ESSAY 1 – ANIMALS

Introduction

Dog is man’s best friend. It can act as a guide, a carer, a tracker or even as a hunting

companion. Most canines remain to be their master’s loyal servants till death separates

them. However, in a research setting, our furry friends need to be euthanised after being

used as a tool to advance scientific knowledge. Despite being aware of the eventual fate of

their research subjects, scientists and animal technicians instinctively form bonds with many

laboratory animals. Their legally required killing can evoke strong feelings of guilt and

depression in animal researchers (Herzog, 2002). This may have been a motivation for the

banning of all animal research in 2029. Although, this appears to be an ethical legislative

measure, the impact on the future of Australian research may be detrimental. The

consequences of the law can be explored in the ethical, professional and commercial

dimensions.

Ethical

The use of humans

The banning of animals will result in a significant reduction in the number of available

research subjects. To fill this gap, researchers will potentially have to recruit more humans

for biomedical experiments. Historically, the use of animals has been justified on their lack

of decision making capacities. Ironically, humans with similar intellectual impairments are

provided with more protective measures than healthy individuals (Walker, 2006). Having to

work without animals, researchers may be pressured into recruiting more human subjects

to compensate for the lack of animals. Individuals who are socioeconomically

disadvantaged, mentally/physically impaired or those who come from non-english speaking

backgrounds may be attracted to these studies due to the offered benefits. Researchers will

have to exercise a strong legal and ethical rigour when recruiting these individuals as they

are at a higher risk of being coerced or exploited. Moreover, the translation of human

research to animal diseases may become an issue in and of itself. The benefits of animal

research have been shared by animals as well as humans. For example, the first vaccination

to combat a cancer causing virus, was used to prevent Marek’s disease in chickens (Quimby,

1998). Medical advances such as these may come to a standstill with the termination of

animal research. Scientists will be compelled to research cures for animal-based diseases on

human subjects. This opposes the human-centric utilitarianism which suggests that the

relative importance of humans over animals permits animal experimentation to treat

human diseases. Researchers will have to make moral judgements about their priorities

when conducting research under the new law.

The fate of animals that were bread for research

With the ban, animals that are currently residing in research facilities will need to be

euthanized or released into the wild. A return to the forest may not be feasible for the

experimented creatures as they may possess pathogens, be under extreme pain or be too

inexperienced or weak to survive in the wild. Furthermore, euthanisation appears to be the

most affordable method to terminate animal experimentation (Close et al., 1996). However,

a mass scale euthanization will have a significant psychological impact on the researchers.

Charles Darwin stated that, “[A vivisector who’s hand was licked by the suffering dog], must

have felt remorse for the last hour of his life” (Darwin, 1871). Scientists and animal carers
may require external assistance and psychological help if they are required to euthanise all

the animals in their laboratories.

Data fabrication

A meta-analysis revealed that 1.97% of researchers confessed to faking data, alongside a

33.7% admission rate for other unethical practices (Fanelli, 2009). In a field that is already

rife with deception, the prohibition of animal experimentation may lead to even higher

rates of data falsification. Data that have been collected from animals before the ban may

be replicated and reused inappropriately. In fact, an article from Nature was retracted after

it was found to have used the same mice in different settings as photos of different

experimental subjects (Raj et al., 2011). Researchers may be asked to destroy the animal

data that they have collected or to publish it as soon as possible. Under such a level of

pressure, scientists will find it difficult to produce high quality journal articles. The

authorities will need to be considerate of these issues when implementing the ban.

Professional

The need to develop alternative strategies

New experimental methodologies such as computer models, in vitro cultures, and genomic

models of yeast will need to be developed. Computer Aided Drug Design to create new

pharmaceuticals for a specific binding site and the Structural Activity Relationship Program

which identifies the biological activity of a drug based on its structure are under

development. Preserved in vitro cultures are already being used to produce insulin and to

test skin irritancy. Saccharomyces Cerevisiae (Yeast) can be utilised for genomic studies due
to their high gene density and small gene size (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). Microbiologists,

bioinformaticians and biomedical engineers may need to collaborate to develop these tools.

Animal researchers will need to retrain

Scientists who have primarily worked with animals will have to undergo training in a

different research field. This is likely to be very stressful as many researchers would have

completed a gruelling Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) with animals and obtained competitive

fellowships after rigorous applications. Studies have shown that many PhD candidates juggle

teaching, family commitments as well as dealing with practical setbacks while completing

their doctorate. Certain candidates are unable to complete their thesis on time due to

having multiple extraneous factors to deal with (Van De Schoot, Yerkes, Mouw, &

Sonneveld, 2013). After experiencing all this hardship, having to drastically change the

direction of their career may have a socially, emotionally and financially detrimental impact

on these academics. An emerging field that former animal researchers can transfer into is

the application of deep learning to medical imaging, genomics and proteomics (Cao et al.,

2018).

Young researchers will not be exposed to animal models

A challenge that many novice scientists used to face was learning how to conduct animal

experiments. The confronting process built the motivation and confidence of future

academics and prepared them for a challenging career in biomedical research (Morneau,

2018). Medical Students cherish and learn from animal studies, as is evident by the animal

memorial services conducted at The University of Washington (Lynch & Slaughter, 2001). It

appears that amateur researchers understand that animal experimentation is a privilege

that has been granted to further their understanding of biomedicine. Under the new
legislation they will not be able to gain that experience anymore. Instead, their teachers will

have to rely on Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) models to simulate animal anatomy and

physiology. Experiments using CAL demonstrated that it was more engaging and cheaper

than traditional teaching methods (Dewhurst, Hardcastle, Hardcastle, & Stuart, 1994).

