Advertisement

Canadians would be 'shocked' by how universities use animals, expert says

A physician injects a pregnant mouse in a laboratory at Yale University in this file photo. (Reuters)
A physician injects a pregnant mouse in a laboratory at Yale University in this file photo. (Reuters)

When new and returning students arrived at Halifax’s Dalhousie University campus the first Sunday in September, many were perplexed by a small campus protest about the alleged use of cats in the school’s research labs. Others were less surprised, as they’d already learned about the cats through – what else? – social media.

In late August, a photo of a stack of cat food cans at a local supermarket appeared on Facebook and Twitter, and eventually in local news stories. The cans were apparently waiting for delivery to “Dalhousie,” according to a hand-written sign. First came jokes about the student meal plan, then an online discussion began about the likely connection between the food and scientific research.

Ashley Leslie, an animal rights activist in Halifax, organized the protest to approach students on campus. “A lot of students were totally surprised and wanted to know what they could do,” she says.

Surprising statistics

As it turns out, the use of animals at university labs across the country is more prevalent than most students or Canadians probably realize.

According to the Canadian Council for Animal Care (CCAC), a national, volunteer-based body charged with setting standards and monitoring the treatment of animals in public research facilities (and funded by those same organizations), nearly 2.9 million animals were used for research and testing at labs across the country in 2012, the latest year for which numbers have been reported.

To be sure, that total includes animals that had been used at university hospitals, government labs, and some private companies, some 178 institutions in all—not only university and college facilities. And not every university uses animals in research, but any that do must be certified by the council.

I think most Canadians don’t know that it’s common for Canadian universities to use animals in labs, and when they find out, they’re shocked by the number and the types of animals used.

—Liz White, founder and board member of the Animal Alliance of Canada

The certifying peer-based group does not break down its numbers by school, so there’s no way of knowing whether one university uses more animals than others, or what types of animals are employed. In aggregate, the figures shows that in 2012, the vast majority of animals used for scientific research were mice (43.2 per cent), fish (28.8 per cent) and rats (7.8 per cent).

Higher sentient animals were also seen, but in lower numbers—as low 0.2 per cent for non-human primates such as monkeys and chimpanzees. Still, in real terms, that equals more than 4,000 primates. More than 13,000 dogs, 100,000 cattle, 80,000 pigs and 6,000 cats were part of research in public labs that year.

The following table appears in the CCAC’s report, which is publicly available and published online, here.

Whether these animals were later euthanized or cared for following their time in science was not made public.

But the council did share broad information about the range of purposes that had been cited for research, whether basic scientific inquiry, testing (usually not carried out at schools), the development of products for human and veterinary medicine, or education. In 2012, says the CCAC document, “sixty-one percent of animals were used in studies of a fundamental nature/basic research.”

Finally, the council categorizes how invasive and painful a procedure can be, ranking these factors on scale from CI A to CI E. In 2012, more than 90,000 animals, most of them fish, mice and guinea pigs, were exposed to the highest category, CI E, in experiments that caused “severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.”

Of the total number of animals used, more than one million were involved in CI D-ranked activities, which lead to: “moderate to severe distress or discomfort,” according to official definitions.

Calling for change

“I think most Canadians don’t know that it’s common for Canadian universities to use animals in labs, and when they find out, they’re shocked by the number and the types of animals used,” says Liz White, founder and board member of the Animal Alliance of Canada.

She and other animal rights activists have long lobbied to block the use of animals in research labs and in classrooms. In many cases, labs are not looking hard enough to find computer models or other simulated methods that can help scientists advance understanding of disease and improve human health, without relying on caged animals, they argue.

What can be most frustrating to those who hope to change the system is the amount of secrecy that surrounds the topic. Canadian universities are not obligated to share information with students or the community about the species of animals they maintain behind locked doors, even though it’s public money being spent, says White. Nor do schools need to detail how many animals are in their labs and classrooms, why they’re being kept, poked and prodded, or whether the animals had been purpose-raised (as is standard for mice), or if they came from local animal shelters or farms.

 

White believes universities are reluctant to be frank about their activities because “they know that when the issue becomes public, if pictures come out when animals are being used in research, people will have a reaction. That will lead to a demand for change, and change is often not welcome.”

As evidence, she recounts a story about the University of Guelph, where, before 2010, faculty had been using beagles to teach veterinary school students how to perform sterilization surgery, and then putting the otherwise healthy dogs to sleep once the training was complete. After Animal Alliance ran a full-page ad in the local paper calling attention to the dogs’ fates, the university announced that students would begin adopting out the animals, according to White. The new protocol meant more vets would be needed to supervise student surgeries, a higher cost to the school.

