Better Science VII. RESISTANCE TO ALTERNATIVES Although the "alternatives approach" represents state-of-the-art scientific methods, superior to traditional animal-based approaches, in the United States there remains considerable resistance among many academic researchers, toxicologists and regulatory officials to making the switch to more humane approaches to experimentation, testing and education. Experts in this field have observed: "Many toxicologists and regulators do not want to question the value of the methods they currently use." Michael Balls, Ph.D., former Director, ECVAM, 2002 "Regulators appear to be more willing to accept new animal tests which have not been validated than non-animal tests which have." Michael Balls, Ph.D., former Director, ECVAM, 1998 "Behind all of this there lies a profoundly irrational bias in favor of in vivo tests." William Russell, Ph.D., founder of modern alternatives movement, 2003 "Extreme views on both sides of the animal research battle have led to a stalemate in which any search for alternatives is too often seen as a concession to animal rightists. As a result, the United States lags far behind Europe in finding and implementing alternatives." John Rennie, 1997 / Editor, Scientific American There is also a general consensus that resistance to the identification, development, adoption and promotion of humane alternatives reflects several attitudes and biases, which are not mutually exclusive. These include, but are not limited to: blind acceptance of in vivo methods and animal models lack of support (financial and professional) for development and validation of alternatives and basic toxicological research anachronistic regulatory mandates, tradition and political barriers to acceptance of validated alternatives poor quality of comparative in vivo and relative absence of human data for use in validation studies fears of litigation by liability attorneys and insurance companies who prefer historical in vivo data regardless of its validity psychological factors rooted in ignorance of in vitro methods and general fear of change unrealistic expectations of current in vitro methods and the validation process poorly worded testing mandates and regulatory inertia preference for check-box or six-pack testing programs rather than chemical-specific requirements lobbying by biomedical trade associates and animal suppliers with vested financial interests in the continuation of animal experimentation and testing All of these barriers are being overcome at an accelerating, but still frustratingly slow pace. The future of animal-based experimentation, testing and education is questionable. As noted by Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medawar: "The use of experimental animals on the present scale is a temporary episode in biological and medical history." << Back To Contents | Next Section >>

Other NEAVS Fact Sheets: Benefits of Non-Animal Tests | Xenotransplants | Animal Welfare Act | Limitations of Animal Tests | Non-Animal Product Safety Test Alternatives << Back to Better Science  | Home