Alexandr Lukashev, Director of the Institute of Parasitology, in a lengthy interview with Kommersant on the differences in laboratory practice involving animals between Russia and European countries, on what the life of a mouse is worth to a scientist, an
Alexandr Lukashev, Director of the Institute of Parasitology, in a lengthy interview with Kommersant, spoke about the differences in laboratory practice involving animals between Russia and European countries, about what the life of a mouse is worth to a scientist, and about the ethics of animal research in general. The result is rather curious and in places unexpected:
"Of course, we treat human life far more lightly, and mouse life all the more so. And that is as it should be. In Switzerland, for example, the attitude to animals is quite different from that in Great Britain. It is a rational attitude: if it is profitable, if it can bring either a theoretical benefit to people or a benefit to pharmaceutical firms, then it is ethical. In England, the cost, the value of a mouse's life to society is wholly out of proportion; it is very hard to obtain permission for any work with animals, for any experiment. And you cannot decide for yourself that this experiment needs to be done. An ethics committee either permits or forbids it, that is, it assesses not only the quality of the work with animals, not only the observance of the 3R principles. It passes judgement on whether the experiment should be done at all.
In Great Britain the laws on work with animals are perfectly mad. In effect, it is impossible to work there. The regulation is carried out by bureaucrats who, by and large, fall short in education and intellect of the very people they regulate. In the first place, work with animals there falls under the Home Office. In the second, strict regulation is often exercised by people who failed to make their mark in science. And suddenly they are given power over those who, in their own line of work, turned out to be better. It all looks rather unpleasant.
Great Britain is a unique case. There it is an offence even if a scientist circumvents this legislation in some way. That is, if he, say, travels to France to carry out an experiment, then under English law this counts as a violation. I do not remember the specific penalties for such a transgression, but it is not to be done. Scientists did, of course, try to influence the situation, but they lost.
...One thing is the quality of results, GLP (Good Laboratory Practice). That is excellent. It is genuinely necessary. On the other hand, one should not go to extremes. Say, if I can take 20% more animals into an experiment and have a better chance of obtaining a reliable result, then in Russia, of course, I will do so, whereas in other countries this has to be justified one way or another. And here one can make a miscalculation. If the experiment has to be redone, that is one half of the problem. And the risk that a discovery will be missed is the other half."
