Across all fields of biomedical and human toxicology research, animal data are accepted as valid, even though they can be misleading when applied to humans. The consequences of these errors include adverse drug reactions and the waste of time and money on developing therapies that prove ineffective for humans. It is time to move away from reliance on animal research and instead adopt methods—often labeled “alternative” by authorities—that are, in reality, the truly scientific and reliable approaches for humans.
By Hélène Sarraseca
This is a question we are frequently asked.
But first, why are animals used when animal research fails to provide data that is relevant or predictive for humans? The reasons are practical rather than scientific:
more than 70% of the animals used are rodents; they elicit little public sympathy; they are easy to house and feed; they reproduce quickly and have short lifespans, allowing a researcher to study multiple generations within a single career; they lend themselves to rapid studies, enabling researchers to increase their publication output—a key factor for career advancement; they are supplied by commercial companies via catalogs detailing the specific genetic and physiological characteristics of each “strain,” allowing researchers to select the exact species and strain needed to achieve their desired results; etc.
in toxicology, regulators are accustomed to handling dossiers containing animal data and lack reference data based on humans;
researchers who use animals may not be familiar with modern methods, which would require new investments (in terms of both money and training time).
Animals are used in four areas: biology and medical education; toxicology; applied research; and basic research. The question of replacing them with methods capable of providing data relevant to humans arises differently depending on the field in question. The adoption of “alternative” methods is both a scientific and a legal issue.
