The Complement Ruse

In his recent article ‘Path dependency and the rescuing of the biomedical research enterprise’, Dr Zaher Nahle alerts us to Industry’s attempts to make non-animal methods (NAMs) merely complements to animal experimentation.  The premise is that using NAMs alongside animal models can form ‘a unique, rare hybrid’ that will be hard to imitate. He warns that ‘in the event of the "complements" systems becoming widely used, as intended, extricating one component from the mix then (i.e., removing the animal component) is next to impossible. (…) Making NAMs mere ‘Complements’ to animal experimentation is the modern-day Trojan Horse of the animal- industrial complex to occupy the NAMs space.‘

As regards the US, Nahle has faith that the legislators and leaders at health and regulatory agencies will not be duped by the ‘complement’ ruse and will break free of industry capture.

But can we be so sure of our Government’s ability to see through the ‘knavish tricks of the animal-industrial complex’? 

The recently published strategy on replacing animals in science favours the term ‘alternative methods’ to NAMs (new approach methodologies or non-animal methods), emphasising the fact that new technologies must compete with existing models to be accepted.  For, unlike our American cousins who acknowledge that animals are poor models of human disease, the  authors of the strategy maintain that ‘the properly regulated use of animals is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals’.

The following definition is provided:

‘alternative methods’ (sometimes called alternative strategies) is a catch-all term, meaning ‘scientific methods and testing strategies which do not use protected animals, or which (compared to existing scientific methods and testing strategies) use fewer protected animals’.

An example : ‘traditional drug and chemical discovery pipelines are resource-intensive, with high failure rates. Alternative methods can help bridge this gap by providing additional tools for identifying drug targets’. 

There you have it:  the ‘alternative‘ is in fact a ‘complement’.

Despite the Government’s pledge to work towards phasing out animal experiments, the complement ruse seems to have been adopted: ‘By driving innovation and embedding cutting-edge non-animal technologies into research practices, the realisation of this plan will establish the UK as a global leader in alternative method adoption, delivering both scientific advancements and a meaningful cultural shift in animal use.’  The word ‘embedding’ has an ominous ring; what we actually need is a revolution in research methods and the elimination of animal use.