Toxicology, the Effect on Society - Essay Example

TOXICOLOGY Introduction Birth & Development of 3RS movement Major Breakthroughs Application & value 3RS strategy Aims & Objectives of Essay Skin & Eye Toxicology Reproductive Toxicology Critical Evaluation of some Research Papers Conclusion Introduction The luxuries and facilities provided by science to the modern world are associated with dangers and hazards to not only human beings but to other species too. Hundreds of laboratories all around the world are busy in exploring and inventing useful things for humankind. While developing useful things, various toxic materials are produced as by-product or as ingredient of useful products. Scientists and society is gradually getting more and more concerned over toxic releases . These concerns are increasing the need for better data about thousands of compounds. At the same time, new methods may be able to point out where chemicals interact to produce disease. But because of human safety numerous animals are used for experiments and testing. Most of them are killed or subject to unacceptable pain and distress. This state of affairs shook the scientists conscience. A movement was started within the scientist community to change the conditions. Birth & Development of 3Rs movement During World Wars nations were more involved in producing chemical weapons. These chemical agents were tested on animals in many warring countries. The shocking results of these tests initiated the thought process in scientists to do something for the welfare of animals. The first proposal in this regard using three R's term was presented in 1954 by Charles Hume, founder of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW). He proposed that UFAW start a scientific study of humane technique in laboratory animal experiments. Christine Stevens, founder of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) also contributed financially from U.S. Major Breakthroughs Soon this movement gathered momentum and spread all over the world. Legislators in Europe and the United States proposed use of laboratory animals under certain regulations. Laws were introduced for restraining use of animals in laboratories. The three R's stand for replacement, reduction and refinement. The laws in different countries are different but the purpose is same to secure animal rights and reduce the killing and illegal use of animals in laboratories for testing. Various organization were established for safe guarding and monitoring the matters related to animal usage in laboratories. The proposed use of three Rs is described here briefly. First R Reduction The reduction proposes some alternative methods for getting similar level of information by using less number of elements. Thus reducing the number of elements used in laboratories. It was observed and proved that poor experimental methods and inadequate information leads to increased usage of animals. It was proposed that measures should be taken to reduce repeated experiments. The data gathered previously should be used. The revolution in information technology has made it easy to access variety of information available at far off places so that experiments may not be repeated and thus number of animals used in laboratories may be reduced. Second R Refinement Refinement means to use such methods that lessen pain and distress and increase animal wellbeing. The pain and distress can be reduced or removed by using various drugs like anesthetics, analgesics etc. It can be materialized by a program of animal care to find and reduce animal sufferings. It was proposed to evolve ways and methods of assessing animal suffering during various experiments. Accomplishment of refinement depends on the ability of scientists and experts willingness to contribute and coordinate for refining the methods and quality of their experimentation. They should realize that any method that inflicts suffering on animals should be avoided. It is unfortunate that not much funding is provided to investigate and refine experimental techniques and scientific procedures. Techniques to develop a refine methods are very rarely available. If such techniques are discovered then they are not reproduced in scientific periodicals and journals. It was also proposed that concept of reducing and removing animal sufferings may be inserted in curriculum of scientists and laboratory workers. Any new discovery in this direction should be communicated to all such laboratories. Third R Replacement The Replacement proposal covers such methods that can be used to achieve desired goal without experiments on animals. It was proposed that exchange and preservation of data and information regarding animal experimenting should be improved so that duplication of experiments may be reduced. It was proposed that other methods like computer simulations and diagnosis methods like X-ray CT Scan and MRI may be used instead doing those experiments that may cause animal suffering. The acceptance of replacement proposal for research and testing should be based on of the molecular and cellular knowledge. Scientists and researcher should know that what are they doing what do they want to prove or ascertain. This understanding make the replacement proposal successful. Aims & Objectives of Essay The essay is meant review the three Rs movement generally but particularly one aspect of three Rs replacement will be discussed in detail. For this purpose few research papers from nc3rs.org.uk have been selected. The particular research paper "Biophotonic imaging and the reduction of animal usage in experimental research" by Dr Kevin P Francis, Xenogen Corporation is quite interesting. This essay suggests some means of replacement proposal. But before discussing this essay it seems appropriate that review of three Rs