Modern pharmaceutical companies strive to develop and produce novel drugs on a regular basis in order to have a competitive advantage over their competitors. Prior clinical trials are required for the new medicine to be tested and approved. However, the majority of the initial trials are too hazardous to be carried out on human subjects and, hence, animals whose reactions to the given drugs potentially resemble that of a person are chosen. This paper will consider the importance of preclinical animal testing for the drug approval process as well as ethical issues associated with the process.
Preclinical animal testing is not a substitute for proper clinical trials involving human beings. Garattini and Grignaschi state that “Not always have the animal results been translated into effective drugs but the failures themselves have helped to reformulate the model or the experimental conditions or the type of chemical” (1). The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent drug approval. Finally, the authors advocate for multi-level quality control of preclinical trials by scientific journals, authorities and various ethics committees.
As far as the ethical side of the preclinical testing on animals is concerned, there is a sentiment in the scientific community regarding the redundancy of animal testing due to the frequent abuse of its subjects. Kabene and Baadel outline two principal positions on the matter: the first accepts animal testing with minimal suffering of its subjects in cases where no other alternatives are present, whilst the second rejects such trials altogether. The authors emphasize significant advancements in the preclinical trials that omit the use of animal subjects including the use of computer simulations, 3D images, stem cells and biochips. This way, the harm enforced by scientists on animal subjects can be truly brought to a minimum or eliminated completely in cases where preclinical trials can be conducted digitally with the same efficiency.
In conclusion, preclinical animal testing is a complex topic as, despite the ethical controversies regarding the animal subjects’ suffering and abuse, the scientific community is yet to allow human trials without previous testing on living beings. Nevertheless, the progress that has been reached in some modern preclinical trials allows for positive forecasts regarding the future of animal testing where most subjects would not suffer or be replaced by computer models.
Works Cited
Garattini, Silvio and Grignaschi, Giuliano. “Animal Testing Is Still the Best Way to Find New Treatments for Patients.” European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 39, 2017, pp. 32-35.
Kabene, Stefane and Baadel, Said. “Bioethics: A Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and Cosmetics in the UK.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, no. 15, 2019, pp. 1-15.