Dogs are a Cure’s Best Friend
“Dogs, which have strong genetic similarities with humans, get many of the same types of cancers as people and have similar responses to cancer-fighting drugs.” Successful personalized treatment for our pets’ cancer may lead us to provide successful personalized treatment in humans. How would enrolling animal subjects enable faster response and treatment? (Think back to the Feero et al. article “Genomics, Health Care, and Society,” and its section about Consent and Confidentiality.) If your dog were diagnosed with cancer, would you enroll him/her in a cancer treatment trial? Do you think this could be an important part of the emerging era of personalized medicine that the Human Genome Project had hoped to achieve?
Article and embedded video: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577207252135374064.html?mod=rss_Health
(Thank you to your fellow classmate for this article!)
I think that enrolling animal subjects would enable faster response and treatment because dogs have a shorter survival time than humans, so if the animal survives, researchers can determine that their treatment may be effective for humans in just a short period of time.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a dog with cancer and there were no other treatment options besides putting my dog to sleep, I would definetly enroll in a cancer treatment trial. Although I don't own a pet, I can assume that most pet owners would do anything to help save their pets lives especially if their options are limited so I can unerstand why it was easy to get a lot of canine patients.
Overall I think this type of research could open many doors in finding rapid treatment for cancers in both humans and animals. Through this type of research, some day scientist will be able to make specific treatments for every specific gene mutation out there that causes diseases. As long as ethical guidelines are placed, I think that using dogs for cancer research has great ootential.
Many Americans hold dogs to the same value as human beings so I can see backlash with using dogs as study participants. I think this type of research can be extremely beneficial but wouldn't it require revision of the guidelines for animal testing? I am interested in what dog lovers have to say about this. Like Liz, I am currently not a dog owner. I use to be one, my two german shepherds were not treated like my children so the attachment is different.
ReplyDeleteTamika, I think you make a great point. Views on this matter differ depending on whether we are dog lovers or not. My dog was diagnosed with cancer at the end stages of her life. Very sad to watch. If my dog was able to be put in a trial for cancer testing that could potentially cure her, I would have done it in a second. This would be especially true if I knew that her testing could also benefit humans with cancer.
DeleteI do not believe in testing dogs when it will not benefit the dog and could potentially harm a healthy dog. An example of this is makeup testing on dogs. But, in this case, these dogs' health could improve through the cancer treatment testing. Unfortunately, without this testing, the dog would most likely die anyway without any other treatment so it is worth a try. Overall, the benefits of this testing outweighs the costs.
I definitely think that using genetic testing on dogs to come up with new therapies is a good idea. There is no issue of consent, disclosing personal information, insurance coverage issues, etc. However, one of the first negative images that came to mind when thinking about negative consequences was the advertised awful images of cosmetic product testing of animals. I think many organizations, like ASPCA, will put up a big fight against this type of testing of drugs, and if anything does arise it will take awhile and include alot of regulations.
DeleteI definitely agree with Tamika regarding the backlash from animal lovers. I've personally never owned a pet so it's hard to relate to how this would emotionally trigger a response out of some. I also think Elizabeth made a very valid point regarding the faster response times if testing treatments on animals. Treating dogs seems like a great idea, because not only can it potentially save the dog's lives, but also help us learn more about how to better treatments for humans. There would of course have to be guidelines and regulations in place, but that all takes time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tamika (and others) about the animal lovers hatred of this idea. It is very difficult to get past these kinds of groups and they may start to cause more of an uproar as these trials become more public. I think the creation of guidelines/regulations would take a very long time because there would be much debate around what is ethical vs. not in these trials
Delete- Caroline Booth
I agree with both previous posts: this research, and the study of dog's cancer etiology could be incredibly beneficial (both for dogs and humans), yet caution should also be used as there are many potentially negative repercussions. One the one hand, as the article noted, it is much easier and faster to study canine DNA samples than human samples for a variety of reasons, one of the most important ones being the ability to avoid any long and drawn-out confidentiality and consent issues. The information obtained from dogs has so many less restrictions than those taken from people. Also, the overall costs, as mentioned in the article, are significantly lower.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that using DNA/disease information from dogs could also help researchers to develop drugs that are more specifically targeted at certain types of cancers, and could therefore be more beneficial in helping people to recover from these conditions. This might also mean that not all cancer patients will have to undergo the current painful standard of care and that they may receive cheaper, faster, and more effective treatment.
