R is for Replacement

Replacement is one part of the 3Rs of modern medical research and refers to the non-animal methods of research which which directly replace the use of animals.

Animal advocates will often campaign for a direct replacement of animals in medical research, exclaiming that as we already have the technologies available it is easy to transition. Some, often among social media comments, will suggest that researchers who are encouraged to use animals in their field simply refuse, or suggest they find another profession.

While this might be well-intentioned advice, particularly when it means animals will be removed from research, it may be that it is not quite as practical as it seems. When Ford closed its Australian car manufacturing factory in 2017, only about half of the highly-skilled and experienced workers were able to find new jobs. Many of those who did find work were only able to find casual or lower paid positions. This is consistent with other workers made redundant in the industry.

So what might medical researchers who use animals be able to transition into? It may be that they only need to transition into using non-animal methods of research, although the wide-scale adoption of these methods is still glacial due primarily to cost of the technologies, the inability to scale into widespread use, and the expertise required to implement and operate them. New technologies are often slow to become adopted across different industries.

Older or senior researchers may find it harder to learn the new technologies, having been invested in the ‘animal model’ for so long. They may even be resistant to the new technologies, as Dr. Cindy Buckmaster explains, "People get used to doing something a certain way, and they just keep doing it that way, even though we are using so many animals, and even though there are now newer ways..."

There is also a certain psychological impact in having one’s life work questioned by suggesting new technologies are superior, leading to the impression of a wasted life of research, on top of the concern of becoming obsolete, lonely, or isolated. Adding to the threat to their positions, final year medical students have significantly more advanced knowledge of and access to technology resources. It has particularly been observed that those with a history of gaming are quicker and more accurate than senior researchers.

The labs themselves will require significant transitions from the investment facilities have made into their animal laboratories. While the cost of using non-animal methods will significantly reduce the day-to-day operation of the laboratory, the initial investment in establishing a state-of-the-art facility will require complete confidence in the emerging technologies and their application. The facility needs to ensure the continuing steady flow of funding and results. A similar effect can be observed in the time it takes a household to transition to using solar panels as their primary source of power. After an initial, and significant investment, it takes the average household between 3-5 years to ‘pay for itself’. The difference being a household can rely of the historical power grid as a backup, and that the efficiency or effectiveness of the household is not impeded during the implementation stages. So, the labs will need to continue to rely on the existing animal-research-paradigm while their labs transition.

Replacement from one ‘technology’ (animals) to another also comes with the potential issue of data comparison. Reporting, regulation, and even end-user product advice may need to change, requiring every member of the public to recalibrate their understanding of the warning labels on a product and the source of that information.

A complex, living system is difficult to replace by new technologies. It has been found this way in the attempts to transplant organs from other species into humans in place of human organ donors. The replacement of the complex, living systems of the animal research laboratories and methods is encountering a similar hurdle.

Many of us have the luxury of being able to criticise and condemn animal researchers from the outside, without the impact on our careers. We look on the end of slavery as a positive result, and it certainly was eventually, however the actual impacts of the immediate aftermath of the emancipation was chaotic, resulting in freed slaves having to suffer further atrocities, such as starvation, disease, and neglect. As empathetic, compassionate, and (hopefully) reasonable people, we may need to afford even horrific industries the time to transition away from their reliance on a failing and dying ‘technology’ and ensure an effective and reasonable real-world transition for humans and animals.

What can be done?

A complete system change is a complex task to undertake, but it consists of small parts moving together. Take #thenextsixtyseconds to evaluate your existing skills or interests to see if they might be able to contribute towards removing animals from research. It may require only a small change of direction to make a significant difference.

Sources:

R Chudasama, N Godara, R Srivastava. Assessing computer literacy and attitude towards e-learning among final year medical students”. The Internet Journal of Medical Informatics. 2008 Volume 5 Number 1.