GUEST COLUMNIST
By Nika Llamanzares
I didn’t really take the anti-animal testing movement seriously. Most of the people I know who want things to be “cruelty free” only care about the animal and how cute it is, not the effects it has on the development of important scientific discoveries. People forget that animal tests are needed to make sure that the people who undergo the real trials don’t develop severe symptoms, or much worse. I thought that if animal testing is the best precaution scientists could come up with, then we should stick with it rather than prematurely ban it altogether.
However, an article published in science.org by Meredith Wadman in 2023 said that animal tests are pointless as nine in 10 animal models are inaccurate. Animal models could then actually make tests more dangerous as they tell scientists that the drug is safe to test, when that might be further than the truth. For how inaccurate they are, they also cost millions of dollars – dollars that could be used for more important aspects of the drug discovery process.
Yet, Wadman goes on to state that there is hope in the form of new digital alternatives to drug discovery. One that was mentioned in the article is the use of organ chips. They act as synthetic blood vessels where the potential drug is pumped through. When the drug damages any part of the vessel, the chip alerts the user of its toxicity.
Similarly, in a 2024 study by Miriam Zemanova and Silvia Frey on new medical discoveries, it was said that scientists have just recently created lab grown nerve cells that mimic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, or the numbness caused by chemotherapy. These nerve cells allow scientists to determine potential targets for drugs to combat this numbness.
Another alternative to animal tests comes in the form of 3D models. Specifically, in the same study by Zemanova and Frey, developers have created 3D models that make use of CRISPR-Cas9 modified cells that mimic human skin to test skin disease-related drugs. Though mice have done a decent job in the past to test skin-related drugs, their genetic differences against humans have greatly limited the extent of these tests. The 3D model, in turn, becomes a much more accurate device in this specific area of drug discovery.
With the range these new technological approaches have, Zemanova and Frey have explained that scientists are able to either generalize or personalize the drug discovery process, depending on the diseases they want to address. In comparison to animal testing that can only treat general causes, these new approaches can do the same thing and still be modified to mimic the symptoms of an individual, adding to why animal testing can eventually be phased out.
Yet, in a 2023 study by Ava Maciejewski, Michele Basso, Cory Miller, and Matt Bailey, it was said that only a few of these new methods have been validated. In fact, these methods have to be validated by animal tests regardless, rendering these methods pointless as they still require the use of animals.
Maciejewski et al., continued to state that these new methods provide an incomplete view of the human body as they do not address how new drugs are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted like animal tests do. With these limitations, these new methods fail to show how the drug may affect the entire human body over a long period of time.
Still, I believe these new methods are signs of drug discovery progression, and that there is hope for those with diseases that cannot be covered by animal tests. The fact that these methods may even be cheaper than animal tests also incite hope that drug discovery processes, including the drugs they produce, will be cheaper and more accessible for all. In short, alternatives to animal tests have the potential to greatly change the drug discovery game, making drugs more accessible for all.
Yet, with anything that seems too good to be true, I would say that scientists must still remain cautious. Before anything else, what is most important is the safety of the people.
Scientists should not fully phase out animal tests if the alternatives are limited and are not yet validated. They should not risk pursuing insufficient alternatives for the slim possibility that the drug discovery process may be quickened. Speed does not equal quality. Instead, I would suggest for scientists to use the most appropriate test for the drug being observed. If an animal test would be more applicable, then they should use it. If the alternative would yield better results, then use it instead.
Overall, drug discovery is a tricky thing; there is no black and white solution here.
Therefore, society should treat it as such. Scientists, advocates, and politicians should weigh the cost for all types of drug discovery tests before ruling one out entirely. We must not put our personal beliefs first in making big decisions, such as the phaseout of animal tests. When people are at stake, we need to take every precaution possible before choosing our positions.
(Nika Llamanzares is currently a college student studying communications at the University of Southern California. In a world of political polarization, she believes that reliable, thought-provoking news is more important than ever. She hopes to become a professional journalist one day to make such news more accessible to the public. You may reach her at [email protected].)