The Current - Should Canada end animal testing in medical research?

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he’ll crack down on labs using cats and dogs in experiments after revelations that beagles were subjected to heart attack studies at St. Joseph’s Health Care in London, Ontario. The case has ignited debate over the role of animals in science. We hear from animal bioethicist Andrew Fenton, Western University researcher Arthur Brown, and Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, Charu Chandrasekera, who advocates for replacing animal testing with new technologies.

Guess who just bundled their home and auto with Desjardin insurance? Well, look at you, all grown up and saving money. Yes, I am. Mom told you to do it, didn't she? Yes, she did. Get insurance that's really big on care. Switch and you could save up to 35% on home insurance when you bundle home and auto. Dejardin Insurance, here for your home, auto, life, and business needs.

Certain conditions apply. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. The use of animals in lab research in Ontario is going to change. That's Premier Doug Ford's message. He was reacting to a report by the investigative journalism bureau. It revealed that the Lawson Research Institute at St. Joseph's Healthcare in London was using dogs, inducing extended heart attacks in them, and then euthanizing them to

study their hearts. I understand the mice, the rats, you know, maybe a rabbit, but these poor little beagles, you look out their face and whoever, you know, leaked it out, I want to thank them, because this was all done in secret. That's another frustrating thing. So, of course, now directed our team to start hunting down anyone else doing research on dogs or cats. It's just unacceptable. St. Joseph says the research was approved by its internal ethics process. but it is nonetheless ending its use of dogs in research. Ontario's premier has promised to ban the use of dogs and cats in research in the province. I'm joined by three people who know a lot about the use of animals in medical research.

Arthur Brown is a professor in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at Western University and chair of its Animal Care Committee. Andrew Fenton is a professor of philosophy at Delhousie University and an animal bioethicist. and Charu Chandra Sikera is the founder and executive director of the Canadian Center for Alternatives to Animal Methods. Good morning to all of you. Good morning. Arthur, I'll start with you. What was your reaction when you heard about the research going on at St. Joseph's Healthcare using dogs?

I think first of all, you have to understand is how much care we put into these animals and how much love and attention they get. And so it was really disappointing to hear the comments of the Premier. I think it's understandable in a sense because the article was very emotional and would pull at anyone's heartstrings. But I just wish he would have kind of taken a breath, investigated, thought about it, even contact someone at our university, including maybe myself or one of the veterinarians, and had a thoughtful discussion.

So I think what this particular problem needs is maybe what we're doing this morning is having a really thoughtful and nuanced discussion about really one of the major things that I think as a society we need to think about. Arthur, we're going to do that this morning. But before we go on, I just have to ask because you said the care that the dogs get and the love they receive. However, nonetheless, we do know that those dogs were being heart attacks were being induced in those dogs. So how does that compute? Humans have heart attacks too. The reason why this research is done is just because we want to make a difference.

Research involving animals saves lives. It improves lives. The only reason to do this is because of a concern for human, human suffering and human death. At the same time, and maybe this is kind of carving out the area of discussion, at the same time, there's incredible concern for the animals that are involved. And so there's this constant tension, this constant going back and forth. We have to make sure the animal's okay. That is the touchstone. That is the most important part. But then we want to proceed with our science. And so we try to very carefully balance those two things. So we get the scientific advance at the least possible animal harm. Chiro read about you. When you heard about what was going on at St. Joseph's Health Care and

these beagles specifically, what did you think? I actually had access to the privileged information. I read through almost 100 pages of animal care and use protocols at St. Joseph's Hospital, I was appalled to say, obviously, you know, animal research is still the gold standard. That's what it is in our modern culture of science, but to see the kind of experiments that were being done here, I was actually shocked. The intensity, the invasiveness of this research and the biological implications of it, you know, we could talk about this for an hour to see how most of this work wouldn't actually translate well to humans. And the worst fact was that there are already researchers around the world that are doing the exact same thing looking at what happens after a heart failure, how the heart recovers. All of that can be traced the same way with humans who are going through diagnostic imaging as part of their treatment regimen. And this is happening around the world already. Charu, there's a lot to talk about there, and we'll get to some of it.

