Another example of the need for–and potential human benefit to be derived from–research on animals, was reported this week. Rats, whose spinal cords had been severed, were able to walk again with the use of an experimental medical procedure. From the story:
Consistent electrical stimulation and drugs enabled the rats to walk on their hind legs on a treadmill — bearing the full weight of the body — within a week of being paralysed. With the addition of physical therapy, the rodents were able after several weeks to walk and run without stumbling for up to 30 minutes, reported the study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience. Paralysed rats whose spinal cords had been severed from their brains were made to run again using a technique that scientists say can work for people, according to a study released Sunday.
Not only that, but some really new and important biological knowledge seems to have been gained that will undoubtedly affect the thinking of other scientists:
Remarkably, the animals could adjust their movements in response to stimuli despite the lack of signals to and from the brain: when the treadmill was reversed, for example, the rats walked backwards. “This means that the spinal network is almost capable of cognitive processing,” explained Gregoire Courtine, a professor at Zurich University. “It can understand that the external world is changing, and interpret this information to modify the way it activates muscle,” he told AFP by phone
This is an experiment that could not be done on humans because it would paralyze able bodied people. So once again the choice is clear: Use able bodied people, animals, or don’t try to develop the technology. The choice is that simple and that stark.
September 21st, 2009 | 12:44 pm
I thought the benefits to humans were supposed to be weighed against the harm to animals – that research on animals was only supposed to be conducted when the harm to animals was demonstrably less than the expected benefit to humans.
In this case rats are having their spinal cords severed and are, in all likelihood, being killed. The conditions of being confined in a laboratory also likely constitute a severe harm.
The harm to the animals in this case should have outweighed any possible benefit to humans (a benefit that very well may actually never be realized).
The only way to go forward with this research is that claim that animal suffering really doesn’t matter; that any amount of animal suffering is justified for any potential benefit to humanity.
September 21st, 2009 | 3:39 pm
Edward, you can’t really approach this as a numbers game. For instance, does it make sense to ask how many rats you’re willing to kill to cure one spinal injury, to get one human out of a wheelchair? How do you come up with a number? It’s not a direct relationship.
If you ask a researcher how many rats he would sacrifice for a given study, I believe the answer would be “as few as possible, but as many as it takes to either find the answer or show we’re on the wrong track.” Usually they have to establish an end point for their study before they begin, so the study doesn’t go on forever with no results.
I personally think the appropriate comparison is the effect on their species as a whole compared to the benefit to our species. Lab animals have typically been bred separately from wild populations so they will have consistent characteristics. (One of those characteristics is a psychological aptitude for living in captivity, incidentally.) They aren’t really a part of their species’ development any more. Therefore, not to sound callous, but harm done to lab animals has little effect on the natural population.
This is less applicable to “higher” animals like non-human primates. However, research on primates is much less common, largely due to cost, and much more highly regulated. Most research animals are mice or rats.
In any case, before a study is approved, it is subject to review by committees that evaluate the scientific merit of the project and weigh that against the cost to the animals. Frequently they either tell researchers No, or they tell them to make do with fewer animals than they had planned.
My own work involves human trials, but I’ve known enough animal researchers to know that they value the animals they work with and do not sacrifice them lightly or capriciously.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact