If scientists could replace animal research and testing with methods which did not
need to use animals then they would.
There are several reasons for this:
- Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals suffer
unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research uses animals.
Unfortunately for much of the work involved in biomedical research there
are as yet no working alternative techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
- Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds, which may have
potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to screen these compounds
using rapid non-animal techniques to test their effectiveness and toxicity.
- The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of British research
establishments are a contributory factor in making animal research very expensive.
If scientists can develop alternatives to using animals it will allow them to divert
their limited research funds to other areas of research.
Scientists are working hard to develop valid techniques that do not require the use
of animals. An example of such a technique is the development of the LAL test for
pyrogenicity.
Any fluid, which is going to be injected into the bloodstream,
must be free of pyrogens. Pyrogens are bacteria or even bits of dead bacteria
which can cause a toxic reaction or fever when introduced into the blood.
Testing for pyrogens used to be carried out by injecting the test fluid into
a rabbit and seeing if its body temperature rose.
A test for pyrogenicity has now been developed, validated and accepted by the
regulatory authorities. This uses blood from the horseshoe crab. Some blood
is taken from the crab, which is then returned to wild unharmed. The blood
from one crab replaces several rabbits.
