Why animal labs use flawed science

“OMG I find myself agreeing with Karin Fall. Has it really come to this?????”

“@karinfall
It is a popular misconception that animal research mostly involves sticking a drug into an animal to see what happens. In order to develop drugs (or other medical interventions) we need to fully understand the millions of chemical reactions going on inside your body, as one type of molecule is converted to another type of molecule. Once we know the difference between what happens in a healthy body and a body with a particular condition, we can start to work out where and how we might be able to encourage/prevent certain important chemical reactions.

The vast majority of animals used in research are mice. (Well, actually the vast majority are invertebrates like fruit flies or unicellular organisms like baker's yeast - both of which share enough genes with humans to provide valuable medical insight - but obviously no-one cares about anything that isn't fluffy.) Most of those mice are genetically engineered - that's why they're used and useful, and why the number of experiments is rising as new strains of mouse enable new research to be conducted.

Lab mice are looked after much better than they ever would be as pets - and certainly live longer, happier lives than wild mice who live in perpetual fear of ending up inside a kestrel.”

“@roundthehorne. Obviously I am dealing with an 'expert' but why would they need to test drugs on healthy animals? Strokes, tumours and disabilities are induced in order to be treated. Chimpanzees were once deliberately made hiv positive and do you seriously think it is only genetically modified mice that are tested? Would you care to define what constitutes a 'happy' animal or are you using your own yardstick ie warm and fed?”

“@karinfall1955
Been in a lot of animal research labs, have you? The vast majority of animal research uses genetically engineered mice which have specific genes turned on or off. By giving these mice certain conditions (eg. a specific diet), individual stages in the mammalian metabolic process can be identified. The mice live happily and healthily in clean conditions until eventually being put down humanely. Of course, organisations like the BUAV never talk about this sort of work or show images of these animals.

Research animals are useless unless they are healthy and happy: what would be the point of deliberately blinding or maiming one? That would be like smashing up a new car before giving it a road test.”

“@roundthehorne. "Most lab animals lead happy healthy lives". Is this before they are given tumours or deliberately maimed or blinded or after? To argue the efficacy of animal experimentation is one thing but let's not pretend it is pretty.”

“When I read about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions as a therapy, whilst if not a little madcap and self endangering, you have to admire them sticking to their axioms;

Hence I would support a drive to reduce animal experimentation, but often wonder whether the letter writer here would be as robust with their principles should she fall ill with some condition that could be treated, but that the remedy be one that was determined or developed through research using animals - would she decline the organ transplant, the regular insulin injection, gene therapy or the use of any number of medicines or surgical procedures?

Many treatments we consider commonplace have their roots in research completed initially in labs such as the one being dicussed here. Dr Taylor would do well to remember this...”

“Neither of those quotes appear anywhere in any edition of the British Medical Journal. It doesn't take much googling to find Dr Taylor's source, an online forum where someone cites those quotes to a paper by P Pound et al published in the BMJ eight years ago. That paper ('Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?') exists but does not contain the spurious quotes cited by Dr Taylor. Pound et al's paper looked at just six specific pieces of animal-based research where a review had been done comparing the results of the animal research with subsequent human trials (after discarding 19 similar reviews).

One of the 35 responses in the BMJ to Pound et al pointed out that one of these six papers was no better or worse than the 19 discarded, and of the others: "In fact all five cases are exactly concurrent in terms of the effects of intervention on humans and animals. In three cases the interventions in question are ineffective for both humans and animal models, and in the other two cases there is evidence of harmful effects for animals and humans."

It is clear that Dr Katy Taylor has no real understanding of how or why animal research is conducted, nor of the otherwise unattainable benefits which accrue from this difficult, expensive, tightly regulated – but essential – work. Does she really think that the University of Leicester would spend £16 million on a new facility for 'flawed science'? What would be the point of that?

Most lab animals lead happy healthy lives, better than many pets or farm animals, before being put down painlessly. Talk of "inflicting suffering on animals" is emotive nonsense: no effective research can be done on any animal which is suffering because of the effects on its metabolism.

Dr Taylor can't even be bothered to spend five minutes checking whether quotes on some random web forum are genuine, so Mercury readers should consider whether anything else she says is credible.”