But, Andrew, I want to go to you because what I think would provide some context for this conversation because St. Joseph's Health Care was singled out in this report. But how often are dogs and cats being used for research in Canada right now? Well, we have the latest data reports from the CCAC have about 16,000 years. They'll be used in varying studies of severity because there are varying levels of it. What jumped out to me about what was being reported, again, this all has to be qualified by, you know, I'm dependent on what folks like Jen Olson and Rob Krip reported in IGB, what the whistleblowers say in the videos. What jumped out to me as an animal ethicist and, you know,

someone who publishes in animal bioethics were the empty cages. So there's enrichment questions here. The fact that some of these dogs seem to be allowed to regain consciousness, despite what's been done to them, that jumped out to me. The fact that they're euthanized, and that's regardless of whether any of them could live life well rehomed after their use in science jumped out at me as well. And so it was a reminder to me.

So human research went through an ethics turn in the last quarter of the 20th century. And this is a reminder that we're still waiting for an ethics turn in the scientific use of animals. Arthur, what is your take on that? Because some of what I'm hearing is that though animals are still used in research frequently, there are degrees at which you can use them safely and humanely. And what you learned about what was happening at St. Joseph's Health Care, what kind of grade do you give that group? then. Yeah, so there's bumpers put up on the research, and this is provided by national standards

that the CCAC publishes and tells us what we have to do. I think people have to realize that these dogs that are not pets, they have never had an experience of lying on a couch by a fire. So it's a different kind of environment that they're used to and that they're acclimated to. We are very careful to stay within standards and to even go above standards. We really have a very careful look at this. It's not just the researchers, and you shouldn't have that idea. This work is overseen by vet techs, veterinarian technicians, and we have four veterinarians, all of them who have a great deal of experience with all sorts of animals, including dogs. But what did you make of the argument from just want to jump in? Because it's a key point here.

Cheru said, for instance, that the research that was being done there could have been and has been been completed in other areas and that kind of research is going on around the world not using animals. Yeah, I would challenge her on that. I think we might have to agree to disagree. I'm not, first of all, a cardiac biologist and maybe you need more of a specialist. But I think even what she mentioned, that there's MRI studies going on across the world, the reason why those MRI studies are there is because there were initial studies in dogs showing us how to interpret the MRI studies, how to look at them and know from the MRI how much heart tissue is still viable and how much heart tissue has died in the course of a heart attack. All that understanding has been

brought forward through these kinds of studies that were done at St. Joe's. So yeah, there's a next step, always going to be a next step in research once we've sort of cleared a certain bar on the animal research that we can then further research in humans. And I'm all for that. And I'm all four alternatives. But there's a certain step when we go for molecules and cells and we want to go to human, we need something in between. After we do that in between, it's going to be some sort of large animal model and it might be dog. It might be something else. It depends upon the biology. But then once we've done that, then I think Chihu is absolutely right. We can do a lot of studies past that point in humans. You know, Charu, the Harvard Medical School has a website that's

called what animal research has given us, and it has a long list of the ways in which we've learned things through animal research, orchard transplantation, blood transfusion, in vitro fertilization, cell biology, genetics, the list goes on and on. Is there a case to still use animals through for scientific research? So I have said this before publicly. We're not ready to and all animal testing tomorrow morning, but we're certainly ready to replace, reduce, and refine a large, the vast majority of animal experimentation that's going on.

And there's no denying that animal research in the past has led to significant discoveries, but what we have to look at today is the modern inefficiencies. 90% of drugs tested to be safe and effective in animals, fail in human clinical trials. We can't fix that problem by, simply celebrating discoveries of the past. And that's where we need to think about how to interrogate human biology

in unprecedented details with a toolbox that we have never had before in the history of science. And that's where this is really important. Yes, celebrate what has been done before. I mean, I've said this before. We used the telegraph to converse back in the day. You're going to purchase an iPhone 17 next month. Why aren't we applying the same principles to biomedical research? And I do want to take a moment here to go back to a couple of things that came up.