However, I also see a few potential issues with using dogs to test for potential cures for people. First, while informed consent and confidentially issues don't apply, there should be definite ethical consideration for what types of medicines are "tested" on dogs, as well as how they are treated. Animal testing definitely has its own guidelines and rules, but these should perhaps be reviewed and potentially modified to accommodate these new practices. Also, while dogs and humans do share many genetic similarities to humans, there are some differences that could potentially affect how dogs react to both cancer and treatment versus people. Using dogs to discover new information about disease development and treatment has great potential, but should be approved with caution.
I agree with many of the points Kaitlin has raised. There is certainly a lot less red tape involved in enrolling dogs in cancer treatment trials (i.e. no consent, minimal confidentiality issues etc.), and there certainly could be a benefit to humans from the knowledge gained through canine studies. But as Kaitlin pointed out, I really think there needs to be guidelines and carefully crafted ethical norms about what types of medicines and trials are done on dogs. In my opinion, there should be a potential benefit offered to the dog as a result of the treatment - we should not be playing Frankenstein with people's pets. However, it is also interesting to consider that we do research on mice, rats, guinea pigs etc. with very little regulation or consideration of ethical norms, but yet we tend to think about dogs as very different. Obviously there are differences between mice and dogs, but it is interesting to think about how we have shaped the ethical norms about what kinds of research we can do and the type of subjects that we can use. Do we really have clear guidelines about what can and should be done with regards to testing? Where do we draw the line?
DeleteI agree with Michelle and I was going to bring up the same point about mice and the testing done on animals now. I think that animal testing is essential for the progression of medicine and I do not really see the benefit of using a dog when currently using the animals that are being used are working so well. I would enroll an animal in a research study if their research had some grounds in smaller animals and had promise in efficentcy in aiding the animal. I do understand the animals emotional state and it is hard to think of an animal or anyone in pain. Though testing has to start somewhere to be able to get to the human testing stage.
DeleteI think this sort of research has great potential in developing personalized medicine. Cancer treatment, perhaps more than almost any other group of diseases, would benefit from personalized medicine considering how destructive cancer can be and how it is effectively a genetic disease.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with everyone above who has pointed out that faster responses and fewer hurdles make canine research an excellent starting point. Of course, as Kaitlin mentioned, it would only be a starting point; we would have to confirm the effectiveness of the tests on humans.
However, I am not quite as concerned about the backlash. I do not own a dog, but I know many people who do and if their dog was sick with such a fast acting and pernicious disease then I think they would love the opportunity to try and treat their dog with the latest medications. I would imagine that because their treatment is part of a research study, the medications would be provided for free, which is a significant cost saver considering the expense of many chemotherapeutic drugs. Also, we do have rather strict animal welfare regulations in place regarding animal research and while I personally feel that they probably do not need to be updated, though some may disagree. Regardless, research can and should continue because the long-run success of this research could be incredible for all those who suffer from cancer.
Sami made some great points and I have to say that I find all previous posts making some valid and noteworthy points as well.
DeleteIt is great to see how quickly the pet owners responded to Petco's emails; this shows dog owners' true dedication to the life of their pet and it's wonderful how this such dedication benefits participant response time in studies. I do think that more often than not, dog owners would be willing to enroll their dogs into cancer treatment studies because, as the article mentioned, rapidly progressing stages of disease leave ineffective the treatments that were originally proven to be efficacious.
