Can We Move Away from Animal Models of Human Disease Research?

I recently read a highly-detailed, comprehensive, science-based report called The Research Modernization Deal 2021. It unambiguously shows that numerous experiments on nonhuman animals (animals) fail to lead to effective treatments and cures for human diseases, including the top killers in the U.S. Advertisements for a wide variety of prescription drugs clearly acknowledge this lack of efficacy in their disclaimers and other material.¹ Reliance on animal models is diverting funds away from more promising areas of research and delaying the development of effective drugs and treatments. The plethora of data speaks for itself.

One of the leaders in this movement is neuroscientist Emily Trunnell, who answered a few questions for me about the goals of the project.²

Marc Bekoff: Why have you gotten involved in the movement to reform biomedical research and move away from work done on nonhuman animals that generates animal models of disease?

ET: While obtaining my doctorate in neuroscience, I used mice and rats in experiments aimed at understanding how diet may affect learning and memory. At the time, I was under the impression that the use of animals in biomedical research was necessary and that animals were well cared for. The experiences I had during the four years it took me to complete my Ph.D. convinced me otherwise.

During that time, I became increasingly disturbed by how easy it was for me, a graduate student, to design and conduct invasive experiments on mice and rats with very little supervision and after providing only specious justifications to our university oversight committee. When writing my dissertation, I was faced with the task of explaining how the animal experiments I conducted were relevant to human health. I felt like I was really stretching to describe how my work translated to humans and it was then that I began to realize that not only was what I was doing cruel to animals and poorly regulated, but it had little, if any, scientific justification.

After graduating, I decided to look at the science and more seriously question this system that prioritizes grant funding, publications, and outdated tradition over research ethics, animal welfare, and societal good. The Research Modernization Deal presents steps for wider policy changes that would automatically eliminate the use of animals where there is the greatest harm and the smallest benefit and provide a framework to transition toward more human-relevant research methods that don’t use other animals. If I had to go back and do graduate school over, I certainly would not use animals for my research projects. However, I’m glad that I can now use my experience to advocate on behalf of animals and better science.

MB: What are some of the topics you consider in the Research Modernization Deal 2021?

ET: In the Research Modernization Deal, we present a wealth of scientific data that challenge the notion that using animals in biomedical research protects human health. For example, studies over the past decade show:

• 81% of the time, animal tests fail to detect the potential side effects of drugs in humans.
• 89% of experiments cannot even be reproduced—a critical research step—resulting in $28 billion annual waste.
• 90% of basic research, most of which involves animals, has failed to lead to any human therapies.
• 95% of new drugs that test safe and effective in laboratory animals fail in human clinical trials.

The failure rates in specific diseases are even worse:

• 100% of treatments for stroke and sepsis tested in animals have failed in humans.
• 99.6% of Alzheimer’s disease treatments developed in animals have failed in humans.
• Only 3.4% of oncology drugs tested on animals succeed in humans.
• There is no effective vaccine for HIV, despite decades of experiments on monkeys.

In some cases, animal research misleads scientists and the results for humans are debilitating and deadly. There are other factors to consider, such as waning public support for the use of animals in laboratories and the economic advantages of investing in superior technology that is more humane and human-relevant.

Health Essential Reads

When Healing Becomes Harm

How Community-Based Healthcare Builds Engagement

The Research Modernization Deal provides a commonsense roadmap for how we can transition away from the use of animals in terms of biomedical research funding:

• Stop doing what doesn’t work, and cease funding for animal experiments in the areas where they have shown to be the poorest predictors of humans.
• Assess additional fields of research to determine where else the use of animals is not proving to be fit for the purpose. This can be done through systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• Prioritize funding for non-animal methods and decrease funding for animal experiments, to incentivize researchers to choose animal-free methods.
• Implement an ethical harm-benefit analysis system so that cumulative harms to animals are assessed and weighed against an evidence-based calculation of the potential benefit of the experiment, taking into account past failures.
• Globally harmonize which non-animal tests are accepted for regulatory toxicity testing.

MB: How does your work differ from others concerned with the same general topics?

ET: Many of the efforts underway to spare or improve the lives of animals used in laboratories focus on a specific animal experiment or species. These types of campaigns are vitally important, but without an overarching plan to change the paradigm, they can feel like emptying the ocean with a spoon. If the Research Modernization Deal were adopted, many of these more specific campaigns would become unnecessary, because the most cruel or scientifically unjustified experiments would be eliminated.

MB: Are you hopeful that as people learn more about what you want to do they will be more open to your ideas?

ET: It often feels like members of the scientific community think people involved in animal protection are anti-science, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Scientific evidence is what shows that 1) other animals are intelligent, feel complex emotions, and suffer in captivity; and that 2) experiments on animals continuously fail to lead to treatments and cures for humans. I feel confident that the more that we can demonstrate, through reason and scholarship, that the logical conclusion is to take steps to move away from animal experimentation, our message will get through to those who need to hear it.