Animal testing is a key step in translating research findings into medical applications

Interview with Thomas Ott on animal testing and its alternatives

The necessity and ethicality of animal testing is the subject of intense debate among opponents and proponents. We have talked about it with Dr Thomas Ott, the head of the animal facility at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics. The conversation covers recent advancements in animal research, alternative methods, ethical considerations, and the state of the public debate.

Animal experimentation is bound by the 3Rs: Replace, i.e. using methods that avoid the use of animals in research; Reduce, i.e. curtailing the number of animals necessary; and Refine, i.e. minimizing distress and potential pain. In which areas are animal experiments already being replaced?

There have been a number of developments in recent years, particularly in pharmaceutical testing. Instead of animal experiments, the effects of active ingredients are often predicted using computer programs, cell cultures, or organ chips. A significant shift in this area has already occurred over the last decade.

Is there potential for basic research to shift more toward alternative methods?

So much is going on here that it is difficult to keep up with the rapid developments. Alternative methods, such as cell cultures, organoids, and in silico analyses, have improved significantly in recent years. This is largely thanks to advances in Artificial Intelligence used for data interpretation. However, it is also important to note that many of our experimental approaches are animal-free from the outset. Animal testing is essentially the last step in trying to apply basic research findings to humans.

Some argue that neuroscience is unique in its necessity for animal testing. Is there any truth to this?

Indeed. The number of neurons, and more importantly, the connections between them, is so large that replicating the brain with a computer is beyond today's capabilities. However, it is possible to simulate smaller complex systems, such as the eye of a fly. Here in Tübingen, we are quite far ahead in this field; think, for example, of the Cluster of Excellence for Machine Learning and Cyber Valley. But one should not forget that the fly's eye has 130,000 neurons, whereas the human brain has around 100 billion. This complexity is what makes brain research so interesting and complex.
In my opinion, basic neuroscientific research must first lay the foundation for AI applications. AI learning is based on data, which can only come from animal experiments.

Does that mean that animal testing will remain necessary in neuroscientific research in the future?

Probably – if we’re talking about the near future. However, this may change within the next ten to fifteen years. Much will depend on the development of artificial intelligence and new chip structures. There are neuromorphic chips that map neural networks in their hardware. There is reason to hope that this will help us better understand developmental processes and diseases.

Opponents of animal testing often argue that the results of animal experiments cannot be applied to humans.

This idea is very naive. I don't have four legs or a tail, of course, but the physiological similarities are undeniable. Whether a result is transferable must be examined on a case-by-case basis, but it usually is. To my knowledge, all drugs approved in recent decades for conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and immunotherapy were developed using animal testing. The best example is the vaccines for the novel coronavirus, which would not have been possible without animal testing. These vaccines have proven to be safe and effective in humans.

How would you respond to people who reject animal testing on the basis that an animal's life and well-being are of equal value to a human's?

This is ultimately a philosophical, almost religious, question. No one would deny that animals can feel pain. They have the necessary receptors, and their behavior clearly shows it. However, I believe that you must weigh things up: For me personally, humans come before animals. If an animal must suffer in order for us to save a human, I believe we must accept that. However, this should only be done if there are no alternatives and every effort is made to minimize the animal's distress.

Depending on the survey, between 60 and over 70 percent of Germans oppose animal testing.

This stance must be taken seriously. It raises the question: Why does a large part of the population consider animal experiments unnecessary? This is partly due to a lack of knowledge. For example, many people say they are against testing cosmetics on animals…

… which has been banned in the EU since 2013.

That’s right. When it comes to this topic, emotions often clash with facts. Not everyone is an expert in medicine and biology, and it is difficult to reduce such complex issues to a few headlines. Opponents of animal testing have it easier: They simply claim that animals suffer and that the results are not transferable. As soon as you start to differentiate, however, it becomes much more complex. The challenge is to present this complexity in a credible and convincing way.

The public debate about animal testing is often emotional. What could bring more objectivity to the discourse?

Open, transparent communication is crucial. Science in an ivory tower is not a good thing. That is why our institute has joined the Initiative Transparente Tierversuche (Transparent Animal Testing Initiative). By doing so, we show that we have nothing to hide and that we encourage public scrutiny of our research approaches. We do welcome an open discourse on the value, but also the possible questionableness, of animal testing.