Balancing Costs & Benefits of Animal Research  cover

Balancing Costs & Benefits of Animal Research

By


Think for a moment, if you will, of all the chemicals that you conscientiously and unconsciously are exposed to everyday. Banal, daily-life things like toothpaste, cosmetics, food additives, pharmaceuticals. They are composed of manufactured chemicals, synthesized and tested in a lab. You have probably never doubted the safety of your toothpaste or the efficacy of your pain reliever, but that comfort and assurance doesn’t come for free. The testing of safety and efficacy of the chemicals that we subject our bodies to depends on the use of animals that may suffer for our conveniences.





NoteStream NoteStream

NoteStreams are readable online but they’re even better in the free App!

The NoteStream™ app is for learning about things that interest you: from music to history, to classic literature or cocktails. NoteStreams are truly easy to read on your smartphone—so you can learn more about the world around you and start a fresh conversation.

For a list of all authors on NoteStream, click here.




Read the NoteStream below, or download the app and read it on the go!

Save to App


Balancing Costs & Benefits of Animal Research

Taken for Granted

Think for a moment, if you will, of all the chemicals that you conscientiously and unconsciously are exposed to everyday.

Banal, daily-life things like toothpaste, cosmetics, food additives, pharmaceuticals. They are composed of manufactured chemicals, synthesized and tested in a lab. You have probably never doubted the safety of your toothpaste or the efficacy of your pain reliever, but that comfort and assurance doesn’t come for free. The testing of safety and efficacy of the chemicals that we subject our bodies to depends on the use of animals that may suffer for our conveniences.

Assurance Doesn’t Come for Free

Assurance Doesn’t Come for Free

© iStock

Two Perspectives

How do we – as a society – balance the cost of animal research with the benefits?

Who decides how many and how much animals suffer for the conveniences of our daily lives? Are there other alternatives? In PLOS Biology we have recently published two Perspectives that looks closely at these questions and propose meaningful ways to think of these moral dilemmas and possible steps forward.

Advocacy and Outreach

In “The Challenging Road Towards a Unified Animal Research Network in Europe” Emma Martinez-Sanchez and Kirk Leech of The European Animal Research Association (EARA) advocate for scientists and research organizations to increase transparency.

Together, they discuss openness about the use of animals and the scientific research and developments gleaned from their work. By increasing communication, scientists can combat misinformation. Through advocacy and outreach that explains the unique benefits of animal research, as well as efforts to reduce the use of animals, the public can form an accurate picture of animal research.

The authors encourage applying the 3R strategy (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) during experimental design and the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting in Vivo Experiments) when publishing animal studies.

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

© iStock

Chemical Safety

One field that relies heavily on animal research is chemical safety assessment.

Natalie Burden, Fiona Sewell, and Kathryn Chapman of the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3R) write in their Perspective “Testing chemical safety: What is needed to ensure the widespread application of non-animal approaches?” about the pressure to replace animal models. Currently animal models are considered the gold standard for determining if manufactured chemicals are safe for human use, exposure, or consumption.

However, recent legislation in Europe that bans the testing of cosmetics on animals is propelling the development and use of non-animal techniques to assess chemical safety.

Chemical Safety

One field that relies heavily on animal research is chemical safety assessment.

Natalie Burden, Fiona Sewell, and Kathryn Chapman of the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3R) write in their Perspective “Testing chemical safety: What is needed to ensure the widespread application of non-animal approaches?” about the pressure to replace animal models. Currently animal models are considered the gold standard for determining if manufactured chemicals are safe for human use, exposure, or consumption.

However, recent legislation in Europe that bans the testing of cosmetics on animals is propelling the development and use of non-animal techniques to assess chemical safety.

New Technology

Burden and colleagues describe the challenges of moving away from animal models in the chemical safety field.

The foremost challenge is in the development and acceptance of non-animal techniques that are able to accurately predict toxic effects. Replacing animal models will likely require a combination of techniques including in vitro methods, next generation sequencing and ‘omics’ technologies, and computational modeling. This will require not only the development of new techniques, but a standardization of the interpretation of results, and a cohesive regulatory process.

Improving Alternatives

Improving Alternatives

© iStock

Moving Forward

While our current scientific understanding and regulatory organizations require the use of animal testing to answer some key scientific questions, such as determining chemical safety, there are significant benefits to moving away from animal models.

Scientists, research organizations, and regulatory bodies need to cooperate and work together to improve alternative techniques and their acceptance so that animal use can be reduced.

PLoS Biologue

(CC BY 4.0)