In light of recent controversies surrounding animal treatment at the Harvard Primate Center research facilities, I thought it would be interesting to examine the state of animal testing in Japan. I originally came to this subject a few years ago; I was taking a course with a non-Native Japanese language professor. The professor had spent some time working at a a survey company in Japan, and we were chatting about her experiences there. She mentioned that, for any student interested in Japanese society and culture, working as a telephone survey proctor was an interesting experience. She commented that designing and administering surveys for various Japanese demographic groups gave her an insight into Japanese culture trends. During the 1990’s, she worked primarily for a cosmetic company; she frequently contacted women, between the ages of 25-45, that purchased and used the cosmetic products. It was her job to design surveys that would capture the values of the target demographic. When designing the surveys, my professor frequently wrote questions related to factors that would inhibit consumer purchase of a product. For a wave of surveys, she inquired, “Would you prefer a product that is not tested on animals?” She was shocked when a Japanese colleague, helping her with the final review, commented, “Japanese don’t really care about that,” and urged her to remove the questions related to animal testing or animal products. I was equally surprised-- this story came in the wake of many environmental and anti-cruelty campaigns that were evident both in Washington DC and on the backs of shampoo bottles. Even if Americans did not necessarily adhere to anti-cruelty policies, surely the general US sentiment was one of human-animal empathy? I became interested in the relationship between humans and animals in Japanese society.
Admittedly, this is an anecdotal story. However, I believe it reflects the larger trend in animal testing in Japan. Accordingly, I will examine some of the trends in Japanese laboratories, and international practices and regulations in the US and Europe. Japan has expressed an interest in emulating “Western regulations.” Whether or not this is a progressive step for animal welfare is debatable.
General Regulations
In Japan, the regulation process for animal laboratory use is largely self-regulated. Individual laboratories are responsible for regulating the habitat, feeding, watering, general health, and sanitation of animals. However, various industries have worked to require basic rubrics for animal welfare. In 2011, the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufactuers Association (JPMA), used the standard of the 3Rs to provide new and established companies with minimal humanity conditions. (The National Agricultural Library 2011)
The 3Rs come from a series of policies adopted by Canadian, European, and American governments and agricultural departments. The three Rs are “Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement.” These three categories recognize the current reliance on animal testing in research centers across the world: an immediate abandonment of animal testing would not only devastate important medical and technology efforts, but would also result in the destruction of millions of animals. Accordingly, first introduced in the 1950s and refined over the last 50 years, the 3Rs were introduced to gradually eliminate animal testing procedures. The first of these Rs is Refinement: this refers to experiments using living animals; it encourages the elimination and replacement of experimental procedures that cause pain, distress, or stress on an animal. Procedures are “refined” until as many inhumane steps as possible are removed from the experiment design; the experiment is not carried out until it has been reviewed by an ethics committee, and has been shown to comply with ethics standards. (Armstrong 2008)
“Reduction” refers to the numbers of animals used in tests and the numbers of experiments carried out. The Reduction tactic decreases the number of animals used in an experiement without decreasing the information gleaned from the experiment. Used with Refinement procedures, Reduction maximizes the efficiency and humanity of experiments that use animal subjects.
“Replacement” is the final component of the 3Rs. It involves seeking alternative methods as opposed to animal testing. This includes inanimate subjects, computerized simulations, and alternative experimental procedures for drug and substance testing.
The 3Rs have been largely successful across countries. While the regulations require spending to generate alternative methods and refined testing measures, the benefits have been impressive. Obviously, in facilities that adopt the 3Rs, animal welfare is higher; moreover, some facilities have completely phased out certain tests, breeds of animals, and, in rare cases, animal testing entirely. Other facilities have worked to place research animals in rehabilitation programs and rescue shelters. However, there has also been economic benefit for the research facilities. The 3Rs require efficiency, resulting in the conservation of resources, time, effort, and morale. Moreover, facilities where animal mortality and injury is high, turn-over rates, especially of custodial staff and animal handlers, is equally high; in order to compensate for emotional upset, facilities often pay exorbitantly high salaries. Finally, the push for more innovative and animal-friendly technologies encourages creative and especially gifted individuals to apply at companies that are interested in more cutting-edge technology. The creation of a more human research environment, governed by the 3Rs, has resulted in sustainable job creation, economic opportunity, and, msot importantly, less animals used in painful, frightening, and fatal experiments.
