printer friendly, larger print version

58 million reasons why vivisection should stop
Dec 17, 2008

Dr Katy Taylor and colleagues from the BUAV and Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research very recently published the most accurate estimate of global laboratory animal use, to date (1). They estimated that 58,339,972 living non-human vertebrates were subjected to fundamental or medically-applied biomedical research, toxicity testing, or educational use, in 179 countries (including all with a human population > 200,000), in 2005. Taylor and colleagues also provided an extremely useful ranking table estimating laboratory animal use figures in most of these countries. The largest users were the US, followed by Japan and Great Britain.

By using weighted means to average data from countries where it existed, I've just published an estimate that 68,607,807 additional animals may have been killed for the provision of experimental tissues, used to maintain established genetically- By using weighted means to average data from countries where it existed, I've just published an estimate that 68,607,807 additional animals may have been killed for the provision of experimental tissues, used to maintain established genetically-

Further details of these studies are available at:
(http://www.animalex periments. info/studies/ animal_use_ worldwide_ 2005.htm)

To date, these remain the most accurate estimations of global laboratory animal use, significantly updating previous estimations which have been based on variable expert opinions, or very limited surveys.

Despite their magnitude, it appears likely that these estimates remain highly conservative. As identified by Taylor and colleagues, for example, their estimate of 17.3 million living vertebrates used within the US is very significantly less than a 2000 US Animal Plant Health Inspection Service estimate of 31156 million, based on extrapolation from the results of a survey of only 50 of 2,000 research institutions (3). Furthermore, these estimates exclude several other categories of concern, such as some invertebrate species now understood to have advanced capacity for suffering, including certain cephalopods, and studies on advanced fetal developmental stages.

I hope this information will be useful to those working on animal experimentation.

Andrew Knight
Animal Consultants International
www.AnimalConsultan.com
References:

1. Taylor, K., Gordon, N., Langley, G. & Higgins, W. (2008). Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA 36, 327342.

2. Knight A. 127 million non-human vertebrates used worldwide for scientific purposes in 2005. ATLA: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36(5): 494-496.

3. USDA (2000). Rats, mice and birds database: researchers, breeders, transporters, and exhibitors. A database prepared by the federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the United States Department of Agri cultures Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, August 2000. Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis.usda.gaphis.usda.gov/

'the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%'

Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance to Man, Lumley and Walker (eds) (Quay, 1989), 57-67

Why vivisection needs to end

http://blogs. usatoday. com/oped/ 2008/12/opposing -view-1.html
15 December 2008.
Opposing view: Replace animal experiments. Testing on animals is not only cruel, its benefit for humans is doubtful.
By John J. Pippin

There are many things wrong with the use of intimidation and violence in the critical debate over animal research. In addition to being anathema in our society, such tactics obscure important issues regarding animal experiments and human health.

I am a cardiologist and a former animal researcher. I stopped experimenting on animals after I came to doubt the medical value of such research. Today, a growing number of physicians, scientists and scientific agencies believe that moving to non-animal research and testing methods is critical to advancing human health.

Numerous reports confirm very poor correlations between animal research results and human results, and the research breakthroughs so optimistically reported in the media almost always fail in humans.

Examples abound. Every one of 197 human trials using 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines tested in animals has failed. More than 150 human stroke trials using treatments successful in animals have failed, as have at least two dozen animal diabetes cures.

Vioxx was tested successfully in eight studies using six animal species, yet this anti-inflammatory medication may have caused the deaths of more Americans than the Vietnam War. The monoclonal antibody TGN1412 was safe in monkeys at 500 times the dose tested in humans, yet all six British volunteers who received the drug in 2006 nearly died.

Conversely, simple aspirin produces birth defects in at least seven animal species, yet is safe in human pregnancy. When even identical human twins have different disease susceptibilities, how can we think answers will be found in mice or monkeys?

The National Cancer Institute now uses panels of human cells and tissues to test treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and to detect drug toxicities. And the National Research Council now recommends replacing animal toxicity testing with in vitro methods.

I can attest that animal research is inherently cruel. Animal protection laws do not mitigate this reality. Whether the debate involves humane issues or human benefits, the evidence confirms the need to replace animal experiments with more accurate human-specific methods. That's the best way to make progress and improve health.

John J. Pippin is a senior medical and research adviser with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

"Tests on animals have led to around 100 drugs being thought potentially useful for stroke; not one has proved effective in humans. You don't need to be a balaclava-wearing animal rights activist to question the value of animal studies in this area of medical research."

TheFirstPost. 25 January 2007.