Animal Testing does more harm than good

In previous ROUNDS, I showed that animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advancement of the last century, for both human and animal health, and that this research is partially responsible for extending the human lifespan; that animal research has directly led to better understanding in the life-cycle of living disease-spreading pathogens, and has led to numerous treatments to fight off diseases these pathogens cause, including pathogens that are considered likely contenders in biowarfare and bioterror attacks; that animal testing (pre-clinical trials) are an inescapable first step in developing a safe drug . . . that avoiding animal testing would inevitably result in large numbers of human casualies and fatalities during the testing phase, because most experimental drugs never make it passed the trial phase using animal research; that a variety of different species of animals, domesticated and wild, have directly benefited from animal research; and that approximately 95% of all animals used for biomedical research are rats and mice, which have a much lower encephalization quotient (intelligence capacity) than humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and even cats.Now I'm going to cover how the biomedical research industry limits the use of animals in research and protects them from gratuitous (unnecessary) harm. Finally, I'm going to go over developing alternatives to animal testing in biomedical research, and why fewer animals should be used in this type of research (even if their use is still required in fewer numbers).The Three Rs & US LawIn 1957 through 1959, researchers W.M.S. Russell and L.S. Burch went to work constructing principles that animal researchers could use to remove unnecessary pain on animals during testing and to make the field more ethical [1][2]. Their final formulation were three principles that they labeled the "3Rs": Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement [2].Replacement is the idea that researchers should use alternatives to living vertebrate animals wherever possible in their research. Today, replacement strategies include tissue cultures, perfused organs, tissue slices, cellular and subcellular fractions [2]. These strategies are recommended to distribute as much of one animal in research as possible, and as a way of multiplying the animal through live tissue cultivation (which simultaneously aligns with the principle of Reduction). Though it's not always possible, the use of invertebrate animals in place of vertebrate animals in research is also suggested.Reduction refers to the strategy of minimizing the number of animals used in a study [2]. This has the added benefit of having researchers better plan their studies, to prevent unnecessary replication. Modern methods at reduction include computer modeling, and statistical analysis, to better understand what a research result is getting at. Relying on previously published studies can also avoid unnecessary replication of test results and the gratuitous injury or death of lab animals.Finally, refinement was the last principle that Russell and Burch supported. Refinement is the strategy of intentionally alleviating or minimizing potential pain and suffering, or enchancing animal welfare during research [2]. Methods include properly housing animals during, before and after research, training animals to cooperate during research, providing animals with anaesthesia or an analgesic during testing, and avoiding invasive techniques where possible [2].Even though the 3Rs are a code of principles that animal researchers are encouraged to adhere to within the United States, they are not by themselves laws that govern biomedical research. Furthermore, even though knowledge of the 3Rs is widespread within the biomedical research community, they are not something every researcher is fully aware of--a major drawback [2].For this reason the US government passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Regulations in 1966 [3]. (U.S. Congress later improved standards for laboratory animals in 1985 [3].) The act imposed several important regulations, including requiring that all facilities doing animal research be registered with the US government; that certain animals used for research be purchased from authorized vendors only; that research facilities adhere to a variety of minimum requirements to meet humane handling, care, treatment, and transporation of these animals [4]. The Regulations also required that scientists working in the animal research laboratories be properly trained to meet the humane requirements for animal handling and proper care [4].Some US States have imposed additional regulations for animal treatment in animal research laboratories [5]As we see there are already regulations in place that govern the treatment of research animals inside the United States, though how well these regulations get researchers to comform to the three Rs is a hot button topic. One common complaint directed at the animal research field is that the majority of invasive animal experiments do not pass the cost-benefit test required by regulations and advocated by the three Rs [6]. Each year it's estimated that well over a hundred million animals die globally for animal testing in industry and in the medical research field [7].In light of the sheer number of animal fatalities, and because animal testing remains a controversial subject within the United States, several US government organization, including branches of the US military, have recently acted to reduce their dependence on animal testing [7]. In 2013, for example, the US NIH announced it would reduce the number and eventually phase out experiments on chimpanzees [7]. In 2014, the US Coast Guard announced it would reduce the use of goats in combat medic training, since modern mannequins are considered efficient in simulating the movement and behavior of the human body; that same year, the Department of Defense announced it would be reducing the number of animals used in various training programs [7].New & Developing Alternatives to Animal TestingThe sheer number of animals used in animal research annually--nearly 100 million in the United States alone [7]--should seriously get us to question whether researchers are conforming to the Principles of the 3Rs. After all, few of us want to impose unnecessary injury or death on animals where it can be avoided, even if there is some alleged benefit to ourselves. Futhermore, the concept of inflicting mass death to attain life (or a higher quality life) is unattractive, and can only make us mentally comfortable if we place civil regulations to it (unless you're a Nihilist). It's the way our justice-seeking, ethic-forming brains were wired to work. We generally want order, and we're capable of understanding that animals have feelings, too.Recently, scientists and engineers at Harvard have developed "organs on a chip" [7]. These tiny contraptions contain humans cells in three dimensional space, that mimic specific human organs. These chips can be used in place of animals for in vitro disease research, drug testing, and toxicity test [7]. Just a few years ago, researchers at L'oreal successfully 3-D printed genuine human skin, which it now sells to cosmetic and pharmocology companies; researchers say that other types of organ tissue can also be 3-D printed for research purposes [8].Computer simulation and modeling is another expanding technique used to replace animals in research [8]. Though this technique has provided real benefit to the biomedical research field, the US Academy of Sciences has argued that complex computer models are still unable to fully simulate the complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, and organs [8].[1] http://altweb.jhsph.edu...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...(animals)[3] http://awic.nal.usda.gov...[4] https://www.gpo.gov...[5] www.ca-biomed.org/pdf/media-kit/fact-sheets/FS-Laws.pdf[6] http://theconversation.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.wired.com...