The justification for use of species, the choice of species, and the replacement reduction and refinement of animal procedures is a boilerplate answer. And I'm looking at the actual answer that was given by the group in London to their animal care committee. At this time, we cannot replace the animal model. Please tell me. Is that an acceptable answer to you? Andrew, I'm going to want you to bring you back into this conversation because some of what we heard from the premier was a very, what some have described as an emotional response. There was a lot of public backlash from people who feel as though using dogs is different than using mice or rats. Where does the, what does the ethics say about that?

Well, I mean, just tracking some of it's already been said to actually tie it all together. So one of the things that Arthur hasn't addressed yet are things like the barren cages, allowing animals to come to consciousness again after they've had an induced heart attack. These, you know, I don't think these are scientifically justified. We know who dogs are. We know these are domestic dogs. Domestic dogs come with well-known needs. And I don't see from those videos. I don't hear from the reporting that those needs were met.

Again, we need an ethics turn. Let me read you something. I was the co-chair and chair of the ethics committee subcommittee at the CCAC who are revising their ethics document. And the replacement reduction refinement have come up. Those are the three hours from William Russell and Rex Birch. They proposed this in 1959. I'm not saying that wrong.

And here's what we say in the publicly viewed document in 2022. And again, there was a committee of us, a whole bunch of animal researchers on that subcommittee. The three hours of Russell and Birch provide a strong framework for the mitigation of animal use and associated harms, but do not ensure that animal-based scientific activities are morally acceptable as they do not address the scientific value of the scientific activity or ethical considerations beyond unnecessary use and unnecessary harm. That's an ethics turn. The replacement reduction and refinement were not proposed by Russell and Birch as ethics principles. in their 1959 book. They are used that way globally,

but they're inadequate as ethics. We need to, as the CCAC itself says, and Arthur's here as a representative of an animal care committee, they say they actually hold animal science to the highest ethical standards. The three R's aren't that. The three R's aren't recognizable and defensible ethics principles.

If you want to look for the highest ethics standards used to constrain science, have a look at the Tri-Councilable. policy statement about science involving humans, you have respect for persons. Respect doesn't require personhood, but personhood requires respect. So you can extend respect, welfare, concern for welfare, counter indicates inducing, purposefully inducing disabilities and killing animals, however, humanely, and justice, which simply has to do with fair treatment.

If these animals are being used as stand-ins for us, we owe them something, and humanely killing them is not repaying that debt. We are gathered here today to celebrate life's big milestones. Do you promise to stand together through home purchases, auto-upgrades, and surprise dents and dings? We do. To embrace life's big moments for any adorable co-drivers down the road. We do. Then with the caring support of Desjardin insurance, I pronounce you covered for home, auto, and flexible life insurance.

For life's big milestones, get insurance that's really big on care at Dejardin.com slash care. Let's go to the X. The Canadian National Exhibition Foundation's Grand C&E 50-50 fundraiser is on. Buy your tickets now at C&E Foundation 5050.com for your 18 chances to win and a chance to support a good cause. You could take home the $100,000 guaranteed minimum cash grand prize and more. Thank you for supporting C&E Foundation Community and Youth Programs. Play responsibly. License RAF 1486859.

