A necessary evil?

Animal testing is vital, claim pharmaceutical giants.

"Without animal research and testing, there would be no new medicines." That is the clear line taken by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

Jackie Hunter, chairman of the EFPIA Priority Action Team on Animal Welfare, says: "Antibiotics is a clear example of where animal testing has been invaluable…without animal testing, there would not just be no antibiotics to treat infectious diseases: there would also be no routine hospital operations - like hip replacements or heart transplants - because the infection rates would be too high."

Animals have also been "incredibly important" for anti-cancer treatments, adds Hunter, who is also vice-president of healthcare multinational GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases are two other areas in which animal tests are advancing research.

"It’s important that patients see the clear benefits from animal testing," says Hunter. "Animals are very predictive of what we will see in a human."

Animals are principally used for two types of testing by pharmaceutical researchers. The first is classic toxicology tests, in which a new product is tested on animals to predict human reactions.

The second test category involves transgenic animals - usually mice. Here, animals are bred to carry genetic dispositions for hereditary diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

Tests on transgenic mice mean that antibody compounds for Alzheimer’s are undergoing clinical trials in months rather than years, says Hunter.

She adds that GSK is also developing animal testing alternatives, including computer imaging technologies and a multi-million euro laboratory using human tissue for tests instead of animals. The laboratory uses tissue left over from hospital operations, typically circumcision.

"Nobody wants to use animals in research," says Hunter. "If there were enough viable alternatives we would be using them."

She adds that high animal welfare standards have to be observed in EU laboratories, for both legal and practical reasons. "If you don’t have good welfare, you won’t get good science," she says. "Anxious or stressed animals will not respond in a biologically meaningful way."

But animal rights activists remain unconvinced. A series of attacks and attempted attacks on animal research centres in the UK this year prompted the British government to launch ‘Operation Achilles’: a police operation which has seen the arrest of 35 suspected extremists.

The European Commission has delayed the revision of 1986 animal testing rules from the start of the year to October. Officials have been reluctant to draw the attention of animal rights activists to the proposal, which aims to improve laboratory animal welfare standards but also to reassure industry and research groups which fear activist reprisals. The Commission has also come under pressure to propose a total ban on primate testing.

MEPs yesterday (5 September) asked the Commission to establish a timetable for replacing laboratory primates with other animals.

Although it is estimated that less than 1% of animal tests are currently carried out on primates, including apes and chimpanzees, some researchers say these tests are essential in the search for a cure for diseases such as hepatitis and AIDS.

Animal testing is vital, claim pharmaceutical giants.