure to eat for five days; or when they are not suitable for breeding or undesirable for other reasons.
The animal method of euthanasia cultures is chosen to induce unconsciousness and rapid death without pain or depression. The preferred method is published by the veterinary board. Animals can be made to breathe gases, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, by being placed in a room, or by using a facial mask, with or without prior sedation or anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as barbiturates may be administered intravenously, or inhalation anesthetics may be used. Amphibians and fish can be immersed in anesthetic-containing water such as tricaine. Physical methods are also used, with or without sedation or anesthesia depending on the method. The suggested methods include beheading (beheading) for rats or rabbits. Cervical dislocations (broken neck or spine) can be used for birds, mice, and rodents and immature rabbits. Maseration (small grinding) is used in chicks aged 1 day. High intensity microwave irradiation of the brain can sustain brain tissue and cause death in less than 1 second, but is currently used only in rodents. Captive bolts can be used, usually in dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. This causes death from concussion to the brain. Shoot can be used, but only in cases where the translucent penetrating lever may not be used. Some physical methods are only acceptable after the animal is unconscious. Electrical shock can be used for cattle, sheep, pigs, foxes, and feathers after unconscious animals, often with electric shocks before. Rounding (inserting the device to the base of the brain) can be used on an unconscious animal. Freezing slowly or rapidly, or stimulating air embolism may be accepted only with previous anesthesia to induce unconsciousness.
Research classification
Pure research
Basic or pure research investigates how organisms behave, evolve, and function. Those who oppose the object of animal testing that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it forms the necessary basis for the development of applied research, providing the distinction between pure and applied research - research that has a particular practical purpose -. Pure research uses larger quantities and larger animal variations than applied research. Fruit flies, nematode worms, rats and mice together cover most, although a small number of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs to armadillos. Examples of animal types and experiments used in basic research include:
- The study of embryogenesis and developmental biology . Mutants are created by adding transposons to their genome, or specific genes removed by gene targeting. By studying the changes in the development resulting from these changes, scientists aim to understand both how organisms normally develop, and what can go wrong in this process. These studies are very powerful because basic developmental controls, such as the homeobox gene, have similar functions in diverse organisms such as fruit and human flies.
- Experiments into behavior , to understand how organisms detect and interact with each other and their environment, in which fruit flies, worms, rats, and mice are all widely used. Studies of brain function, such as memory and social behavior, often use rats and birds. For some species, behavioral research is combined with enrichment strategies for animals in captivity as it allows them to engage in a wider range of activities.
- Breeding experiments to learn evolution and genetics . Laboratory mice, flies, fish, and worms are involved in many generations to create strains with clear characteristics. This gives the animal a known genetic background, an essential tool for genetic analysis. Larger mammals are rarely cultured for such studies because of their slow reproductive rates, although some scientists take advantage of cultured breeds, such as dogs or livestock, for comparative purposes. Scientists are studying how animals evolve using many animal species to see how variations in where and how a living organism (their niche) generate adaptations in their physiology and morphology. For example, sticklebacks are now used to study how many and what types of mutations are selected to produce adaptations to animal morphology during the evolution of new species.
Applied research
Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems. This may involve the use of animal models of disease or conditions, which are often found or produced by pure research programs. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the process of drug discovery. Examples include:
- An animal's genetic modification to study the disease. Transgenic animals have specific genes that are inserted, modified or removed, to mimic specific conditions such as a single gene disorder, such as Huntington's disease. Other models mimic complex, multifactorial diseases with genetic components, such as diabetes, or even transgenic mice that carry the same mutations that occur during cancer progression. These models allow an investigation of how and why diseases develop, and provide ways to develop and test new treatments. Most of the transgenic models of human disease are the lines of mice, mammalian species where genetic modification is most efficient. A small number of other animals are also used, including mice, pigs, sheep, fish, birds, and amphibians.
- Study of disease models and naturally occurring conditions. Certain domestic and wild animals have a natural or predisposing tendency to certain conditions that are also found in humans. Cats are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines and to study leukemia because of their natural predisposition to FIV and Feline leukemia viruses. The descendants of certain dogs suffer from narcolepsy so they become the main models used to study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are but a few species of animals that naturally suffer from leprosy; because the bacteria responsible for this disease can not yet grow in culture, armadillos are the main source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines.
