Cables on the head of a monkey, mice in a labyrinth or rats with a syringe: such images of animal experiments hardly leave anyone untouched. So recently in Tübingen: Researchers there are using crows to study how nerve cells work in order to find out how cognitive functions arise. The experiments also took place on half a dozen wild animals that a bird protection center had made available – it later stated that the use in invasive experiments had not been agreed. “Socket on the head instead of freedom”, the organization “Doctors against Animal Experiments” headed a press release and spoke of “curiosity research that is completely irrelevant for humans”, because the results cannot be transferred to animals. “Research should benefit sick people, not the arbitrary interests of individual researchers.”
The University of Tübingen sees the situation differently: The neurobiological work on awareness in crows was recognized as a “research breakthrough of the year” in the USA, and invasive interventions are methodologically indispensable. “The university stands by the necessity of animal experiments and is aware of the responsibility that comes with dealing with animals,” explained Rector Bernd Engler. “We consider basic research such as brain research in Tübingen to be indispensable.”
It is clear that suffering and injuries in animal experiments must be kept to a minimum, as well as the number of animals. However, current changes in the law should impose more precise controls on the authorities as to whether experiments such as those on the crows in Tübingen are actually scientifically meaningful and necessary.
Germany is in danger of being left behind internationally, warns the Max Planck Society
So far, it has only been checked whether there is a plausible justification that experiments are essential for basic research or from a medical point of view and that they are not unnecessary repetitions. In addition, other methods must not be available, pain and damage to the animals must be ethically justifiable. The justification itself, however, was not examined in terms of content. If researchers have scientifically demonstrated the importance of the experiment, there is no room for “administrative decision-making leeway” in assessing the ethical justifiability, the Bremen Higher Administrative Court ruled in 2012. The reason is only subject to a plausibility check.
On the other hand, the EU Commission criticized in 2018 that the German regulations are too lax and violate an EU directive that has been in force since 2012. As a result of EU infringement proceedings, the federal government must now move away from mere plausibility checks. The EU Commission also did not accept that some experiments only had to be reported and not approved, as well as inadequate controls on the area of responsibility of the animal welfare officers at the respective institutes.
In May, the Bundestag decided to make changes to the Animal Welfare Act: In future, authorities should check whether an animal experiment that has been applied for is “justified from a scientific or educational point of view”.
What exactly this formulation means is, however, debatable. In any case, it is not enough for several state animal protection officers. According to their interpretation, authorities and courts could interpret this in such a way that they only have to check whether there is a plausible justification for the attempt. However, the authorities would also have to conduct independent investigations, consult relevant experts and be able to ascertain whether the benefits of the desired gain in knowledge outweigh the pain, fears and damage of the test animals.
The German Research Foundation (DFG), on the other hand, like other organizations, had spoken out against the change and declared that the freedom of research was in danger: Scientific justification belongs to the applicant’s area of competence. Authorities, on the other hand, should not check the content of the justification themselves. The Max Planck Society (MPG) also sees the addition “quite critically,” explains a spokeswoman. 79 percent of all animal experiment applications are already not examined within the prescribed period. This will be dragged on by the “extended testing effort”, which could limit young scientists with temporary positions: For them, the testing times are decisive in order to be able to carry out tests in good time. Involving external experts would lead to further bureaucratisation and delays, fears the MPG. In addition, it calls for uniform national administrative practice. “If there is no improvement here, Germany will suffer significant losses in the competitiveness of its basic biomedical research and its pharmaceutical research in an international comparison.”
In some federal states, organizations can sue on behalf of animals
For the German Animal Welfare Association, however, the changes in the law are “absolutely inadequate” – opportunities to further restrict animal experiments remain unused. The changes “in no way contribute to a stronger protection of laboratory animals”, says the president of the association, Thomas Schröder. The association had turned to the EU Commission and asked not to end the infringement proceedings. From his point of view, positive: In the meantime, some federal states have given animal welfare organizations the right to take collective action – they can practically sue on behalf of animals.
The hormone researcher Jan Tuckermann knows animal experiments from two roles: He heads the Institute for Molecular Endocrinology of Animals at the University of Ulm and is a member of a committee for the assessment of animal experiment applications at the Tübingen regional council. The effects of the changes in the law on practice will have to be seen first, he says. In his experience, the commissions would often only interfere with half-knowledge regarding the reasons. On the other hand, colleagues in the respective specialist area – as is customary with scientific publications – are best able to judge whether experiments are scientifically meaningful. However, such assessments are not provided for in the approval process.
However, there are comparable steps in advance – when researchers apply for funding from the DFG, for example. Scientists have to justify more and more in their applications how animal experiments can be avoided, the number of animals and their suffering can be reduced, says Tuckermann. Overall, the standards are shifting, “we reflect the social discussion,” he explains. He finds organizations that are critical of animal testing helpful. “In the end, most of the applications are approved – but in a revised form.”
The idea that one can completely abandon animal experiments “ignores the concern of researching for the well-being and health of humans and animals,” argues the DFG. “Without basic research, there would be inadequate patient care in the long term.” For example, rapid corona vaccine development was only possible through research in animal experimental models, explains the MPG. For example, mRNA-based vaccines also came from animal experiments that aimed to target the immune system against specific molecules of cancer cells. “Without 20 years of animal research we would not have these vaccines today and therefore no prospect of a largely normal life again,” says the MPG spokeswoman. Since he has been assessing animal experiments at the Tübingen regional council, there have also been studies with RNA vaccines, says Tuckermann. Without this preparatory work, more than 50 percent of the population would probably not have been vaccinated twice against Corona.