Animal rights activists have been relentless in their campaign to force the University of British Columbia (UBC) to stop conducting research on animals.
In their latest volley on January 24, a number of groups, led by STOP UBC Animal Research (SUAR), called on Air Canada to stop transporting primates destined for research facilities like those run by UBC.
SUAR, which was formed last February after a report surfaced about UBC’s use of animals for research, has also called on UBC to release information about that research, especially aspects of it that involve primates.
For its part, UBC has said that it needs to do a better job of communicating to the public about why research on animals is still necessary and important, and how such research is completed as humanely as possible.
It’s not the first time animal rights activists have targeted B.C. researchers: QLT Inc. (TSX:QLT; Nasdaq:QLTI), which is ranked second on BIV’s list of biggest life sciences companies in B.C., published in this week’s edition (see page 20), has also drawn protest in years past.
In 2009, animal rights extremists firebombed the vacation home of the CEO of Switzerland-based Novartis, which is QLT’s primary partner.
As well, extremists have vandalized graves belonging to family members of Novartis’ boss.
While there are fewer animal studies today, they still play a major role in drug development.
According to BIO, the world’s largest biotechnology organization, biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines.
In an interview with BIV last week, Don Enns, president of LifeSciences BC, which advocates on behalf of biotechnology and other health-related companies in B.C., outlined the role that animals have in advancing clinical research.
When developing a new chemical or a new drug, there are different types of animal models employed depending on where [the drug or chemical] is used, how it’s going to be used and what it’s targeting. They may be aquatic or they may be mammalian animals. There are mouse, rat, rabbit, pig or dog models, depending on the application. If I’m looking at new chemical entities that are being introduced into the industrial marketplace, there is typically aquatic toxicity that’s required using different types of aquatic animals. They may be small fish, they can be different types of larvae, and there are protocols associated with testing on them.
We [researchers] subscribe to international standards [developed by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care] that are linked to animal welfare. The protocols aren’t unique to one jurisdiction. In general, [during research involving animals] you have to have some sort of vet there, some sort of vet pathologist, an animal technologist, and you have to undergo certain inspections. UBC’s facilities, especially for smaller animals, are truly world-class in the way in which those animals are maintained, fed and monitored.
There is no question that over the last few years, over the last decade or two decades, there has been greater sensitivity to animal welfare as well as greater sensitivity to the types of animals that have been used.
Especially as genomics and other technologies have developed, there is less reliance on certain animal models, but I think entirely excluding animal models from research and development – and this can be chemical, pharmaceutical and even agricultural – is going to be extremely difficult. There has clearly been less dependency on them, and there is more selectivity. And as we go forward there will continue to be more and more animal welfare taken into consideration.
Outside of the academic institutions, there is very little animal toxicity expertise in B.C. Very little of it exists within the private domain here. In certain U.S. states, in Quebec and certain European locations, there are big animal testing centres. I can tell you from a past life [while an executive with Vancouver’s Cantest Ltd.], we looked at [animal testing] as a potential business model because we did aquatic toxicity. We could not make the model work here. There are other jurisdictions that have made it work, but it’s not something that is high on our radar here. Number 1, you have to have a certain critical mass of industry. And the reality here in Canada is that Ontario and, particularly Quebec, already have the infrastructure and the animal models. There is just not the demand in B.C., so we would have to compete more internationally. Secondly, depending on the application, regardless of whether it’s a pharmaceutical or industrial chemical, you have to do different studies across different animals. There is no way we could have that capacity.
You’ll often hear the word “sacrifice” used. There is a necropsy usually done on these animals. Depending on the application they may or may not be sacrificed. For instance when you’re doing an obesity study, you’re not necessarily concerned about sacrificing the animal, which would, in that type of study, typically be a mouse or rat.