Come and celebrate to run it and do everything you want to have the egg. Yes. Arthur, how do you respond to that? If animal research in Canada has to follow ethics guidelines, but they've not been updated in decades, is that not a problem? I welcome updates, and I welcome the CCAC to make updates. What's important also in this conversation is that these animals are looked after by veterinarians. And one of the things, objections that I'm hearing, really stem from a lack of appreciation of what I said before, the difference between dogs rear as pets and dogs that are used to a, laboratory setting. And I think, you know, I'm not of that, and I don't really want to speak overly to it. But I think if, and I'm not sure Dr. Fenton has done this, but if you speak to a veterinarian in another facility that might have similar animals, I think you'll see that the way in which the cages are, you'll see that there are actually beds in those cages. You just haven't recognized them

as such. And that other veterinarians, the specialists that we have to turn to to say, what's appropriate for these animals, those are the ones that I turn to, and not just internal to Western and St. Joe's, actually, are they all Western veterinarians? But, you know, provincial and our federal regulators, which are mostly veterinarians, and they're saying that this is appropriate. And I think sometimes we use the wrong set of eyes to try and trip for what we're saying. Arthur, what, in those barren cages that you say don't have a bed, what would a bed actually look like then if you say they do? Yeah, it's a harder surface because these animals will eat the fluff out of a normal bed, and then they're in danger of intestinal

obstruction. Charro, I just want to get Charro to comment on some of what you said. Do you buy that that these dogs are different than the dogs that we raise in our homes? Absolutely not. They're treated differently. We have our cognitive dissonance about our different animals, right? We have categorized them as lab animals, food animals, pet animals. That does not apply here, because we as scientists are bound by the principle. of ethics and also welfare. So when you look at even refinement with rodents, you're supposed to enrich their cages with extra bedding, extra, you know, toys and wheels for them to play on. So are those rodents also eating all the bedding in those cages when they're more crowded?

I refuse to believe that. And based on the whistleblower testimony, I have seen the entire whistleblower testimony that animal justice acquired. And These dogs are left alone, 23 hours of the day. Maybe if they had more human contact, you could stop them from eating something. If that's even a real issue, I don't think the basic minimum of welfare standards were met in these studies. And that's what's extremely troublesome. If this is the guidelines we have in Canada and researchers come up with excuses and boilerplate answers and perfunctory responses, I don't think we are an advanced country.

Andrew, what do you... This is not what the rest of the world is doing. Andrew, you mentioned we need to update the guidelines for when animals can be used for scientific research. What's missing in those guidelines right now? What would you like to see added? Well, what's missing is our highest ethics standards. And so the fundamental principle that goes on in ethics, and I just would remind Arthur respectfully that veterinarians are not experts in ethics because of their training, we all develop our ethics competence through reflection. discussions like this. And so they can't claim a certain kind of corner of this debate and go, we know what's best ethically. That's not what a veterinarian can do, no matter what their

veterinarian training is. And we can all develop the relevant ethics competency to gauge this. And again, like what we're considering in the CCAC is a principle of respect, a principle of sufficient benefit, and a principle of not unnecessarily harming an animal. These were in the public document. And the respect is a respect for animal welfare that limits scientific use. Because if animals are going to matter at all, and I mean at all morally, there has to be a time where we say no to scientific use. And is there, do you differentiate between rats and mice and dogs and cats? What I do is I say, listen, you look at your ethics principles. What you do is things like concern for welfare, respect for the animals. Are rats and mice? Do they experience

things badly? Do they have needs? Do they have preferences? And if they do, then we should attend to them as well as we do in our best moments with domestic dogs and domestic cats. And I'll remind Arthur, these ethics principles aren't limited by location. It doesn't matter if a dog cat rat or budgie is in the home, in our neighborhood, or in a laboratory. There do ethics considerations. Ethics is about consistency. Once you start hiving off people by laboratory or why they were bred, you abandon ethics. You don't enforce it. Arthur, I know you probably have a lot to say to some of this, but I am curious, do labs at Western use dogs or cats? No, we do not. But let me just for a moment. I'm not suggesting

the veterinarians have any, it's not really an ethical argument I'm making here. I'm saying in terms of judging what a particular dog needs, veterinarians understand their medical needs and their mental needs, because just like a human doctor looks after humans' physical and mental needs, a veterinarian does. And they're the experts. I'm not saying that they should be experts in ethics, but I think they have a lot to bring to this discussion and to contextualize what's being seen. I wouldn't mind also applying a little bit to what Dr. Charlie said, which I thought was very interesting. She's right. There's a lot of, it's very hard work. So those who want to make a difference to human health, it's hard. And she's right. There is a lot

