Comment by willmeyers

> The problem is: how do you as a researcher become comfortable testing on a voluntary human test subject?

I don't think you and GP are actually saying anything different. I interpreted their statement 'The researcher should first ask "would I feel comfortable testing this in a voluntary human test subject?"' not to mean don't test on animals if you wouldn't on a human, but to use your reaction and feelings to that to guide your judgement, and help judge what type of animal testing you're at, not to be a binary switch of whether any animal testing at all should be done.

How do you feel for wild mice, who typically have short lives of borderline starvation before they are eaten by a snake, bird, or other predator?

Okay, so let's not do the human trials. Just be content with the modelling (which is known to be imprecise especially where it matters most), and just approve the drug. What would that even solve? Instead of 6 volunteers getting injured, all the customers/patients who bought and took the drug would get harmed.

There is always human trial — the whole history/timeline of people taking a particular medicine is effectively a decades-long human trial. That's actually the only way we learn about long-term side effects, see paracetamol for instance. All you're proposing is we remove a smaller, controlled pre-trial before releasing the medicine into the wilder population. Sorry, but that won't solve anything except for your feeling of moral indignation.

All patients recovered, the final patient left hospital after 3 months. Not ideal. The company went bankrupt and the outcome was better regulation in the UK and Germany; great wiki article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theralizumab including the relevant:

    Critics of animal testing have cited the case to argue that experiments on nonhuman animals, even in species closely related to humans, are not necessarily predictive of human responses, and cannot justify the harm inflicted on animals or the resultant risks to humans

That's a naive understanding of academia.

Meeting standards is nothing but a formality, a form to fill. The PhDs and lab staff doing the killing, if they have any qualms about the act itself or just the purpose of the killing, generally justify it away as being what they have to do to keep the job. The "humane" killing methods are learned on the job through trial and error, and such errors keep happening regularly to experienced staff.

Prior to lockdowns, many/most lab animals just got killed: interesting quality of life standard.

What's written in lab policies is not at all how it happens in reality.

> Treat them as a pet owner would treat their beloved pet rat.

They do that already? Then how come an estimated 192 million mice are killed each year?

I feel like "just a question of cost" is a heavy lifter here though.

Cost core to our resource allocation system, for better or worse, and if something costs a lot it usually means we can't do it as much. In this framing, cutting out animal testing would (often) mean medical research is slower. In this framing it's a question of where people are willing to put the dial on ethics vs results, and of course pumping the breaks in one place without universal buy-in just means the cruelty moves elsewhere.

I don't think the above 1-dimensional framing is the whole story though. You could imagine more standardized data sharing, so that the data that cost the lives of a few thousand rats could be used by others. And of course you could require (as drug trials do) that the study be registered before any experiment happened, and that the results be published regardless of the outcome. Some of these changes could actually make the science better, in addition to more ethical.

It’s not just a question of cost. Our biological mechanisms are so complex, there is no single system that can tell us whether a drug is 100% safe or not. That’s why drugs are eventually also “tested” in humans during clinical trials. How amazing would it be if we could throw any drug/compound into a computer, then also spit in it, and get a personalized efficacy score as a response…?

Animals are NOT cheaper. Pharma companies do everything to avoid animal testing.

For most drugs the only reasonable test animals are mice and rats. And they LOVE to naturally get cancer and other diseases, so you need to use large groups to get even a semblance of statistical significance.

Oh, and don't forget that it takes a lot of time to run the tests. And time IS money for pharma.

Even within animal testing, the cost and convenience of animal testing could vary tremendously. Working in animal testing intrinsically means running a death-camp for mice. The mice aren't are barely even raw materials, they're basically stationery, more treated more like a mobile pH test-strip then a living creature.

There are ways that animal testing could be made far more humane (like birth control to prevent the kind of overbreeding that demands mass culling), but those, themselves, would be costly.

And in order to test cures, you must first inflict the animals with the disease. How many do you need? Are you sure? Because waiting to produce more later would also create costs. Cheaper just to breed a huge batch now and then cull the surplus.

... so how many extra do you want?

Sacrificial animals are used to answer nearly all questions in medicine. I would be surprised if you could find a single therapeutic out of the last 3,000 that entered Phase I that didn't cite mouse experiments in its preclinical studies for efficacy.