TITLE: Scientists kill 192 million lab mice each year. Is there a better way?
https://bigthink.com/life/scientists-kill-192-million-lab-mice-each-year-is-there-a-better-way/
EXCERPTS: Scientists stress out lab mice, a lot. Inducing chronic stress and anxiety in these furry critters is how scientists explore the bodily and cognitive effects of stress and discover anti-anxiety medications for humans.
There are two primary ways researchers stress out a lab mouse: immobilization and restraint. As described in the Encyclopedia of Stress (Second Edition), immobilization involves “taping the four limbs of a rat or mouse to mounts secured to a metal frame using hypoallergenic tape. A pair of metal loops attached to the frame limits the range of motion of the animal’s head…The duration of a single episode of immobilization usually varies from 5 to 120 min or more. In addition, animals in chronic stress protocols may be immobilized each day for many weeks even months.”
Psychologist Richard McCarty described the effects in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.
“The struggling that is typical of the first several minutes of an immobilization session places great pressure on the four limbs and animals are often physically exhausted at the end of an immobilization session.”
Other than immobilization, scientists might elect to stress out lab mice via restraint, in which critters are “secured in a plastic tube or a wire-mesh container that is small enough to prevent the animal from moving about or turning.” Mice are forced to endure this protocol for hours a day over weeks.
Beyond psychological stress, scientists expose lab mice to starvation, pain, physical harm, and death. Blood is drawn in a variety of ways — sometimes deadly, sometimes not. Tails are snipped, holes are punched in ears, and toes are severed. Researchers and lab technicians carry out these activities all the time, for genotyping, identification, and data collection. This day-in and day-out doesn’t just take a toll on the animals, but also on their handlers.
Perhaps the most traumatizing part of the lives of lab mice, for both researcher and animal, is ending them. An estimated 192 million rodents, mostly mice, are studied and sacrificed each year in labs worldwide.
Lab mice meet their ends in a variety of ways, all of them regulated to be humane (though approved methods differ depending upon the country). Overdose of anesthetic, concussion by blunt force trauma, cervical dislocation, decapitation, exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2), and microwave irradiation are the most common. But if you’re of the opinion that “humane death” is an oxymoron, there’s a plethora of evidence to support you.
“The majority of rodents are conscious during handling and the application of killing methods and are therefore capable of experiencing negative states (e.g. pain and fear) until they lose consciousness,” a trio of UK-based animal researchers wrote in a thorough 2022 review of the practice of killing laboratory rodents.
They note that cervical dislocation, which involves “placing the finger or an instrument behind the base of the skull while pulling the tail firmly to achieve rapid separation of the high cervical vertebrae” is widely considered “to induce rapid unconsciousness due to concussion and damage to the brain.” But at the same time, there’s very little scientific evidence to actually support the view that the act produces a humane death — or even a reliable one.
“Work to date concurs that cervical dislocation is particularly susceptible to a high failure rate and that proper technique is crucial,” they wrote.
Then there’s decapitation, often carried out on conscious lab mice using small guillotines. Studies tracking the brain activity of mice indicate that the animals maintain consciousness for anywhere from three to 14 seconds after beheading, a disturbing notion.
Carbon dioxide exposure is by far the most commonly used technique to extinguish laboratory rodents.
“Some systems are fully automated and enable the animals to be killed in their home cage along with their cage mates, which offers several advantages over physical methods, such as its high-throughput and non-contact nature, elimination of stress associated with handling, isolation and restraint, as well as minimizing the impact of operator error,” the authors noted.
But this method has problems, too, which the reviewers say warrants discontinuing its use, unless lab researchers are “exploiting its high-throughput advantage”.
Chief among them, new evidence suggests that mice killed with carbon dioxide experience breathlessness — and worse — “air hunger,” the conscious appreciation of an urge to breathe, which humans find to be uniquely and primally uncomfortable.
Moreover, lab mice exposed to carbon dioxide have been observed running around, jumping, rearing, gasping, defecating, and urinating before death finally relieves them of their overt distress.
