Animal research myths, and the reality

By Christine Lattin, (March 2018)

If you are a scientist doing animal research, you should know that public support for your work has never been lower¹. This may be part of a larger pattern of growing distrust and suspicion of scientists and data-based decision making generally, which can be seen in everything from climate change denial to the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine movements. However, this erosion of support for animal research is certainly partly due to a sustained and systematic campaign of misinformation perpetuated by animal rights extremists. For example, here are three animal research myths that have been claimed about my own work, along with the reality.

Animal research myth #1: Work on a given species (in my case, house sparrows) cannot be translated to humans or even other animal species because of anatomical and physiological differences among species

Reality: At a physiological and anatomical level, humans and other animals are very similar. The hormone and neurotransmitter systems that I study, for example, are very similar across all vertebrate animals from fish to humans. This similarity means that most of the veterinary medicines used to treat animals are the same as, or very similar to, those developed to treat human patients. Any minor differences are far outweighed by the similarities, and the differences that do exist can give important clues about diseases and how they might be treated – for instance, if we understood why naked mole rats almost never develop cancer, this could lead to treatments for this devastating disease. In the case of my own work, other scientists have used my house sparrow research examining endocrine disruption caused by small amounts of ingested oil as evidence that some health problems and deaths they saw in wild dolphins and sea turtles after Deepwater Horizon were due to oil exposure. Furthermore, this sparrow research demonstrates that the adrenal glands are highly sensitive to toxic chemicals, meaning that adrenal health might also be a useful bioindicator of toxicant exposure in people.

Animal research myth #2: Animal research is no longer necessary because good alternatives like cell culture and computer modeling exist

Reality: While non-animal methods like cell culture and computer models can be excellent systems for understanding particular types of questions, they have limitations. For example, computer modeling can only be done if we already have information to put into the model. There is often no way of acquiring this information other than using living organisms. In vitro experiments using cell cultures are very useful for shedding light on mechanisms that happen inside the cell, but are usually not sufficient for understanding how different cells, tissues and organs interact inside the body. This means that we must use live animals to answer many of the most important scientific questions related to human and animal health, and to understand behavior, physiology, neurobiology and other processes in other animals. However, many animal researchers, including myself, do strive to adhere to the 3Rs principle when using animals in research - reduce, refine, and replace - to the extent possible. This is part of the reason why I have pioneered new techniques in sparrows that allow for less invasive ways of studying stress – for example, my work validating a technique for extracting hormones from feathers and my current research using PET and CT imaging techniques to study the brain and body. These techniques are commonly used on humans for medical purposes.

Animal research myth #3: Animal research (specifically in my case, research on wild songbirds) is not subject to sufficient oversight or regulation

Reality: Animal research is extensively regulated and subject to oversight on multiple levels. For example, the wild house sparrows I study are covered by the USDA's Animal Welfare Act - only "purpose-bred" birds, rats, and mice are currently exempt from this law. Federal law also mandates compliance with standards and provides external oversight and mechanisms for public transparency of all federally-funded research with rats, mice, and birds. Accreditation by the independent organization AAALAC requires compliance with standards (Yale is an AAALAC accredited institution). Any work with wild birds requires state permits and in some cases federal permits. Finally, every animal study must first be approved by a university Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (or, IACUC), which has to include members of the community.

In summary, misconceptions and misstatements about animal research abound, and I think part of our responsibility as scientists is to work to dispel these myths. For those of us who do animal research, it is essential that we speak out strongly and often about the importance and high ethical standards of our work. Even many scientists who do not themselves conduct animal research - for example, clinical researchers working in humans - rely heavily upon a foundation of years of work in animal models. When talking to the press or public about any new scientific breakthrough, these researchers should explicitly acknowledge all of the animal research that led to their discovery. Otherwise, the conversation about animal research will continue to be dominated by those spreading misinformation, and support for our important and life-saving work will continue to erode.

¹Source: Pew Research, accessible at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-the-use-of-animals-in-research/