University responds to animaltesting queries

AS reported (ODT, 3.6.17), Prof

Richard Blaikie’s stance on the University of Otago’s animal testing facility reads like a complacent endorsement of the status quo, rather than a reflection of the university’s valuable role as critic and conscience of society. I hope he will explain to a concerned wider world to what extent the university implements the three Rs in relation to animal research: replacement (use of nonanimal methods where possible); reduction (use of fewer animals); and refinement (methods that alleviate animal suffering). Are these enshrined in the allegedly strict ethics code that defenders of animal experiments repeatedly cite, and more importantly, are they honoured? It would also be enlightening to know what if anything Otago’s contribution has been to any major research project such as Seurat (Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing).

Dr Mark Stocker

Wellington

I wish to challenge Vicechancellor Blaikie who said ‘‘animalbased testing had played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough in the past few decades and had helped saved hundreds of millions of lives worldwide’’. Animals have indeed been used throughout history in crude and invasive experiments, but this does not imply they were a necessary part of the development of medical treatments or discoveries. There’s certainly no doubt that animals have been used in almost every medical breakthrough. The questions are whether their use played an essential role, whether the breakthroughs could have been made without using animals and whether more knowledge and progress would actually have been gained without their use. It could be argued animal testing has instead cost tens of millions of lives — particularly when we consider that penicillin was delayed for 15 years and blood transfusions for more than a century due to misleading data from animals. Imagine how many lives would have been saved had we not been misled by animal tests.

Helen Marston Humane Research Australia Inc [Abridged. Prof Richard Blaikie replies to both writers: ‘‘The University of Otago is committed to the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement (the three Rs) of animal use. Our Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals, which is available in the public domain, ensures researchers need to justify using animals, instead of other methods, to our animal ethics committees.We have a responsibility not only to act as a critic and conscience of society, but also to use the best methods possible in research and teaching. This includes using animalbased methods. Clear evidence shows very few other methods can discover enough about complex biological processes — including development, growth, disease and ageing — to help develop new preventions, treatments and cures.

‘‘Animals have been used in almost every modern medical breakthrough. Immunotherapy drugs such as Keytruda that harness the body’s immune system to attack cancer were made possible through mouse studies. Previous animalbased discoveries that combat cancer have received Nobel prizes, including for lifesaving bonemarrow transplantation. Through our commitment to the three Rs, our researchers already use computerbased or test tubebased experiments where appropriate before considering animalbased research and eventual human trials. We welcome initiatives investigating other alternatives to animalbased testing, such as the EU Seurat programme worth 50 million euro for its first phase completed in 2015. If similar funding was available here we would be involved and more research into alternatives would be carried out. Arguments about whether breakthroughs could have been made without using animals are not easy to support; bypassing animal trials to go straight to human trials pose much larger ethical concerns and risks to people’s health, as seen recently in Europe for example. The claims misinterpreting animal studies cost lives by delaying the use of blood transfusions or penicillin is disingenuous. Fleming’s test tubebased experiments also indicated penicillin might not be effective. A review years later, and more animal studies, finally revealed a way for his remarkable discovery to save lives.’’]