A look at lab animal medicine
By Elizabeth Galloway
No justification needed
Many articles in the popular press have attempted to justify animal research.
Still more articles have been written in opposition to animal research, but
few are by experienced technicians describing how animals are really used in
research. I was involved in animal research from 1976 -1992 in two major research
facilities and four separate laboratories and under the direction of many investigators.
I feel qualified to fill that gap.
Let me state at the outset that I consider myself to be a true animal lover.
In my 16 years as a research technician I have not personally been involved
with, or known of, any project which I would consider truly inhumane at the
research facilities in which I worked. I have known of only two instances of
animal handling which I would consider inappropriate. One occurred at an institution
where I worked and was initiated by an untrained although very experienced technician.
The other instance occurred at a major university in the US.
Similar circumstances, in my opinion, would not occur today due to the increased
regulations on animal research. I have found that extraordinary measures are
taken by most principal investigators and research facilities prior to the beginning
of a project to ensure that a minimal amount of pain and suffering will be endured
by the animal subjects. In addition to the legal issues and bad press researchers
must deal with, their primary concern is that they engage in "good science."
It is clearly "bad science" to stress your subjects to the point of skewing
physiologic results, so it is to the researchers' advantage to properly care
for the animal subjects. Most researchers are aware of this advantage, but it
is true that there are bad researchers, interested only in the financial or
egotistical gains to be had. But let's be realistic; most researchers are not
getting rich or famous off their work, and they often invest excruciatingly
long hours to obtain answers for the good of mankind.
Research facilities must adhere to a variety of regulations and most do so
with great awareness of the consequences if they fail to. Many facilities (I
believe most major facilities) have additional requirements imposed by in-house
peer review groups. These requirements are often stricter in regards to animal
care than government regulations.
There are a variety of ways in which animals are used in research. The largest
proportion are used to develop and test procedures or products prior to approval
for human use. All of the labs I worked in did biomedical research and studied
either the ill effects of specific diseases and conditions or did surgical research
to investigate new techniques for the improvement or lengthening of human life.
Development of a research protocol
Development of a research protocol is done usually by the principal investigator
in response to a variety of factors such as:
- Area of expertise or interests
- Facility requirements or contractual requirements
- Societal needs or constraints
- Funding availability
- Government mandates
Frequently investigators with varying fields of expertise collaborate in the
development of a protocol and carry out various portions of it in diverse locations.
At the early stages of development the research scientist and his staff will
generally spend a considerable amount of time doing library research to evaluate
the merit of his ideas. This is a time when they ask various questions such
as (but certainly not limited to):
- Has this been done before? If so, was it done using valid
scientific design and are the results consistent with other related research?
- Can I improve upon or answer additional questions beyond what was
already done?
- What techniques are already developed that can be used to test our
hypothesis?
- How are these techniques different or the same as those our lab
has experience with?
There is nearly always some point in the early design at which an investigator
asks himself questions about the greater impact of the work on society and what
it will mean to future generations. This thought process is often hidden by mundane
daily concerns, but I have never known anyone who is keen on scientific research
who did not have an underlying desire to make a difference to the future of our
society.
It is probably only fair to point out however that most investigators simply
flow from one project to another because the next project is so often an offshoot
of previous ones. The succession of research protocols in any investigator's
life is frequently a lifetime commitment to answering a limited number of fundamental
questions.
It is the repetitive nature of scientific research, the need to verify and
then verify again that often confuses, irritates and angers many not involved
in the quest. But it must be understood that it would be folly to apply research
which had not been carefully repeated and verified by others.
Following the library research, the investigator will discuss his ideas, thoughts,
and questions about the project with others. This varies greatly from one institution
to another. In my experience, much more discussion is done in academic facilities
- though it seems that many private and government facilities have a built in
mechanism for insuring that ideas are well thought out. In these facilities
there are often groups of individuals who help determine the direction the research
will take for that institution.
Once the ideas are fleshed out and techniques to be used are determined, the
investigator will begin the process of putting on paper the scientific protocol
to be used - usually a grant proposal, a detailed and tedious document which
conveys practically every aspect of the work to be done. The writing of a grant
insures that the investigator has thoroughly thought through every aspect of
the project he wants to undertake. This means everything from the number of
animals to be used (this is properly determined using a statistical procedure
which determines the number of results required for a given level of statistical
accuracy) to the staff's credentials.
The proposal goes to a body of individuals who ultimately decide its merit,
value, and application to society. Competition for funding through grants is
heavy; only the best will be approved.
The research and reporting
Once the grant is approved, the investigator meets with his staff and sets
in motion the preliminary experimentation. Again, this varies depending on the
nature of the project. If the investigator's staff is well versed in the specific
techniques required, experimentation can begin immediately. Often, however,
some trial runs are made with new or modified techniques, perhaps to familiarize
a technician with a particular type of chemical assay using a new assay kit
or perfecting a surgical procedure which has not yet been attempted by this
team on a particular species of animal. Techniques and procedures must be perfected
before the data obtained from the research is deemed reliable. The surgical
team must become comfortable with the procedure and with the flow of work among
team members.
In addition, these procedures usually involve a large variety of electronic
instrumentation (sometimes even instrumentation that is new and being tested
for the first time) for monitoring physiologic responses. The instruments must
function reliably every time; calibration and set up must become second nature
to at least two of the team members. Usually there are individuals who have
experience with the equipment, but in some cases new members must be trained
or variations in the usual set-up will be needed.
Once the actual experimentation and data collection begins, procedures are
constantly reviewed. While it is not a frequent occurrence, (because hopefully
all the bugs have been worked out previously), it is acceptable and desirable
that any flaws in design be corrected during the experimental run. This may
incur on occasion the use of an additional animal or two; however the grant
proposal usually takes this possibility into account.
The care of the animals is continuously reviewed by in-house veterinarians
and all procedures involving animals are reviewed and supervised by board certified
veterinarians. In addition, technicians involved in the projects are generally
responsible for post-surgical care, which is generally more demanding than the
care of non-operated animals. In procedures where recovery from anesthesia is
not part of the protocol, there are very specific euthanasia requirements set
forth by the various animal care boards, and often in-house requirements are
even more stringent for the euthanasia technique to be used. In some cases,
even the administration of euthanasia is regulated.
Finally, when all the data is collected, the investigator and his staff complete
the statistical analyses and review that has been going on throughout the experiment.
This report is presented to groups of peers and others who will build on and
make use of the information provided to continue the challenging tasks of cleaning
up our streams and lakes, saving our children from the perils of leukemia, keeping
our parents alive through heart or lung transplantation, and providing us with
a host of products that make our lives better.
Elizabeth Galloway is a lifelong lover of animals whose early remembrances
include falling into ponds while studying frogs and snapping turtles. She has
worked in a variety of research laboratories on such things as physiological
research in infectious diseases, toxicological research in heavy metals, heart
and lung transplants, and orthopedic research and currently works as a data
analyst and field technician for an internationally known environmental consulting
company. She has a BS in Animal Science and an MS in Business and is involved
in dog obedience training, Dalmatian rescue, and public education for proper
animal care. While in college, she worked in a canine control facility and taught
a preventive veterinary medicine course to high school-age members of local
4-H groups involved in raising various kinds of animals. As a young woman, she
showed horses in 4-H and pony clubs.
|
