What future for animal experimentation? In the secret of French laboratories

Like more than 37 million French people, Michèle Marty, 66, goes to a pharmacy in the 11th arrondissement of Paris. Objective: to receive its third dose of anti-Covid vaccine. The pharmacist’s gesture is safe: a prick in the arm, a quick injection, a bandage to prevent any bleeding. And voila. In total, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), 20 million deaths have been avoided thanks to researchers, science and human genius. But in this panel, we forget to give thanks to those who made this innovation possible: the animals. Few of us know it, but our salvation is largely due to the sacrifice of hundreds of “non-human primates” (NHP) residents of research animal facilities, all over the world, who have enabled the rapid development of ‘a vaccine.

Can we do anything to animals in the name of science? The ethical dilemma is old, and the debate, albeit quietly, very topical. On December 29, an American law abolished the obligation to test the efficacy and safety of a molecule on animals before launching clinical trials in humans. In 2021, Europe had already announced its intention to eventually do without animal experimentation in research and education. It is already partly prohibited for the evaluation of cosmetic products. Stupor and Trembling ? Let’s be clear: the use of animals for scientific and toxicological purposes still has a bright future ahead of it.

In Europe, 10 million animals are used on average each year, including nearly two million in France alone. A figure which has continued to drop to 1.6 million in 2020 (-12% compared to 2019) and which is explained by the cessation of certain projects due to the Covid-19 pandemic. “In 2021, however, we should return to the level of 2019, with between 1.8 and 1.9 million animals used”, confides Ivan Balansard, president of the Interprofessional Group for reflection and communication on research (Gircor). Those that are bred, but not used during their lifetime, are also counted by the Ministry of Research. “This represents approximately 2 million additional animals, which are used to maintain genetically modified lines or to provide post-mortem tissues”, he continues.

The problem of transparency

“France is a country where research occupies an important place, so it is normal that we carry out more projects there than elsewhere, assures Brigitte Rault, head of the Animal Experimentation Office and ethics and animal models referent at the “Inserm. That said, the question must always be asked: is it more ethical to use a large number of animals subjecting them to light constraints rather than a small number but exposing them to greater constraints? ?”

Difficult to answer. The almost systematic use of the animal model in research, both for human and veterinary medicine, explains these astronomical figures. In France, for a drug to be authorized on humans, it must first be tested on two different mammals. And our country stands out particularly for the practice of “severe procedures” – intense long-term suffering – which doubled from 2014 to 2018, going from 9 to 19%. Between 2014 and 2020, experiments on monkeys increased by 262%. “On this point, we are not among the good students in Europe”, thunders Louis Schweitzer, president of the Animal Rights, Ethics and Science Foundationand at the head of the orientation and reflection council of the FC3R centercreated in 2021 and which aims to support research using animals for scientific purposes and to promote alternative and innovative methods.

What happens behind the walls of research laboratories? Nothing comes of it, or almost. “In comparison, nuclear sites and Seveso-classified facilities are much more transparent, because we know their number, their location, their inspection conditions”, testifies Pauline Türk, professor of public law at the University of Nice-Côte d’ Azure. According to our information, 652 public and private establishments are currently authorized to conduct experiments on animals. Brigitte Rault, she wants to be reassuring: “I saw in research animal facilities sometimes much better accommodation conditions than in some hospitals.” If it concedes the existence of “old-fashioned” establishments, they would be on the way to extinction. And to cite some progress: “Since 2013, all staff in contact with animals have been specifically trained.” By an internship of forty-five and fifty-seven hours as well as continuous training of at least three days renewable every six years. Insufficient for the defenders of the animal cause. Like the philosopher Audrey Jougla, co-founder of Animal Testing Association : “We often put forward the size of the cages to hide the harshness of the experiments.”

For its part, the Ministry of Research recalls that each project involving animals is subject to “a prior evaluation by the competent ethics committee for the establishment concerned”. But these bodies, whose opinion has only been mandatory since 2013, consisting of a minimum of five people, including an external member nicknamed “the naive”, validate… 99% of the projects! “A project is rarely authorized in its initial version: there is a real dialogue between the committee and the researchers which leads to a final version that meets ethical and scientific expectations”, explains Brigitte Rault. Worse, until recently, these committees were illegal. This is the incredible discovery made by associations, and denounced by the jurist Pauline Türk: “They actually have neither legal personality nor approval.” Since the spring of 2022, the ministry has responded by issuing shovels. In total, of the 115 ethics committees in France in 2021, around a hundred should obtain their approval this year. Finally, aren’t these structures too numerous? Elsewhere in Europe, there are only about ten per country, which makes it easier to harmonize decisions. “With us, our ethics committees seem less rigorous than elsewhere, abounds Louis Schweitzer. When a decision taken in Marseille will be the same as in Reims, with identical assessments, we can be satisfied.” Another criticism of animal defense associations: the number of unannounced checks carried out in laboratories by the services of the Ministry of Agriculture. In 2017, this figure was 15% in France, compared to 40% in the United Kingdom…

Towards the end of the animal model?

There remains a nagging question: will we one day be able to do without animals to advance human medicine? Over the past ten years, alternative solutions have been developed, such as organoids and “organs on chips”. The first are reproductions of organs, obtained in vitro from stem cells which mimic the architecture and functioning of, for example, the kidney, liver or brain. The second additionally make it possible to simulate a physiological function, such as respiration, vascularization or the secretion of hormones. Thanks to them, researchers are able to analyze the biological effects of a substance.

“We can envisage that, with the progress made in the field of organoids and organs on a chip, we will gradually reduce the use of animals in the regulatory field, until, one day, we can replace them completely, says Ivan Balansard. But it would not be honest to set a deadline and no sane person would be ready to take such a risk. Today all these approaches remain useful and complementary”. Inserm researchers in Rennes are working, for example, with liver organoids, made from human cells, to predict drug toxicity. “In other fields, particularly in fundamental research (neurosciences, animal behavior, ecology), the replacement is much more difficult to envisage since the animals themselves are often the object of research. Efforts must then be concentrated on the reduction and refinement of experimental procedures”, continues the president of Gircor. An opinion shared by Louis Schweitzer: “Today, we can’t do without it unless we sacrifice science, which nobody wants. However, it is important that everyone knows the results of an experiment, that whether they are positive or negative, so that other researchers do not reproduce it unnecessarily”.

And is there really interest? “We must not oppose humans and animals, continues Brigitte Rault. Let’s accept to carry out experiments with animals at home in a defined framework rather than washing our hands knowing perfectly well what is being done elsewhere.” In China, in particular, where the rules are much less strict than here. “The goal is the same for everyone, she continues: the progress of human and animal health.” And Audrey Jougla wonders: “In the great French tradition, Cartesian, heiress of Claude Bernard, any project deserves research, but how far can we go in the name of science?”