In a robust defense of animal testing in medical research, experts have urged caution against prematurely abandoning this practice. Their comments follow an editorial published on November 23, 2023, in *The Guardian*, which advocated for reducing animal sacrifice in favor of alternative research methods. While acknowledging the potential of alternative methods, leading scientists argue that animal testing remains essential for advancing medical knowledge and ensuring human health.
Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge, a principal group leader at the Francis Crick Institute and president of the Institute of Animal Technologists, emphasized the importance of animal testing, particularly in discovery science. He pointed out that while considerable progress has been made in developing and validating alternatives, most current methodologies focus primarily on regulatory testing, where goals are more easily achievable. He stated, “We are definitely not ready to abandon research with animals, and for some disciplines, we may never get to this.”
The 3Rs—replacement, reduction, and refinement—are principles adopted by all scientists working with animals in the UK. Despite these efforts, Dr. Lovell-Badge highlighted that understanding complex biological systems, such as the brain and immune responses, still necessitates animal testing. He argued that new approach methodologies (NAMs) will only be effective after they are validated against animal or human data.
The reliance on animal-derived products in current research methodologies is a critical issue. According to Dr. Lovell-Badge, most NAMs, including organoids and organs-on-a-chip, still depend on substances derived from animals. For instance, the growth matrix known as matrigel comes from mouse tumors, and culturing these systems often requires foetal bovine serum, which contains vital growth factors that cannot currently be synthetically replicated.
In her commentary, Prof. Emma Robinson, a professor of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, echoed these concerns. She noted that while increased investment in NAMs could eventually lead to alternatives free from animal products, the reality remains that most studies currently utilize animal-derived materials. “It is easy to say that alternatives will quickly emerge and replace animals completely, but biology is extremely complicated,” she remarked.
Both experts agreed that pushing for a rapid shift towards NAMs without considering the current limitations could hinder medical advancements. Dr. Lovell-Badge warned that the loss of skilled animal technologists, who play a crucial role in animal care and research, could diminish the UK’s competitiveness in biomedical science.
Investment in NAMs, particularly for testing toxicity and pharmacokinetics, is seen as a potential path forward. Adjusting regulations to allow for the use of these new methodologies while still ensuring safety could facilitate their adoption.
As medical science continues to evolve, these discussions highlight a significant tension between ethical considerations and the need for rigorous scientific research. While the aspiration for a future devoid of animal testing is widely supported, experts contend that for the time being, animal research remains an indispensable aspect of medical development.
