From I. F. H. Purchase
ifhp@chadzombe.u-net.com
Your editorial raises the issue of funding for alternatives to animal
experiments
(25 October, p 3).
One important area at issue is testing the toxicity of chemicals. Toxicity
testing is a legal requirement for the safety evaluation of all new (and many
existing) chemicals, including medicines, food additives, pesticides and
household chemicals. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 stipulates
that animal experiments may only be used where there are no scientifically valid
alternatives. Thus, alternative tests must be validated before they can replace
existing ones.
Unfortunately, the impression has been created that all that needs to be done
for alternative tests to be validated and to replace animal experiments is to
have more research money made available. However, the average time between the
first publication of a test method in the scientific literature and its
acceptance into OECD guidelines (the final international acceptance that a test
is reproducible, robust and effective) is 10 years.
Advertisement
Over the next 10 years, several alternative tests will complete their
validation. But even if they are all acceptable, the number of animals required
for testing a single chemical, such as a food additive or pesticide, will only
be reduced by between 2 and 5 per cent.
The development of new tests depends on knowledge gained over a very wide
field of biology. For example, the tests using bacteria for detecting chemical
mutation would not have been possible without knowledge of genetics developed
over decades. The real need is to invest in the broad development of the
biological sciences, as without this the development of new tests will not be
possible. This will require increased funding of several orders of
magnitude.
Even with that investment, the pace of reduction of the use of animals for
toxicity testing will be slow.
