In Animal Rights Debate, A `Modulating Influence' Is Misunderstood

reviewer of grant proposals and, since 1988, as a member of the advisory board. Given the position of CAAT, expressed clearly in its mission statement (see accompanying item), it is not surprising that radical animal rights activists have not embraced the center. However, over the years, I have learned that many academicians who are biomedical researchers also have a negative view of the center, a view that is usually based on ignorance and/or misconceptions about CAAT, its mission, and its activities. When my academic colleagues learn that I am associated with CAAT, they are usually surprised, and the news is met with a chilly response. When I am asked by them, "Why are you involved with CAAT?" the implication is usually "Why do you associate with an organization working against the use of animals in research? Further discussion often reveals one or more misconceptions. Some colleagues are not familiar with how CAAT is supported and assume wrongly that animal rights activists are major contributors. In fact, the center's core activities are currently funded by a National Institutes of Health grant in addition to corporate contributions. Many do not know that CAAT's main focus in developing alternatives is directed not to academic research, but rather to industrial toxicity testing, in which the need for economical assays for rapid and accurate assessment of human risk remains acute. be used to develop basic scientific knowledge necessary to create innovative non-whole-animal methods for evaluating the safety of commercial and therapeutic products. At present, CAAT--under the directorship of Johns Hopkins University toxicology professor Alan M. Goldberg--sponsors a small extramural grants program (funding 18 grants in 1993), supports intramural research in the In Vitro Toxicology Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, and conducts information and education programs. Mainstream animal protection organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and others have been supportive of CAAT's activities; radical groups have not. Current CAAT grantees include investigators at such institutions as the University of California (Berkeley and San Francisco), Johns Hopkins, and Brown University. More than 100 articles resulting from CAAT-funded research have appeared in peer- reviewed publications. The center has held nine symposia and published a nine-volume textbook series and five technical reports. The organization's newsletter is distributed to more than 35,000 individuals. The CAAT advisory board is composed of 34 scientists, sponsor liaisons, and representatives of government and regulatory agencies who review applications for the CAAT grants program and are responsible for overall program planning. For more information on the center, or to receive the CAAT newsletter, call or write: Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing 615 N. Wolfe St. Baltimore, Md. 21205 (410) 955-3343. Fax: (410) 955-0258. Many members of the scientific community are aware that CAAT offers grants of $30,000 to scientists interested in pursuing research that could result in non-whole-animal methods. However, few are familiar with efforts in areas of public education or validation of alternative methods and what these entail. Over the past decade, as the number of alternative assays has increased rapidly (by 1992, more than 50 assays had been identified for ocular irritation alone), assessing the relevance and reliability of these methods has assumed tremendous importance. The establishment of the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) by the Commission of European Communities is one indication of the significance of validation; the presence of representatives of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration on the CAAT Advisory Board is another. Comparatively few academic researchers understand that CAAT provides forums in which those in the lay and scientific communities whose major goal is reduction of animal use may interact with those in the scientific community whose goal is understanding biology and disease. For example, a recent symposium commemorating CAAT's 10th anniversary provided for recognition of and interaction among individuals with very diverse view- points. The World Congress on Animal Use and Alternatives, to be held in Baltimore this November, will do the same. Many scientists do not know CAAT as a modulating influence in the animal rights debate, in which extreme emotionalism and lack of rational thought are too often the major players. Few realize that CAAT supports the use of alternatives to whole animals in toxicity testing only when such alternatives have been validated scientifically and are consonant with protection of public health. Most are unaware of the center's efforts, through its own publications and coverage in the national media, to inform the public about the uses and limitations of alternatives in product safety testing and why animals currently are used to answer toxicological and scientific questions that impact on public health. Few academicians conduct research with the goal of identifying replacements for animal use. Rather, their efforts focus on understanding fundamental biological processes and mechanisms of disease, including toxicoses, and on discovering ways to prevent or treat disease. As a group, academicians recognize the need for using animals in the processes of understanding and discovery. When an in vitro biological system is used by academic researchers, it is usually because it is deemed to be more appropriate experimentally than a whole-animal model to address a specific scientific question. My academic colleagues conduct their research responsibly, with concern about animal welfare, including appropriate use and care of animals. Most bristle at the suggestion that responsible use of animals in research is wrong. Because academicians do use animals in responsible ways, many resent pressures that render such use more difficult. Unfortunately, CAAT is viewed by some as an organization that contributes to such pressure. But it certainly has not. Foster the development of scientifically acceptable in vitro and other alternatives for use in the development and safety evaluation of commercial and therapeutic products. Catalyze the validation of alternative methods and encourage their use, where appropriate, while continuing to ensure the health of the public. Disseminate scientifically correct information about alternatives, their uses, advantages, and limitations. CAAT recognizes that non-whole-animal (alternative) methods act in concert with whole animal and clinical studies to: --advance science, --develop new products and drugs, and --prevent, treat, and cure disease. Alternatives are defined as new methods that refine existing tests by minimizing animal distress, reducing animal usage, or replacing whole- animal tests. As an academician and a research investigator, I choose to associate with CAAT because its mission recognizes the present need for using animals in research and toxicity testing and because it takes a responsible approach to the development of alternatives that are scientifically valid. I agreed to serve on the advisory board because I think that CAAT helps, not hinders, those of us who use animals in our studies and because CAAT assumes a responsible position about in vitro methods in toxicity testing. As a board member, I have tried to promote the exploration of cellular and molecular mechanisms of toxicity, to endorse the incorporation of understanding of mechanisms into toxicity evaluation, and to encourage programs to educate the public about the need for responsible use of animals in research and testing and about the advantages as well as limitations of alternatives. Some of the misunderstanding surrounding alternatives may be semantic in nature. The word "alternatives" has for some researchers an "all-or-none" implication, that is, complete replacement of animal testing with other means. In retrospect, perhaps the incorporation of this word into the title of the center may have been unfortunate, but it will likely remain. The center's definition of "alternatives," indeed, encompasses not just replacement, but also reduction of animal use and "refining existing tests by minimizing animal stress." I encourage my colleagues to read the CAAT mission statement. I suspect that most would find little in it about which to argue and much to support. Scientists should continue to engage in biological research, recognizing that there is a large public constituency concerned that science be humane and not wasteful of animals. We as scientists communicate too seldom and often awkwardly with this constituency. As an organization that has credibility with many on both sides of the animals-in-research issue, CAAT is uniquely qualified to educate and inform the public about the rationale and benefits of responsible animal use and to clearly define the "three Rs" concept of alternatives: replacement, reduction, and refinement. The support of fellow scientists is important to the success of this endeavor. Robert A. Roth is a professor in the department of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University's Institute for Environmental Toxicology, in East Lansing.

In Animal Rights Debate, A `Modulating Influence' Is Misunderstood

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of