Animal rights advocates are all too aware of the disturbing treatment animals receive in the name of science. Rats, monkeys, rabbits and other animals are injected with chemicals every day that inflict painful reactions. Students may have some exposure to these injustices, but many defend the techniques as a crucial part to scientific research.
Finally the concerns of animal rights groups have been heard.
Last week the Alternative Models for Animal Research workshop, sponsored by the Office for Protection of Research Subjects, was held on campus to discuss alternatives to using animals in research.
In fact, a research team from UC Berkeley has made significant advances in the use of alternative testing. These steps have given on-campus group Bruins for Animals the hope that their efforts might be initiating change.
Recently, a higher level of concern has been expressed about animal testing.
The European Union passed a bill banning animal testing in cosmetics to go into effect in March 2009. With this bill underway, the initiative to research alternative testing methods has skyrocketed.
The U.S. however falls behind in legislation concerned with animal rights. The Animal Welfare Act only protects animals against issues such as improper cage size and transportation, rather than laboratory testing.
Besides the lack of protection from painful procedures, the law does not protect rats, birds and mice, which comprise 90 percent of all animals used in laboratory testing.
Though the United States has not set an example by promoting animal alternatives through stricter legislature, the EU’s bill, along with the efforts of activist groups across the country, has still been enough initiative to find new ways to test chemical products.
Jonathan Dordick of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Douglas Clark of UC Berkeley have implemented the use of a chip, similar to a microslide, that contains over one thousand human cell cultures to test new chemical and cosmetic products.
Each slide is composed of two different chips that are bundled together. The MetaChip contains enzymes from the liver, while the DataChip has cells from human lungs, heart, kidney, liver, skin or bladder that vary according to the toxicity of the chemical being tested. Together, the MetaChip and DataChip accurately mimic the body’s reaction to new pharmaceutical products.
For a long time, animal testing was thought to be a crucial part of biomedical and product research, but the technology that Clark and Dordick have invented shows this is no longer the case. Supporters of animal rights are excited about this new research.
“These alternatives need to be utilized not only because they are more ethical, but also because they will more effectively determine the safety of drugs since they are more accurately simulating drug effects by using human cells rather than (animals),” said Lisette Molina, co-president of Bruins for Animals.
Though this new procedure will take time to implement and perfect, finally crucial steps to stop animal abuse have been taken.
Bruins for Animals continues to fight for the implementation of animal rights on campus. They recently worked with the chancellor to change the laboratory policy that states students cannot refuse to participate in dissection on moral or religious grounds. Students are now able to abstain from participation in these experiments and the professor is required to offer an alternative activity.
Students who are against animal testing can also look for cosmetics that do not partake in cruel laboratory techniques. Even though the FDA does not require animal testing to pass cosmetics into the market, many companies still use these techniques.
Companies that are not involved in animal testing include The Body Shop, Avon and Mary Kay. Being aware of how your products were approved for sale can send a message to companies that consumers demand products not tested on animals.
Let’s not waste another animal’s life when there are alternative options.
Ready to see an end to animal testing? Send your game plan to smier@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.