Even before the creation of Antidote Europe, its future founding members had developed an argument—tested during numerous debates with researchers who defended animal experimentation—demonstrating that no animal species serves as a biological model for another (see https://antidote-europe.eu/programme-de-toxicologie-scientifique-pts/).
A species is defined by its reproductive isolation, meaning that members of different species cannot interbreed (a dog cannot breed with a monkey). This stems from the fact that a given species possesses a unique genetic makeup, encompassing everything from chromosome number and structure to the regulation of gene expression. Modern biology has shown that an individual’s genetic makeup determines the precise biological activities of its cells, tissues, and organs. Consequently, individuals of different species possess different genetic makeups and therefore exhibit different biological activities.
Other arguments—drawing on empirical evidence, complexity theory, and evolutionary biology—lead to the same conclusion: “even if legitimate criticisms of animal models were addressed through the standardization of protocols and systematic reviews, animal models would continue to fail as predictive tools for human responses to drugs or diseases” (see note 8 at http://antidote-europe.org/publications-presse-scientifique/ [verify links work] and, in particular, the French version at https://antidote-europe.eu/public/IntJMedSci.pdf).
Chimpanzees—our closest evolutionary relatives—do not share our biological reactions to certain viruses. They are no longer used in research. In 2015, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it would no longer fund biomedical research involving chimpanzees (see the reference and other relevant information at https://antidote-europe.eu/doit-on-encore-experimenter-singes/). If biomedical research can do without chimpanzees—which, in theory, represent the best possible biological model for humans—why could it not also do without monkey models that are even less similar to us? Or dog models? Or rat and mouse models?…
Reliable methods exist for assessing the toxicity of chemical substances to humans. Many of these methods are easier to implement, less costly, and faster than animal testing (see our dossier at https://antidote-europe.eu/methodes-alternatives-recherche-animale/). By helping to identify toxic substances, their large-scale use would enable better human health prevention and improved environmental protection.
Conversely, given that a single product can be declared harmless or carcinogenic depending on the animal species used for testing, it is evident that animal experimentation serves as a valuable tool for securing market authorization for products—even dangerous ones.
By engaging with researchers who use animals, regulatory agency officials, policymakers, industry representatives, doctors, students, journalists, and the general public, Antidote Europe confronts those who still support animal experimentation with their responsibility for the decline in human health, environmental pollution, and the needless slaughter of animals in laboratories.
We do not merely denounce practices; our researchers have actively participated in scientific studies.
– As early as 2005—pioneers in the field—we proposed using DNA microarrays to assess toxic effects by measuring the activity of specific genes in human cells exposed to chemical substances (see note no. 2 at http://antidote-europe.org/publications-presse-scientifique/). “Toxicogenomics” (as this technique is known), pharmacogenomics (when the substance being tested is a drug), and various other “omics” have since become commonplace in laboratories worldwide. – In 2012, we demonstrated certain effects of pesticide “cocktails” on cultured human neuronal cells—once again pioneering reliable methods for assessing the impact of combined substances (see note no. 6 at http://antidote-europe.org/publications-presse-scientifique/ [check that links work]).
Image: *La Notice d’Antidote* – Sept. 2012 (No. 32) – “Our neurons: victims of pesticides”
Caption: We are exposed daily to pesticides and other chemical substances whose effects on human health have not been adequately assessed. Many pesticides attack our neurons. It is possible (and we have done it!) to demonstrate these effects without resorting to animal testing. Tests on human cells provide reliable information on the disruptions these pesticides cause to our gene expression.
A chemical substance intended to become a human medicine is first tested on animals and subsequently on humans—initially on healthy volunteers, then on patients. Out of ten substances successfully tested on animals, only one manages to clear all stages of human testing (known as “clinical trials”) and receive marketing authorization. This means that animal testing has a failure rate… of 90%!
The fact that animal trials precede human trials means that drugs potentially safe and effective for humans—but which show the opposite characteristics in animals—are discarded. Consequently, the failure rate of animal testing is likely far higher than 90%. To quote Thomas Hartung, a professor of toxicology: “We are not 70-kilogram rats!”
Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), require pharmaceutical companies to provide data demonstrating that drugs are safe and effective. However, the choice of how to obtain this data is largely left to the manufacturer. Manufacturers tend to provide data with which the authorities are already familiar. Thus, routine animal tests are more readily accepted than data derived from modern, non-animal methods, simply because authorities are less accustomed to dealing with the latter.
Antidote Europe warns of the risks faced by the first human volunteers to test drug candidates. Their “informed consent” must be obtained in writing. But just how “informed” is the consent based on the available data? (see https://antidote-europe.eu/le-consentement-aux-essais-de-medicaments-peut-il-etre-eclaire/). Progress is on the horizon in the United States, now that the FDA Modernization Act has eliminated the requirement to test drug candidates on animals before human trials. Unfortunately, the road from legislation to practice can still be long. To implement the law, the FDA must harmonize a number of its regulations. Will Europe follow suit? We are watching closely.
