Popular initiative: Why animal experiments are necessary

The popular initiative to ban animal experiments wants to ban experiments on animals for research. But without animal testing, there can be no breakthroughs in medical therapies – and contrary to what many people think, ethics do play a major role in Swiss research laboratories.

A mouse sits on the hand of an employee at an animal testing laboratory in the United States. More than 60 percent of all animal experiments in Switzerland are carried out on mice.

Robert F Bukaty/AP

Mice have a pain face. They puff out their cheeks, ruffle their whiskers and draw their eyebrows together. In this they are actually similar to humans – we also pull the eye area together when something hurts us.

“Once you have learned it, you can recognize the face of pain very well. We check our test animals closely every day,” says Klara Soukup. The immunologist is a member of the Swiss scientific think tank Reatch and researches therapies against severe brain tumors in humans at the University of Lausanne – and needs mice for this.

However, the popular initiative “Yes to the ban on animal and human experimentation” wants to see this practice radically ended: It calls for the unconditional abolition of animal experiments and research on humans in Switzerland. According to the initiators, this is not ethically justifiable and has no scientific use at all. That’s why they not only want to ban the experiments, but also end the import of all products and medicines that have been developed with animal experiments.

Both the Federal Council and Parliament reject the initiative: Switzerland as a business location would be weakened and research severely restricted.

Without mice, no corona vaccine

But how many animals does this actually affect? In 2020, 556,107 animals were used for experiments in Switzerland, according to the Federal Veterinary Office. More than 60 percent of these are mice, but rats, birds, monkeys, zebrafish, nematodes and fruit flies are also used. Their use plays a crucial role in basic research and in the development of therapies for humans and animals. New drugs would not be possible without animal testing.

For example, nobody would have liked to be injected with a vaccine against corona whose effectiveness and safety had not been clearly proven. If the ban on animal testing had been in force a year ago, you wouldn’t have had to ask yourself this question – all vaccines would then have been banned in Switzerland.

Researchers have to prove what they postulate

One reason why animal experiments are necessary is actually a great achievement of civilization: scientists have to prove what they postulate. To do this meaningfully, they need experiments. Animals are related to humans, many processes in the body are similar or identical, which is why they are suitable for gaining scientific knowledge.

A main argument of supporters of the animal testing ban is that animal testing is inefficient and useless because animal bodies are too different from human ones to provide insights for drug development. “Of 100 active ingredients tested on animals, 95 fail in human experiments,” claim the initiators.

First of all, this number cannot be statistically proven: one study over a 10-year period showed that the probability of approval for a drug is about 11 percent after it successfully passed animal testing. Secondly, this consideration makes no sense at all. Since animal testing is used to identify safe and effective drugs and to screen out those that are ineffective, it is only logical that few drugs end up being used in humans.

No good replacement in sight yet

Researchers do not only experiment with animals, but also with many other methods, such as cell cultures in Petri dishes, patient samples or computer simulations. But although their use is becoming more common, they cannot yet completely replace animal testing.

Klara Soukup’s work impressively shows why this is the case. “I research brain tumors and how they interact with the immune system,” she explains. Soukup wants to find out why the immune system of sick people does not attack the tumor cells and how it can be induced to do so. If drugs could one day activate the immune system to destroy tumor cells, that would be groundbreaking progress: the average life expectancy of people with a malignant brain tumor such as glioblastoma is only about a year after diagnosis. Soukup wants to change that together with her colleagues.

“Before we examine something, we weigh up exactly which method can best answer the question,” says the immunologist. Sometimes tests on patient samples that are provided voluntarily are the best. In some cases, however, she cannot avoid animal testing. “The body’s immune system is very complex. Whenever we have to observe the course of a tumor disease and how the tumor communicates with the body, we are forced to work with a living body.»

New methods such as so-called organoid systems do not change this. Organs or parts of them are reproduced in the Petri dish, in which cell processes are then visible. However, organoid systems are not yet able to represent an entire organism with all its bodily processes.

Most researchers don’t get used to it

In order to observe an immune system live, so to speak, Klara Soukup uses mice that develop tumor diseases due to a gene variant. Their immune system is similar to that of humans in many aspects. But that doesn’t apply everywhere: In brain research, scientists work with rats. When it comes to neurodegenerative diseases, the studies are ongoing with monkeys.

Although Soukup, as a laboratory manager, has a lot of experience with animal experiments, she cannot get used to it. “I’ve never met a colleague who carelessly carries out experiments on animals,” she says. “I ask myself every single day: Is that really justified?”

Her answer every day is yes. On the one hand, this is due to compliance with the strict but sensible requirements. Compared to most other countries, Switzerland has a very consistent animal welfare law that also precisely regulates the life and death of laboratory animals. Every application for an animal experiment takes many months, has to be approved by the cantonal veterinary office and requires a so-called weighing of interests.

Suffering must not be meaningless

Here scientists have to explain precisely that there is no other model for the scientific question in order to answer their question. “Everyone is also committed to the so-called 3 Rs: replace, reduce, refine. We have to use absolutely every opportunity to replace animal experiments or to make experiments more gentle,” reports Soukup. “No animal should be subjected to senseless suffering.” It is essential to avoid that an attempt fails and has to be repeated.

Every Swiss researcher who works with animals in the laboratory has also attended courses in which he learns to assess animal behavior. Among other things, they teach what normal social behavior in mice looks like, how they express pain. In fact, anyone involved in animal testing is required to stop the experiment if the animals are in pain. This can mean that the animals are treated by a specialized veterinarian or that they are euthanized. “We test the animals every day. For example, we check by hand whether the mice can grasp the cage bars – so that we notice it immediately if they show the first signs of paralysis,” says the immunologist. The husbandry and handling of animals are checked: representatives of the veterinary office check unannounced.

The measures are successful, the number of animal experiments is falling: in 2020, 16,000 fewer animals were used than in the previous year, which is due to new methods such as organoids, but also to the strict regulations that encourage scientists to work out more gentle study designs.

Ethical standards rise

However, the number of animals required for level 3 experiments, i.e. for particularly stressful experiments, has increased. But even that is only a deterioration at first glance: “Because of increasing awareness, more experiments are now considered to be very stressful for the animals than in the past,” says Soukup. “And it’s good that the ethical dialogue between science and society works.”

But Klara Soukup is able to look in the mirror every day, despite her experiments on animals, for one reason in particular: “As a scientist, I have a legal mandate and a social responsibility,” she says. Millions of people get cancer every year. “I want to give these people hope for therapy.”

source site-111