Of course, the application to the 3Rs has been slow, contested, and subject to inadequate adherence across the globe. Organizations like PETA and the NAVS argue that the 3Rs have become a plateau for companies that no longer work to completely eliminate animal testing; animal welfare organizations are especially concerned about the use of primates, and the prevalence of vivisection, which has been demonstrated to cause pain, distress, and lasting complications for animals that survive the procedure (AAVS 2011). In this environment, where the efficacy of the 3Rs mirrors US emissions policy, it is now time to consider the Japanese laboratory animal context. How effective are the 3Rs? Does Japan meet basic humanity standards? Is mirroring the US standard acceptable? What steps can Japan take to ensure the eventual elimination of animal testing that results in pain, distress, or any other harm to the animal’s emotion or mental state?
The Japanese Standard
As stated, the Japanese cruelty regulations are largely self-regulated. However, since at least 2006, Japanese ethics and policy boards have trended towards increased sanctions to establish basic animal welfare. Takuya Ikeda, of Charles Rivers Laboratories in Japan, stated that regualtion were becoming “increasingly strict.” Charles River, both in Japan and elsewhere, is considered one of the most excessive users of animals in injurious and fatal experiments. PETA has cited Charles Rivers CEO, James Foster, as the second worst CEO in terms of animal welfare (PETA 2012). In 2006, public outcry caused a revisitation, at the government level, of Japanese animal welfare requirements. Reports from major Japanese laboratories, including the Charles Rivers facilities, included citations of improper access to veterinary care, social and emotional neglect, improper shelter resulting in foot injuries and broken bones, untrained staff, and primate death from severe emaciation and dehydration. In 2010, the Japanese Diet revisited public and international concern with these citations, and, in 2012, major revisions are planned that more rigioursly rework animal welfare initiatives. Currently, companies are encouraged to follow regulations like the 3Rs, though there is little legal stipulation to secure adherence to these policies. It should be noticed, however, that at this time there is little talk of elimination animal testing in Japan. (Takuya Ikeda 2012; Alt-Tox.org 2010; Omoe 2006)
Numbers of Animals Used
It is notoriously difficult to extract and present accurate statistics related to the numbers of animals who are used, killed, injured, or maltreated in animal testing facilities. This is true not only for countries like Japan or China, but also for the US. As is demonstrated by the recent Harvard controversy, maltreatment episodes or neglect are often unreported for long periods of time. However, the number of Japanese animals used in research facilities is quite high. In a survey completed in 2009 11,337,334 live animals were kept in Japanese research facilities. This is part of an international use of 40 to 100 million. Japan and America are the two largest animal experimenters, followed by Britain, Canada, France, and Germany. Britain, comparatively, reports about 2.6 million animals used in experiments. (Roger Panaman, Animal Ethics UK, 2008) The majority of tests are carried out on rodents, including rats, mice, and rabbits. Experiments range from behavioral studies beneficial to the tested species to cosmetic procedures resulting in deformation and distress to protracted medical procedures.
Types of Animals Used
The types of animals used in Japan generally follow regulations. In general, animals used in experimentation facilities should be bred, kept, and maintained as laboratory animals; however, several cases involving domestic livestock experimentation have been cited (Omoe 2006: 15). Animals include rodents, reptiles, monkeys, birds, cats, and dogs. In general procedures are adjusted for different animal species.
The American “Progressive”
In several reports, spokespersons from leading Japanese research firms have mentioned a desire to parallel American and British standards for laboratory animal protocol. Ikuya Takeda, of the Charles Rivers labs, is one of these individuals. To anyone who has critically looked at conditions in Japanese labs, this is a strange statement. The US and Japan are the leading users of animals in laboratories. The US and Japan also continue to use primates, despite the controversies surrounding the use of such animals in research. As has been demonstrated by recent events, even the most esteemed US research labs have severe incidents of neglect and abuse.
