|
Fifty years ago, two British scientists, William Russell and Rex Burch, published a book entitled The Principles of Humane Experimental Research (1). This book paved the way for an ethos now shared by many scientists, namely that there is a fundamental obligation on those who conduct experiments on sentient species to ensure that harm is kept to an absolute minimum. Here we look at how animal testing can be reduced in the context of the current research and testing climate.
DRIVING FORCES THAT INFLUENCE ANIMAL TESTING
Many factors influence trends in the use of animals in research, testing and training, including the societal, economic, and political and market climates. For instance, concerns over the safety of chemicals that, in some cases, have been in common use for many decades, has culminated in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) legislation that threatens to demand the conduct of around four million animal tests for existing chemicals. The mere existence of the REACH legislation is a reflection of the increasing threat of litigation that has stemmed from improved public and scientific awareness of the potential harm caused by everyday exposure to chemicals. By the same token, societal pressure is a major factor in determining the provisions of the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC that, by 2013, will prohibit testing of cosmetic and toiletry ingredients and that has already banned the EU marketing of products tested on animals. The provisions of the Cosmetics Directive have spurred the cosmetics industry to develop non-animal methods to replace animal tests. Similarly, the REACH legislation, with its tight implementation timelines and disconcerting animal welfare and financial burden, has encouraged stakeholders to examine how existing non-animal alternatives and information can be used to best effect. |
