Can we all at least focus on the Yet?

If you ask me, we should cease animal experiments immediately. Aside from animal suffering, itself reason enough to end the cruel practice, experiments using non-humans are not adequately predictive of human conditions.[1] Logically therefore, I question why human research should continue to be based on a flawed model.

Many vivisectors would not agree with me, but they areincreasingly acknowledging the limitations of animals as models for human disease. So often I have seen them argue that despite the limitations and a personal preference to avoid harming animals, we are not in a position to completely replace them – yet.

Perhaps it's time we focus on this “yet” business and consider how we can change the “are not yet ready to replace animals” to “now ready to replace animals”. So, what is stopping this?

I would like to assume that every researcher would prefer to not harm animals in the name of research (unless they are a psychopath). So, if the ultimate goal of all of us is to achieve genuine medical progress and to not harm animals in the process, what is the obstacle that prevents this from happening NOW? Is it the unavailability of non-animal methods and technologies? And if so, how are we ever going to develop these non-animal methods and technologies if our government does not provide the incentives for our researchers?

Humane Research Australia has recently launched a campaign “I am not a lab tool”.

Despite our supposed commitment to the 3Rs principle of Replace, Reduce and Refine, 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 - and with growing concern within the research community that flawed animal studies are contributing significantly to failures in translational research - this is an area that requires urgent attention. 

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.

It is acknowledged that Australian funding bodies will accept applications for 3R’s research, however their systems of application review mean that due to the high level of competition, 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. We need this both to reduce animal suffering in labs and also to ensure that Australia is a pioneer at the forefront of developing new non-animal technologies which will be more likely to result in clinical application (ie of greater benefit to humans).

Hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed for medical research every year. As the validity of animal testing is increasingly questioned, Australian research is in danger of becoming irrelevant. There is a compelling argument for allocating a significant proportion of funding to provide financial incentives for researchers to develop alternatives – as is already happening in other nations. Once such incentives are realised we should finally get all researchers to agree that yes, we can replace animals – and we can do it now!

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust

---

[1] There is over a 90% failure rate of drugs deemed “successful” in preclinical animal tests.