- The study of animal models induced from human disease. Here, an animal is treated so that it develops pathologies and symptoms that resemble human disease. Examples include limiting blood flow to the brain to induce a stroke, or giving neurotoxins that cause damage similar to those seen in Parkinson's disease. Such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is said that they are not always comparable with human disease. For example, although the model is now widely used to study Parkinson's disease, the British anti-vivisection interest group BUAV argues that these models only resemble symptoms of disease, without equal time or cellular pathology. Instead, the scientists assessed the usefulness of the animal models of Parkinson's disease, as well as the medical research charity The Parkinson Appeal, states that this model is invaluable and that they lead to better surgical treatments such as pallidotomy, new drug treatments such as levodopa, and later brain stimulation.
- Tests on animals also include the use of placebo testing. In this case, animals are treated with substances that do not produce pharmacological effects, but are given to determine the biological changes due to the experience of the given substance, and the results are compared with those obtained with the active compound. li>
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting tissues or organs from one species to another, as a way of addressing human organ deficiencies for use in organ transplants. Current research involves the use of primates as recipients of organs from genetically modified pigs to reduce primate immune responses to swine tissue. Although transplant rejection remains a problem, recent clinical trials involving implanting cells that secrete pig insulin to diabetics do reduce the need for people to insulin.
Documents released to the news media by the animal rights organization Uncaged Campaigns show that, between 1994 and 2000, wild baboons were imported into Britain from Africa by Imutran Ltd., a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma AG, along with Cambridge University and Huntingdon Life Sciences, to used in experiments involving pig tissue transplantation, suffered serious and sometimes fatal injuries. A scandal broke out when it was revealed that the company had communicated with the British government in an effort to avoid regulations.
Toxicological testing
Toxicological tests, also known as safety testing, are conducted by pharmaceutical companies that test drugs, or with contract animal testing facilities, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, on behalf of diverse customers. According to 2005 EU figures, about one million animals are used annually in Europe in toxicology tests; ie about 10% of all procedures. According to Nature , 5,000 animals are used for every chemical tested, with 12,000 required to test pesticides. The test is performed without anesthesia, because the interactions between drugs can affect the way animals detoxify chemicals, and can interfere with the results.
Toxicological tests are used to check for finished products such as pesticides, medicines, food additives, packing materials, and air fresheners, or chemicals. Most tests involve testing of materials rather than finished products, but according to BUAV, manufacturers believe these tests overestimate the toxic effects of substances; Therefore they repeated the tests using their finished product to obtain a less toxic label.
These substances are applied to the skin or drip to the eye; injected intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by placing a mask over the animal and holding them, or by placing them in an inhalation chamber; or administered orally, through a tube to the stomach, or only in animal foods. Doses may be administered once, repeated regularly for months, or for lifespan of the animal.
There are several different types of acute toxicity tests. LD 50 ("Lethal Dose 50%") test is used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance by determining the dose required to kill 50% of the animal population test. This test was removed from the OECD international guidelines in 2002, replaced by methods such as fixed dosage procedures, which use fewer animals and cause less suffering. Abbott writes that, in 2005, "the acute toxicity test of LD50... still accounts for a third of all animal [toxicity] tests worldwide".
Irritation can be measured using the Draize test, in which the test material is applied to the eyes or skin of the animal, usually an albino rabbit. For the test of Draize's eye, this test involves observing the effect of substance on the interval and assessing the damage or irritation, but the test should be stopped and the animal killed if it shows "signs of severe pain or continuing distress". The Humanist Society of the United States writes that this procedure can cause redness, ulceration, bleeding, turbidity, or even blindness. This test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, subjective, overly sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposure in the real world. Although no available in vitro alternatives are available, the modified form of the Draize test called low volume eye test may reduce suffering and deliver more realistic results and is adopted as new. standard in September 2009. However, the Draize test will still be used for irritant substances that are not severe.
The most stringent tests are provided for medicines and foodstuffs. For this, a number of tests are performed, lasting less than one month (acute), one to three months (subchronic), and over three months (chronic) to test general toxicity (damage to organs), eye and skin irritation, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity , teratogenicity, and reproductive problems. The cost of a complete test is several million dollars per substance and it may take three or four years to complete.
This toxicity test provides, in the words of the US National Academy of Sciences 2006 report, "information essential for assessing hazards and potential risks". Animal tests may exaggerate the risk, with false-positive results being a particular problem, but false positives do not seem too general. Variability in results arises from the use of the effects of high doses of chemicals in small quantities of laboratory animals to try to predict the effects of low doses on large numbers of humans. Although the relationship does exist, opinions are divided on how to use data on one species to predict a certain degree of risk in one species.
