The Dangers of Animal Testing: How This Industry is Deceiving You
Have you ever taken acetaminophen, a common pain and fever reliever also known as Tylenol? Many people (including myself) take acetaminophen whenever they have a stabbing headache and are deeply grateful for the drug’s existence. Did you know that acetaminophen is poisonous to many animals including common household pets such as cats? That means that if acetaminophen was solely tested on felines, its toxicity would have caused the drug to be deemed dangerous and would have been unapproved during the drug development process. Acetaminophen’s absence in drug stores would mean that toughing out the excruciating headache would be the only option.
The knowledge regarding the detrimental effects you may face as a side effect of a drug is dependent on animal models, which are poor predictors of drug safety in humans. The usage of animals in drug development brutally tortures animals through practices of burning, stapling, infection, and starvation. It also puts your health at risk when you take drugs that have been approved through animal testing in the development stage. Many people do not understand how dissimilar human and animal bodies are, and this misjudgment can pose a risk to individuals who are taking drugs that have been approved through animal testing. Drug takers need to understand the fatal outcomes they may face due to the unpredictability of approved animal-tested drugs. Medical trials and testing should utilize computer models, cell culturing methods, and microfluidic biomedical technology to better replicate human physiology and replace animal testing practices. These tools will work to predict human medical outcomes strongly and transparently while avoiding the severe stress and abuse animals undergo when tested for drug trials.
A U.S. Food and Drug Administration study found that 92% of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail to be approved. Of those approved, half are withdrawn or relabeled due to severe or fatal adverse effects not detected during animal testing. Not only does this mean you are in danger when taking animal-tested drugs, but animals are unnecessarily tortured. Animals are deliberately sickened with toxic chemicals or infected with diseases and live in cages surrounded by waste. At the end of the brutal testing process, they are typically slaughtered since they are terminally ill. An example of this would be in the clinical development phase for a brain implant designed by Elon Musk’s Neuralink neurotechnology company: “The company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs, and monkeys, following experiments since 2018”. Our understanding of human medical testing outcomes can come from more predictive testing models. Computer models are an example where the severe distress and torturing of animals can be avoided while providing a more predictive model in human drug development.
One example of how computer models are being implemented in biomedical research is the innovations of the Virtual Physiological Human (VPH) Institute in Europe which aims to construct biomedicine models that can permit transparent studies of the human body. VPH has developed a computer simulation of the human body that is best suited for drug development phases. With increases in virtual technologies, virtual experiments can provide technical insight into existing information and mathematical data. This method of biomedical testing constructs predictions regarding the toxicity of a substance, makes connections between different drug interactions, and pinpoints exactly where the adverse reaction occurred in the human body. The computerized model provides accessibility to doctors and can be utilized to collaborate on treatment plans around the globe. A VPH project is focused on developing models for osteoporosis that can be predictive of a patient’s risk for bone deficits, reducing the number of bone fractures by two to five percent per year. According to Liesbet Geris, the executive director of the VPH Institute:
“The FDA is already planning for a future in which more than half of all clinical trial data will come from computer simulations, which would also reduce the number of people who are used in clinical trials. We use these models to try and improve the whole research and development process, so computer modeling can replace as much as possible some of the experiments that we would do in the lab or on animals”.
Animal testing models do not provide the technical components regarding drug interactions that computer-based models provide in pharma, often leading to testing failure.
The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences provides insight into how initial animal testing phases in drug development often lead to failure: “Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more”. Animal testing models should be replaced with computer-based models due to the growing technical components provided by computers. The ability to replicate the human body and quickly identify fatal or detrimental drug interactions is right at our fingertips. It is in our power to advocate for this societal advancement as a replacement for the cruelty of animal testing.
As a student who has been educated in biomedicine, genetics, and cancer prevention, I have observed how cell culturing is a beneficial replacement for animal testing in drug development phases. As a surgical assistant at Canton Animal Hospital in Canton, CT, and as a volunteer at local health clinics, I have frequently participated in the analysis of cell cultures to diagnose illness. While analyzing human and animal cell cultures, I noticed the remarkable differences between human and animal cells in addition to the behaviors of these cells.
Cell culturing is the growth of cells from an organism in an artificial and controlled setting. Cells are removed either from the organism directly through tissue or from a previously established cell line. Cell culturing can be done in two primary ways: either by gaining access to cells from a cell bank or by isolating cells from donor tissue. For the cell bank method, the thawing of frozen cryopreserved cells allows the cells to be revived and utilized as if they were freshly collected. In the case of donor tissue, cells are isolated from the tissue utilizing an enzyme that prepares the cell for culturing.
