New EPA Decision on Animal Testing
Early in September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they were moving away from animal testing. Andrew Wheeler, the EPA administrator, said that the EPA wants to reduce testing on mammals by 30% for 2025 and eliminate it completely for 2035 (Zaveri 2019). Chemicals are routinely tested on a variety of animals for toxicity. In biomedical experiments, mammals such as rats and mice are used to test novel drugs and look at specific genetic information. Animals have been used for drug testing, toxicological screenings, studies on the effects of medical procedures/surgeries, and vaccine and antibiotic testing (Doke 2015). There is controversy over the use of animals in this way: animal rights organizations argue that animal testing is inhumane and should not be allowed, while researchers stress the scientific importance of animal experimentation.
The announcement prompted continued discussion on the debate around animal testing in research, which has been around for a long time. Multiple acts in the 1960’s were passed to lessen cruelty towards animals (Doke 2015). The current animal research regulation is the “3 Rs”: replace animals with alternative models if feasible, reduce the number of animal subjects as much as possible, and refine methods to minimize pain and distress (Degrazia 2019). However, these research regulations are outdated by modern technology and developments. There are additional frameworks that could be employed in response to the current sentiment. There is a growing public concern for animal welfare, further understanding of animals’ cognitive abilities, an emerging discipline of animal ethics, growing concerns of translation from animal studies to human treatments, and the increasing advancements in alternative methods (Degrazia 2019). The two values that are in play here are social benefit and animal welfare, and how to balance both of them for the benefit of both humans and animals. Scientific testing does attempt to limit work on animals, to an extent.
Alternate ways of testing chemicals are being produced with the use of advanced technology. These methods could potentially replace animal testing (Zaveri 2019). Computer modeling and certain computer programs, like Structure Activity Relationship, are used to help predict a drug’s effect in a bioalogical system, such as carcinogenicity and mutagenicity (Doke 2015). Potentially harmful drugs can be screened out before they are tested on a living thing. There is also the benefit of computer models being relatively fast and inexpensive. One specific technology is called “Organs-on-Chips,” which is a microchip lined with human cells (Zaveri 2019). There is a focus on using cells and tissues in order to pre-screen drugs as well, before moving on to the full organism. Yet these do not replace an organism, and eventually the drug will have to move on to animal testing and human clinical trials. Other possibilities are to use different animals, such as lower vertebrates like fish and amphibians (Doke 2015). This could be tricky, as their genetics are increasingly distant from humans It also raises the question of why ethics seem to be applied only to mammals and higher vertebrate animals. There is no easy alternative to animal testing, and many methods are simply a way of combing out potentially harmful drugs prior to the animal testing.
There is some debate on whether or not these alternatives are as effective as animal testing. While some scientists see these methods as slightly useful, others stress that animal testing was the only method that could look at the negative impacts of a chemical and reliably translate its effects to people (Zaveri 2019). Currently, animals are still important to study diseases such as cancer. Animals also allow scientists to view the entire living system. With the complexity of a biological system, it is not reliable to measure effects on just one small component.
Other government agencies are also recognizing the debate. The Federal Drug Administration has begun looking at alternatives for animal testing, while also acknowledging that animal research is necessary (Zaveri 2019). The National Institutes of Health is also reducing animal research and ended invasive research on chimpanzees in 2015 (Zaveri 2019). The Department of Veterans Affairs maintains that animal testing remains essential, especially in their developments of better insulin delivery systems (Zaveri 2019). Even with the decreased animal testing, many agencies are not employing a strict deadline to remove all testing.
Even with the scientific alarm of completely removing all animal experimentations, the scientific community is dedicated to reducing animal testing as much as possible. While there are limitations in certain technologies and methodologies, there is the very real possibility of more ethical and efficient systems in the future. Regardless, it is important for constructive communication between animal research and animal protection groups.
Works Cited
Degrazia, David and Beauchamp, Tom L. (2019). An ethical framework for animal research. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from: https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0927-ethical-research-20190926-g3eyf2qpinff5owjwjrx27mtwm-story.html
Doke, Sonali K. and Dhawale, Shashikant C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3): 223-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
Zaveri, Mihir, Padilla, Mariel, and Peiser, Jaclyn. (2019). E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/climate/epa-animal-testing.html?module=inline
