The idea is that experiments are first performed
in the lab, are then performed in animals, and these experiments inform the
eventual human studies. As a (seemingly) necessary step in this chain, animal
experiments are (rightly or wrongly) tolerated based on their eventual benefit
to humans. Animal studies however, are not good predictors of human trials,
often do not inform human trials, and are methodologically inferior to human
trials, so much so, that the results from animal studies are unreliable and
biased. In other words, animal studies are often of no benefit to humans.
Arguably, they do not benefit humans at all, let alone enough to justify their
use. We either need to fix the problem or get out of the animal research game.
Problem 1: Animal research not
translating to humans
Often, research just fails to make the cross-species
jump to humans. For example, animal studies showing an association between
stress and coronary heart disease were not replicated in humans. Biologically,
there are many other reasons why findings in one species are not applicable in
another (different immune systems, drug tolerances, behavioural traits, etc.).
Also, animal studies often assume ‘ideal’ situations that do not take into
account the complexities (concurrent diseases, social aspects, concurrent
treatments, etc.) of modern human life and healthcare.
The overall failure of animal research to
provide benefit to humans is covered in this 2014 BMJ article (here)
Problem 2: The lack of consideration given to
animal studies
Examples exist where animal studies were done
after clinical (human) trials had already concluded that the treatment was of
no benefit. Other examples exist of animal studies being done simultaneously
with (human) clinical trials. A good review of the lack of consideration given
to animal research can be found in this 2004 BMJ review (here).
In these cases, human benefit cannot be derived
from animal research. Therefore, the research is unethical as the animals have
been harmed without providing gain to humans. Oh, and by “harmed”, I usually
mean killed. And by “killed” I don’t mean sacrificed, as this implies that the
death has been traded for some benefit – I just mean killed.
Problem 3: The lack of quality of animal studies
We often consider studies done in a laboratory
to be scientifically superior; to be ‘pure’ or ‘basic’ research’, as opposed to
applied or clinical research done in humans, which is (supposedly) complex and
harder to control. The opposite is true. Given the regulatory and ethical
oversight of clinical research and advances in research methodology, clinical
research is now of a very high scientific standard. It isn’t always, but it is
getting harder to do bad research, and the overall standard continues to rise.
Animal research is methodologically inferior to
human clinical research. The 2004 BMJ review (here) showed that the standards demanded of clinical
research are not routinely applied in animal research. For example, animal
studies are often not randomised, not blinded, not registered, underpowered
(too small), and prone to selective reporting bias and publication bias.
Consequently, they are ripe for biased interpretations and p-hacking from the
researchers. If human research is meant to be informed by animal research, then
the humans had better watch out.
To be blunt, the results of animal research are
more likely to be wrong than human research. There is considerable room for
improvement in the quality of animal research, but these recent reviews (here and here) tell us
that despite efforts to improve animal research, things are still bad.
The bottom line
Animal research either needs to improve or stop.
In saying this, I have not considered animal ethics, partly because it is a
difficult area, and partly because my argument doesn’t need it. Animal research
is methodologically poor, the results unreliable, often not transferable to
humans and largely ignored but despite this, it still gets funded because it is
considered ‘pure’ research. Animal research should be reduced and refined, and
be replaced where possible (the “3 Rs”) Otherwise it is just another WOFTAM whose
benefits are, you guessed it, overestimated. (WOFTAM: waste of time and money)
Note: this post is about animal research in
which animals are harmed, because in order to balance that harm, you need to
have a potential benefit. My argument is that the benefit is either
non-existent or much less than we supposed. I have no problem with non-harmful
animal research.
