Turning lab research into field research
After a career studying laboratory animals, US scientist Garet Lahvis says it is time to move towards cagefree research.
FOR nearly three decades, as a university scientist in Maryland, Wisconsin and Oregon, I conducted research using laboratory animals. This included many years of exploring aspects of mouse social behaviour to glean insights into the biology of autism. Over time, I began to question the validity of my research. My mice lived inside shoeboxsized cages and their cloistered social experiences did not resemble those of humans — or even wild mice.
My mice, I told myself, were better off than research primates. Despite having vastly more capable brains, primates typically live inside cages the size of broom closets. If we could identify complex psychological experiences in mice, I thought, labs might not use as many primates.
But my misgivings about my own research grew stronger. Eventually, I stopped writing applications for funding. About four years ago, I closed down my mouse colony.
Lab animal research gives us insights to human biology; but we study animals inside cages because that’s how we’ve always done it and that’s where the money is. The National Institutes of Health, which funded my studies, spends more than $10 billion ($NZ15 billion) in taxpayer money each year on research involving caged animals.
Public and private investments in studies of caged primates have increased in the US, China and the European Union. A startup backed by Elon Musk recently funded a study to build biomechanical interfaces between primates and machines. A laboratory in China just cloned two primates.
Yet drugs proven effective in treating laboratory animals often fail to work in human trials. This failure is due, in part, to lab animals living in cages while humans live free. Freedom makes us different. We make decisions, learn from the consequences, and modify our behaviours. We live by trial and error. We get bruises. We get hungry. Animals raised inside cages have none of that.
Laboratory animals are not allowed to enjoy the bodies they possess. Adult rats do not stand up straight, primates do not swing from branches, and migrating birds do not fly. They can’t choose what to eat, where to nest, with whom to mate. They can’t leave their cage mates. Short of escape, no amount of effort will result in a new experience.
Biomedical researchers are not obligated to continue research in this way. We can study animals living in the wild or inside naturalistic enclosures that allow research animals to author their own experiences. For a mouse, a naturalistic enclosure might be a small barn. We can use wireless technologies, including WiFi and Bluetooth, to study freely roaming animals.
We can remotely manipulate animal physiology and monitor their biological and behavioural responses. Despite huge investments in conventional animal research, change is under way. In 2017, the University of Windsor established the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods. Lori Gruen’s book on the ethics of captivity (2014) and John Gluck’s writings on his journey out of primate research (2016) question the ethics of subjecting organisms to the harsh conditions of captivity. An upcoming book by Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne asks for a paradigm shift in animal research.
If we are going to use animals for research, we should do it right. Policymakers at the National Institutes of Health need to reassess their priorities and seek fresh opportunities to study animals outside of cages. They should make formidable investments in alternative research models.
Finally, we all need skepticism. What makes science great is that we question. We don’t blindly accept our results. We should challenge the relevance of findings garnered from the study of animals that are raised inside laboratory cages. — TNS