Past-present perceptions and research in companion animals– An international viewpoint

In Europe animal experiments are subdued to the European convention ETS 123 and the EU directive 86/609 both adopted in 1986. The directive provides a minimum framework for housing and care of research animals. It also aims to promote the 3Rs. States may adopt more stringent regulation, and animal rights organizations (AROs; with different levels of “activism”: from those who aim to promote animal interests or influence public attitudes towards animals, to those who recommend strong-arm methods, to free research animals, and to carry out economical sabotage) have played a role in influencing the public opinion and politicians towards animal welfare and the use of animals in research. Sweden adopted an Animal Welfare Act. In the Netherlands the Party for the Animals has 2 seats in parliament. In Italy to get an authorization for dog research may need having each animal adopted by a family. Bull fighting is authorized here while displaying lobster on ice is fined there… In EU, dogs and cats represent only ±0.23% (28000 in 2005) of total research animals. This use has been decreasing over the last 15 years. Some countries do not use any dog or cat while 3 account for 65% of dogs used in EU and 2 for 60% of cats. The EU directive is under revision and it could be influenced by a lobby engaged on banning research on primates. No doubt that pet animals are on the second line. Using pets to study their physiology and diseases can still make scientific sense but using them to study human diseases or experimenting on healthy animals and deliberately making them sick has become unacceptable. Some AROs reject any animal experiment, even food testing, due to the use of “cruel and unethical” methods with the only objective of marketing edge. Some even publish lists of brands recommended or to boycott. More than direct effect on public opinion, this can strongly influence research definition and funding. Pet research has been reduced by improved access to information. Invasive protocols have been strongly restricted. Funding is driven by citation indexes, evidence of need, and optimal ratio between research benefit and disagreement for research animals.