Purdue University Press spoke with author John Parascandola about his new book A History of the Development of Alternatives to Animals in Research and Testing, the first book-length study of the subject, tracing the history of the concept of alternatives to the use of animals in research and testing in Britain and the United States from its beginnings until it had become firmly established in the scientific and animal protection communities by the end of the 1980s. This account of the history of alternatives is set within the context of developments within science, animal welfare, and politics.
Could you give a brief description of your book?
My book traces the history of the concept of alternatives to animals in research and testing from its beginnings until it had become firmly established in the scientific and animal protection communities by the end of the 1980s. My focus is on alternatives as a concept and as a field of research and application. Significant attention has therefore been devoted to the origin and development of views on alternatives, controversies and cooperation between scientists and animal welfare advocates over alternatives, and the ways in which alternatives have entered legislation and experimental and regulatory practice.
What is the goal of your book? What motivated you to write it?
The goal of the book is to make historians, scientists and animal welfare advocates more aware of the development and significance of alternatives to animals in research and testing. As a historian, I was primarily interested in telling the story of a neglected but significant aspect of the history of medical science and animal welfare. I am also hopeful, however, that the book will in general stimulate interest in and understanding of alternatives, which I believe have contributed to a substantial reduction in animal suffering and will continue to do so in the future. I have long been interested in the history of the use of animals in experimentation, but it was my two sons who during their college years first made me aware of animal welfare issues.
What are some of the original contributions of the book?
As this is the first book-length study of the subject, I believe that I have shed new light on a number of aspects of the history of alternatives, including the support for and opposition to them and how they found their way into legislation, regulation and practice. For one thing, I have provided an in-depth analysis of the factors involved in the project sponsored by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) that led to the publication in 1959 of The Principles of Humane Animal Experimentation by W. M. S. Russell and Rex Burch. This seminal book introduced the concept of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) which played a crucial role in the development of the field of alternatives for decades to come. I have discussed in detail how the project came about, how it was carried out by Russell and Burch and how the book came to be published. In this process, I have made extensive use of primary source materials which have been little used previously, especially the papers of William and Claire Russell at the University of Nottingham and materials provided by UFAW from their records. Another example of a topic that I have explored in more detail than previous scholars have is the opposition of the American scientific community to any kind of legislation that might resemble the 1876 British Cruelty to Animals Act, what I have referred to as the “British bogeyman.” American scientists were fiercely supportive of their independence and fearful of any legislation that might impose restrictions on their research. They were strongly opposed to provisions in the British law that required government licensing of institutions and individuals involved in animal research.
Please tell us a little about the Three Rs – what are they, how they were developed, why are they important?
Although some earlier scientists had on occasion put forth suggestions for reducing the number and suffering of animals used in experimentation, and even in rare instances replacing them entirely, the origins of the alternatives movement is generally traced to the publication in 1959 of The Principles of Humane Animal Experimentation by W. M. S. Russell and Rex Burch. Russell and Burch introduced the Three Rs framework fur humane animal experimentation that included the principles of replacement (substitution of non-sentient materials such as tissue cultures for animals), reduction (reducing the number of animals used through appropriate strategies in the planning and performance of experiments), and refinement (reducing to a minimum the amount of stress and pain to which the animal was subjected). The Three Rs framework came to dominate the definition of alternatives in the period covered in this book and beyond. Russell and Burch later indicated that they could not recall exactly how they had developed the Three Rs. They just emerged in the course of their work. The Three Rs concept broadened the view of alternatives beyond just replacement of animals in research and testing. Since replacement of all animals in experiments was not an achievable goal for the foreseeable future, the Three Rs provided additional means of promoting more humane animal experimentation. Reducing the number of animals used in experiments and refining techniques to reduce the distress of these animals led to a significant reduction in animal suffering. The Three Rs also provided additional opportunities for scientists and animal welfare advocates to cooperate on the goal of reducing animal suffering through the development of means of reducing the numbers of animals used and the distress which they underwent in experimentation. There was no room for compromise between antivivisectionists who called for an immediate end to all animal experimentation and scientists who believed they needed to use animals in their research. But scientists and more moderate animal welfare advocates could work together on promoting the development and use of alternatives within the Three Rs framework.
When did tissue culture research begin? What were some of the concerns expressed about tissue culture research?
The birth of the method of tissue culture research is generally dated to 1907. In that year, Yale embryologist Ross Harrison, studying the formation of nerve cells, was able to culture the cells in vitro and get them to grow. Previous efforts to grow tissue cells outside the body had resulted only in their brief survival, but Harrison showed these cells could be induced to thrive apart from the body. The technique, which involved significant technical difficulties, did not come into widespread use until after the Second World War. Perhaps in part because of this, the technique was not especially controversial, although some individuals did raise ethical objections on the grounds that it threatened the sanctity of life, of the boundaries of the individual. Scientists who were using tissue culture to examine and manipulate life at the cellular level could be viewed as playing God. The current controversy over fetal tissue research and abortion, however, did not surface until decades later. Human fetal tissue cell research did not begin until the 1930s, and the practice did not raise concerns until it became part of the abortion controversy of the 1970s. The source of human fetal tissue for research was from a dead human embryo or fetus after a spontaneous or induced abortion or stillbirth. Human tissue culture research showed significant promise for advances in medical research, but its connection to abortion made it a target for anti-abortion advocates.
You can get 30% off A History of the Development of Alternatives to Animals in Research and Testing and any other Purdue University Press book by ordering from our website and using the code PURDUE30 at checkout.