Professor Michael Balls: It <i>is not</i> right to genetically modify animals for the benefit of humans

Tuesday 27 July 2010 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Animals are different from humans, so if you can manipulate the animals you are experimenting with so that they better represent humans you are more likely to get useful results. But there must be limits on the degree to which animals are altered. They must be respected, not distorted in some hideous fashion.

GM techniques are right at the cutting edge and scientists are very excited about them, which makes them hard to resist. I agree science must progress and tackle disease, but we must also take into account the suffering of animals. We all want cures for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's, but we must maintain morality and decency in pursuit of solutions.

Of course the tiny overall drop in experiment numbers is good news and lots of the scientists involved are decent people doing a good job, but if more attention were paid to the proper design of experiments and better statistical procedures in place to evaluate results, this number could be brought down more significantly.

Also, mice and rats that are modified for use as models for human diseases often turn out to be much less useful than anticipated. A mouse with cystic fibrosis, for example, doesn't always fit precisely the experiment for which it has been developed. There is a lot of waste.

The most likely way to produce accurate results is to conduct tests with humans instead. Techniques are emerging with tests that can ethically be done on humans with the actual disease. There are limits but it's an advancing frontier. The more clinical research on actual patients, providing its done with strict ethical controls, the more likely are relevant results.

The other way to limit animal experimentation is to be critical about the way the development of modified animals is going before you start producing them in large numbers.

Testing on GM animals isn't intrinsically worse than testing on normal animals, but when you breed animals to develop diseases very early on in their lives, some of the outcomes can be extraordinarily harsh. All the time the issue scientists must consider is the balance of potential human benefit, weighed against the suffering and the dignity of the subjects being tested.

Professor Michael Balls is a zoologist and trustee at the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in