Is there anything that can be done to improve the welfare of lab mice? For starters, marking animals for identification doesn’t need to be a traumatic experience. Painless methods involving special dyes and markers are available. Second, antiquated methods of inducing stress, like the aforementioned immobilization technique, could be prohibited. Most importantly, lab mice can be granted quick, painless deaths. Current methods don’t do this reliably.
Novel techniques for sacrificing lab mice are rolling out now. Focused beam microwave irradiation is one of them. It involves rapidly heating the rodent brain with a high-energy beam. Mice reportedly lose consciousness in less than half a second. Unfortunately, the equipment for granting mice this swift end is costly, limiting wide adoption.
Hypobaric hypoxia, gradually decreasing the pressure in a chamber, causing death by lack of oxygen, is a cheaper alternative. In a study published last year, scientists compared it to carbon dioxide exposure. They found that while hypobaric hypoxia took longer to result in death — just over six minutes vs. under four minutes — the lab mice displayed fewer signs of pain and anxiety.
But while some researchers focus on bettering the lives of lab mice, others look to replace them entirely.
Polling firm Morning Consult surveyed 2,205 adults in September of this year. More than eight in ten respondents agreed with the statement: “Animal experimentation should be phased out in favor of more modern research methods.”
In step with public opinion, in 2022, President Biden signed a bill doing away with a longtime requirement that every new drug seeking FDA approval first be tested on animals. This year, the National Institutes of Health is launching a $300-million fund supporting the development, validation, and testing of alternatives to animal research.
And there are very promising alternatives. Models based on human cells and tissues grown outside the body attract a lot of attention. One researcher at Johns Hopkins University uses blood samples from Alzheimer’s patients to create stem cells. She then turns these into brain organoids, which eventually show signs of Alzheimer’s. Scientists can then test drug candidates on the organoids.
There are also microphysiological systems, so-called “organs-on-a-chip.” These contain engineered or natural miniature tissues grown inside microfluidic chips. Each emulates the physiology of a certain organ, like the liver or kidneys.
Computer simulations also show potential. In what’s been dubbed “in silico testing”, data scientists can task computers with analyzing the structures of drug candidates and predicting how they will affect living systems. Rapidly advancing artificial intelligence will surely speed up progress in this area.
While animal research has in the past been considered essential to the drug discovery process, the reality is that roughly 90% of novel drugs that work in animal models fail in human clinical trials. That’s because rodents are not humans. Though mice and humans share 92% of their DNA and have identical genes, our bodies behave differently to the same substances. In one recent study, researchers compared the expression of individual genes within the same cell type in both mice and humans. They found that two-thirds of all genes shared between mice and humans are expressed differently.
The researchers working on alternatives are convinced that we can do better and that these alternatives will save time, money, and the lives of both humans and rodents. Emerging evidence is backing this rosy outlook, but [Professor Paul A. Locke] says that regulatory agencies at the federal level are currently not doing enough to accelerate change. The Food and Drug Administration has not yet accepted alternative data for drug discovery applications. And the National Institutes of Health needs to reform training grants so young scientists can be educated on animal alternatives.
“The federal government needs to take the lead here and they’re not exerting the leadership now that they should,” Locke said.
“Law and science are fellow travelers. You’re not going to have advances in science unless you have advances in law and policy. The scientists can’t do it alone. They need help. We have to put pressure on our federal agencies to be leaders in this area.”
TITLE: Bred for Experiments, Running For Freedom: 43 'Scared And Cold' Monkeys Escape South Carolina Lab
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bred-experiments-running-freedom-43-scared-cold-monkeys-escape-south-carolina-lab-1728340
EXCERPTS: In a scene reminiscent of an escape thriller, 43 rhesus macaque monkeys made a break for freedom from Alpha Genesis, a primate research facility in Yemassee, South Carolina. The young monkeys, bred specifically for biomedical research, seized an unexpected opportunity on Wednesday when an enclosure door was reportedly left open by a new employee, per reports from USA Today. Now, residents in the area have been advised to stay alert as authorities work to recapture the elusive primates.
Established in 1964, Alpha Genesis has grown into one of the leading suppliers of primates for biomedical research, serving government agencies, universities, and private research institutions. According to the company's website, Alpha Genesis specialises in providing nonhuman primates for studies on critical health issues like cancer, heart disease, and neurological disorders. The facility is also known for its adherence to stringent animal care standards, being AAALAC accredited with an Ethics and Compliance Program in place.