Now that humans are beginning to recognize how beneficial cell culturing is for drug development, scientists have discovered and advanced two and three-dimensional cell culturing methods that have revolutionized the drug development industry. Two-dimensional cells are on flat surfaces such as Petri dishes and are analyzed through their development, it is a simple and low-cost method to study cells and perform experiments. Three-dimensional cell culturing involves a more advanced environment where cells grow and interact with surroundings in all three dimensions. The primary difference between 2D and 3D cells is that a 3D cell culture permits cells to grow in all directions, similar to how they would in a living organism’s body.
Armin Wolf, Ph.D. highlights how cell culturing is a major milestone in the biomedical world because these cells respond, grow, and interact with different stimuli and this creates an identical human model: “One important milestone in the application of cell culture for drug development was achieved when we figured out how to grow cells from a living organ in a dish so that the cells not only survived, but you could also treat them”. Cell culturing techniques are already prevalent in today’s biomedical world, so why not fully implement them in replacement for animal testing? One may argue that the process of drug discovery can be costly both financially and computationally, and animal testing can diminish that price. Cell culturing would allow for the same protocol, except the abuse of animals would be diminished and we would be seeing all of the adverse effects of a drug that a human may experience.
Although animal testing measurements allow for a cheaper way to clinically test and authorize drugs, the life and suffering of an animal should not be deemed acceptable because of the low cost. The low costs that companies spend to obtain laboratory animals mean that there are minimal amounts of money going towards proper sheltering protocols, food, water, and sanitary measures for these animals. After animals are poked, prodded, and injected all day, they enter their enclosed cages to slowly die a painful death. Methods of cell culturing should be implemented in drug development in replacement for animal testing due to the many areas where animal abuse can be alleviated in biomedical research. Cell culturing also allows for more transparent and predictive results of certain drug interactions, treatments, and side effects.
Another important detail to note is that there are many physical differences between rats, who are common laboratory-tested animals, and humans. Apart from the tail, furry body, and whiskers that rats possess, our physiology differs greatly from rats. First of all, rats cannot vomit and they do not have a gallbladder. These small varieties in human and animal anatomy can cause unpredicted testing results, resulting in fatal outcomes for both the animal tested on and the humans taking the drugs. An example is the drug fialuridine (FIAU) which was developed in 1993 to treat people with Hepatitis B. The drug worked wonders in animal testing trials with mice, but once this drug passed the animal trial phase, seven people developed liver failure and five died. FIAU was toxic in humans because of a specific protein located in our mitochondria. A small protein variation that can be viewed as insignificant can cause the loss of human life, which is why implementing new models of testing that better replicate human anatomical attributes would alleviate that risk.
Rats are not the only animal utilized in animal testing: mice, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters are also commonly seen being tortured through this practice. This is because of their small size, ease of maintenance, and short life cycle. Instead of testing on these animals, scientists could be using biomedical engineering technology with microfluidics. This technology is still in the process of being developed and was innovated based on replacing animal testing models.
Microfluidic technology contains constructed chambers and valves where fluids flow, replicating human organ function. Microfluidic technology can replicate human organs and anatomy due to the easily replicable anatomical attributes humans have. An example of this would be Organs-on-chips (OoCs), OoCs are designed with live tissues and natural body fluids to manage organ and bodily functions, this mimics human physiology. Unlike animal testing, these devices can predict potential toxic side effects before a drug enters the latter phases of clinical trials, saving money and time.
The authors of a National Library of Medicine published journal named: “Organ-on-a-Chip: A new paradigm for drug development” highlight the urgency for microfluidic technology such as OoCs as a replacement for the failing industry of animal testing:
“40% of the newly developed drugs fail clinical trials even after accomplishing preclinical evaluation with animal models — therefore, alternative tissue models with biomimetic human pathophysiology are urgently required to bridge the gap between animal studies and clinical trials involving human subjects in the drug development pipeline”.
Aspects of the chip such as the measurement of flow rate, pressure, oxygen, and pH provide conditions that emulate human anatomy and condition. This resembles characteristics of human tissues and organs, leading to accurate conclusions and advancements in drug development. Microfluidic technology such as Organ-on-a-Chip should be implemented in drug development trials in replacement of animal testing due to this modernized method of accurately replicating functionality and risks of human organs for drug testing. The potential to revolutionize the drug development industry is in our hands, this involves ending animal abuse, non-predictive testing, and implementing modernized testing strategies.
Angie Firmalino did not know that when she would wake up from her seventh complication surgery after receiving her Essure contraceptive implant, she would entirely lose usage of her hands. Essure was an FDA-approved device for sterilization in women, it is implanted as a metal coil in the fallopian tubes and forms a barrier for sperm and egg, preventing conception. Angie trusted the FDA-approved device because she understood that the development phase of Essure involved 37 rabbits with a 100% success rate for preventing contraception. This instilled confidence in users, scientists, and the FDA that Essure would be beneficial for women’s health and family planning. Angie’s confidence in animal testing within the drug development industry came at a price. The fragments of metal and plastic shards tearing apart her insides from the Essure implant caused inflammation, pain, and autoimmune disorders which led to a hysterectomy.
Angie’s pain was not solely physical; the loss of hand usage caused by the device meant that she would never be able to hold her 6-year-old son’s hand as he walked into elementary school, never again wear her wedding ring, and never be able to continue her own jewelry business. This was emotionally painful for Angie, and it was pain that could have been avoided with the implementation of drug development models that were predictive of human outcomes.
Whether they are rats or goats, animals do not deserve to be held captive and starved. And people like Angie do not deserve to face devastating outcomes as a result of misleading drug development findings from improper models. By implementing computer models, cell culturing methods, and microfluidic biomedical technology in replacement for animal testing, more predictive models of humans must be utilized for drug development. This will avoid the sheer torture animals endure when tested on as well as the emotional and physical pain humans have when they take drugs that have been approved through animal testing.
References
“About Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 7 Feb. 2023, https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/.
“About New Therapeutic Uses.” National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 23 Mar. 2022, https://ncats.nih.gov/ntu/about.
Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: the International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 24 Oct. 2015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/.
Animal Research at Stanford. “Why Animal Research?” Animal Research at Stanford, https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research.html.
Baines, Julia. “Why Are ‘Sadistic Abusers’ Still Allowed to Test Cosmetics on Animals?” Euronews, 3 Mar. 2022, https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/paul-mccartney-calls-out-animal-abusers-demanding-an-end-to-cosmetics-testing-in-the-eu.
“Basic Process in Cell Culture in General: Basic Knowledge: Cell X Image Lab.” Nikon, https://www.healthcare.nikon.com/en/ss/cell-image-lab/knowledge/process.html.
“Differences between Rats and Humans.” National Anti-Vivisection Society — Campaigning against the Use of Animals in Research, https://www.navs.org.uk/about_vivisection/27/46/372/.
Howe, Dan. “International Rabbit Day: Here’s Why Bunnies Need Your Help.” Animal Justice, 23 Sept. 2022, https://animaljustice.ca/blog/international-rabbit-day.
“Introduction to Cell Culture.” Proteintech Group, 5 Sept. 2022, https://www.ptglab.com/support/cell-culture-protocol/introduction-to-cell-culture/.
Lansdowne, Laura Elizabeth. “Cell Culture Evolution — A Revolution for Drug Discovery.” Drug Discovery from Technology Networks, 15 July 2019, https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/articles/cell-culture-evolution-a-revolution-for-drug-discovery-321689.
Levy, Rachael. “Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink Faces Federal Probe, Employee Backlash over Animal Tests.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 6 Dec. 2022, https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash-over-animal-tests-2022-12-05/.
Llamas, Michelle. “Angie Firmalino Turns Essure Problems into a Force for Change.” Drugwatch, 12 Dec. 2018, https://www.drugwatch.com/beyond-side-effects/angie-firmalino-turns-essure-problems-force-change/.
Ma, Chao, et al. “Organ-on-a-Chip: A New Paradigm for Drug Development.” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Feb. 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7990030/.
Magnate, Blok. “The Virtual Body That Could Make Clinical Trials Unnecessary — The Possibility Report.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/vmware-2017/virtual-body/1625/.
Sheffield, Sydney. “The Controversy Over Essure Birth Control.” Women Leading Change: Case Studies on Women, Gender, and Feminism, vol. 4, no. 2, 5 June 2019, pp. 46–66., https://journals.tulane.edu/ncs/article/view/2425.
Sloan, Anne. “Endotoxins — Innovative Solutions for Cell Culture Studies.” Cell Sciences, https://www.cellsciences.com/resources/news/endotoxins-innovative-solutions-for-cell-culture-studies/.
“What Is the Difference between 2D versus 3D Cell Culture?” UPM Biomedicals, https://www.upmbiomedicals.com/resource-center/learning-center/what-is-3d-cell-culture/2d-versus-3d-cell-culture/.
White, Tracie. “Body Image: Computerized Table Lets Students Do Virtual Dissection.” Stanford Medicine News Center, 8 May 2011, https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/05/body-image-computerized-table-lets-students-do-virtual-dissection.html.
Zhang, Yu Shrike. “Personalizing Medicine with the Organ-on-a-Chip Technology: Where Do We Stand?” The MicroFluidic Circle, 9 Oct. 2019, https://www.ufluidix.com/circle/personalizing-medicine-with-the-organ-on-a-chip-technology-where-do-we-stand/.
Zimmerman, Sam. “Why Drugs Tested in Mice Fail in Human Clinical Trials.” Science in the News | Harvard University, 11 Feb. 2020, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/why-drugs-tested-in-mice-fail-in-human-clinical-trials/.
