Many people are unaware of the growing movement to find alternatives to animal research. In fact, the U.K. is a leader in this regard, as evidenced by the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). This group invests millions of pounds in animal-alternative research in such diverse fields as heart disease and spinal cord injury.
For example, at the University of Glasgow, Professor Sue Barnett has received funding to investigate spinal cord injury in vitro rather than using lab rats to test new therapies. Professor Barnett said: “The spinal cord has little capacity for self-repair and if it is damaged then permanent disability and paralysis are almost certain. Spinal cord injuries cost the health service an estimated £500m a year and there is an urgent need to find treatments. One treatment which is showing promise is the use of cell transplantation, however for this to be truly effective it seems likely that it needs to be combined with other treatments such as the use of growth factors. Testing these combined treatments uses large numbers of animals and the aim of our project is to develop a cell culture model which allows us to screen potential treatments without using animals.”
Another example is Professor Andrew Cossins at the University of Liverpool. He is attempting to replace fish used in toxicity testing with laboratory-based tests. Professor Cossins said: “European legislation requires chemicals to be tested to ensure that they are safe for humans and the environment. Many of the tests require the use of fish in studies that are likely to cause suffering. Some work has been done to use alternative methods such as fish cells and embryos but these need to be improved if the use of live fish is to be replaced. Our aim is to improve these methods using new high-tech tools to study the impact of chemicals on an unprecedentedly large number of genes, so that they can be used to provide better information on the toxicity of chemicals. This could ultimately replace the use of up to 100,000 fish per year in the EU.”
Deep-pocketed financiers and hedge funds have stepped forward to help fund these efforts. Part of this involvement is based on ethical concerns; others see it as a good investment in the future. Whatever the motivation, most scientists agree that the reduced use of animals in testing would be desirable if suitable alternatives could be found. It is the task of organizations such as NC3Rs to fund researchers who can find such alternatives and then promote the use of these methods.