movement should be completed. Application & value 3RS strategy It is quite fortunate for animals and for animal rights workers that most of the proposal given by three Rs movement are accepted and acknowledged now. Most of Governments and legislators of top researching countries have made regulations to support and implement the proposals. But still everything is not achieved. There are many research organization and manufacturing companies who do not fully agree with the proposal of the movement. They find it difficult to come to terms with these proposals by sacrificing their commercial interests. But the efforts are going on to convince and compel them to understand the importance of goals of this movement. It is not possible to cover all the aspects of this struggle going on between animal rights activists and commercial organizations in this short essay. But few important burning issues can be covered. Two important issue are discussed below. Skin & Eye Toxicology Any person living in this modern society uses dozens of chemical products during his daily routine. From toothpaste and shampoo to antiseptics and insecticides. One can not do without them. These things are inseparable part of daily life. Ladies now even gents use variety of cosmetics and beautification products during their daily routine. Everyday new products are being launched and advertised. But before marketing these products the manufacturing companies and researcher go through a long process of experimentation. After a series of experiments they classify the product as safe, or dangerous. The tests required for ascertaining the safety level of a specific product or chemical require animal testing as computer or other sources can not satisfactorily answer few important questions asked by the researchers. For example how much irritation may this product cause to eye and skin What quantity of certain chemical is safe that may not cause skin or eye irritations These questions can not be answered without animal testing. Now here the activists and researchers are divided. The toxicology tests conducted for manufacturing cosmetics are overwhelmingly opposed. The logic behind this is that human being can survive without these cosmetics. Considering Public reaction against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers argue that their products are not tested on animals. But they are bound by certain law and regulations to show their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health. They have to prove before authorities that the ingredients are not dangerous. Although some cosmetics manufacturers have stopped using animals for testing their products but majority is continuing to use animals for testing. But the toxicological tests conducted by pharmaceutical companies and other biological research organizations are still supported by vast majority of people and governments. The most severe tests are done for drugs and foodstuffs. Not only animals are used for testing these drugs but volunteers also come forward for conducting these tests and verifications. A number of tests are performed, lasting from one month to three months and even more than three months for testing toxicity of that particular products. Specially to eye and skin irritancy, and reproductive problems. In beginning the ingredients are tested and then finished product is tested for toxicity. According to new research it has been established that toxicological effects of a specific substance on animals may not be similar as these toxicological effects on "normal" humans. As there is great difference in the physiological size and structure between human beings and small animals used in laboratories. It therefore quite certain that toxicological effect of a chemical may be different. It may even vary between persons of different age group. This kind of information can not be obtained by testing animals. So it is necessary that according three R's concept a replacement of animals should be found out. It has become imperative for scientists and researchers to replace animals with other means of experimentation and testing. As animals can not provide adequate and reliable information. Although some companies use volunteers for testing drugs. But it could also be difficult to find volunteers for such practices. Moreover human beings can not volunteer for more hazardous substances. It has therefore become necessary to use other means for testing the harmful effects of chemicals and toxins. For implementation of three R's following measures can be taken as suggested in a Canadian document. (www.cruelscience.ca/DATA/AAC-Way-Forward.pdf) Data should be collected comprehensively and then analyzed. It should be checked very accurately that whether data regarding certain tests is already available somewhere. So that no duplication of tests could be made. The compounds that are acidic or alkaline and are causing irritation to eyes and skin should be labeled properly. Computer tools may be used for getting accurate results. Skin tests should be done in vitro and if it proves that substances are causing irritation to eyes the testing should immediately stopped (www.cruelscience.ca/DATA/AAC-Way-Forward.pdf) Reproductive Toxicology Like skin and eyes irritations testing on animals. It is difficult to assess the impact of certain toxic chemicals on human reproductive system. As there is great difference in size and structure of human reproductive system and small animals reproductive system. So it can not be judged by testing merely on animals. This limitation of testing results on animals is also compelling the researchers and scientists to find different means for establishing the toxic impacts of certain chemicals on human reproductive system. For implementing the three R's approach it is once again recommended