Alternative to animal experiments possible

Scientists are researching alternatives to animal experiments

04/02/2014

Anything that comes into contact with humans in any way is tested in advance in animal experiments for possible harmful effects. These include medicines, chemicals, detergents and cleaners, creams, food, gases and much more. The main focus of the experiments are the toxicity, possible damage to fetuses in the womb (teratogenicity), genetic damage (mutagenicity) and whether the products have a carcinogenic property (carcinogenicity). In order for the products to be used commercially on a broad scale, the tests also focus on possible damaging effects on the environment.

But not all humans see a real benefit in the animal experiments and the question of the ethical points of view already offers longer material for discussions.

The US is at the forefront of alternatives to animal testing
This is also one of the reasons why the US has long been researching alternatives to animal testing. Last year alone, about 150 million euros were made available. By comparison, efforts in Europe are still in their infancy. Here, in the past 15 years, just this sum has been spent by the EU on research.

For example, US scientists at Harvard University have developed a kind of mini-lung that is capable of breathing. The goal is to make several organs, such as the heart, kidneys, lungs and liver, around one „People on the chip“ The toxicologist Marcel Leist of the University of Konstanz explains to the news agency „dpa“. In Germany he is the only one who holds a chair for alternatives to animal experiments. Day after day, he and his team are looking for ways in which animal experiments can be avoided or how they can be carried out as painlessly and stress-free as possible for the animals. "We want to reduce the total amount of suffering," explains the toxicologist.

Leist, who heads the Center for Alternatives to Animal Experiments in Europe (CAAT-Europe), founded in 2010, also talks about the in vitro method used in Europe, where substances in the Petri dish are tested on human or animal cells. But the procedure alone is not enough to prove that people are harmless. Unfortunately, animal experiments remain part of approval procedures. "What is in 100 or 200 years, you do not know, but in the next 20 years, they are still absolutely essential“, he explains.

In 2012, almost 3.1 million animals were killed in animal experiments throughout Germany
If you take a closer look at the information provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, you will see how far we are still away from animal experimentation. In the southwest of Germany alone, more than 544,000 vertebrates were used in animal experiments or killed for scientific purposes in 2012. In the entire federal territory, there were just under 3.1 million animals, as shown by the statistics. More than 2.2 million mice, as well as 418 000 rats, 166 000 fish and 97 000 rabbits have given their lives in the course of science. But the official statistics say nothing about the suffering of the individual animals in the experiments. Animal rights activists and also some scientists demand an end to the animal experiments for ethical reasons. "The tormenting and painful killing of animals is morally reprehensible," says the association "Doctors Against Animal Experiments." Because even animals have a right to an appropriate life and above all to integrity. The fact that the animals are converted to measuring instruments at will and thrown away after use, reflects the ethical and moral condition of our society.

Animal experiments alone are not enough
The paradox of the experiments is that these alone are not always sufficient to classify a product as harmless. For example, in the case of medicines, further tests on humans have to be carried out because the results from the animal experiments can not be reliably transferred to humans. "In any case, the same experiment must be repeated with an incalculable risk to humans, and before that any speculative statement is speculation," says the association "Doctors Against Animal Testing."“. A mouse, for example, has a completely different way of dealing with its environment, and its metabolism reacts differently to that of a human being. Another example of the non-transferability of risks to humans is the drug aspirin, which is toxic to rats but not to humans.

This is also an argument for Leist when he talks to those responsible in the industry: "We do not achieve much on the ethical level," he says. "We clearly say that it's about money, cheaper, faster and, above all, more meaningful data." He is not in principle against animal experiments. "But I'm bothered by the purely materialistic view."

The view that humans have a moral status in terms of the status of a human being, or the view that humans are the only living beings with a morally obligatory intrinsic value, should actually lead to the thought of harming others as little as possible, whether humans or animals. „The size and moral progress of a nation can be measured by how it treats the animals, „ said peace activist Mahatma Gandhi once. (Fr)

Image: Stephanie Hofschlaeger / pixelio