Veteran researchers and their mentees would have to assist each other as they transition

from dissections and memorable animal interactions to robots and microbes.

Commercial

The monetary impact of transitioning away from animals

Animal research has played a major role in the world economy. A European Union

Commission from 2005 revealed that there was a perfect correlation between the GDP of a

country and the number of animals used in research (r2=0.99) (Bottini & Hartung, 2009).

Assuming this study is accurate, the elimination of all animal trials might have dire

consequences on the economy of Australia. The expedited development of new research

technology alongside the providence of government funding to train researchers to use

alternative procedures may ameliorate the law’s effect on the national economy.

“Anti-Science” groups may control funding

If the rumours about the influence of scientific quacks on the implementation of the new

law is true, they may also be controlling the funding for biomedical research. Scientists who

want to pursue meaningful research may be subjected to unnecessary bureaucratic

measures. Researchers may have to turn to philanthropists, entrepreneurs and charities as

federal funding is no longer reliable. As the future of Australian biomedicine is under threat

due to the influence of pseudoscience advocates, academics may need to pursue legal
action. Scientists can reach out to schools, universities and hold events to educate the

public about the importance of science. As the young children of today are the lawmakers of

the future, they may act to reverse the regressive policies implemented by scientifically

illiterate politicians.

An expensive drug development process

As researchers are now unable to utilise animal models for preliminary drug testing, they

will have to turn to humans. A new procedure named Accelerated Mass Spectrometry

allows human subjects to ingest a micro dose of a drug, which is then monitored in the body

via chemical analysis. It is currently unsafe to conduct human testing before the drug is

given to larger animals. Researchers can also look into cloning human cells for in vitro

studies. MatTek is a company that markets a human skin culture system named Epiderm,

which is used to test drug toxicity (Watts, 2007). Unless cost effective measures are created

to assist the drug development process, the decelerated bench to market pipeline, may hike

drug prices, impacting the health of patients. Pharmaceutical Industry representatives have

stated that they have been required to collect data that had no practical use, merely to

satisfy regulations (Robinson et al., 2008). The scientific community may be able to

campaign for the Parliament to amend the law to allow for limited animal drug trials, to

confirm the safety of a drug before human testing. This measure will be very beneficial for

researchers as it will be morally questionable, time consuming and costly to conduct initial

drug trials on humans.

Conclusion

Morally speaking, the stoppage of animal research appears to be a sound decision.

However, it could possibly have severe consequences on the ethical landscape, career
development and economic circumstances of biomedical researchers. However, the law

could have severe consequences on the ethical landscape, career development and

economic circumstances of biomedical researchers. If historical trends are followed,

humankind will adapt and evolve to confront these challenges. As the late physician and

epidemiologist, Hans Rosling stated, a “possibilist” attitude would enable the scientific

community to, “neither hope without reason, nor fear without reason….[and to] resist an

overdramatic worldview, [realising that] further progress is possible” (Rosling, Rosling, &

Rönnlund, 2018).

Word Count: 1639

Total Word Count: 3280

References

Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought... on the economics of animal testing. [Review].
Altex, 26(1), 3-16.
Cao, C., Liu, F., Tan, H., Song, D., Shu, W., Li, W., et al. (2018). Deep Learning and Its Applications in
Biomedicine. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, 16(1), 17-32.
Close, B., Banister, K., Baumans, V., Bernoth, E.-M., Bromage, N., Bunyan, J., et al. (1996).
Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1. Laboratory Animals,
30(4), 293-316.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and Selection in relation to sex, Vol 1.
Dewhurst, D. G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P. T., & Stuart, E. (1994). Comparison of a computer
simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of
intestinal absorption. Advances in Physiology Education, 267(6), S95.
Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical
Journal, 23(3), 223-229.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.
Herzog, H. (2002). Ethical Aspects of Relationships Between Humans and Research Animals. 43(1),
27-32.
Lynch, J., & Slaughter, B. (2001). Recognizing animal suffering and death in medicine. The Western
journal of medicine, 175(2), 131-132.
Morneau, D. (2018). Spotlight on early-career researchers: an interview with Marie Heffern.
Communications Biology, 1(1).
Quimby, F. (1998). Contributions to veterinary medicine from animal research. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 59(1-3), 183-192.
Raj, L., Ide, T., Gurkar, A. U., Foley, M., Schenone, M., Li, X., et al. (2011). Selective killing of cancer
cells by a small molecule targeting the stress response to ROS. Nature, 475(7355), 231-234.
Robinson, S., Delongeas, J.-L., Donald, E., Dreher, D., Festag, M., Kervyn, S., et al. (2008). A European
pharmaceutical company initiative challenging the regulatory requirement for acute toxicity
studies in pharmaceutical drug development. 50(3), 345-352.
Rosling, H., Rosling, O., & Rönnlund, A. R. (2018). Factfulness : ten reasons we're wrong about the
world - and why things are better than you think.
Van De Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw, J. M., & Sonneveld, H. (2013). What Took Them So Long?
Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68839.
Walker, R. L. (2006). Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect
versus Welfare. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(4), 305-331.
Watts, G. (2007). Alternatives to animal experimentation. BMJ, 334(7586), 182-184.