Is this really a good laboratory model to follow? Japanese laboratories, some might argue, are actually much more enlightened the US labs. What is the purpose of Japanese laboratories adopting a US regulation standard, when American practices demonstrate inconsistencies and quality when compared to other systems?
Steps to Take
Clearly, despite favorable comparison with some countries, the Japanese animal system needs improvement. Indeed, many of these problems involve a fundamental understanding of animal right-to-life, animal well-being, and the place of live subjects in labs. To change any of this, a series of serious internal ethical initiatives will need to be undertaken. This will start, firstly, with debate and conversation. Certain groups, like ARM,take violent measures, or make use of fear-mongering. How productive is this to interdisciplinary, public-private, and intercultural cooperation? While some may agree with ARM’s aggression, many do not view it as a sustainable practice.
The first step to take is enforced regulation. The 3Rs are an excellent place to start, but, when companies do not have to actually be held accountable to any of these strictures, chances for neglect and abuse are high. Japan should work towards a regulated system of animal welfare.
Related to this is the aim of the 3Rs. The 3Rs have the ultimate aim, in most circles of eliminating all but only the rarest animal testing. This is perhaps a far-off goal, but one that has much merit. Accordingly, companies should not be allowed to hit plateaus that still allow for testing, and the injury or death of animals. Procedures, in Japan and abroad, must be taken to encourage an end result that accomplishes the animal testing procedures.
As various animal ethics scholars have written, a big part of animal welfare involves the laboratory setting, and the relationship between laboratory staff and animal subjects. In order to secure the welfare of live subjects, many scholars have argued for a “humanization” of lab animals. They do not necessarily suggest treating the animals like domestic pets, but decry laboratory procedures that position the animal as a lifeless statistic with no consequence. Moreover, scholars suggest that all staff should receive basic training in signs of distress, fear, or pain. (A cat, for instance, will purr loudly when upset-- it is a mechanism the cat employs to calm itself.) Beyond ensuring that lab specialists recognize the sentience of the animals, it also encourages staff, especially those involved with inflicting pain on an animal, to consider how comfortable they are with live subjects. Indeed, this may be one of the best ways to push for alternative lab procedures.
Additionally, there is a need to address the public. Transparency, even if it involves revealing what is now considered “private” information, is important. What animals are being hurt? How long are animals subject to pain? What is done with the animals? What are the living conditions of these animals? What industries, including medical and cosmetic, are involved in the tests? Are the tests even necessary? Some of the largest scandals have involved PETA or a similar group breaking into a laboratory facility. Even though labs follow basic government regulations, the public is repelled by the conditions of the animals inside. Accordingly, labs have become isolated and the workers withdrawn-- what the public doesn’t know can’t hurt it. However, the public consists of the majority who benefit from animal research. Confronting them with the ethical problems of the lab facility encourages individual consideration of animals in labs.
Finally, and in relation to Japan specifically, the socio-cultural background of the laboratory culture is important to consider. Often, laboratories reflect the relationship with animals that the society has. Japan, for instance, has a system of hierarchies with animal life; this involves “good” and “bad” animals treated differently based on levels of pollution, holiness, or connection to various supernatural powers. Japan also has a long Shinto and Buddhist history that prohibits any cruelty to animal life. How are these belief systems reflected in laboratory practices? How might lab practices serve as reactions against “traditional” modes of thinking? Engaging the socio-historic context of human-animal relationships is an important step in ensuring the well-being of all sentient life.
(Omoe 2006; Armstrong 2008; NAL 2011)
Conclusion
The Japanese laboratory situation is not abysmal, but it requires improvement and serious consideration of the place of animals in labs. Some of this will involve a reworking of the Japanese context specifically, but much of the ethical conversation necessitates a global discussion. We are reaching a junction, as a research community, where we not only have the technology for cruelty-free alternatives, but also the data to reveal that animals, in laboratory conditions, experience pain, fear, and emotional trauma. It is time to reconsider our current regulations, and to move forward towards happier, healthier, and more sustainable alternatives.
