Read on Twitter
@ScienceMagazine returns with another "balanced" discussion of animal research science and ethics. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/it-time-replace-one-cornerstones-animal-research. They interview two ethicists who challenge the value of the 3Rs. (1/n)
Quoting from the article: "some have begun to argue that itâs time to replace the three Rs themselves. âIt was an important advance in animal research ethics, but itâs no longer enough,â Tom Beauchamp" of @Georgetown
asks... (2/n)
asks... (2/n)
Adds DeGrazia of @GWTweets: "The three Rs donât ... ask questions like, âIs the experiment worth pursuing in the first place? Is it too expensive? Is it important enough?â It just assumes [that]. We want scientists to be asking these essential questions first." (3/n)
Stop for a moment. Here are two ethicists who have focused on animal research for many years, and they believe that scientists never - in any personal or professional forum - consider whether the science undertaken is actually important... What utter ignorant nonsense. (4/n)
Since they are ignorant on this issue, I'll educate them about how we conduct prospective evaluation of the scientific merit of a research project. (5/n)
Let's start with the easiest to understand... scientific grant applications that prospectively outline the potential impact and significance & experimental design of the work and that receive intense, detailed and highly critical evaluation by peers and funding bodies. (6/n)
But that's not the end, every graduate student goes in front of faculty and outlines the importance and impact of the study they wish to undertake at master's or dissertation proposal stages. These are in depth, probing evaluations. (7/n)
And let's not forget IACUC review that, while not focused principally on the scientific merit of an experimental protocol (because this has often been considered in depth at earlier stages), it clearly can and sometimes does involve an evaluation of "impact". (8/n)
At least for me, a deep, critical evaluation of what experiments I think are crucial to do and why they are vital to fundamental knowledge building or biomedical application amounts to the majority of the time I spend during the day. It's central to my effort as a PI. (9/n)
Beauchamp and DeGrazia go on to say that their framework goes "beyond the âreplacementâ part of the three Rs in that scientists must not just consider alternatives to using animals, they must prove that there are no viable alternatives." What? (10/n)
Unless Beauchamp and DeGrazia have a very different definition of the word "prove" than most scientists do, this is impossible. We can provide a convincing account (something current IACUC applications already ask for) that is subject to debate, but "proof"? (11/n)
Next, they note that "[a]nother principle would ask scientists to detail how much humans and society are likely to benefit from the research". (12/n)
What their principle ignores is the reality that all efforts that generate sound, in depth, fundamental knowledge about biology likely benefit humans and society in multiple ways. That doesn't mean all that work is ethically justifiable, of course, but it is beneficial. (13/n)
They also ignore the fact that good science - exceptional science - is rarely predictable. It explicitly takes us into the unknown, turns our predictions on their head and opens our eyes to new ways of thinking. (14/n)
Further, they stipulate that "we want researchers to think about how they can mitigateâand even eliminateâany harms caused to animals during their experiments. Are they drawing blood more than they need to? Are they handling rodents more often than necessary?" (15/n)
My reaction:
To be clear: THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE EXISTING APPROACHES WE USE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL REVIEW OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ALREADY DOES. (16/n)
One gets the impression that Beauchamp and DeGrazia studied a bizarro animal research world only to return to our planet and recommend that we largely do things exactly the way that we already do. I guess that's what you call: (17/n)
Now they get specific, discussing the addiction field. "If we, hypothetically, addict mice to cocaine, and then see how much of an electric shock theyâre willing to endure to get their fix... [t]hatâs way too much harm to cause for whatever the purpose..." (18/n)
They describe an approach that measures the persistence of drug taking behavior, despite adverse consequences ... something that has turned out to be a really powerful animal model for studying compulsive addictive behaviors. (19/n)
Remember that Beauchamp and DeGrazia wanted you to start with the scientific impact of the work, but they didn't even pause to do that here. Let me educate them. (20/n)
In 2018, over TWENTY MILLION Americans suffer from a substance use disorder (an "addiction" to a chemical like cocaine, alcohol, heroin). In the same year, more than SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND Americans died of overdose. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html#:~:text=In%202018%2C%2067%2C367%20drug%20overdose,2018%20(20.7%20per%20100%2C000). (21/n)
That sounds like an important and significant problem to design experiments to address. Just my 2 cents. (22/n)
This is especially true when you consider the model, as its used, actually offers the animals a simple option that Beauchamp and DeGrazia never even considered - and that is to take no drug and experience no shocks at all... Something a significant proportion of them do. (23/n)
But let me close with a more damning critique. David Grimm chose (I would guess, quite intentionally) not to interview a single scientist directly about any of this nonsense. He just tied it up in a nice little bow and presented it to @ScienceMagazine readers. (24/n)
Beauchamp and DeGrazia suffer from myopia and ignorance about the topic they claim to be experts on. But Science Magazine News, in choosing the broadcast their message with no critical appraisal, is the real villain here. FIN (25/25)