My biggest question, however, is just HOW closely can the biological processes of canines be compared to humans? Can we be sure that medication used to treat neoplasms in canine will be just as effective (or at least somewhat effective) in human patients? Below is a link to the National Cancer Institute's site that lists quite a few current studies being performed on canine patients:
https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/display/CCRCOPWeb/Clinical+Trials
It's amazing to see that already a handful of studies are being proposed or are currently underway. We should follow news associated with canine cancer treatment in the next couple months/years and see just how much our furry friends can help each other AND us out!
I also think clinical trials with pet dogs as subjects, especially with genetic testing, could really speed up the whole process of developing cancer treatments. Even if we completely redo dogs' rights for clinical trials to make sure dogs aren't getting hurt, we still wouldn't have to worry about the privacy issues of associated with human genetic testing. Accommodations for more involved clinical trials would be much cheaper as well if dogs were the subjects. And the cheaper the development process, the cheaper the treatments for humans have the potential to be.
ReplyDeleteI think it would also be interesting because of the large variety of dogs with each dog breed having different tendencies and predispositions towards different cancers and conditions. If a wide variety of dogs are enrolled in a study with a predisposition towards a certain cancer and a new treatment helps them, studying their genome to figure out why they were helped could teach us much about how to treat people in the future.
As previously stated my first concern with using dogs for cancer research was the criticism that would arise from animal activist groups and dog lovers in general. I've personally never owned a dog either and therefore do not fully understand the emotional connection that a person has with their dog but I think that any dog owner would want to treat their dog if they developed cancer just as an individual would seek treatment for his or herself if he or she developed cancer. I do think that using dogs to further cancer research and in cancer treatment trials is a good idea because I think that we will get results faster by using animals than human subjects. When using animal subjects there are fewer consent issues since dogs can not attest for themselves. Therefore, scientists and researchers do not have to worry about narrow use of the dogs genes and can use them in other research studies and whenever necessary. Personally, I think that any steps we can take towards understanding cancer treatment should be taken and I think that using dogs in this sense can be extremely beneficial for both humans and dogs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that using dogs to further cancer research would be beneficial. I do personally own a dog and understand the connection you feel with your pet. However, I do not think that I would treat my dog the same way if they developed cancer as I would treat say my mother or sister. Although I love my dog like she is my family, she is not on the same level as my actual family. As harsh as this may sound, it still should be taken into account. We do not have the same relationships with animals as we do with humans. Our pets are not intellectually on the same level as humans and therefore we cannot have the same level of relationships with them.
DeleteHowever, with that being said I do not believe that we should subject dogs to unnecessary harm just because they cannot speak with us. They are living beings and therefore experience pleasure and pain. But that is why there are standards put in place for animal testing. These standards are arguably better than standards we place on animals in slaughter houses. I think that as long as these standards remain and there are significant benefits to testing dogs, it should be something to consider.
This is one of the comments from the article:
ReplyDelete"Another reason dogs are an excellent resource for cancer in humans has to do less with their biology than with the regulatory process. Getting novel therapies approved for use in pets is far easier than for humans. Because there are fewer roadblocks to enrolling pets in clinical trials, therapies proposed for humans can be tested and brought to market in a tenth of the time. The canine melanoma vaccine is an excellent example of how proving that a therapy works astoundingly well in dogs can help drastically reduce the time it takes the human version of the therapy gain approval. Though the human melanoma vaccine is still not available, it's time to market has arguably been cut in half by virtue of veterinary success."
-Patty Khuly VMD MBA
I think that this is an excellent point. The canine melanoma vaccine is evidence that dog therapies can eventually lead to human therapies. If they already exist for dogs, they will pass quicker and easier for humans. The only controversial part of this is that if we are putting more time and money into cancer vaccines and cures for dogs, we need to be sure that it will eventually benefit humans, or else it will not be worth the time and money spent on development.
