October
1995
Behind
Locked Doors: The Failure of Animal Models
By Marjorie Cramer, M.D., F.A.C.S.
|
|
|
Despite animal research’s dubious past value, the
public is often warned that animal experiments will be necessary to
control today’s most feared diseases, such as AIDS and Alzheimer’s.
Regarding AIDS, this claim is particularly suspect, because only humans
develop AIDS from the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and all animal
“models” of AIDS differ fundamentally from the human condition.
Animal models of AIDS fail to address the essential issue of co-factors
(such as diet, exercise, lifestyle, drug use, etc.) in the development
of the disease. Progress against AIDS has derived from human clinical
investigation and in vitro studies of the virus itself. Indeed, some
human vaccine trials have been performed without encouraging animal
data because it is recognized that animals cannot reliably predict
which
AIDS vaccines will work.
Similarly, only humans develop Alzheimer’s. The many animal “models”
that exhibit some of Alzheimer’s features are like line drawings
to depict people. The superficial similarity does not constitute a
valid
model from which extrapolations can be made.
Another telling example is animal models of stroke, in which artificially
induced brain blood-vessel occlusions have resulted in conditions which
do not meaningfully resemble human strokes. According to neurologist
David Wiebers, the dozens of animal “models” of stroke
may impede rather than advance stroke management.
While all animal models are problematic, animal models of mental disorders
are particularly compromised because interspecies communications difficulties
undermine attempts to determine the animal’s mental state. Not
surprisingly, all major drugs affecting mental states and cognition
have been discovered through clinical investigation, usually serendipitous
observations of side-effects of existing drugs. Nevertheless, animal
models of mental disorders continue to receive huge financial support.
Animal experimenters, exploiting the general public’s ignorance
of medical history and the process of medical discovery, have convinced
most people that animal experimentation is required for medical progress.
The public is largely unaware of what happens behind the locked, well-guarded
laboratory doors. Experimenters typically paint a rosy picture, assuring
the public that animals are treated humanely in laboratories. However,
all animal experimentation involves suffering — often from
the experimental manipulations themselves, always from confinement,
social deprivation, and other aspects of the unnatural and stressful
laboratory environment.
The claim by animal experimenters that animals are used only when absolutely
necessary and that numbers used are minimized, seems to require that
the public engage in wishful thinking. Many experimenters have made
a career of animal experimentation and are very unlikely to procure
funding doing other forms of research.
Although animal experimenters claim to promote “animal welfare,” they
have opposed all legislative efforts to significantly improve conditions
for animals used in experiments. For example, as a consequence of their
efforts, 90 percent of animals in laboratories, including mice, rats,
and birds, are totally unprotected by law. A 1993 federal court ruled
that the 1985 Animal Welfare Act requires coverage for these animals,
but this has been appealed.
Assurance that strict regulations protect animals in laboratories from “unnecessary suffering” are hollow because the federal regulations
clearly place the welfare of the animals in the hands of the experimenters.
Most oversight rests with institutional animal care and use committees
(IACUCs) but they are run by animal experimenters. Hoping that people
who regularly harm animals will treat them “humanely” is
unrealistic. Occasionally, genuine animal advocates have been asked
to serve, but they can be outvoted easily, and most have resigned in
frustration. Many animal advocates have conceded that IACUCs serve
more
to protect experimenters from public scrutiny than to protect animals.
In summary, animal experimenters have presented the public with a distorted
view of medical history and of the process of medical discovery. Although
animal experimentation is inherently unsound, not all of it is totally
irrelevant to humans. It may sometimes facilitate, but it is not necessary
for, medical progress. Part of the overall cost to people is the reality
that worthless experiments siphon off money that could better be spent
on prevention and treatment. If we choose to apply utilitarian principles,
we must weigh the cost of animal experimentation — to humans
in terms of billions of dollars spent annually and the deleterious effects
of misleading information and to animals in terms of the tens of millions
killed annually and their immense suffering — against its
marginal, occasional benefits.
Marjorie Cramer, M.D., F.A.C.S. is a surgeon and
member of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. She is Clinical
Associate Attending Physician at Saint Vincent’s Hospital and
Medical Center, New York City and Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery,
New York Medical College. She lives in Brooklyn.
 |
|
|
 |