of things that fail in animal testing and after animal testing. But one of the really fantastic truths is that despite that, every drug, every therapy, every pill that everyone has taken, all of those things relied upon animal research and will. I think she's also right. And I, you know, I wish I could finally use some money, Dr. Chowell. We need to move to these alternatives that she is working on. I think she's also right that it's the way of the future. It's not here now, but I really do think that we need to work towards it. It would really save us a lot of difficulty and challenge. Charu, tell me a little bit more about the alternatives that are available, that we could be funding more. It's an entire toolbox. I wouldn't be able to

talk about that in two minutes, but there are so many different technologies, in vitro technologies. So these are tissue models, right? So I used to do 3D human tissue printing and organ on chip technologies, these little devices, the size of a thumb drive where you could use human cells. And it is in the final stage of approval at the US FDA currently. And then there are, you know, human data, right, from epidemiology, from biomonitoring and from imaging studies like this non-invasive research on humans and computational modeling. There are so many different things that we can do to simulate even clinical trials in a computer or in a patriotage to obtain data on human biology in unprecedented detail, this is where the world

is going. The European Union is phasing out chemical testing on animals. The U.S. National Institutes for Health, the world's largest biomedical research funder, just changed their policies that they will no longer have calls for grants where it's just animal-based and they're going to change their grant review protocols. So there's a lot of changes and the FDA is phasing out animal testing for drugs. safety. These things are happening. And here in Canada, we banned cosmetic testing on animals, and we now have legislation to phase out chemical testing on animals and a strategic roadmap to do

so. I played a critical role in that. So the world is moving that way. I just want to go back to Andrew, and we only have about a minute left. But as an ethicist who's looking at this situation from through the lens of whether or not animals are being treated the way they should be in an ethical way, do we lose anything? Do you think in medical research, if we, give up some of what we have right now and using animals as frequently as we do. Do we lose anything in scientific research? We not only don't lose anything, we gain the beginning of ethical animal science because we're not there yet. We don't have ethical animal science in Canada. We could begin that. Now, this is, I'm not against ethical animal science, but I wanted

to start. One of the things that hasn't come up yet is the CCAC isn't accountable to anyone, despite being primarily funded indirectly through Canadian taxpayers. It needs to report to a minister, government department, and government office. It's not true as far as I know in any province or territory that any facility or institution that uses animals and research must be certified by the CCAC and remain in good standing. That's shocking. The CCAC is our only oversight. We don't know the real animal numbers of use in Canada.

That's how bad our regulation is in Canada, and that needs to change. I know there's a lot more that could be said, but we've run out of time. Andrew Fenton, Arthur Brown, and Charu Chandra Seke-Cara. Thank you so much for joining us. You're very welcome. Thank you for having us. Andrew Fenton is a professor of philosophy at Delhousie University and an animal bioethicist. Arthur Brown is a professor at Western University and chair of its animal care committee.

And Charu Chandra Sehara is the founder and executive director of the Canadian Center for Alternatives to Animal Methods. We reached out to the Lawson Research Institute and they sent us a fact sheet about their animal care that read in part, quote, we adhere to the highest standards of and in compliance with all scientific ethical protocols. The Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Western Animal Care Committee provide valued third-party oversight and ensure our commitment to ethical research at every stage of discovery and treatment. In keeping with animal welfare standards, we aim to complete our study. in as short a time frame as possible. It goes on to say, as part of the studies,

dogs were included in an enrichment program created by registered veterinary technologists to ensure they were socialized with each other and humans daily. They also had access to outdoor spaces and nutritious food. Although the research studies involving dogs has been stopped, this care continues to be delivered for the dogs currently in our care. You've been listening to the current podcast. my name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon.

For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.