Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I've decided to make a series of videos about animal experimentation.
This theme has been emphasized by the media recently,
specially in Brazil.
I saw some videos on the web, specially from biologists, arguing for animal experimentation...
and I felt that there is a lot of noise and bias on their arguments.
So I decided to expose my perspective.
I have at least 15 years working academically with the issue of animal experimentation
and I thought "why not translate all this experience into a video format"?
The idea obviously is not to run out the issue through these videos,
as it is a very complex issue. And it would be inappropriate
to approach this issue only throught these videos
The aim is to help you to get in touch with a critical perspective
to animal experimentation, specifically animal modeling
in biomedical research.
Perhaps in another video I will explain why the moral approach will not be presented here,
and I must say that this approach is very well established in the literature.
But by now the idea is to present you with some specific aspects,
which I consider more relevant, coming out of science itself,
and that raise important questions about the validity of animal modelling.
Again, it`s a very complex issue, and my expectation with these videos is
that you can take over a more refined pespective in relation to this issue.
There are lot of things to say, and I hope you enjoy.
Let`s go!
UNDERSTANDING ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
#1 Initial considerations
Well, let`s first start with a distinction that I consider important in this debate.
Actually, this first video aims to better establish what "animal experimentation" is
that by itself, says a lot, but also says nothing...
In the academic literature we can find many typologies that specify the aims
of animal use by science. And we will see that this use is quite diverse.
Just to give you an idea, one of these typologies is the following:
THE USE OF ANIMALS BY SCIENCE (SHANKS AND GREEK, 2009)
In a more simplistic manner, I use to consider animal experimentation
within two main objectives: teaching and research.
In teaching, the animal is used as a pedagogical tool.
Basically, this method aims to pass on knowledge and skills
that are previously known.
So, again, the animal is a pedagogical tool that generates a cognitive conflict in the student
in a way that she or he can assimilate the content aimed in the practice.
Nowadays this practice has been under great criticism, and its becoming hard to find
teachers arguing for this use in teaching.
Not only because of all ethical implications that this use raises
specially as a practice that generates conflicts
but also because of its obsolescense in face of new teaching methods
and approaches nowadays available.
So, courses where animal practices used to be frequent, like surgical techniques, physiology,
pharmacology, zoology and many others, this use is decreasing,
even in Brazil, following a world tendency that aims not only the modernization,
but also the humanization of the teaching environment.
In another video I will explain better this type of use, reinforcing again that this use
generates no new knowledge, and that other new methods
are effective in passing on the aimed knowledge.
And this is not something I'm guessing. There are a lot of evidences
in the academic literature that shows that these teaching methods are
as effective, and in most cases better than the traditional animal use.
In research, animal is used to obtain new knowledge.
and in this use there is a great variety of objectives, as we could see
in that typology I showed in the beggining of the video.
So, before anything else, it is important to think research as a very diverse field
with different questions and methods, and animal research being one out of several
methods available.
The approach here will consider the field of biomedical research only.
that is also diverse.
We can identify here at least three big research collectives in this field.
Those working in the clinical scenario, with human patients, in more realistic situations
to the studied phenomenon,
making use of the epidemiological approach.
EPIDEMIOLOGY Science that studies quantitatively the distribution of health/sickness phenomena
EPIDEMIOLOGY ...as well as its causing factors.
Those working with more modern methods, as in vitro techniques...
...cell, tissue and organ cultures
In silico techniques, wich are basically computational modeling.
And many others that are arising through developments in technology.
An those that still insist on traditional animal modeling, an that are obviously
the most interested in promoting this type of method.
A recent article shows us that about 25% of papers in the biomedical field
uses the term "animal" on their abstracts.
It's a considerable number, but it might be important to ponit that it does not
represents the totality of the research produced in this field.
The estimated cost of animal experimentation worlwide is about U$14 billions/year.
Another estimate is that around 115 millions of animals are used in science each year.
This represents 200 animals per second.
In Brazil we don't have a precise number, but we know that about
60% of the animal used are rodents, followed by hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits
and about 11% of other species, including amphibians, birds, dogs, primates and others.
Worldwide, this graphic shows us that around 80% of animals used are rodents.
Also worldwide, areas where animals are most used by science
are in the development of drugs (23%), followed by vaccine production (21%),
cancer research (12%) and toxicological studies (9%).
Notice that 1% of animals used are those for education purposes.
This number might be considered irrelevant, but if we consider those 115 millions
we reach a considerable number of deaths in this type of use (1 million).
And talking about death...
We wont read an article were the scientist will state
"In this research 300 animals were killed..."
The most commonly used term in the literature to make reference
to taking out the life of an experimental animal is "sacrifice"
A overlook on the main scientific databases reveals that information.
Another commonly used term is euthanasia, which means "good death".
There is some controversy on the empoyment of this term, and I tend to stay with
the philosophers, who have a better understanding of the terms employed.
According to one of these philosophers, this term "should be employed only to designate...
...the death that aims to benefit the interest of the one who dies".
The term euthanasia would be correctly applied only when the animal is under a
irreversible clinical condition, and the induction of death is promoted in benefit
to the animal, to cease suffering, and not for the supposed benefits to our own species.
Well, this is the very first video of a series still to come.
Notice that I didn`t start to raise the problems of using animals in biomedical research.
This will be done in parts, to facilitate the comprehension.
What I have shown so far is a preparation for what is still to come.
The main objective of these videos is to shake a confort zone that exists
in part of the biomedical research.
Some researchers working with animals for many years hardly will be convinced that this method
is not relevant from a scientific perspective.
And that`'s comprehensible. This person has a whole biography, a whole career of dedication,
an avaliable structure, well stablished publication channels,
and thousand of sacrificed animals...
It's almost like convincing my grandma that God does not exist....
...and I wouldn't lose my time with that....
But animal researchers are not evil, cruel persons, as some might say...
I am pretty sure that most of them must feel some moral anguish with this kind of method.
Still not enough to provoke a change on their practices.
This happens due to a strong affection to this method, and little auto-critique
in relation to its relevance and impact.
"The use of animals is so BASIC for science as it is BREATHING to anyone of us.
(...) the interruption of animal experimentation would represent DEATH to an important part of science, humankind and planet"
There is nothing not replaceable in science, as some animal experimentation advocates argue,
and I understand this position. But anyone that knows a little of history of science
knows that what was necessary for science fifty years ago is today obsolete.
Anyone who knows a little of philosophy of science also knows that there is no neutrality
in the scientific endeavour.
Actually, there are some essential things to the progress of science...
I could mention creativity, auto-critique, moral sensibility, social sensibility...
But not animal experimentation....!
Well, that is the message so far! I've said much for now...
There is still much to be said and think about...
See you next time! Saravá!