The Fourteen-Day Rule

During a debate session on embryo testing and the fourteen-day rule, an argument was raised in favour of scrapping all testing on human embryos; the claim was that, in the early stages of embryo development, vertebrates have “deep structural similarities“, so animal embryos can be used in place of human ones for all relevant research.

The claim that animal and human embryos are indistinguishable enough that animals can be considered ‘good enough’ for human research is a debatable one, but this was not what stuck with me after the debate session. I found myself unsettled by the ease with which “let’s just use animals” became a conclusion from those who supposedly value life enough to argue against embryo testing in its entirety. It seemed contradictory to me; a pro-life stance displayed unexpected double standards concerning the morals surrounding humans and other vertebrates.

Though my current degree is in biomedical engineering, my future goal is to pursue a career in veterinary medicine. I have had pets from a young age and believe the companionship and trust of an animal to be one of the greatest experiences available to us in our lifetime. Part of my decision to take this module is my long-term interest in the work of Noel Fitzpatrick on developing prosthetic limbs for animals, hence saving the lives of pets who would otherwise be put down, or not afforded the same care that a human patient would be. I value life regardless of species, and as a consequence, lean towards standing against animal testing.

A Broad Look at Animal Testing

Animal testing for medical research is an extensive field, ranging from the aforementioned embryo research to tests on conscious animals, where many are subject to deliberate harm. I am struggling to type this section of the post and am procrastinating on my research into the details of animal testing. I cannot bring myself to insert images I’ve seen from secret surveillance of testing at Wickham Laboratories. My impulse reaction is to condemn it for its cruelty. For the most part, a human has a choice. An animal does not.

Graphic: 2022 statistics from Understanding Animal Research

Whilst I am no vegan, I am inclined to agree in the context of the suffering undergone in many animal testing regimes. Even my word choice here should be considered; the distinction between ‘human’ and ‘animal’ is being made when it could be argued that we are one in the same. I am using these words for ease of communication, but whilst I write, am considering whether I truly believe this separation to be just.

Of course, the benefits are numerous and significant. Eradication of certain diseases, such as smallpox and polio, has been achieved through animal testing. As a notable example, eradication of AIDS is on the horizon. Animal research has developed our understanding of transplantation, anatomy, biological systems, behaviour, pain, and memory, to name but a few. Some benefits cannot be replicated in human alternatives, such as the availability of a shorter lifespan, where the effects of procedures or drugs on an organism can be observed over a whole life cycle and experimental times can be shortened.

The role of non-human animals to serve our betterment as a species is a viewpoint that can be found as far back as the Bible. Christian theologians support a hierarchy of animals, and it is not difficult to see how this idea, in the cultural Christianity of the Western world, remains an influence on the ethics of animal research.

Animal testing often precedes the human phases of a drug trial. According to the RSPCA, who advocate for human alternatives wherever possible, around 5 million animals are used annually across the EU alone for research into medicine and vaccinations. This is a hot topic; in 2023, the US government ruled that the FDA no longer required animal testing for new drugs to be approved. A recent study claims that only 5% of animal tested drugs make it to market, and there is evidence to suggest the ineffectiveness of animal testing in pre-clinical trials. Detached from my own experience, I would consider this information and maintain my anti-animal testing opinions. I would consider if it was truly necessary; when other pre-clinical tests and human alternatives are available in drug development, are we making a justifiable sacrifice? Knowing myself and my weaknesses when confronted with the suffering of vulnerable creatures, I would likely conclude, no.

The use of animal testing for the CCHF virus vaccination was confirmed to me from the first day of my involvement, when I read the participant information form. A casual line in the middle of this lengthy document states: “Data from pre-clinical animal studies show that MVA-CCHF is effective at inducing an immune response.”

I had no symptoms or side effects from the vaccination. According to the nurses on the study, the same was true for all other participants in my group of the first phase. But who—or what—did suffer side effects, or worse? Not once in the year-long trial process did I consider this, until now. The only vague memory I have of a reaction to the animal testing information, when I read that line for the first time, was reassurance.

As I type in level 3 of the Hartley Library, I wonder if I can allow myself to feel guilt.

It is one thing to take a stance against animal testing, and quite another to wait for an experimental vaccine to be administered to you, with little knowledge of the potential side effects—only the fact that other living creatures have already received this and it has been deemed safe enough to give to you, a member of a species whose lives are undeniably valued above all others. I lost count of the number of medical personnel who surrounded me on each injection of the vaccine. The research facility must now have enough of my blood to fill a small swimming pool. When the curtains are drawn around you and you spend the next four hours under the watchful eyes of multiple nurses, your vitals checked with unsettling regularity, it is difficult to think of anything besides your safety. Is this response selfish? Here, too, I would argue no.

Now my involvement in the trial is over, I can look back on my experience and question whether I would have taken part without the knowledge that the vaccine had passed animal trials. I have considered the scenario where they hadn’t been performed, and my phase of human trials was therefore the first test on a living organism. As a student of medical sciences, I should be able to look critically at other information—such as the previous success and safety of MVA-based vaccinations—to make a decision. But no detached, logical assessment would be enough to stamp out the instinctive fear that comes from being injected with an unapproved drug. Without that line in the information sheet, it is likely that I would not have taken the risk.

I have no diagnoses that affected my participation. I consider myself confident with my health. I had no issues with the process of the trial—quite the opposite, since I find blood tests enjoyable. It was academically interesting to me; I got to experience an ECG test in the same month in which I completed an ECG lab project. The reimbursement was an indisputable temptation for a student with concert tickets to pay for. If I, the perfect fit for a clinical trial volunteer, would be put off by the lack of animal testing, then so would many others. How much longer would it take to develop the CCHF vaccine with this drop in volunteers and likely necessity for longer, more tightly controlled human trials? Would we see a spread in the meantime that would lead, as headlines claimed, to the next pandemic? These are extreme hypotheticals, but they are conceived through consideration of my own double standards.

A Tumultuous Attempt at Conclusion

Harvard Medical School belives animal testing to be “a privilege, not a right,” a statement with which I now agree. I have been afforded the privilege of safety and consolation, protected from unrealised side effects and health paranoia behind those animals who, like me, received an experimental drug.

"Scientists do not have an automatic right to do animal research but to the extent that we, as a society, want to save human lives and alleviate suffering caused by disease, we have to accept that some advances are impossible without animal research." — Richard Born, professor of neurobiology

I will keep up to date with progress on the treatment of the CCHF virus. Drug trials are a lengthy process, and by the time the vaccination is approved, I might be a qualified vet. I would take every moment of the care of an animal to be a blessing, but so too would I take the successful treatment of a deadly disease as one. I am left with a new appreciation of the necessity of animal testing after the first-hand realisation of how eradication may not be achieved without it.

Whilst I wrap up this post, I realise I have exceeded the word limit substantially. If I were to remove large chunks of text as required, I would lose important details of the thought process that has spanned many hours since the embryo testing debate to my final trial session last week, and that will stick with me far beyond the submission date. I am politely requesting permission from the examiner of this work to allow me this infringement.

I can conclude that my opinion on animal testing has been rendered more complex, and would like to state another realisation that I hope will be considered for the future of this module: when communicating a reflective process on the subject of medical ethics, five hundred words will never be enough.