Scientists are facing increasing pressure to stay away from the use of traditional animal toxicity tests to determine if the chemicals produced are safe. Among the various approaches to the evaluation of toxicity that have attracted interest are the in vitro cell-based sensing methods using fluorescence.
Cosmetic test
Cosmetic testing in animals is highly controversial. Such tests, which are still performed in the US, involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritation, phototoxicity (toxicity induced by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.
Cosmetic testing in animals is prohibited in India, the EU, Israel and Norway while laws in the US and Brazil are currently considering a similar ban. In 2002, after 13 years of discussions, the EU agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics in 2009, and to ban all cosmetic-related animal testing. France, home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by filing a case at the European Court in Luxembourg requesting the ban be canceled. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Materials, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. In October 2014, India passed a stricter law that also banned the import of any cosmetic products tested on animals.
Drug tests
Before the beginning of the 20th century, the laws governing drugs were weak. Currently, all new drugs undergo rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:
- metabolic tests , investigating pharmacokinetics - how drugs are absorbed, metabolized and excreted by the body when administered orally, intravenously, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or transdermal.
- toxicology tests , which measure acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity is studied by increasing doses until signs of toxicity become apparent. The current European law requires that "acute toxicity tests should be performed in two or more mammalian species" that include "at least two different administration routes". Sub acute toxicity is where the drug is administered to animals for four to six weeks in doses below the level at which it causes rapid toxicity, to find if any toxic drug metabolites are formed over time. Chronic toxicity testing can last up to two years and, in the EU, it is necessary to involve two species of mammals, one of which must not be a rat.
- efficacy study , which tests whether experimental drugs work by inducing an appropriate disease in animals. The drug is then administered in a double-blind controlled trial, which allows the researcher to determine the effects of the drug and the dose-response curve.
- Special tests on reproductive function , embryonic toxicity , or carcinogenic potential may all be required by law, depending on the results of other studies. and the type of drug tested.
Education
It is estimated that 20 million animals are used annually for educational purposes in the United States including, classroom observation exercises, surgery and live animal operations. Frogs, fetal pigs, perches, cats, earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish and starfish are commonly used in class dissection. Alternatives to the use of animals in dissection classrooms are widely used, with many USA and school districts mandating students offered the option of not dissecting. Citing the wide availability of alternatives and the depletion of local frog species, India bans surgery in 2014.
Sonoran Arthropod Institute organizes an annual Invertebrate at the Conference on Education and Conservation to discuss the use of invertebrates in education. There are also attempts in many countries to find alternatives to using animals in education. The NORINA database, maintained by Norecopa, lists products that can be used as an alternative or supplement for animal use in education, and in the training of personnel working with animals. This includes alternatives for surgery at school. InterNICHE has a similar database and loan system.
In November 2013, US-based company Backyard Brains was released for sale to the public, what they call "Roboroach", "electronic backpacks" that can be attached to cockroaches. The operator is asked to amputate the cockroach antenna, use the sandpaper to coat the skin, insert the wire to the thorax, and then glue the electrode and the circuit board to the insect's back. The mobile phone app can then be used to control it via Bluetooth. It has been suggested that the use of such a tool can be a teaching tool that can promote interest in science. The creator of "Roboroach" has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and stated that the device is intended to encourage children to become interested in neuroscience.
Defense
Animals are used by the military to develop weapons, vaccines, battlefield operations techniques, and defensive clothing. For example, in 2008, the United States Agency for High Defense Research used live pigs to study the effects of explosive explosive assemblies on internal organs, especially the brain.
In the US military, goats are usually used to train medical officers of combat. (Goats have become the main animal species used for this purpose after the Pentagon gradually used dogs for medical training in the 1980s.) While modern mannequins used in medical training are quite efficient in simulating human body behavior, some trainees feel that "Exercise goats provide a sense of urgency that can only be given by real life trauma ". However, by 2014, Coast Guard announced that it would reduce the number of animals it uses in its practice by half after PETA released a video showing members of Garda cutting unconscious goat limbs with tree pruners and inflicting other injuries with rifles, pistols, axes and scalpels. In the same year, citing the availability of human and alternative simulators, the Department of Defense announced it would begin reducing the number of animals it uses in its various training programs. In 2013, several Navy medical centers stopped using civets in intubation exercises after complaints from PETA.
In addition to the United States, six of the 28 NATO countries, including Poland and Denmark, use live animals for combat medical training.
