[escepticos] [transgenicos] RV: For every transgenic mouse, tens more are killed [AlphaGalileo]

[planetario@...>]

Recibido esta mañana (las multiples facetas de este tema aumentan y aumentan
y aumentan....)

>Title: For every transgenic mouse, tens more are killed
> EMBARGOED UNTIL 05 May 1999 19:00
>Organisation: New Scientist
>
>Summary: Bioethicists have voiced concern over an alarming number of
>mice that are being slaughtered as ?waste?? in transgenic experiments.
>Technicians have to kill off many mice that don?t successfully
>incorporate the DNA that genetic engineers are trying to insert into
>them.
UK CONTACT - Claire Bowles, New Scientist Press Office, London:
Tel: 44 171 331 2751 or email claire.bowles en rbi.co.uk

AN ALARMING number of mice are being slaughtered because they don't take up
the DNA that genetic engineers are trying to insert into them. Bioethicists
voiced concern over the waste of life, and its effects on the emotional
wellbeing of the technicians who have to dispatch the animals, at a meeting
in London last month on the effects of biotechnology on animal welfare.
Most biologists agree that transgenic technology has the potential to bring
huge advances in fundamental research and medicine. By altering mouse genes,
they can unlock the genetic secrets of development, or create animal models
in which to study devastating human diseases.
Laboratory animals have always had to be be humanely killed, once they can
no longer be used in experiments or for breeding. But genetic engineering
makes the problem worse. When researchers inject new genes into animal
embryos, only between 1 and 10 per cent of them will incorporate the gene.
And while fewer animals in general are being bred for scientific
experiments, transgenic mice are a growth area. Their use in Britain has
increased sevenfold during the 1990s (see Figure). The Home Office, which
regulates animal experiments in Britain, says that the "waste" animals
should be included in the statistics for transgenic procedures. But some
observers believe many are being left out.
"It's very difficult to work out the exact number killed surplus to
requirements," says David Morton, head of the centre for biomedical ethics
at the University of Birmingham. "I think a lot of people may cull them and
not count them."
Richard McGowan, a spokesman for the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in
Medical Experiments in Nottingham, wants scientists to look for ways of
reducing the wastage. One option would be to use transgenic "failures" to
provide tissue for research, instead of the hundreds of thousands of animals
that are specifically bred for this purpose each year (This Week, 25 October
1997, p 25).
But McGowan concedes that matching supply to demand may be difficult, as the
scientists involved may be in different labs, and require the animals at
different times. So until transgenic techniques improve so that genes can be
more reliably incorporated into the genomes of mouse embryos, much of the
wastage is likely to continue.
In the meantime, Morton believes that scientists should consider carefully
the effects of the boom in transgenic animals on the technicians who have to
kill the surplus animals. "They are often told to mop up afterwards," he
says.
One senior animal technician at a leading British university says that she
has noticed an increase in the numbers sacrificed as genetic engineering has
expanded: "My remit is to ensure we don't overbreed animals, but with
transgenics, you can't do anything about the surplus."
She, for one, is disturbed by being asked to kill so many animals. "I go
away feeling physically and emotionally exhausted, and I think it's
important for people to understand how we feel." She believes that an
anonymous questionnaire would reveal the extent of emotional problems among
technicians.
John Gregory, chairman of the Institute of Animal Technologies, which
represents Britain's animal technicians, says his organisation is open to
the idea of conducting a survey, and would help to arrange counselling if
necessary.
Author: Andy Coghlan
New Scientist issue 8 May 1999
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS ITEM