End of an era? Scientists call for ethical non-animal nutrition research

Nutritional science in the US is at a transformative point, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) no longer seeking to fund animal-exclusive research. As animal models are widely used in nutrition science, we speak to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine about what it will take for government and industry to embrace non-animal methods (NAMs). 

The non-profit research and advocacy organization’s new review finds that the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) do little to protect animals in research. This team, responsible for overseeing animal care and use, is not required to have expertise in animal-alternative methods. 

Researchers are only asked to consider alternatives — instead of banning their use — even for painful tests. IACUC also does not require animal alternatives if they decide that the experiments are not painful for the animals.

Scientists are also not required to consider alternatives to painful experiments involving birds, mice, and rats — the most commonly used in US experiments — but are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act.

“If alternative methods to animals are not required to be used in science, then ethical standards must be inadequate,” Jarrod Bailey, PhD, director of Medical Research, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, tells Nutrition Insight. 

“Effectively, this means that researchers are free to choose to inflict pain, suffering, and often death on animals by choice. Most people would find that unethical and unacceptable, no matter where their general views on research using animals sit on the spectrum.”

According to a recent poll commissioned by the Physicians Committee, 85% of Americans agreed that “animal experimentation should be phased out in favor of more modern research methods.”

Cost of negligence 

The review, published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, urges IACUC to opt for NAMs regardless of species, with the replacements being most relevant to human biology.

In the US, research proposals can be approved by a single committee member without a full committee review. However, EU IACUC investigators are required to use NAMs, which is at least some progress, even if law enforcement remains an issue, says Bailey.

For human nutrition research, he suggests that the alternative is to study people. “One salient example of the consequences of this is a recent study in Colorado on the impact of eating pulses on gut microbiota.” 

“This research received IACUC approval to use and kill almost 18,000 rats and mice — all to establish something we already know from many previous human studies: that eating beans is good for you. All experimental aims were achievable using human-based methods,” flags Bailey.

“Another notable point is that institutions can — if they wish — require enforcement of standards at a higher level. This can include strict searches for alternatives and a requirement that those alternatives must be implemented.”

The review stresses that current oversight committees fail to adequately enforce non-animal alternatives, even for painful experiments.A ban on animal research would be the ultimate step; however, many institutions are lax and passive and do not consider alternatives, Bailey adds.

Blind faith in ethical review 

The review comes as the first set of recommendations from scientists suggesting a new guide since the publication of “The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” in 1963. They call for NAMs in research and IACUC member training as priorities. 

People may still mistakenly believe that IACUC approval means proof of ethical and scientific rigor. Bailey explains that this might be because they wish to believe the ethical review process is stringent.

“They may find it hard to believe that it may not be conducted effectively. IACUC approval may be willfully seen as a green light by those who feel uncomfortable genuinely confronting the notion that animal research is unethical.”

“There are many who hope that objectively elucidating the issue will lead people to question the ethical review process and the practice of animal research more widely, which should lead to much more rigorous reviews and standards at the very least, leading to a drastic reduction in animal experiments, if not the preclusion of animal research altogether,” says Bailey.

Prioritize human-relevant methods

Animal models are still used in nutrition studies on metabolism and chronic disease. However, Bailey underscores that prioritizing animal methods significantly raises the risk of misinterpreting human outcomes when it doesn’t focus on human biology. 

“We simply have to study humans — human beings, human tissues, human cell cultures, human data. There is a wealth of comprehensive evidence out there showing that applying data from one species to another is almost always impossible due to the myriad biological differences between species that cannot be overcome or accounted for.”

“There is always something waiting to trip you up when this is attempted. If we wish to know the effect of a certain foodstuff on people, then we have to study people — and crucially, there is such biological diversity between individuals of the same species — between different people — that human diversity must be factored into these studies too,” he states. 

Scientists are calling for a paradigm shift to human-relevant methods in nutrition research, moving away from animal testing.Bailey believes that only by focusing on human testing can the relevance of findings to humans be determined. 

Focus on building expertise 

The review recommends more training and expertise for committee members. However, we ask Bailey: Is the bigger issue structural, and can a deep-seated system foster better science?

“It would be a fabulous start to provide the people who have the responsibility of ethical review with the training and expertise they need to do the best job that they can. Indeed, people on ethical review committees have asked for access to expertise, for example, as they cannot hope to have sufficient knowledge of all areas of research that they must examine.”

“Provision of this would greatly aid the review process, particularly if expert input was facilitated from individuals with experience in the use of new approach methodologies like advanced cell and tissue cultures in the field of research in question,” Bailey comments.

He adds that structural issues are relevant and should be addressed, but having expertise for each application is essential.

Embracing the movement

Last week, with the NIH and FDA opening their support for NAMs, changes must also take place on the ground to help nutrition researchers in the alternative methods.

“Those of us who have worked to encourage and facilitate non-animal methods in science appreciate that researchers who use animals need help to transition away from it,” says Bailey. “Thankfully, this is a key aspect of the new NIH and FDA initiatives, with the full support of the Physicians Committee and other groups who have campaigned for this.”

“Funding, training, assistance, infrastructure, and more will be invested in and provided to help researchers currently using animals meet the challenge and to shift the focus of their research toward human-specific methods.”

He adds the shift is beginning to occur in many places and many scientific communities are willing to be part of the movement.

NIH deputy director Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer, who has been spearheading human-relevant methods, said last week: “We’re creating the policy, infrastructure, and partnerships that make that sustainable adoption is possible. So that we’re not just shutting down animal labs overnight.”

“We are actually developing long-term solutions that ensure that there are no new animal labs that open up in their place… This is how we go from one-off pilot studies to policy. This is how we evolve from just making progress to actual permanence in this space.”