I
did not realize dog testing was so common until every article we discussed in one
of Simon’s classes referred to pharmaceutical testing on dogs.
Yearly,
over 70,000 dogs are used for drug testing in the US.
Pharmaceutical
testing on dogs is legal in the States. The FDA actually requires toxicity tests on rodent and non-rodent species, dogs
tending to be the latter.
Why
test on dogs?
Scientists
have discovered that humans share 5% of both the dog and mouse genomes. I’m
sure dog lovers see the resemblances! Our emotions, habits and the general physical
layout are all similar.
Dogs
and humans are also ailed with similar diseases. In fact, “dogs suffer from
more than 350 genetic disorders” such as cancer, cataracts, epilepsy, allergies
and heart disease.
Canines
are used for research on “autism, paralysis, leukemia, diabetes”, and many other medical conditions.
The small, docile
and easily manipulated beagle is commonly used as a lab dog.
Surgical experiments and toxicology tests are top reasons for canine
testing. The discovery of insulin in 1921 is contributed directly to medical
experimentation on dogs.
However,
both the Journal of Toxicology and Nature claimed in 1986 and 2011, respectively, that dogs are “poor predictors of drug effects in humans”
and that the industry yearns change considering the ineffectiveness of drug
testing on dogs thus far.
Canine
rights activists will rejoice.
Vocal cords removed to reduce disturbance, skin illegally burned,
tattoos to remain anonymous…
A lab in North Carolina was shut down after researchers there were
charged with 14 counts of animal cruelty. This case isn’t isolated either! Dogs
can spend their whole lives in research facilities without having ever stepped
outdoors.
This is quite a touching article and video detailing the Beagle
Freedom Project: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/dog-testing-the-beagle-fr_n_898513.html.
“Continuing to employ hapless companion animals in
pharmaceutical testing – a pathetically passé practice – is morally and
ethically indefensible, and must cease immediately.
To continue this barbaric practice only lends additional
credence to the axiom that ‘mankind’ is the penultimate oxymoron, if ever there
was!” ~Stephen Phillips
“Please let us keep the emotions out of this discussion.
It is clear that basic, translational, and clinical research has significantly
advanced over the last 40 years, where as toxicology research to my knowledge
has not. I applaud Johns Hopkins, the ICCA and the Doerenkamp Foundation for
taking a lead in reviewing current toxicology practices and helping us to
modernize these.” ~Gottfried E Konecny
Hildegard Doerenkamp, a Swiss
philanthropist, donated €1 million to the
Zurich based Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation to work towards reducing animal testing.
The following changes are urged:
- The Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland suggests using a better model for testing such as the mini-pig.
- There is also a drive to test on non-rodent species only when in vitro or rodent species do not provide enough information.
- And lastly, the FDA and the European Medicines Agency are urged to harmonize requirements for testing to reduce the number of animals used.
It turns out testing on dogs is quite common worldwide. But is
this a fair, science based practice or is it a practice based on tradition? You be the judge! Please share your thoughts below.
References:
http://www.abpischools.org.uk/page/modules/diabetes_16plus/diabetes5.cfm?coSiteNavigation_allTopic=1