Book Review

In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation

N Engl J Med 1994; 330:870-871March 24, 1994

Article

In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation
By F. Barbara Orlans. 297 pp. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993. $39.95. ISBN: 0-19-507043-7

The number of vertebrate animals used in research rose sharply in the United States after World War II, with the establishment of the National Institutes of Health. In 1983 it was estimated that between 17 million and 20 million vertebrate animals were used in research, testing, and education. Although some argue that the 1983 figure underestimates actual use and others believe the numbers of animals used have decreased since the late 1970s, the fact remains that vertebrate animals continue to have an important role in research, education, and safety evaluation.

The animal-protection movement has played an important part in public education, shelter and adoption programs, and protective legislation. During the 1970s, the emergence of the animal-rights movement in the United States provided a focus for people disenchanted with the pace of protective legislation and for those opposed to any use of animals by humans. Enormous public-education campaigns supported by videotapes and photographs taken in animal laboratories (in some instances during illegal break-ins) led to a dramatic change in the public's perception of how animals are used in research.

Bolstered by public support, various animal-protection organizations appealed to Congress for stronger legislation. In 1985, as a result, Congress passed the Health Research Extension Act, which specifically protected research animals and charged the Public Health Service with creating rules and providing enforcement. During the same year Congress passed a sweeping amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, which requested the Department of Agriculture to rewrite all animal-welfare standards for the care and use of animals in research, testing, and education. New rules, regulations, and enforcement criteria have continued to be issued since 1985. Judicial decisions have rejected some of them, whereas other courtroom decisions have required the Department of Agriculture to expand its regulations to cover rats, mice, and birds.

During the past 10 years, Congress has continued to receive proposals for more restrictions on the use of animals in research, testing, and education; state legislatures have often been inundated with proposed animal-protection legislation; and the courts have been used to gain access for the public to the process of reviewing protocols for research involving animals, to press suits for the release of research animals to nonprofit organizations, and to allow students alternatives to the dissection of animals. Unfortunately, a small but brazen few felt they should take the law into their own hands -- leading to numerous instances of destruction of facilities, personal harassment, and “animal liberation.” As a result, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act in 1992; it provides penalties and fines for specified acts such as the theft of animals from a research facility. It is in this context that Orlans has written In the Name of Science.

The author clearly states her goal in the preface: “One of [the book's] main purposes is to make recommendations for policy changes that are achievable within the foreseeable future and that would improve the lot of animals used for experimentation without hampering the scientific process.” Indeed, many recommendations are presented, including a national classification system to “denote the severity of animal harms”; national policies to address the use of animals in elementary, secondary, and higher education; adoption by editors of scientific journals of guidelines on the ethical conduct of experimentation involving animals, which would include a review mechanism and the provision of “full information within the text of a research article about the degree of animal harms inflicted and the justification for performing traumatic procedures”; a policy of releasing animals held in pounds for painless experimental studies (with termination of life within 24 hours); and a national commission, representing the spectrum of viewpoints on animal issues, to tackle “some of the thorny problems now besetting the conduct of animal research.”

Some of the author's conclusions may seem excessive or inappropriate to many readers, but she presents a detailed and, for the most part, balanced review of the major issues in animal research in the United States. Although she attempts to represent all sides of the research-animal debate, it is quite clear that the author has her own opinions. Readers should not expect to find a detailed justification for the continued use of animals in research, testing, and education, nor a discussion of the complexities of investigations in the biomedical sciences -- issues that have a profound influence on the deliberations of institutional animal care and use committees. Numerous figures and tables help present the author's ideas and provide a framework for change. Orlans is correct in her assertion that “we need a softening of the counterproductive strategies used by both extremes” in order to address seriously the public concern about animal research.

In the Name of Science is mainly an analysis of public policy, rather than a primer on animal experimentation. It serves as an excellent, up-to-date review of the evolution of public awareness and concern about biomedical research involving animals. In that sense, it will be valuable for those in the fields of science and philosophy who are interested in pursuing an open discussion of policy issues. The author also provides useful data on a number of issues of importance to the institutional animal care and use committees' review of protocols involving animals and thus may serve to stimulate discussions. Although her recommendations may be controversial, they are likely to be equally problematic for scientists and animal protectionists (albeit for different reasons). The author has taken the first step in initiating a discussion among all concerned parties, which may well lead to dramatic changes in animal research.

Fred Quimby, V.M.D., Ph.D.
Cornell Veterinary College, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401