to follow the following recommendations for improving the testing results and also for reducing and replacing the animals for such tests. Data should be collected comprehensively and computerized system may be used for assessing and analyzing the data. It is also important to establish and maintain a international data bank. This data bank should have results of testing of various chemical and their impact on reproductive systems of animals tested. This data may be made available to every researcher and scientist. This database will help in reducing the animal suffering. As the repetitive tests will not be done . Following evaluated papers also contain useful methods of replace and reducing use of animals in toxicology tests Critical Evaluation of some Research Paper I "Biophotonic imaging and the reduction of animal usage in experimental research" by Dr Kevin P Francis, Xenogen Corporation Main Points of the Paper In this work writer has suggested methods of whole body imaging of small animals instead of dissecting them. He has pointed out that use of Xray, CT Scan etc. is good for reducing the animal sufferings. But at the same time he has pointed out limitations of using these methods because of radiation and high cost. Use of such equipment is also expensive. Instead of using these methods he suggests that Biophotonic imaging is better than above-mentioned methods. There is no danger of radiation in this method and it also less expensive. He also suggests that genetically engineered cells can be place inside a living animal. By detecting that light produced by these cells required observations can be made. Evaluation Although the method suggested by the Dr. Francis is quite useful. It also serves the purpose of three Rs . But it can be implied to a limited scope. It can not be used for testing various chemicals and toxins as discussed earlier. It also requires advanced technology know how. It might not be possible for every organization to use it. However its scope can be expanded by further research. It suggests a good start for the well being of the animals. The figures given below are taken from www.nc3rs.org.uk. These figures clearly demonstrate difference between old and new methodology. Source: www.nc3rs.org.uk from the following research paper "Biophotonic imaging and the reduction of animal usage in experimental research" by Dr Kevin P Francis, Xenogen Corporation Critical Evaluation of some Research Paper II "Protecting Well-Being Of Humans, And Non-Humans Too" by Andrew N. Rowan is Chief of Staff of the Humane Society of the United States, in Washington, D.C. Main Points In his overview Mr. Rowan pointed out the importance usage of new techniques. He stresses the need of deepening the technological know how about molecular machinery. He very rightly says that many of toxicology testing techniques are very old and out dated. His overview concludes that despite increase in tests the number of animal used in toxicology tests has reduced. It happened just because of introduction of new methodologies. He also emphasizes that newly discovered toxicology test methodologies should be made available on the world wide web so that every one could take advantage of it. Evaluation This overview also points towards the right direction. The proposals made are quite correct but practical steps are required for implementing them. Only financially established countries and companies can make it possible. The governements and companies should come forward to give their share in funding such projects. Only then animal suffering can be reduced. It is the responsibility of industrialized nations to contribute for this noble cause. As they are the main beneficiaries of all this development. Merely airing slogans for the welefare of animals can not serve the purpose. Practical step are need of the hour. Conclusion The issue raised by Scientists and Environmental organizations for reducing reliance on data from animal test is quite correct. Scientists are trying to use more alternative methods. But the validation of these alternate methods yet to be ascertained. Many scientists feel that these alternative-testing methods can not fully replace the use of animals. This view is quite correct. But if everybody makes it his responsibility to impose self restrain while using animals for testing. It will do a lot to safeguard the animal rights the regulations may not be able to that much. Negative mentality and approaches should be avoided and checked. Only then three Rs movement objectives could be fully achieved. Acknowledgement It is hereby acknowledged that information from following website was used for writing this essay. http://www.nc3rs.org.uk References/Bibliography Altman DG (1982). Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med 1:59-71. Anderson & Anderson (1997). "Toxic effects of air freshener emissions". Arch. Environ. Health. 52:433-441. Croce, Pietro (2000). Vivisection Or Science : An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health, Dr. Robert Sharpe, 1994 "Extracts from Science of Trial: The Human Cost of Animal Experiments" Festing MFW (1994). Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experimetns. Lab Animals 28:212-221. Flecknell PA (1994). Refinement of animal use--assessment and alleviation of pain and distress. Lab Anim 28:222-231. Howard-Jones N (1985). A CIOMS ethical code for animal experimentation. WHO Chron 29(2):51-56. Morton DB. Recognition and assessment of adverse effects in animals. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Metheun, 1959. Stokes WS, Jensen DJB (1995). Guidelines for institutional animal care and use committees: consideration of alternatives. Contemp Top Lab Anima Sci 34(3):51-60. Wilson MS, Berge B, Maess J, Mahony G, Natoff I, Nevalainen T, Van Zutphen LFM, Read More