I would definitely enroll my dog in a cancer treatment trial if he were diagnosed with cancer. I think this could be an important part of the emerging era of personalized medicine that the Human Genome Project had hoped to achieve because it could lead to more information and maybe even help us to understand our genes. Enrolling animal subjects would enable a faster response and treatment because once we see how the animals respond to the drugs we can modify the drug to see how best it fits humans. Dogs have strong genetic similarities with humans, they get many of the same types of cancers as people and have similar responses to cancer-fighting drugs so why not use what we know to help us. In addition by using dogs in a cancer trial we’d be able to figure out which drugs work the best or fastest since dogs often have a shorter survival time than humans. 6-18 months is a big difference from 3-5 years which is how long it takes for a human tumor to reach an advanced stage compared to a dog.
DeleteIt also might take years to find human people to use in trials but in the video it took a week to get 300 dog participants. The faster we the get participants, the faster we can get more information, and the faster we can treat humans and not only save human lives but dogs too. But like Tamika and Kristen said even though I think this is a great idea there could be some backlash from dog owners and animal activists. But as Andrew mentioned we wouldn’t have to worry about the confidentiality or privacy issues as much as we do with human trials. And I was also a dog owner and if my dog was sick I wouldn’t see an issue with this trial especially if there was no other safer or healthier option.
Hannah also mentioned the controversial point of putting money into dog trails versus human trials but I think in the example she used with the dog vaccine has proved that dog research is definitely beneficial to both dogs and humans.
Kristely, I'm curious, do you have a dog? Realistically speaking only 2% of the human population is involved with clinical research. Now lets translate that to the dog population. What about dogs in kennels? Would they have to be subjected to this type of experimentation? Will it be deemed ethical? I don't mean to bombard you with questions. Just some food for thought.
DeleteTamika; I had a dog, but he died a few years ago. In my opinion I think only dogs who are sick and have no other options should be part of the research. And I don't think dogs in kennels who are perfectly healthy shouldn't be subjected to these tests. But I honestly don't know how ethical this would be because like you said some people value dogs as much as people ...so I feel like that's a personal question depending on who you're talking to.
DeleteI think this idea is a good one, but it's difficult because everyone values dogs in a different way. Some owners see them as their children while others sometimes forget they even have one. Using animals in clinical trials has been done for years though and if it can significantly help teach us about the disease in humans than I think it's a good idea. Because cancer occurs more quickly in dogs it is easier to see how treatments would work so that researchers aren't left waiting for long periods of time to see results. Also, many dogs can be enrolled at once if their owners "ok" it meaning that there can be a large sample size yielding better results. However, since dogs cannot tell us if they are in pain, I think it's hard to know when to start or stop treatment and what treatments may be painful. It's a difficult situation to be in, but if the evidence showed that my dog would significantly benefit from being in a cancer drug trial and could even be cured, I would most likely submit him or her to the trial. Money could also be another reason people enroll their dogs in these trials. Some people can't afford cancer medications but if putting your dog in a trial got you free medecine, then you may be more inclined to do so. This could be a part of personalized medecine because each dog is being treated separately for its specific cancer and genetics and given specific medications based on its genes. Hopefully these trials will lead to more discoveries and cures in the world of cancer.
ReplyDelete- Caroline Booth
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think this proposal to enroll dogs in producing personalized treatment in humans is a good idea, however I do foresee immense backlash from some parts of society. By enrolling dogs in cancer studies, we can determine the effectiveness of various cancer treatments used within a shorter time span, due to the relative short time left for dogs with a cancer diagnosis. However, in our society, dogs are often equated as members of one’s family, and the thought of using our beloved pets as lab animals may be perceived as “using them as a means to an end”, stripping them of their innate value. On the other hand, people with dogs with cancer may view this opportunity as a chance to save their dog, and at times this may be the only obtainable alternative to pet euthanasia due to one’s financial restrictions, or the progression of the cancer. I believe if my dog was diagnosed with cancer, I would enroll my dog in a cancer treatment trial due to the shortened time he has left. At this point, when the only alternative would be euthanasia, I believe the treatment would only serve to benefit my dog and give him a fighting chance at life. I know that my opinion may not be shared by many, especially when dogs are such a valued member of our society, but as a counter argument I would like to extend this question on the ethics behind animal testing for cancer from dogs to chimpanzees, in that would the use of chimpanzees be ethical? And if yes what would make animal testing on dogs any different? We currently perform medical testing on chimpanzees, how would this be any different from testing on dogs?
ReplyDelete-Jeffrey Lu
Allison Manfreda
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very interesting idea and study. Because the canine genome is so similar to the human genome, I think it makes sense to see the effects on dogs, and then potentially extrapolate them and transition into personalized treatment in humans.
Although I do not have a dog, I love dogs, and know that if mine was diagnosed with cancer that I would definitely enroll him or her in the trial, in the hope of saving the life, especially if the information could contribute positively to human cancer treatment and pathology.
I think this could be an important part of the emerging era of personalized medicine because the more information we gather, the more we can keep researching and applying it to humans, in the hopes of better understanding the processes associated with various diseases, such as cancer. It is significant that the course of disease is much faster than in humans and these types of trials could have profound impacts for both the human and canine populations suffering from cancer. As long as the trials are safely designed and meet ethical standards of experimentation with animals, I think that it is a good idea and could have positive implications for the future, and should continue to be explored and developed.
I definitely agree with Caroline in some parts. I also believe that many people view their animals differently which would undoubtedly effect their decision-making process as to whether or not they would submit their pet to the study. Personally, I would decide only after knowing all the facts about the study. For example, if it was a simple pill-a-day kind of treatment, I don't see much harm in that because Penny, my dog, already takes a supplemental pill a day mixed in her dog food. However, if the treatment was shown to have negative side effects such as nausea, weight loss, or fatigue, I would not submit my dog to further pain than what the cancer has already caused. It is undue "torture" in my eyes and unnecessary especially because Penny wouldn't understand why she is going through that and what's happening to her. The same would go for a treatment such as chemotherapy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, experimentation on animals has shown to be effective in our findings of new treatments for humans. It is a quick method because the animal cannot provide consent to the treatment which eliminates some of the delay that occurs in human testing. The question to ask ourselves is "Is this ethical?" Because they can't provide consent and do not understand more than what goes on at that very moment, it is easy to dismiss this fact. We also have the issue of dog owners that love their pets so much that they will do anything not to lose them, even if this means causing them more pain at the time being. They are more concerned with their well-being if they were to lose their pet than the dog's well-being.
As of now, I believe we should stick to testing treatments out on humans who provide full consent. I think it is not ethical to cause harm to animals even if their owners allow it to happen.
-Rachel O'Canas
I agree with Rachel's assessment of the owners' motives for signing their pets up for experimental treatments - the physical suffering the animal could potentially experience during treatment makes it hard to justify extending life for a few weeks or months because their owner cannot bear to lose their dog. However, many people (including my own family) consider their dogs to be family members, and often will go to great lengths to save the pet's life.
DeleteIt's true that people often submit themselves to experimental cancer treatment trials in an attempt to access new drugs that will extend their life. However, people are able to give consent and be aware of the risks of their participation on future quality of life, etc. Dogs and other animals are not able to make such decisions for themselves, and owners sensitive to their overall well-being may be more concerned about comfort rather than length of life.
I would first like to say that I have never owned a pet and probably never will. However, I value animals, dogs included. I do not think healthy dogs should be subjected to clinical trials or used as means to enhance human drugs if the dogs receive no benefits. However, if I hypothetically owned a dog suffering with cancer, I would probably enroll him/her in a clinical trial if it was expected to maintain or enhance his quality of life. If the trial were to add more pain and suffering I would decline. If there are benefits for both dogs and humans, I think this is a unique situation for scientific advancement. For the dog lovers of the world, I'm sure they would weigh the options of enrolling a pet similarly as they would if they were to enroll a family member. It is nice that the trial regulations are different and easier to maneuver when it comes to dogs. Perhaps people who not the fondest of dogs will become a little more fond if they see that dogs are contributing to and promoting science.
ReplyDeleteI think that this type of testing could be very beneficial to public health. As we all know, cancer is the second leading cause of death among U.S. citizens and a cure could obviously change the world. In regards to the testing with dogs, I believe that if a dog has cancer, it would be ethical to allow for this testing in cases where the disease is terminal anyway. Furthermore, it is important to consider the financial implications of this testing. If a dog develops cancer and the owners simply cannot afford all of the necessary treatment, this testing provides a way in which the dog's life could be saved. If the costs are minimal this could be a great chance to save the dog's life as well as contribute to cancer research.
ReplyDeleteABC News did a similar story on how studying cancer in dogs is helping us to understand cancer in humans: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/treating-dogs-cancers-benefit-humans/story?id=15543199#.T1v5v4FbeSo
ReplyDeleteUsing dogs to study cancer and cancer treatments seems to hold a lot of promise, especially as scientists work toward developing a system of personalized medicine. As the comment that Hanna cited indicates, both biology and regulatory processes make dogs a valuable resource for researching cancer and cancer treatments. From a biological perspective, dogs are genetically similar to humans, develop the same types of cancers and receive the same types of treatments as humans, and respond to treatments in the same ways as humans. In terms of regulation, fewer roadblocks make it easier to approve experimental treatments for dogs and to enroll dogs in clinical trials.
Enrolling dogs as subjects in cancer studies appears to be much easier than enrolling humans for a few other reasons. For one thing, it seems that many dog owners are very willing to enroll their dogs in these studies. As the WSJ article describes, the researchers who used the PetSmart database found that dog owners responded promptly, and in large numbers, to requests for their dogs to be enrolled in their study. I have never owned a dog, but seeing the strong attachments that people have with their pets, I imagine that dog owners would do whatever they can to save their dogs, including enrolling them in clinical trials. Furthermore, dog owners can choose to use experimental treatments as the first line of treatment for their dogs with cancer; unlike humans, dog owners do not have to first try conventional treatment before turning to experimental treatments.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the ease with which dogs can be enrolled in studies, another advantage of canine studies is that they are shorter in duration than human studies. Since dogs with cancer have shorter survival times than humans with cancer, researchers can determine the effectiveness of treatments more quickly.
In sum, research moves along much more easily and quickly with dogs. Taken together, the aforementioned factors help to expedite the research process and potentially bring new cancer treatments for humans to the market more quickly. In the end, both dogs and humans benefit from studying cancer and cancer treatments in dogs. Moreover, as the video in the ABC News piece indicates, these studies with dogs allow researchers to use animals that have gotten the disease naturally, rather than the researchers having to induce cancer in animals in order to study it.
I think that studying cancer in canines could be an important part of the emerging era of personalized medicine. Researchers are studying which genetic mutations are associated with cancer in dogs; they are also testing at the canine level what we hope to be able to do at the human level—individualize treatment based on the specific genetic mutation present. The canine trials allow researchers to see how feasible and how effective it is to tailor medication based on an individual’s genetic information. Given the biologic similarities between humans and dogs, researchers can then translate their findings to humans, and hopefully apply personalized medicine to human cancer patients with positive results.
Putting dogs through clinical trials to find a cure for cancer is a great idea to try to determine if the same procedures will help with humans. I still believe that we need to put in perspective that they are dogs and not humans and that our bodies will still react differently. If there is enough studies done to prove that the cancer treatment is exactly the same with humans and dogs, then I think that this could be a tremendous upcoming for humans. Being able to advance treatment for cancer, will lead to multiple other advancements for our improvement in health.
ReplyDeletePutting a dog through this trial to help save them is something that I will support. I have a dog in which I absolutely love and if there is a treatment that will save her, or if I know that she is going to save someone's life with finding a treatment, then it will make me happy. The whole idea with this is trying to improve our health. I find it very interesting that dogs have a genome so close to ours that they can help us find treatment. It's something that blows my mind and will continue to interest me on how we are so much alike.