Members of an animal rights group stage a 'primate protest' September 21, 2001 in London, England. (Getty)
Members of an animal rights group stage a 'primate protest' September 21, 2001 in London, England. (Getty)

A new era

For its part, the CCAC says it’s also focused on transparency as part of its current five-year strategic plan. Dr. René St-Arnaud, chair of the organization, tells Yahoo Canada that the council wants to make Canadians aware of the way it works and that it supports universities that go public with information. In fact, he believes we are moving out of an era where universities “kept a low profile” about animal research, mainly out of fear of retaliation from animal rights activists, and into a time of more constructive dialogue. Some universities are becoming more forthcoming about how they use animals, including University of British Columbia and Brock University in Ontario, he notes.

 

 

St-Arnaud, by day the director of research and senior investigator at Shriners Hospital for Children in Montreal, and a professor of medicine, surgery, and human genetics at McGill University, adds that science is not at a point where in vitro experiments can totally replace in vivo ones, and that what’s at stake is our ability to develop treatments for complicated life-threatening conditions in humans.

“In the context of physiology, where three or five or 10 cell types need to communicate, it’s impossible to manage in a cell dish,” he explains. “We do as much as we can, because animal research is costly.”

Ultimately, whether an animal is needed for research is something best determined by a scientist and his or her peers, says St-Arnaud. From there, the scientist would apply for grants for funding, and funding for any research that involves animals can only be granted to CCAC-endorsed labs. At that point, a university-based ethics committee will typically review the research proposal and determine whether the “highest standards of ethics” for animal care are being applied.

 

The CCAC and these local ethics committees say they adhere to the three internationally accepted tenets of ethical treatment of animals in research, known as the three Rs. Per the council’s website:

  • Replace: Avoid or replace the use of animals wherever possible

  • Reduce: Employ strategies that will result in fewer animals being used and which are consistent with sound experimental design

  • Refine: Modify husbandry or experimental procedures to minimize pain and distress

“We promote the use of alternative systems and models,” says St-Arnaud. “Over the years, our knowledge and better practices have led to refinements in the ways animals are used. Paying attention to standards leads to high-quality data, so you don’t need to repeat the experiments,” he says.

The council does on-site assessments with a small panelof volunteer inspectors every three years and full panel inspection every six. At each visit, someone who is not involved in science or medicine—for example a representative from the Humane Society—is invited to be part of the assessment panel.

Unlike in the United States, where researchers can be fined for treating animals in unethical or abusive manners, the CCAC only dictates what must change when it encounters a lab that’s violating rules. If the lab doesn’t comply with the required changes by a given deadline, the CCAC will contact the source of funding and recommend that the lab be cut off from future money. It’s a cost-effective system, says St- Arnaud, one that is praised by research communities outside Canada.

 

White acknowledges that there’s been some progress of late, too. A few medical schools have stopped using animals to train doctors, she says, and some vet schools have stopped using dogs. In general, though, White and others have little faith in the CCAC’s effectiveness or in the culture of research in general. Although St-Arnaud says that the council is proud of its commitment to including the voice of community activists—“They make us think outside the box,” he says— Stephanie Brown, head of the Coalition for Farm Animal and former CCAC member, argues that people from groups like the Humane society do not end up having much of a say in decisions, as they are usually voicing a minority opinion.

Activists and some academics believe that it’s too easy forresearchers to check boxes on self-reporting forms saying they looked for other models to avoid using an animal in research and couldn’t find any, without providing documentation. Also, White says, “No [regulatory] body is looking at the money going into research and the research coming out and what it means – how useful it is.” Such doubts about the fundamental value of scientific research involving animals are further discussed here.

White asks: why not redirect the money going into animal research for conditions like heart disease, cancer, or diabetes, into a far-reaching program of prevention and awareness about lifestyle choices?

“We’ve never explored what it would mean to explain to people what consuming all these processed foods, animal products, sugars and fast foods means to our health,” she says.

 

Much bigger questions

In any case, White says the research community and Canadians need to have a discussion about how animals are viewed and what our values are as a culture. (A few scholars of philosophy at Queen’s University would agree.)

“In the broader scheme of things, there are some clear ethical and moral questions that are never asked, like ‘What gives us the right, whatever the animal, to take it, put it in a cage, infect it with a horrible disease and watch it die?’ And that gets even harder to answer when you look at primates, the animals that are closest to us on the planet. Yet the same principles concerns cows, mice, dogs, cats, and fish.

“The answer seems to be that we have the intellect and strength to do it,” she says.

For her, that just isn’t enough justification.