Page 16 - Spring 15

Continued from page 13
database search will retrieve information on all relevant studies taking place in that country. At the time of writing, no basic homeopathic research involving animals appears to be taking place in the UK, although British journals continue to provide a platform for this work. In other EU countries researchers are likely to find their work coming under close scrutiny in the coming years, particularly by campaigning organisations. Judging by the response to the YouGov poll it is not hard to predict, how the public would view harmful experiments on animals involving safe medicines already tested on humans – and information spreads fast in the digital age. The UK homeopathic community, both practitioners and patients alike, would certainly be unhappy and want clarification on the issue by professional registering bodies and homeopathic pharmacies. The response from those not sympathetic to homeopathy might understandably be stronger...
Reason 6: It’s quite possibly unlawful (depending on where you’re doing it) Directive 2010/63/EU places strong emphasis on the 3Rs (test methods which replace, refine and reduce the use of laboratory animals) and especially on replacement. The final goal of the directive is to achieve full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. Article 4 states that: ‘wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.’ Within homeopathy it should be easy to comply with the 3Rs requirement and with Article 4 for the obvious reason that our medicines have always been tested on people, not animals.
European researchers who continue to use animals in harmful experiments may find themselves open to legal challenge by campaigning welfare organisations, who will be monitoring the new databases. These organisations would refer to the harm/benefit test now required by EU law and argue that the predicted harm would not be justified by the expected outcome (see Reason 3). They would also argue that homeopathic medicines have been around for a long time, a lot is already known about them from human studies and there is no legal requirement to test them on animals prior to using them on humans. They would cite the many alternatives (humans, plant bioassays, in vitro tests etc.) that exist, and their case would be strong.
Outside Europe, in countries with weaker legislation, there is even wider scope for harm. India is harmonising animal welfare law with EU legislation but doubts exist over how practical these frameworks are and how seriously the government takes their enforcement (Akbarsha MA and Hartung T, 2013). In Brazil law-makers
have worked hard to overhaul 1987 welfare rules governing the use of animals in scientific research, yet the new 2008 legislation has numerous significant omissions, for example it fails to refer to or place emphasis on the 3Rs, has no severity classification system for procedures and does not even require research to be designed with consideration for its relevance to human and animal health, the advancement of knowledge or the good of society (Filipecki et al, 2011). It thus falls to the National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation to develop strategies to improve regulations and to positively influence both animal welfare and the ingrained culture of animal experimentation in the country. This could take many years.
Reason 7: It’s not necessary
Mainstream medicine has built its foundations on animal research, yet these are looking increasingly shaky as scientists begin to evaluate evidence for the reliability and success of animal models in predicting effects in humans. A recent article in the BMJ highlighted the fact that even the most promising findings from animal research often fail in human trials and are rarely adopted into clinical practice (Pound and Bracken, 2014). The authors concluded that the benefits of animal research remain unproved and may divert funds from research that would be more relevant to doctors and their patients. Elsewhere an open letter from 21 scientists to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, stressed the dangers of relying on animal models when testing drugs intended for humans and emphasised the need for greater use of human-based test methods (Archibald et al, 2011). Increasingly such methods are coming online, ranging from sophisticated computer programmes that can detect toxicity in minutes rather than months of animal testing, to in vitro models that simulate whole organs and organ systems. Thus mainstream biomedical research appears to be moving away from animal models, albeit slowly, driven by public opinion, the need to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the cost and time
required to bring a new drug to market. The great irony (that won’t be lost on practising homeopaths) is that two of the latest testing technologies suggest, this movement is towards a rudimentary form of homeopathy. One method is ‘micro- dosing’, which involves giving human volunteers tiny doses of a potential drug at levels high enough to
allow scientists to see its effects in the body but not high enough to cause harm. The second is ‘personalised medicine’, in which scientists obtain genetic and molecular information from a person in order to predict, how they will react to a certain drug. The aim of this is to make treatment more targeted and effective and to reduce the number of ADRs.
ADRs of course have never been a stumbling block for homeopathy. The safety of our medicines has allowed experimentation on large numbers of consenting men and women of all ages and ethnicities, each of whom has been able to communicate their reactions and experiences, whether physical, mental or emotional. Over the decades this non-harmful, human-based research has lead to the development of a rich, multi-dimensional and valuable homeopathic materia medica, tailor- made for ‘personalised medicine’, and to a greater understanding of the nature of health and disease. As Close observed almost a century ago: ‘“Experiments” of homoeopathy are made by men, upon men, for men under the natural conditions which belong to the everyday life of all men’ (Close, 1924). It comes as another ironic twist then to see homeopathic research move away from humans as the primary research subjects and towards genetically identical laboratory animals maintained in carefully controlled environments.
If all animal experimentation were to be banned tomorrow, then research into homeopathy would be more likely to thrive than to suffer. The focus would shift easily towards humans – both healthy and sick; to sick animals, to well-trialled plant bioassays and in vitro tests. Funding would be reassigned and progress towards a large, high-quality evidence-base accelerated. We would be able to take full and confident advantage of the safety of homeopathic medicines – downplayed by an allopathic approach to homeopathic research – and, perhaps most importantly, research would fully reflect the ethical principles and innovative thinking that led to homeopathy’s birth.
For references see website.
14