For individuals who work in laboratories, especially those at Harvard, the current Harvard Primate Center controversies may be overwhelming, confusing, and/or upsetting. Many people who work in lab facilities are not trained or used to dealing with animal abuse or neglect. Accordingly, in case any students in this class are exposed to animal abuse or neglect, I have provided the following questions. These may help people identify if their labs not only follow regulations, but demonstrate a conscientious compassion for all lab participants.
If animals are used in any research you may do, ask the following questions. Obviously, some of these are more for people on an HR level, but alot of them are basic considerations for anyone working with lab animals.
1) Are the animals absolutely needed, or have alternatives been considered? Why/why not?
2) If an animal is absolutely needed has the experiment been refined to eliminate a) unnecessary trials, b) unnecessary pain/stress/fear, and c) a successful outcome for the animals involved?
3) What sort of injury, stress, or distress will the animal experience? How can this be reduced/avoided?
4) Have all involved staff been made aware of a) the correct procedures, b) the use of the animal and any possible alternatives, and c) any stress, pain, or fear the animal may experience?
5) Are all staff aware of signs of pain, fear, and discomfort for a given animal? How are staff expected to minimalize pain/stress?
6) In the event of accidental death or injury of a laboratory animal, what measures are taken? Who is
informed? Is it publicized so as to a) raise safety awareness, and b) engender a relationship with the outside community of trust and cooperation?
7) What are disciplinary procedures for intentional abuse or neglect?
8) What is the "exit strategy" for an experiment that ends with the animal still alive? Is the animal euthanized? Have alternative venues been pursued (shelters, rescue programs etc.)
9) Has there been a staff meeting to address the roles of animals in the laboratory? This should cover any accidents/injuries, procedures and protocols, an introduction to the individual species used in the laboratory, and a question/answer session for any staff. The meeting should include anyone involved in animal research, including custodians and handlers, and can be facilitated by an outside party (from an animal rights group etc.)
10) Anyone working in the laboratory, even if they do not come in contact with animal, should be aware of animal-related protocol. In addition, are background checks run for new employees? Do they have any history of animal abuse/neglect? While most employees don't have access to this data, it's a good thing to know.
It's important to remember that accidents happen in any laboratory-- when animals, or any live subjects, are used, then we really need to consider whether this is a risk we are ethically willing to take.
If you need help, or some answers to questions, then please email me. I've worked on animal welfare and ethical responsibilities for awhile (in lab, shelter, and rescue settings).
Bibliography
(2011). The 3Rs, National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture.
AltTox.org (April 27 2010). Japan: Legislation & Animal Welfare Oversight. Non-animal Methods for Toxicity Testing.
Armstrong, S. J. and R. G. Botzler (2008). The animal ethics reader. London ;New York, Routledge.
Baker, S. A. (1993). Picturing the beast : animals, identity, and representation. Manchester ;New York :New York, NY, Manchester University Press ;Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin's Press.
Baker, S. A. (2000). The postmodern animal. London, Reaktion.
Benedict, R. (1946, 2005). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Patterns of Japanese Culture. New York, New York, Houghton-Mifflin Company.
Ikeda, T. (2009). "Tightened control on laboratory animals and animal tests both in Japan and other countries."
JAVA (2002-2003). "Japan Anti-Vivisection Association."
Melson, L. G. (2001). Why the wild things are : animals in the lives of children.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Omoe, H. (2006). "Recent Trends in Animal experimentation in Japan- On the Revision and Implementation of the Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals." Science and Technology Trends Quarterly Review 2006 November.
Pflugfelder, G. M. and B. L. Walker (2005). JAPANimals : history and culture in Japan's animal life. Ann Arbor, Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan.
Procedures, S. C. o. A. i. S. (2002-2010) Chapter 1: Introduction.
Yagami K, M. T., Sekiguchi F, Sugiyama F, Yamamura K, Serikawa T (2009). Suvery of live laboratory animals reared in Japan. J. A. f. L. A. Science. Tokyo, Japan, JALAS Board of Executive Directors.
