The Ethics of Animal Testing

Humane or inhumane? That is the question every scientist finds themselves asking at some point in their career. Scientific and medical testing on animals of any species has always been a hot topic for debate. What constitutes a living organism? Do humans have a moral obligation to protect other species? Do the animals we test on even comprehend the concept of pain? How is the scientific community handling the constant increase of testing on living organisms? These are all questions we answer today with the help of Dr. Melissa Kane, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, who is studying the interactions of retroviruses (e.g. HIV) within host organisms.

We start off by looking at what constitutes an organism to be living or non-living and how such an organism may fit into the category of being an “animal.” An age-old debate within the scientific community questions whether a virus, such as HIV, is considered to be living or not. Dr. Kane explains how a virus is both alive and not alive: in the case of non-living, “if you define life as something that conducts metabolic processes… then viruses are not alive.” However, Dr. Kane goes on to elaborate that “[viruses] have a genetic material that exists unto themselves… proteins with enzymatic activity,” and the way they go about gaining the resources necessary for such proteins is quite irrelevant; therefore, it is safe to assume viruses are indeed living organisms. How does the case for a virus, living or nonliving, fit into the category of being an animal? According to Dr. Kane, “if it [the organism] fits the taxonomic definition of animal, then [she] would consider it to be one.” However, she explicitly states that organisms such as yeasts would not be animals and would simply fit into the broader category of Eukaryotes.

What does a virus have to do with the ethics of animal testing? Well, that’s just it: viruses, living or not, are studied inside other living organisms which may be considered animals, such as the mice used in Dr. Kane’s lab. Researchers like Dr. Kane are all quite familiar with William Russell and Rex Burch’s Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Throughout their book, Russell and Burch delve into the processes that dictate the humanity of animal testing. One of these processes is the use of reduction, refinement, and replacement, in which the experimental techniques a researcher may use on animals are optimized to be the best technique they can possibly be. According to Dr. Kane, “if the question can be asked without using [animals] then you have an obligation to do it in the simplest system possible.” Furthermore, in the reduction and replacement process, a scientist is also faced with the decision of how advanced the organism being used is. In her lab, Dr. Kane uses mice as opposed to simpler organisms because they are the closest she can get to the human immune system without using a more advanced species.

The humane practices used in the care of the Kane lab’s mice does not go unnoticed. Personally, Dr. Kane has a higher threshold for what the value of the experiment should be before sacrificing any animal. In fact, Dr. Kane thinks about this all the time because she does “not want any of [the mice in her lab’s colony] existing, dying, or suffering needlessly. Every experiment [members of the lab] do, is thought about beforehand to ensure the lab gets the most information out of it” (M. Kane, personal communication, October 15, 2021). The bottom line and cardinal rule in Dr. Kane’s lab: is the question worth asking?

One interesting topic brought up during our discussion on the refinement process was the social behavior of the mice. Many people may not consider the socialization of animals when discussing the ethics of animal testing, yet this is a critical part of humanely testing on animals, as seen in Dr. Kane’s lab. As a way to improve the living conditions of their mice, Dr. Kane will try to refrain from housing mice in cages by themselves if they do not have any reason to be isolated. In addition, Dr. Kane’s lab also provides the mice with additional enrichment materials. Through such steps, Dr. Kane has actually been able to learn more about how the mice may express physical attributes of pain or distress.

(Langford, D., Bailey, A., Chanda, M. et al.)

This brings us to Russell and Burch’s topic of measuring pain and distress in animals. In many labs, there are charts demonstrating scales to help measure the amount of pain or distress an animal may be in. Unfortunately, with any animal testing, it is almost impossible to completely avoid all pain or distress placed upon an animal. Dr. Kane, however, tries her utmost best to refine the protocol she uses in her lab in order to reduce the amount of distress and pain her mice feel to the absolute minimum. According to Dr. Kane, this is not a process that is under her total control: due to constantly updating institutional and national guidelines, she must justify every part of her protocol involving animal testing to a diverse committee known as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). As head of her lab, Dr. Kane is required to submit a detailed protocol to the IACUC, which then undergoes rigorous evaluation. The IACUC does not only consist of veterinarians, scientists, and university officials, but also of members of the community who are not scientists.

It is an unfortunate reality that “any animal generated for research is going to be sacrificed at some point” (M. Kane, personal communication, October 15, 2021). This is one of, if not the most important aspects of a protocol, that must be justified to the IACUC. According to Dr. Kane, the committee is extremely strict with how many animals her lab may use and how they may be used. In fact, they are so strict, they evaluate “the methods of euthanasia, the enrichment needed in the cages, the temperature the room should be, the humidity the room should be… down to every little detail” (M. Kane, personal communication, October 15, 2021). The question of which method of euthanasia is the most ethical for animals has always been a particular topic of debate. From the perspective of a professional who must euthanize mice for a living, Dr. Kane believes the best way is through cervical dislocation, the separation of the spinal cavity, head and neck. However, cervical dislocation of animals is not the standard: carbon dioxide followed by dislocation is more commonly practiced. Dr. Kane’s lab is specifically approved to perform the cervical dislocation due to carbon dioxide’s known interference with particular genes’ expression. Ethically speaking, cervical dislocation is “foolproof… because it is the fastest way to euthanize [the mice] because it is immediate, while CO2 is literally suffocating [the mice]” (M. Kane, personal communication, October 15, 2021).

What keeps a scientist from turning mad? Dr. Kane is capable of maintaining her humanity and sympathizing with the mice through the hands-on involvement in euthanizing them. Even though “it is not very fun to kill the mice with your hands, it does keep you in touch with what you are doing” (M. Kane, personal communication, October 15, 2021). Since Dr. Kane must euthanize the mice herself, she is constantly reminded and aware of the fact that what she is doing must have a purpose. Ultimately, this constant reminder helps her to evaluate and continuously refine her practices to become a better, more humane researcher. In the words of Dr. Kane, “these are living creatures, and we want to respect that… they are giving their life for science, and we do appreciate it.”

References

Langford, D., Bailey, A., Chanda, M. et al. Coding of facial expressions of pain in the

laboratory mouse. Nat Methods 7, 447–449 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1455.