The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in early 1997 to prohibit the use of an animal in the production of mAb (monoclonal antibodies). NIH responded late in 1997, asserting that continued use of the mouse method for producing mAb was scientifically required. In a second petition, in early 1998, AAVS did not accept the NIH response. NIH asked the National Research Council to form a committee to study this issue. The Committee on Methods of Producing Monoclonal Antibodies was composed of 11 experts with extensive experience in biomedical research, laboratory animal medicine, pain research, animal welfare, and patient advocacy. The committee was asked to determine whether there is a scientific necessity for producing mAb by the mouse method and, if so, to recommend ways to minimize any pain or distress that might be associated with the method. The committee was also to determine whether there are regulatory requirements for the mouse method and to summarize the current stage of development of tissue-culture methods.
The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on April 23, 1997, to prohibit the use of animals in the production of mAb. On September 18, 1997, NIH declined to prohibit the use of mice in mAb production, stating that "the ascites method of mAb production is scientifically appropriate for some research projects and cannot be replaced." On March 26, 1998, AAVS submitted a second petition, stating that "NIH failed to provide valid scientific reasons for not supporting a proposed ban." The office of the NIH director asked the National Research Council to conduct a study of methods of producing mAb. In response to that request, the Research Council appointed the Committee on Methods of Producing Monoclonal Antibodies, to act on behalf of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the Commission on Life Sciences, to conduct the study. The 11 expert members of the committee had extensive experience in biomedical research, laboratory animal medicine, animal welfare, pain research, and patient advocacy (Appendix B). The committee was asked to determine whether there was a scientific necessity for the mouse ascites method; if so, whether the method caused pain or distress; and, if so, what could be done to minimize the pain or distress. The committee was also asked to comment on available in vitro methods; to suggest what acceptable scientific rationale, if any, there was for using the mouse ascites method; and to identify regulatory requirements for the continued use of the mouse ascites method. The committee held an open data-gathering meeting during which its members summarized data bearing on those questions. A 1-day workshop (Appendix A) was attended by 34 participants, 14 of whom made formal presentations. A second meeting was held to finalize the report. The present report was written on the basis of information in the literature and information presented at the meeting and the workshop.
For many years, experiments using chimpanzees have been instrumental in advancing scientific knowledge and have led to new medicines to prevent life-threatening and debilitating diseases. However, recent advances in alternate research tools have rendered chimpanzees largely unnecessary as research subjects. The Institute of Medicine, in collaboration with the National Research Council, conducted an in-depth analysis of the scientific necessity for chimpanzees in NIH-funded biomedical and behavioral research. The committee concludes that while the chimpanzee has been a valuable animal model in the past, most current biomedical research use of chimpanzees is not necessary, though noted that it is impossible to predict whether research on emerging or new diseases may necessitate chimpanzees in the future.
In Advancing Prion Science, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Assessment of Relevant Science recommends priorities for research and investment to the Department of Defense's National Prion Research Program (NPRP). Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), also called prion diseases, are invariably fatal neurodegenerative infectious diseases that include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly called mad cow disease), chronic wasting disease, scrapie, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. To develop antemortem diagnostics or therapies for TSEs, the committee concludes that NPRP should invest in basic research specifically to elucidate the structural features of prions, the molecular mechanisms of prion replication, the mechanisms of TSE pathogenesis, and the physiological function of prions' normal cellular isoform. Advancing Prion Science provides the first comprehensive reference on present knowledge about all aspects of TSEsâ€"from basic science to the U.S. research infrastructure, from diagnostics to surveillance, and from prevention to treatment.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.