Khadija Magardie
A combination of poorly run, decrepit facilities, untrained technicians and the use of inferior-quality animals could lay waste to claims by vivisectionists in South Africa that their experimentation on animals is of any scientific benefit.
A recently released study commissioned by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) warns that the integrity of research being conducted at various laboratories, private research bodies, and universities using animals is being severely compromised in the absence of regulation.
According to the report, “many experiments and tests in South Africa are currently being done with non-standardised animals rendering results that are not reliable nor reproductive”. This has consequences for the standards of scientific research in the country.
In South Africa animal experiments are conducted across three basic areas: research, teaching and training, and product efficacy testing. The report reviews animal experimentation at various facilities around the country, from the fields of cardio-vascular research to zoology. It also includes the controversial field of cosmetics testing.
The report suggests that the laissez faire nature of vivisection could ultimately cast aspersions on the efficacy of the tests themselves.
The benchmark for the regulation of laboratory research, the good laboratory practice (GLP), was found to be all but absent at the facilities that took part in the NSPCA study.
The good laboratory practice “promotes the development of quality test data” through, among other things, ensuring the use of standardised and quality laboratory animals.
In other words, the chances of obtaining optimum test results are enhanced by the use of SPF (specified pathogen-free) animals. They should be bred under strict regulation, kept in sterile conditions, fed a prime diet, certified disease-free.
The NSPCA study found that more than 60% of the animals at the facilities were being housed and experimented upon in conditions “not designed for isolation procedures”.
It also found that “wastage” of lab animals was rife, with far more animals bred for use in experiments than were actually used. One table outlining the numbers of lab animals used last year shows that of the 185543 mice bred at 15 facilities around the country, only 112 158 were ever tested. About 117 000 were “wasted”.
It also found “unacceptably high” mortality rates at several facilities, with many animals dying before they were even weaned.
Incompetent researchers are also a problem. Ideally, a specially trained laboratory animal technician, with expertise in the fields of animal physiology, pre- and post-test care and euthanasia, should be in charge of such labs. The report found this standard was absent. In some cases, animals that have had limbs removed or lethal substances injected into them during experiments languish in cages for months at a time before a veterinarian can euthanase them.
All this, the report concludes, “impacts very negatively on the standard of laboratory research”, potentially rendering the findings inaccurate, even pointless.
According to the senior inspector of the NSPCA, Neil Fraser, a delicate balancing act needs to be maintained.
“Make no mistake, the industry needs to be embarrassed into doing something,” he said, but added that vivisection was inextricably woven into various sectors of society, such as medical schools.
He said animal welfare groups needed to encourage greater transparency primarily in the interests of good research. He cited the report’s finding that primate research in South Africa had dropped significantly, “directly related to public perception and pressure from animal rights groups”.
The new report has been handed over to the departments of agriculture and land affairs for consideration. But legislation proscribes certain types of animal experiments and regulates the practice where it is allowed.
For instance, the Animal Health Act of 1976 controls experiments by means of an executive officer who has authority of approval after a background check.
The Act exists but no such official has ever been appointed.
Most facilities said they had animal ethics committees in place but the report says these were merely “rubberstamps” and did not conform to international standards. Though standards vary countries like the Netherlands have outlawed vivisection completely, while others, like the United States, have strict regulations generally acceptable standards relating to the treatment of lab animals are described in the report as “voluntary” in South Africa; that is, entirely at the discretion of the researchers.
According to Fraser, the issue is one of animal rights and welfare, but in terms of extrapolating data, the present chaos in the industry has serious ramifications for scientific research.
“Animals are being tested for a reason; we need to question those reasons, and importantly, the methodology used,” says Fraser.
“If you want to test the dilutions as well as efficacy of a specific substance, and use an inferior animal, just how accurate is your result?” he said.