The Netherlands National Committee for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (NCad) “aims to make a significant contribution to minimising laboratory animal use, both at national and international level.”In March 2016, the Dutch Minister for Agriculture, Martijn van Dam, asked NCad to draw up a schedule for the phasing out of animal procedures. His aim is for the Netherlands to be “World leader in innovations without laboratory animals by 2025.”
If the Netherlands can do this, what is stopping Australia?
Following two workshops in June and July, a public consultation in September and expert opinions, the NCad released their report ‘Transition to non-animal research methods – On opportunities for the phasing out of animal procedures and the promotion of innovation without laboratory animals’.
The report makes recommendations under three different themes: Clear transition objectives, Transition strategy and Management of the transition. It recognises the potential for a “significant reduction in the use of laboratory animals” in the area of regulatory research (safety testing of chemicals, food ingredients, pesticides and veterinary medicines), but also acknowledges that it will involve a “paradigm shift away from existing mindsets and practices.”
Latest statistics (2014) show that 563,769 laboratory animals were used in the Netherlands. The report states “Since the current laboratory animal registration system was introduced in the Netherlands in 1978, the use of laboratory animals in the Netherlands has decreased by approximately two thirds.”
That same year, Australia used over 6.99 million animals in research. Rather than decreasing, our numbers have surged at an alarming rate.
The 3R’s principle (Replace, Reduce and Refine animal experiments) was adopted by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council in 1984. It is a universally-accepted principle aimed at guiding the humane treatment of animals used in experiments whilst ultimately seeking their replacement.
In 1989, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, in its report to the Australian Government, recommended “that the Commonwealth Government establish a separate fund for research into the use of alternatives to animal experimentation and that grants be disbursed from this fund by a board composed of representatives from the scientific community, animal welfare organisations, ACCART [now ANZCCART] and government authorities.” As confirmed by ANZCCART[1], this fund has never been established.
Australia has made very little progress in replacing animals in research, as illustrated by the vast numbers of animals used each year (Australia has been cited as the fourth highest user[2]), and with growing concern within the research community that flawed animal studies are contributing significantly to failures in translational research[3] - this is an area that requires urgent attention.
Consider too, the following acknowledgment by the Victorian Government in its discussion paper on Victoria’s health and medical research strategy:
Page 19: “Australia punches far above its weight by producing 3 per cent of global research publications with only 0.3 per cent of the world’s population. However, compared with international standards, Australia has a poor record of commercial translation…”
HRA is currently communicating with state and federal ministers and funding bodies to reiterate the importance of research into alternatives to animals and urging them to provide some form of financial incentives for researchers. So far, the responses have not been promising.
The use of animals in research is, according to the code, for cases where no alternative exists, but alternatives will never exist without support for the development of non-animal based scientific testing. There have been international moves towards supporting alternatives to animals in research. Techniques such as computer modelling, genomics, nanotechnology, microdosing and microfluidic chips, just to name a few, have been developed with government funding and support to provide human-relevant models.
It is acknowledged that Australian funding bodies will accept applications for “3R’s research”, however their systems of application review mean that those applications do not stand a realistic chance of success. Therefore, the only way such applications would succeed through the system would be for dedicated funds being set aside specifically for this area of research.
In fact, due to such disincentives, Australian researchers keen to pursue alternatives research have had to resort to overseas funding.[4]
Considering the growing evidence that animal research does not demonstrate best practice for medical research, and that the Australian public is opposed to the use of animals in this way, it would be remiss for the our government to exclude provision for research to replace animals in medical research and waste the opportunity to illustrate their commitment to the 3R’s Principle, which would in turn contribute to more innovative, high-quality and translatable research.
The Netherlands are showing that this can be done. I am hopeful that Australia will recognise this important area of research and not continue to lag behind the rest of the world in developing alternatives to the misguided and duplicitous use of animals in medical research.
For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust
[1]Personal email from Dr Geoff Dandie, CEO, Australia and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, 14 December 2016
[2]Taylor K et al. (2008) Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Altern Lab Anim 36:327-42.
[3] http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/research.html
[4]Personal conversation with Dr Geoff Dandie, CEO, Australia and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, 16 December 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment