Dogs and Us:

a story of betrayal

By Chris Langley, M.A., Ph.D.

For many of us, dogs are our best friend. There are estimated to be around 400 million dogs worldwide ^[1]. Many of this growing population are companion animals, where friendship is often close, complex, and a delight for both partners. The history of this relationship is, however, a deeply shameful one.

Dogs (and cats) have been used in basic and medical research for several centuries. They have been subjected to surgical procedures, paralysed, and made to greatly suffer, especially in the early years of the nineteenth century when there were no anaesthetics or analgesics. Scientists using these sentient creatures would maintain that unlike humans, cats and dogs did not suffer; they were merely machines. Sadly our use of dogs (and cats) as experimental 'subjects' for dubious purposes in science and medicine continues today, with examples of poisoning and invasive, painful procedures being relatively commonplace.

The start of a friendship

Humans and dogs have a very long shared history. The domestic dog (Canis familiaris) is essentially a descendant of the wolf (Canis lupus) with many of the aggressive traits bred out ^[2]. Recent studies suggest that dogs, the first animals to be domesticated (at least 15,000 years ago) started living with us in the Stone Age. Dogs, and to some extent cats, may have co-evolved with humans, where some change in a genetic trait in one species brings about change in the behaviour and genes of the other ^[3][4]. Indeed we have deliberately bred dogs who are friendly, intelligent, and possess a range of skills which we find ‘useful.’ Many canine diseases are a direct result of selective breeding of 'desirable' traits for our purposes. Using such sentient creatures as 'research tools' betrays the trust and friendship that we have specifically favoured in dogs.

Dogs in research and testing

Dogs can be co-operative, inquisitive, docile (when well socialised), and of a suitable size to make them attractive for a variety of research purposes, the most widely used experimental dog being the beagle, although other breeds are used. Dogs are highly gregarious and intelligent mammals with a complex range of social behaviours ^[5]. They thus have a variety of needs, and their care, housing, and behavioural requirements are often neglected in research establishments, even in countries with a fairly strict code of practice, supposedly safeguarding basic needs.

In the last 30 years, dogs have been used to study genetics (and its role in disease); the brain; digestive, immune, and cardiovascular systems; to test surgical techniques such as transplantation; to assess the efficacy and safety of new potential pharmaceutics; to test (and then ignore the evidence of) the damage of tobacco; and to assess the effects of many kinds of weapons. Live dogs are also used in undergraduate teaching of biology and physiology.

A groundbreaking report by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in 2000 ^[6] looked at a variety of uses of our best friend in research from drug testing to invasive physiology, and dogs, including puppies, were subjected to many stressful and painful procedures including those to evaluate novel pet foods, an area few realise involves vivisection.

The greatest use of dogs is in the development and testing of drugs and other medical and dental substances for our use. But, remarkably, the scientific rationale of such use has not been examined closely. The various biological systems which have evolved in dogs to deal with and eliminate these substances do not closely resemble our own. The same problem arises when dogs are used to test the safety of industrial, household, and other widely used products. Such testing is carried out on a huge scale, especially in the U.S., and usually involves large contract testing laboratories as well as pharmaceutical and chemical companies. The oversight of such testing receives scant attention even in countries like the United Kingdom (UK), which by global standards has fairly strict controls.

Dogs and their genes

The dog genetic blueprint, which was recently released ^[7], is likely to herald a host of new 'dog models' of human diseases which, together with the advent of cloned puppies, will bring even more suffering and distress to our friends. Thanks to the female boxer Natasha's generosity, the dog genome is now published, or at least 99 percent of the female dog's genetic profile. Dogs are now being suggested as the key 'model' species for the discovery of so-called disease genes, and for making better sense of the human gene sequence. Two difficulties are embedded in such thinking: The idea of disease genes is manifestly simplified, since even the simplest of the single-gene diseases arises because of complex genetic-environmental interactions, and, secondly, dogs' genes are not human genes; they have evolved and operate in the body of a dog and not a human.

Dogs comprise around six percent of the 1.1 million warm-blooded animals who are covered by the U.S. Animal Welfare Act and experimented upon by U.S. federal and industrial research laboratories (as was discussed by Crystal Schaeffer in the summer 2005 issue of the AV Magazine). The U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2004 Animal Welfare Report indicates that almost 65,000 dogs were used in USDA-registered research laboratories. Of these, 28,321 endured pain and/or distress needing pain relief, and a further 1,273 animals were used without pain relief being administered.

In the European Union (EU) in 2002 (the last year that data is available), 10.7 million animals were used in a variety of 'procedures,' although this is probably an underestimate. The UK was the largest user of dogs in research, followed closely by France and Germany. These countries also 're-used' dogs, likely to increase the pain and distress for individuals, especially young animals subjected to careless or painful handling. The major use of dogs in 2002 in Europe was to test and evaluate new human dental and medical products (almost 13,000 animals) and veterinary products (4,801 dogs). Such procedures involve single and repeat dose testing, and can result in convulsions, fever, vomiting, and breathing difficulties. Death is often the result of such testing.

Animals in experiments face a variety of problems before they are used. They are often bought from suppliers, sometimes in countries with lax standards of care and housing, outside the laboratory. Although some countries maintain breeding and holding facilities on site, others like France use dogs who are forced to travel long distances before being used by experimenters. In 2002, almost 47 percent of dogs used for experiments in France had to undergo this additional stressful experience.

In the UK, supposedly the home of the animal lover, there was an increase in all procedures using dogs in 2003, despite dogs, cats, non-human primates, and horses being accorded special protection, where these animals may be used only if no other species is available or scientifically 'suitable.' In 2004, there was a rise in the number of procedures which used imported dogs who, like their French counterparts, had to endure travel in often cramped and barren conditions before their life in a concrete cell.

Canine needs and their fulfillment

Like us, dogs of all breeds require company and exercise in order to stay well and happy. The common practice of single housing of dogs is a significant stressor, and dogs also suffer in noisy and barren environments—they need places with platforms and areas for resting. Restricted environments or poor levels of human interaction result in stereotypic behaviour, which add to the other causes of distress and suffering ^[8]. Observational research indicates human contact may be even more important than contact with other dogs ^[9][10]. Puppies appear to greatly enjoy human socialization. Such enrichment does not regularly figure in research laboratories or among commercial breeders in many countries. Undercover investigations by animal protection organisations, including BUAV, have disclosed that dogs used in experiments often lack the bare minimum of suitable social or behavioural conditions or sufficient post-operative care.

Pain relief

Sentient creatures like dogs (and cats) suffer in a variety of ways. Busy testing laboratories may overlook current guidelines for good animal husbandry ^[11][12]. Analgesia, recommended to be given before the experience of pain is likely ^[13][14], is frequently lacking in the protocols reported in the scientific and medical press. Dogs and cats used in experiments may be unable to demonstrate in any observable way the exact level of pain they are experiencing.

Our best friend - time for a change of heart

Clearly, dogs and cats have shared a great deal of our history and have helped shape our communities and social structure. They are obviously individuals with their own personality and history. Any society claiming to be humane and just owes them a special duty of care, which calls upon us to safeguard their interests and needs to recognise that they, like us, enjoy rights, have a sense of self, and suffer in many, often subtle, ways. There are increasing numbers of non-animal alternatives available to understand human and animal health and disease, thanks to the investment made by, and the pressure from, animal protection groups and like-minded scientists. With powerful imaging and computational and analytical tools, it is even more immoral to experiment on our long-standing friend and companion, the dog.

This article is written on behalf of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. For more information on dog use in Europe, please see www.buav.org.

References:

[1] R. Coppinger & L. Coppinger (2001). Dogs: A startling new understanding of canine origin, behaviour and evolution. New York: Scribner.

[2] P. Savolainen et al (2002). Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science, 298, 1610-1613.

[3] K. Soproni et al (2001). Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 122-126.

[4] K. Soproni et al (2002). Dogs' (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 27-34.

[5] J. Serpell (1995). The domestic dog; evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[6] BUAV (2000). Dogs 2000 - end the use of dogs in research.

[7] K. Lindblad-Toh, C. M. Wade at al (2005). Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438:803-819.

[8] R. C. Hubrecht et al (1992). Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Applied Animal Behavioural Science, 34, 365-383.

[9] T. L. Wolfe [1990] Policy, Program, and People In Canine Research Environment, J A Mench and L Krulisch (Editors), Bethesda, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare .

[10] J. MacArthur Clark (1999). The Dog, in: The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, Volume 1: Terrestrial Vertebrates, Seventh Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

[11] S. McCune (1999). The Domestic Cat, In: The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, Volume 1: The Terrestrial Vertebrates. Seventh Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

[12] P. Flecknell (1995). Anaesthesia of animals in neuroscience, IBRO News, 23, 5-8.

[13] S. McCune (1999). op cit.

[14] P. Flecknell (1995). op cit.

Langley, Chris. (Spring 2006). AV Magazine. Pages 6-8.

Print View

Web ViewText Size: