Sue Gibbs: “I am a born optimist!”

You seemed genuinely surprised when you found out you had won the Willy van Heumen Oeuvre Award. Is that correct?

“Absolutely. Six months prior, the Amsterdam Research Board at Amsterdam UMC had asked me for references and a copy of my CV in connection with my nomination. But that was the last I had heard of it. After receiving the award, I found out that the Lab and the Burns Foundation, with whom I have worked for many years, had also become involved in my nomination. When I saw the conference programme and the keynote speaker, I assumed that he had won. But when they began to read out the winner’s profile, I thought, this sounds rather a lot like me. I was surprised, but definitely very honoured.”

The award was presented at a conference entitled ‘Idealism vs realism’, organised by ZonMw and NCad. Was that the right place?

“It was definitely the right place, but also a great title. Because you can dream, but you have to remain realistic. And my dreams can be different from those of others. These types of meetings are incredibly important: what is important to you, when do you feel threatened, are you being heard? When you bring opposing viewpoints together in a safe environment, compromises can be reached. Over the years, I have seen an increasing willingness to understand each other’s position and come closer together. People who use a lot of laboratory animals feel less threatened, and those who would prefer not to use animals at all can acknowledge that it is not realistic to stop using them from one day to the next.”

At the conference, the point was made that prominent journals often require animal testing in the evidence.

“Unfortunately, this happens a lot in journals like Nature and Science. If only one reviewer is a proponent of animal testing, you will likely be required to include an animal-testing model in the evidence for your article. For example, I know that in this country, a recent study was rejected on the same grounds by a major fund. Last year at the ‘Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences’ in Canada, we reached agreements on how to tackle this issue. We need an authoritative body to draw up a document on possibilities for reducing animal testing where possible, as soon as a valid alternative becomes available. You could then submit this document with your project application as an official declaration.”

Another argument: without the use of laboratory animals, scientists would end up unemployed.

“I am proof that the opposite is true! I have not used a living animal in my research or teaching even once in my life. I have never wanted to and never thought that it was indispensable in my scientific career. And let’s be clear: nobody can say which line of research you have to follow. That is the basis of our academic freedom.”

You are specialised in skin and mucosa research. Is this field of study more suitable for animal-free testing than others?

“Yes, you could say that. But of course it starts with your attitude. I was always fascinated by alternative research methods, and I started developing organoids very early on. In my cooperation with pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies, I have found that the do not focus on ethics. They are concerned with relevant human models. This is due to the fact that, after years of development, many medicines are still not marketed because the animal testing models turned out to have issues. In addition, nowadays, more questions are asked about the application of medicines, such as: why do they work for some people and not for others? Why do they work for babies and not for the elderly, or the other way around? Why do they work for men and not for women, or for one ethnic group and not the other? Also, it is impossible to test human cell-based immunotherapy on mice: you have to make them immunodeficient, but then they will not respond to anything anymore. Next generation medicine needs human-relevant models, that is the true driving force from the pharmaceutical industry.”

Does this type of research receive a lot of funding?

“We call this ‘slow money’: multi-year investments in major projects, which combine solid models, big data, organoids and AI. The Netherlands is a major subsidiser, because it wants to be a global leader in this field.”

What is the focus of your own research?

“In our research questions, we have combined knowledge of the skin and oral mucosa for many years. Why do we get terrible scars from burns or surgical procedures gone wrong, when our oral cavities recover much better? Initially we were based in the department of Dermatology at LUMC in Leiden, where I had already worked as a postdoc. Five years later, I became head of the Dermatology Skin Lab at VUmc, after which our research moved to the department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology at Amsterdam UMC and Oral Cell Biology at the Academic Centre for Dentistry. At this point, we can handle increasingly complex research questions, for example about systemic toxicity: the influence organs have on each other. We can make multi-organs-on-a-chip, which we connect via a vascular network similar to our own blood vessels. We have, for example, already published a proof of concept about a particle on the oral mucosa, which showed an immune response in the form of a rash on the skin model. This was reflected in a clinical study. In a current research line, we linked a skin model to lymph nodes, which is vital for insight into the development of melanomas and how they metastasise.”

Let’s take a trip down memory lane: what is the reason for your lifelong drive to avoid the use of animals in your research methodology?

“When I was five, I wanted to become a veterinarian. When I was 14, my father arranged for me to spend two weeks on an intensive pig farm. When I saw those little pigs being born, I decided not to become a veterinarian but a vegetarian instead.
Later on, I went to England to study Physiology and Biochemistry. I was not aware of the fact that, in the third year of Physiology, I would have to obtain my vivisection licence, which meant gaining experience on live animals including dogs and sheep. I refused, because I knew that I would never conduct a test that would require a living animal. The result was that I had to drop out of my Physiology programme and I graduated with a Bachelor’s in Biochemistry. But I did manage to achieve something: a year later, that licence became an optional part of the study programme. I was a good student and they had been sad to see me leave.”

You supervise many PhD students and also give lectures in the Bachelor’s programme. Do you find there are many kindred spirits among the student body as regards the transition to animal-free research?

“I do teach the Innovative Cell Biology and Immunology minor for Bachelor’s programmes. This attracts students who have completed a written course on organoids and a cell-based approach. However, there are also lectures that do use animal testing models, as we have to be realistic. And of course, we also have lots of interesting discussions. In other programmes, I also frequently teach TPI classes and one of my colleagues teaches an amazing TPI Master’s course. In my work, I see plenty of students who are motivated to find alternative research methods. That is great. I am sixty years old now, and in that sense there also needs to be a transition, and I want to make room. Both at ACTA and VUMC, colleagues are ready to continue our research lines in both a technical and methodological sense. I act as a mentor of sorts, and also help them in the writing of projects. I have always known how to obtain money for research and I can teach them the tricks of the trade in that sense too.”

Last but not least: will the next generation witness an era of completely animal-free research?

“Let’s go back thirty years. There were no computers, no mobile phones and I wrote my thesis on a typewriter. The technological advancements have been amazing! The medical world has also benefited from this considerably. Using digital cameras and highly precise microscopes, we can, for example, study forty targets within one cell. These devices are also connected to computer software, which calculates everything for us. Add to that the availability of big data and the promises AI holds, and I am definitely optimistic. But we should also remain realistic. In 2009, the use of laboratory animals was banned in research into skin irritation. In 2013, this ban was also introduced in allergy research. But in areas such as immunology, virology and cardiovascular research, the challenges are much greater, partially because these areas of expertise include research into life-threatening conditions. Each area of expertise has its own timeline for phasing out animal testing and phasing in human alternative models. But I am convinced that we are at the start of a very exciting and interesting era; a future where no laboratory animals are necessary and in which we can develop the next generation medicines that are so desperately needed.”

More information

Additional relevant perspectives can be found in our Stories column.
Source: Willy van HeumenFonds (in Dutch)
Author: Kees Adolfsen
Photo: Dyve Media