This is not the first time Alpha Genesis has dealt with an escape. In 2016, 19 monkeys managed to escape but were recaptured within hours. The recent incident, however, is one of the largest in the facility's history, raising questions about the security measures in place at Alpha Genesis.
A recent statement from PETA has further intensified the debate surrounding the escape. According to PETA, these monkeys may pose a health risk, contrary to Alpha Genesis' assurances that they are "specific-pathogen-free" (SPF).
In a public statement, PETA Primate Scientist Dr. Lisa Jones-Engel highlighted that SPF status does not guarantee that these monkeys are free of dangerous diseases. Dr. Jones-Engel stated that laboratories across the U.S. with SPF monkeys have reported outbreaks of tuberculosis, MRSA, dysentery-causing pathogens, herpes B, and other infections, raising significant concerns about the facility's operations. She emphasised that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) financially supports Alpha Genesis for research involving primates, though, per PETA, these facilities often suffer from inadequate staffing and insufficient training.
"These 43 scared, cold, and hungry monkeys are now on the loose, further exposing the failures of the monkey experimentation industry to protect human health and public safety," said Dr. Jones-Engel. She called on the NIH to reconsider its funding of such facilities and urged for the immediate closure of Alpha Genesis, which she claims "deprives monkeys of all that matters to them, leading them to a miserable existence."
TITLE: Frail chimps headed from New Mexico to Louisiana sanctuary
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/11/07/nx-s1-5183078/frail-chimps-headed-from-new-mexico-to-louisiana-sanctuary
EXCERPTS: A group of former research chimpanzees in New Mexico that were previously deemed too frail or sickly to be moved to a federal sanctuary will be going to that retirement home after all.
Officials with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said they reconsidered their decision to leave the chimps in place after learning that more than half of the caregivers there expect to leave their jobs and retire before July of 2025.
The latest NIH census says that 23 chimps are housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF), which is located at New Mexico’s Holloman Air Force Base.
The chimps’ presence at Alamogordo Primate Facility has been controversial for years, with groups such as the Humane Society of the United States questioning the NIH’s determination in 2019 that all of these chimps were too elderly or unhealthy to survive the stress of moving to a 200-acre sanctuary called Chimp Haven near Shreveport, Louisiana.
The NIH, which funds biomedical research, stopped supporting invasive research on chimpanzees in 2015. But it still has over 300 chimps to maintain and provide for, as these animals can live for more than 60 years. NIH’s goal has been to move as many as possible to Chimp Haven.
Primates at Chimp Haven generally live in larger social groups than is typical in research facilities. They also can have access to wooded, forested areas, although some enclosures at Chimp Haven are similar to those found in research centers.
The problem is that as chimps age, they can develop the same serious health conditions that plague older humans, such as heart disease and diabetes. And changing a chimp’s living environment can cause extraordinary stress. These highly social creatures develop bonds with each other as well as the humans that they may have known for many years.
So while the agency has gradually moved most of its chimps from research centers to Chimp Haven, it had said that the most frail chimps, including all of the Alamogordo chimps, would stay where they were, for their own safety.
This summer, however, Tara Schwetz, the NIH Deputy Director for Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, visited Alamogordo and learned that the majority of the staff had plans to retire or depart in the not-so-distant future. As a result, concerns about ensuring ongoing care changed officials’ calculations about the benefits and risks of transferring these chimps to the sanctuary.
“We have to think about the health and welfare of these animals, first and foremost,” says Schwetz, who adds that NIH is working with Chimp Haven on how to best transfer these chimps, which is a logistically challenging and complex process.
“We are thrilled with their decision and firmly believe Chimp Haven is the best place for retired chimpanzees to live out their lives in the most natural settings available,” Rana Smith, president and chief executive officer of Chimp Haven, told NPR in an email.
“We’re confident we can safely transition them to the sanctuary,” she says. “We’re excited to give them the opportunity to spend the rest of their lives in a beautiful, forested setting among a colony of friends living the Chimp Life – they deserve it.”