In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing On Animals

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals distributes this photo to bolster their argument that animals used to test consumer products die unnecessarily.

"One should ask why after years of existence they have reviewed so few tests," said Neil Wilcox, a former Food and Drug Administration official involved in the creation of the committee.

"The fundamental reason, in my opinion, is that the ICCVAM process has become recognized as an obstacle to getting tests validated as opposed to helping having tests validated," said Wilcox, now director of regulatory and scientific affairs for Kimberly-Clark Corp.

An e-mail exchange last summer between the panel's chair and other government scientists reinforced the suspicions of animal advocates that panel members are resistant to newer tests. In the exchange, copies of which were obtained by The Washington Post, the scientists discussed two recent papers by a prominent European researcher favoring an alternative approach known as evidence-based toxicology. One scientist asked what they could do "to combat these papers." The chair, Marilyn L. Wind, responded: "What I see is them trying to build a case to not use animals for testing."

Jessica Sandler of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called the e-mail "disturbing. Why are they using phrases like 'to combat these papers'? That has no place in there."

Wind declined to discuss the exchange but said in an e-mail to The Post that the panel "has a proven track record" of advancing animal safety. Stokes stressed that panel members work closely with their European counterparts.

In February, at its 10-year anniversary celebration, the panel released a five-year plan, with a goal of assuming a greater leadership role in promoting research, development . . . and regulatory acceptance of alternative test methods."

Wilcox, of Kimberly-Clark, was not impressed. "The five-year plan is not a strategy," he said. "It's a reiteration of what they're doing. It's certainly not a vision."

'A New World'

For more than half a century, companies have tested chemicals, drugs and cosmetics on animals to prove that their products are safe. Poisons are fed to rats and mice to determine what dose may be harmful to humans. Chemical compounds are dripped on the skin and eyes of rabbits to check for irritation. Vaccines are given to mice before being made available to the public.

Animal welfare groups contend that millions of animals are used in such tests each year. But no one knows for sure. Unlike rules covering animals used in medical research, there are no federal reporting requirements for mice and rats, which account for most of the animals used in product testing.

Some scientists argue that animals provide the most reliable way to gauge the effects of toxins and drugs on humans. Others contend that newer tests take advantage of advances in biology and computer science, offering a potentially richer array of safety data.

"The reason we use animal tests is because we have a comfort level with the process . . . not because it is the correct process, not because it gives us any real new information we need to make decisions," said Melvin E. Andersen, director of the division of computational systems biology at the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences near Raleigh, N.C. "Animal tests are no longer the gold standard," he said. "It is a marvelously new world."

Allergan officials say that in recent years they have reduced their use of animals by one-third but declined to disclose the number, citing company confidentiality.