I have repeated this sentence, almost like a mantra, whenever I talk about animal research. I accept it at face value, as do others, and for good reason: broadly speaking, it is true. But a defensible scientific claim requires more than plausibility, however compelling. It requires evidence and clear definitions. Animal research has undoubtedly been pivotal to veterinary medicine and may remain so for the foreseeable future, but that does not make the claim universally or permanently true. This statement is also unclear in regard to what lives count and what constitutes a benefit. Do mosquitoes benefit from malaria research? Do enteric parasites benefit from the development of antiparasitic drugs? Are they not animals too? And even if we restrict the question to the animals we do care about, it is not enough to say broadly that they benefit from animal research. Which animals benefit? From which types of research, and to what extent?
Answering these questions is also relevant if we are to have an informed ethical discussion on the topic. Yet I found remarkably little research addressing these questions. There is a plethora of articles discussing the benefits and limitations of animal research, but even among animal-minded authors, estimates of benefit are strangely anthropocentric. However, without credible research on this subject, it is difficult to establish which animals benefit from which research, or to identify the obstacles and opportunities involved, and therefore to have an informed discussion on whether it is justifiable to use an animal of one species to benefit others of the same or another species. Does it matter equally if the animals expected to benefit were companion animals, livestock, wildlife or laboratory animals?
So, my once clear-cut assertion that “animal research saves animal lives”, while broadly correct, needs to be more evidence-based. I therefore decided to make a modest contribution to the evidence base by examining how much animal research is reported to European regulators under purposes that can reasonably be considered animal-oriented. This approach has several limitations, which I address, and it is not peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, it provides a starting point and satisfied some of my own curiosity, as such exercises often do. You can read the resulting article, “Benefits for animals: a neglected part of the animal research debate”, in this third issue of Animal Research Tomorrow Magazine.
There is much more in this issue. Sally Thompson-Iritani traces the remarkable history of Norecopa, from databases distributed on floppy disks to an international hub for 3Rs resources. Stefano Gaburro argues that asking whether artificial intelligence will replace animal research misses how AI is already changing animal monitoring, experimental endpoints and data analysis. Hernán Serna and I discuss whether a Culture of Care can, and should, be assessed and benchmarked, in an interview published in both English and Spanish. Augusto Vitale reviews Larry Carbone’s The Hidden Lives of Lab Animals and asks the author about the Culture of Care and the future of animal research in the United States. Laboratory animal science student Kristen Pauley recounts how she moved from animal-rights into laboratory animal welfare without abandoning the values that originally motivated her. We also revisit ART Award recipient Charlotte Rosher and the development of her community science initiative, Science on the Walls. Finally, Maša Čater shares highlights from the ART Conference, we list recent noteworthy publications, and provide further news from the ART community.
There should be something for everyone in this summer issue. I hope you enjoy it.