Changing paradigms: from unnecessary animal experiments to non-animal methods as a sustainable basis for scientific progressA discussion on the ethical aspects of animal use in biomedical research was raised by the Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in 2019, with a focus on Brazil (Andersen & Winter 2019). Recently, this discussion has gained more traction on the international stage (Nature 2024).
In Brazil, the expansion of postgraduate programs over the last decades increased the use of experiments using animals, many of them to address scientific questions that could be answered through alternative models. Despite the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Brazilian science, the number of animals used in research increased by 31.4% between 2018 and 2021 in Brazil, with over 16 million animals used during this period (Quintilio & de Trói 2023). Reducing the number of animals without compromising scientific advances is possible and recommended (Klettenberg & Mendonça 2022, Quintilio & de Trói 2023).
Many projects involving animals are still developed to meet demands for student training and merely (scientific) curiosity, without bringing major scientific progress. A small proportion of basic science studies (<10%) lead to significant scientific advancements or clinical treatments (Contopoulos- Ioannidis et al. 2003, Pound & Bracken 2014, Nature 2024), and only approximately one-third of highly cited animal studies translate into human randomized clinical trials (Hackam & Redelmeier 2006).
The National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (CONCEA) banned the use of animals in testing cosmetics and personal hygiene products (Resolution No. 58 of 2023) and has recognized alternative methods to the use of animals in research activities in Brazil (Resolution No. 56 of 2022). Of note, there are several methods that allow the production of high-quality scientific knowledge without using animals. Also, the use of animals in educational activities is currently limited by legislation (CONCEA Resolution No. 53 of 2021) and increased awareness of animal welfare (Garcia et al. 2018).
Despite these advances, some problematic aspects persist. In addition to the difficulty in obtaining basic data on the number of animals used in research in Brazil (Quintilio & de Trói 2023), we highlight that little is known about the real (translational) impacts of the Brazilian research with animals on society. This urgently needs to be corrected by CONCEA and the scientific community, with the participation of society. The lack of financial incentives for transitioning from animal experiments to non-animal methods poses an additional challenge in Brazil (de Ávila & Valadares 2019). Brazilian science funding agencies play a crucial role in addressing this issue by financing projects aimed at developing alternative models across various research fields.
In research potentially involving animals, replacement must be the most important action of the classic “3R’s Principles” (reduction, replacement and refinement) (Garcia et al. 2018, Andersen & Winter 2019). Subsequently, responsibility was included in this concept, giving rise to the “4R’s Principles” (Kiani et al. 2022). The social, ethical and ecological aspects of scientific activity is a responsibility of each researcher, and questioning the real need to develop research involving animals should be embraced by Brazilian researchers as a practice of scientific integrity.
REFERENCES
- ANDERSEN ML & WINTER LMF. 2019. Animal models in biological and biomedical research – experimental and ethical concerns. An Acad Bras Cienc 91: e20170238. DOI 10.1590/0001-3765201720170238.
-
CONTOPOULOS-IOANNIDIS DG, NTZANI E & IOANNIDIS JPA. 2003. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med 114(6): 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00013-5.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00013-5 -
DE ÁVILA RI & VALADARES MC. 2019. Brazil moves toward the replacement of animal experimentation. Altern Lab Anim 47: 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192919856806.
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192919856806 -
GARCIA RCM ET AL. 2018. Brazil starts to ban animal use in higher education: A positive and progressive development. Altern Lab Anim 46(4): 235-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291804600402.
» https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291804600402 -
HACKAM DG & REDELMEIER DA. 2006. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA 296(14): 1731-1732. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.14.1731.
» https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.14.1731 -
KIANI AK ET AL. 2022. Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. J Prev Med Hyg 63(2 Suppl 3): E255-E266. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768.
» https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768 - KLETTENBERG C & MENDONÇA R. 2022. O alcance e os limites da experimentação animal no Brasil: uma análise interdisciplinar dos direitos animais. Monumenta 3(6): 60-96.
-
NATURE. 2024. Animal research is not always king: researchers should explore the alternatives. Nature 631(8021): 481. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02314-8.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02314-8 -
POUND P & BRACKEN MB. 2014. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 348: g3387. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3387.
» https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3387 -
QUINTILIO W & DE TRÓI M. 2023. Uso de animais em experimentos no Brasil: práticas culturais, científicas e nova ética para o século XXI. SciELO Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.5873
» https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.5873
