AETOX - Asociación Española de Toxicología

Inventory of the Spanish Institutions and Scientists Involved in Alternatives to the use of Laboratory Animals (Refinement, Reduction or Replacement)+

Inventory: 8. Scientific Productivity and Alternatives

The best way to explore the scientific productivity of a country is to compare the number of scientific articles published in relevant journals or the number of patents presented (Pestaña, 1996). Spain contributes 2.2 % of world scientific productivity according to the 1997 Science Citation Index. The figures are 2.65 % of world scientific productivity according to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, US), while about 0.6 % of the patents presented were by Spanish teams.

To evaluate Spanish scientific productivity related to in vivo and in vitro experimental procedures, the number of articles of relevant scientific publications has been recently identified by searching the bibliographic database Medline (Repetto et al., 1998). The areas where experimental animals and alternatives are habitually used --education, biomedical and environmental basic research and toxicity testing-- have been searched from 1966 to 1998. A variety of descriptors were used for the partial searches to assure their sensitivity, but with a high degree of selectivity.

The sample used in the search contained about 7 million bibliographic references from the last 32 years. The descriptor ‘animal testing alternatives’ , that should identify most alternative studies, is not useful, because it only describes less than 600 articles published since 1966. Moreover, it is not possible to differentiate conventional animal experimentation studies from those with innovations that should be considered as alternatives. This is in agreement with a recent publication by Langley et al. (1999), that concluded that the relevant search terms used by existing bibliographic databases are insufficient. For this reason, the group of alternative methods is underestimated in our results, because it has not only been reduced to in vitro studies, but also, to avoid association to other non-experimental studies (i.e., tests with bacteria or cell fractions), other studies have not been included.

Of the world-wide experimental studies published from 1966 to 1998, 63 % were animal studies, 30 % in vitro studies, and 7 % human volunteer studies. Considering only Spanish teams, the ratio was similar, with 62, 29 and 9 %, respectively.

Although the number of alternative methods employed has approached those with animals in the publications, this tendency has been slower in Spain. Worldwide, in the last 3 years, the proportion of animal studies was 52 %, in contrast to 36 % in vitro studies, and 12 % with human volunteers. In Spain, the percentages were 56, 32 and 12 %, respectively.

The number of world-wide publications which described animal use doubled from the 60’s to the 90’s. In Spain they increased more than 15 times. Alternative studies have grown by more than 5 times world-wide, and by nearly 20 times in Spain.

An important increase in the ratio of Spanish experimental studies in relation to world-wide production has been produced from 1980 to date: from 0.22 % in 1980 to 2.13 % at present.

In relation to the animal species most used world-wide in the last 3 years in in vivo studies, 33 % were rats, 20 % mice and 25 % humans, while in Spain the percentages were 38, 14 and 25 %, respectively. Likewise in in vitro studies 50 % of the biological material came from humans, 20 % from rats and mice, while in Spain the percentages were 48, 24 and 17 % respectively. The data proves that in vitro researchers prefer to use human material as a substrate source for assay.

With respect to the type of in vivo study, the greater number were performed in physiology (20 %), genetics (16 %), pharmacology (14 %), biochemistry and toxicology (10 %) and surgery and pathology (8 %). Covering only the Spanish case, the studies were 17 % in physiology and pharmacology, 16 % in genetics, 11 % in toxicology, 9 % in pathology and 8 % in biochemistry.

In vitro studies followed a similar pattern as in vivo procedures: genetics (22 %), physiology (17 %), pharmacology (13 %), biochemistry (11 %), toxicology (10 %), pathology (8 %) and surgery (6 %). In Spain the distribution was genetics 22 %, physiology and pharmacology 16 %, toxicology 10 %, biochemistry 9 % and pathology 7 %.

The competitivity of the Spanish hospitals is important; however the Spanish contribution in clinical trials does not reach 1.5 % of the world production. Although this level is well correlated to the GDB, it does not correlate with the scientific and technological development of the Spanish health service, and it should be increased 2 or 3 times. The main reason for this lower development has to do with administrative rigidity, which blocks the direct agreement of contracts with the private sector.

In conclusion, an important increase in Spanish scientific production has been observed in the investigated areas in relation to global international production, but reaches only 2.13 % at present. The increase in experimental studies is proportionally bigger for publications using alternative methods, but with some delay in Spain (32 in contrast to 36 %). The species most used in vivo were rats, mice and humans. In vitro researchers preferred humans to rats and mice as a source of material for their assays. The number of studies was parallel in vivo and in vitro, mainly in the areas of physiology, genetics, pharmacology, biochemistry, toxicology, surgery, and pathology. The important proportion of genetic studies is due to the design of transgenic model systems.

Fuente / Source: Guillermo Repetto, Ana del Peso, Manuel Salguero, Manuel Repetto (1999) Inventory of the Spanish Institutions and Scientists Involved in Alternatives to the use of Laboratory Animals (Refinement, Reduction or Replacement) Revista de Toxicología 16: 50-127.