Humane Science and Alternatives: An American Perspective

Alan M. Goldberg, Ph.D.Johns Hopkins University, Center for Alternatives to

Animal TestingEU presentation, July 2002

Jane Goodall, 2001

In Discussing Animal Research

“I believe that more and more people are becoming aware that to use animals thoughtlessly, without any anguish or making an effort to find another way diminishes us as human beings.”

Underlying Principle – Good Science

• “[B]y now it is widely recognized that the humanest possible treatment of experimental animals, far from being an obstacle [to biomedical research], is actually a prerequisite for successful animal experiments.”

Russell & Burch, Chapter 1

Paule Locke (8)

Acceptance of Animals in Biomedical Research

Okay to use 75-80%

If pain part of protocol?

decreases to less than 50%

Animals in Research – Comparison of U.S. and Europe

United States Europe

Training Variable – hours to days Weeks

Ascites Letter from NIH – but not yet 10 years ago

IACUC Quality of science, then pain & distress

Risk vs. benefit

3Rs

Intrinsic value

CAAT Programs• Altweb: http://altweb.jhsph.edu• Grants

– Individual– Program projects

• Corneal wound healing• Refinement

CAAT Programs• TestSmart

– Endocrine Disruptors– High Production Volume Chemicals (HPV)– Acute Systemic Toxicity

• Genomic/Proteomic Laboratory• CAAT Faculty (Toxicology, Comparative Medicine,

Policy)

CAAT Refinement Program Project Grantees/Research Topics• Bert van Zutphen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

– Measures to Reduce Stress Caused by Experimental Procedures

• Clifford Roberts, University of California, San Francisco– Differential Effects of Environmental Enrichment for Mice

• Alicia Z. Karas, Tufts University– Reducing Postoperative Pain and Distress in Mice

• Norman C. Peterson, Johns Hopkins University– Genomic Approaches to Defining Pain and Distress in Mice

AltwebThe Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site

What Is Altweb?• A clearinghouse of information and news• An alternatives search engine• A producer of specialty databases and resources,

AND• A tool, to help others better develop and use

alternative methods

Altweb Project Team• Academia

– CAA (UC-Davis)• Animal welfare

– ARDF (AAVS)– CLAW (MSPCA)– HSUS– ILAR (NAS)– SCAW

• Federal government– EPA– FDA– ICCVAM– NIH (OLAW)– NLM– USDA (APHIS & AWIC)– VA

Altweb Project Team• International members

– CCAC– FRAME– Lab animal unit, Norwegian

College of Veterinary Medicine (NORINA)

– The University of Utrecht– ZEBET

• Industry– Procter & Gamble

• And, of course, CAAT

Some statistics…• Currently, we get about 26,000 visitors per month • From more than 70 countries• Spending an average of 13 minutes on site

The Program: Chemical Knowledge• NAS (1984) – 78% of HPV chemicals had less than

minimal toxicology data• EDF (1997) – 71% of HPV chemicals lack minimum

data• CMA/ACC (1997) – 20% of HPV chemicals have

basic hazard data• EPA (1998) – less than 10% of HPV chemicals have

minimum health/ecotox data

The Problem – Animal Use• HPV program• Endocrine disruptors• Pesticides• Children’s health• EU White Paper

The CAAT Response• TestSmart• Laboratory for Molecular Toxicogenomic and Proteomics• Use archived materials from HPV testing – NTP• Utilize NTP methods for extraction of mRNA• Develop fundamental bioinformatics for large relational

database• Public accessability

Quality Science: The difference between acceptance and

Implementation.

The Troubled MiddleThe Silent Middle

The extreme positions are minorities with views that are irreconcilably opposed. One cannot expect discussion when one see animal use as a holocaust and those that think animal use raises no moral issues.

Economist, 1996

Animals in Research

The issue for the public is:– Accountability– Pain and distress

Animals in Research

The issues for the scientific community– Increase effectiveness of IACUC’s– Further enhance standard of care– Deal with the calumny

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Role for HistoryEach of them necessitated the community’s rejection of

one time-honored scientific theory in favor of another incompatible with it. Each produced a consequent shift in the problems available for scientific scrutiny and in the standards by which the profession determined what should count as an admissible problem or as a legitimate problem-solution.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Role for History (cont.)And each transformed the scientific imagination in ways

that we shall ultimately need to describe as a transformation of the world within which scientific work was done. Such changes, together with the controversies that almost always accompany them, are the defining characteristics of scientific revolutions.