Ethics
Viewpoint
The moral and ethical questions raised by experimenting on animals are debatable, and the point of view has shifted significantly during the 20th century. There remains disagreement about which procedure is useful for what purpose, as well as the dispute over which ethical principles apply to which species.
The Gallup poll of 2015 found that 67% of Americans are "very worried" or "a little concerned" about the animals used in the study. The Pew poll taken in the same year found 50% of American adults opposed to animal use in the study.
However, different angles exist. The view that animals have a moral right is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are creatures with beliefs and desires, and thus are "subjects of life" with moral values ​​and therefore moral rights. Regan still sees the ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Similarly, the view of "moral dilemma" suggests that avoiding potential benefits to humans is unacceptable on the same basis, and considers this problem as a dilemma in balancing such harm in humans with the damage done to animals in the study. In contrast, the abolitionist view in animal rights states that there is no moral justification for any dangerous research on animals that are unfavorable to individual animals. Bernard Rollin argues that the benefits to humans can not exceed the suffering of animals, and that humans have no moral right to use animals in ways that do not benefit the individual. Another prominent position is the philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there is no reason to include species of beings in the consideration of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral judgments. Malcolm Macleod and collaborators argue that most controlled animal studies do not employ random scrambling, allocation of concealment, and judgment results, and that failure to use this feature exaggerates the tangible benefits of animal-tested drugs, leading to failure to translate many studies animals for human benefit.
Governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to public concerns by banning invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, especially great apes. In 2015, breeding chimpanzees in the US are added to the Endangered Species Act which adds new road blocks for those who want to experiment on them. Similarly, citing ethical considerations and the availability of alternative research methods, NIH US announced in 2013 that it will dramatically reduce and eventually end experiments on chimpanzees.
The British government has required that the costs for animals in the experiment should be weighed against the profits in knowledge. Several schools and medical agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built cenotaphs for animals killed. In Japan there is also an annual commemoration ceremony (Ireisai ) for animals sacrificed in medical schools.
Specific cases of animal testing have attracted attention, including both useful examples of scientific research, and examples of ethical violations by those who conducted the tests. The underlying properties of muscle physiology are determined by work performed using frog muscles (including all muscle strengthening mechanisms, long-voltage relationships, and speed curves), and frogs are still the preferred model organisms due to long-term viability of muscle in vitro and the possibility of isolating a single fiber preparation intact (not possible in other organisms). Modern physical therapy and the understanding and treatment of muscle disorders are based on this work and subsequent work on mice (often engineered to express state of illness such as muscular dystrophy). In February 1997, a team at Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly, the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.
Concern has been raised over the mistreatment of primates undergoing tests. In 1985, the case of Britches, a monkey ape at the University of California, Riverside, received public attention. He has a stitched eyelid and sonar sensors on his head as part of an experiment to test the sensory substitution device for the blind. The laboratory was raided by Animal Liberation Front in 1985, transferring Britches and 466 other animals. The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded that no corrective action was necessary. During the 2000s other cases have made headlines, including experiments at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University in 2002. In 2004 and 2005, Covance's undercover recording staff, a contract research organization providing animal testing services, Virginia lab shot by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). After the release of the recording, the US Department of Agriculture fined Covance $ 8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; Other citations involve administrative and equipment issues.
Threat to researchers
The threat of violence against animal researchers is not uncommon.
In 2006, a primate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) closed his experiments in his laboratory after threats from animal rights activists. Researchers have received grants to use 30 ape monkeys for sight experimentation; each monkey was anesthetized for a physiological trial lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized. The researcher's name, phone number, and address are posted on the Primate Project's Freedom website. Demonstrations were held in front of his house. Molotov cocktails are placed on the veranda of a site believed to be the home of other UCLA primate researchers; on the contrary, was accidentally left on the porch of an old woman unrelated to the university. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the attack. As a result of the campaign, researchers emailed the Freedom Primate Project stating "you won," and "please do not bother my family again". In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the Wildlife Brigade placed bombs under UCLA child eye doctors who experimented on cats and rhesus monkeys; the bomb has a broken fuse and does not explode.
In 1997 PETA filmed staff from Huntingdon Life Sciences, pointing out that dogs are being treated improperly. Responsible employees are laid off, with two orders of community service and ordered to pay a £ 250 fee, the first laboratory technician has been prosecuted for animal cruelty in the UK. Campaign to Stop Animal Cruelty Hunting Hilde uses tactics ranging from nonviolent protests to alleged bombing of homes owned by executives associated with HLS clients and investors. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors US domestic extremism, has described SHAC's modus operandi as a "
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments