There is a lot we still need to understand about how our bodies work, how it may be affected by diseases, and how we can alleviate these conditions. We use our knowledge to create hypotheses and then must use repeated trials to test these theories. One of the difficulties of testing in humans is that we all have vastly different medical backgrounds – we eat differently, we are brought up differently, we get diseases at different ages from different things. This makes testing things very hard. To help, we use models whereby we try and keep as many factors as possible constant in an effort to understand the one we vary. This is often impractical, impossible or unethical to do in humans. Thus we use animal models.

In Aysha Akhtar’s recent post she has continued to misunderstand and misrepresent the role of animal research in the medical discovery process. Having debunked her first attempt it seems we really ought to do so a second time as well. This time round, much of her argument premises on the idea that research uses EITHER animals OR humans. In truth there is ongoing clinical (humans) and preclinical (animals and non-animal) research for most diseases. It would be impossible to truly understand human diseases without human studies, but animals play a vital role as well.

Aysha Akhtar

Akhtar begins with an anecdote about her father, who is suffering from diabetes and nerve damage. She suggests that because no treatments works for her father, that animal research has done nothing for diabetes. This is wrong. The development of insulin, which has saved millions of lives, relied on research involving dogs. Earlier this year a new diabetes drug, Lixisenatide, developed using the saliva of the Gila Monster (a lizard), was launched in the UK. So animal research is continuing to have an impact on those suffering from diabetes.

Persisting on the diabetes argument, Akhtar notes that one line of diabetes research, involving the study of pancreatic islet cells, has been misled for years by differences between rodent and human islets. Such pitfalls do occur in research, and it is important that scientists watch for the impact of species’ differences. Nonetheless, Akhtar fails to read her own link, to where a researcher notes:

 “The results of this study do not decrease the value of basic science and small animal based research,” explained Dr. Camillo Ricordi, scientific director of the Diabetes Research Institute and Stacy Joy Goodman Professor of Surgery. “However, it does underscore the critical importance of translational research, that is, to determine if observations obtained in rodent studies are relevant to patients. Using human tissues and pre-clinical model systems, we can transfer any new pertinent finding toward new treatments for patients in the fastest, most efficient and safest way possible.”

Akhtar then moves onto to discussing stroke.

“Strike 1: Artificially inducing stroke in animals does not recreate the complex physiology that causes the natural disease in humans, which may develop over decades.

Strike 2: Animal stroke models don’t usually include the underlying conditions, which contribute to human stroke.

Strike 3: Artificially inducing in animals the underlying conditions that lead to human stroke does not replicate the processes that occur in humans. “

While trying to create the façade of three arguments, Akhtar has essentially written the same argument in three different ways. The problem with Ahktar’s view is that she is implicitly assuming that all treatment efforts for stroke must aim to solve all the underlying conditions. Prevention is also important, but both parts of research are necessary (and indeed both involve the use of animals).

While noting the failure of many new drugs for treating stroke, Akhtar does not mention that the main treatment for stroke, thrombolysis, was initially shown to work through experiments on rabbits. Furthermore, Ahktar provides no suggestion as to why taking animals out of the research equation will suddenly improve our chances of finding a novel treatment (preventative or remedial). Indeed much of our general understanding about the mechanisms of human stroke comes from research in animals.

So does Akhtar have any evidence to back up her claims? This is where things get interesting. In support of her claims she cites the paper “What can systematic review and meta-analysis tell us about the experimental data supporting stroke drug development?” by Professor Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, published in the International Journal of Neuroprotection and NeuroRegeneration in 2005 (1). The obvious first step for anyone wishing to evaluate Akhtar’s claims would be to read that paper, but there is a problem. The International Journal of Neuroprotection and NeuroRegeneration is stopped being published in 2008, is not available online, and is no longer indexed in PubMed…making it very difficult to get hold of the paper in question.  Very frustrating, and all the more so since Professor Macleod has published many papers on animal models of stroke that can easily be accessed online…one would almost think that Akhtar is trying to hide something.

Macleod, along with his colleague and Dr H. Bart van der Worp of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, has earned a deserved reputation as a strong critic of inadequate design and reporting of preclinical animal studies of stroke, and has advocated for improved experimental design and reporting and for rigorous systematic reviews of preclinical data supporting a potential therapy to be undertaken before that study is evaluated in human trials. In an open access paper published PloS Medicine in 2010 (2) entitled “Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?” they examined weaknesses in experimental design and inadequacies and biases in preclinical animal studies and the misinterpretation and misapplication of the results of animal studies when designing clinical trials. They found that in many cases the design of clinical trials was so different in terms of the treatment regime and outcome measures to the preclinical study that it was impossible to tell whether the failure of a treatment in human patients actually contradicted the earlier success in an animal model. Both outcomes were entirely plausible even if you assumed that there was absolutely no fundamental biological difference between the effects of stroke in the animal model and in human patients. For example, one problem is that the vast majority of neurprotective drugs evaluated in the past few decades in clinical trials were shown to be effective in animal models of stroke only when administered unrealistically soon after induction of stroke – usually after less than 15 minutes – whereas in the subsequent clinical trials treatment did not usually begin until more than 4 hours after stroke onset, too late to be helpful.

In their conclusion they discussed how preclinical research could be improved.

“Although there is no direct evidence of a causal relationship, it is likely that the recurrent failure of apparently promising interventions to improve outcome in clinical trials has in part been caused by inadequate internal and external validity of preclinical studies and publication bias favouring positive studies. On the basis of ample empirical evidence from clinical trials and some evidence from preclinical studies, we suggest that the testing of treatment strategies in animal models of disease and its reporting should adopt standards similar to those in the clinic to ensure that decision making is based on high-quality and unbiased data. Aspects of study quality that should be reported in any manuscript are listed in Box 3.

Box 3. Aspects of Study Quality to Be Reported in the Manuscript

• Sample size calculation: How the sample size was determined, and which assumptions were made.
• Eligibility criteria: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for enrolment.
• Treatment allocation: The method by which animals were allocated to experimental groups. If this allocation was by randomisation, the method of randomisation.
• Allocation concealment: The method to implement the allocation sequence, and if this sequence was concealed until assignment.
• Blinding: Whether the investigators and other persons involved were blinded to the treatment allocation, and at which points in time during the study.
• Flow of animals: Flow of animals through each stage of the study, with a specific attention to animals excluded from the analyses. Reasons for exclusion from the analyses.
• Control of physiological variables: Whether and which physiological parameters were monitored and controlled.
• Control of study conduct: Whether a third party controlled which parts of the conduct of the study.
• Statistical methods: Which statistical methods were used for which analysis.

Recommendations based on [13],[17].
Not only should the disease or injury itself reflect the condition in humans as much as possible, but age, sex, and comorbidities should also be modelled where possible. The investigators should justify their selection of the model and outcome measures. In turn, human clinical trials should be designed to replicate, as far as is possible, the circumstances under which efficacy has been observed in animals. For an adequate interpretation of the potential and limitations of a novel treatment strategy, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence from preclinical studies should be performed before clinical trials are started. Evidence of benefit from a single laboratory or obtained in a single model or species is probably not sufficient.”

While they don’t answer the question in the title of their paper directly, the implication is clear…with improved experimental design, reporting and reviewing prior to clinical trials, animal models can reliably inform human studies.

Further evidence of Macleod and van der Worp’s true views on animal research is provided by a systematic review and meta-analysis  that they published in 2007, which made a very thorough examination of over one hundred studies of different hyporhermia techniques in a range of animal models of ischemic stroke. This study is clear about the limitations of the studies but overall the authors conclude that:

“In animal models of focal cerebral ischaemia, hypothermia improves outcome by about one-third under conditions that may be feasible in the clinic, with even modest cooling resulting in a substantial improvement in outcome. Cooling is effective in animals with co-morbidity and with delays to treatment of 3 h. Large randomized clinical trials testing the efficacy of moderate hypothermia in patients with acute ischaemic stroke are warranted”

In 2010 van der Worp, MacLeod and their colleague Rainer Kollmar published a paper entitled “Therapeutic hypothermia for acute ischemic stroke: ready to start large randomized trials?” which called for large randomized clinical trials of hypothermia in ischemic stroke:

“…we believe that hypothermia has been studied in sufficient detail and under a sufficiently broad variety of experimental conditions in animal models of ischemic stroke to support the translation of this treatment strategy to clinical trials”

In March 2012 just such a large international clinical trial of hypothermia in ischemic stroke – EuroHYP-1 – was launched.

It is notable that unlike animal rights campaigners who use deficiencies in some animal studies to call for a ban on it, Macleod and van der Worp understand its continuing importance to medical progress, and have worked with animal researchers to improve both the design and reporting of the preclinical animal studies that underpin the decisions to initiate clinical trials.  Initiatives such as the ARRIVE guidelines are similar in many ways to recent improvements the design of clinical trials supported by the work of the Cochrane collaboration, and the widespread adoption of standards for the reporting of clinical trials (though as the AllTrials initiative has highlighted the reporting of clinical trial results is still far from perfect). The work that Macleod, van der Worp and their colleagues to improve animal studies, is a direct follow-on from similar work undertaken in the field of clinical trials. This highlights another risk that Akhtar’s clains pose; in claiming that the use of animals is at the root of the failure of potential stroke therapies to translate into clinical benefit she distracts attention from the real problems, problems that affect many areas of medical research and not just animal studies (similarly animal rights activists often attack mouse xenograft studies in cancer, ignoring the fact that it is the standard  laboratory cell lines such used to create these models – and for most in vitro cancer research – that are the problem, something that is now being addressed through the development and increasingly widespread use of GM mouse models of cancer and patient-derived tumor xenografts).

As she nears the end of her article Akhtar continues to cherry pick her quotes, including that of Susan Fitzpatrick, former Associate Executive Director of the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis:

“Even if we know all about the animal model, we don’t necessarily know about the disease…”The model becomes what we study, not the human disease“.

What Akhtar fails to mention is that the solutions proposed are not to get rid of animal research, but to continue to improve it. So the article Akhtar quotes from continues:

“Careful thought about which animals are used, and when, will be important. Again, Ivinson says that one of his hopes for a centralised resource is a dedicated team to help develop animal models and make them available to all investigators. It may be that new molecular tools will mean that, rather than always turning to rodents, the fruit fly Drosophila or yeast will become the best early ways to study disease mechanisms. Larger animals could then be brought in, in smaller numbers, much later in the process.”

Once again Akhtar’s argument doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny.

Speaking of Research

1)      1. Macleod M. What can systematic review and meta-analysis tell us about the experimental data supporting stroke drug development? Int J Neuroprot Neuroregener 2005; 1: 201

2)      Van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, Macleod MR. “Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?” PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 30;7(3):e1000245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245.

3)      Van der Worp HB, Sena ES, Donnan GA, Howells DW, Macleod MR. “Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Brain. 2007 Dec;130(Pt 12):3063-74. Epub 2007 May 3.

While 2013 might be the Chinese year of the Snake, it might be reasonably described as the European year of the research beagle. In the last few years beagles have been moving towards the top of the animal rights agenda. In 2012, activists broke into Marshall breeding facility in Milan, Italy, and carried out dozens of dogs in plain view of the police (2,700 further dogs were then given away by the courts). However, 2013 has seen campaigns reach new heights (and this is list is not exhaustive):

• February – activists began a campaign to prevent research dogs owned by AstraZeneca being moved from a facility in Sweden (being closed down) to a lab in the UK.
• March – activists blockade the attempted transport of 8 beagles by Menarini, an Italian pharmaceutical company. The company capitulates to demands and gives away the dogs.
• April – five activists break into a Dutch breeding facility and “liberate” six dogs.
• June – the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (UK animal rights lobby group) started its “Our Best Friends” campaign to ban the use of dogs and cats in research.
• August – the Italian Senate passed a law banning the breeding of dogs for research.
• October – Oppose B&K Universal ramp up their second campaign against the extension of beagle breeding facility in Hull, UK.
• October – 200 dogs are “liberated” from a laboratory in Brazil by activists

Beagles were “liberated” from Green Hill in Italy in full view of police

The two incidents of particular interest are the breeding ban in Italy and the campaign against expanding a breeding facility in Hull. Both of these incidents show activists putting an animal rights agenda above that of animal welfare.

Dogs are not only use in safety testing, where we screen for the safety and toxicity of chemicals and drugs to be released into the population (so called animal testing), but also in the understanding of diseases and development of treatments (so called animal research).  We should make a clear distinction between these two activities. Examples of the crucial role that dogs have played in medical advances include the development of ECG,  insulin, heart transplant surgery and treatments for prostate cancer.  Most of modern internal medicine relies on knowledge we gained from dogs .  They continue to be used for research into stem cell treatments and spinal injury.

The UK currently imports 25% of dogs used in research (the rest are bred at breeding facilities overseen by the British Home Office inspectors). The expanded facility in Hull hopes to reduce the numbers bred abroad. Italy may soon have to breed all its dogs abroad if current laws are not struck down by the EU.

If an animal is bred abroad it must undertake a long and stressful journey from its breeding facility to its destination research facility. This is not a positive step for animal welfare. The further the distance (e.g. different countries) between breeder and research institution, the more damaging it is to the animal’s welfare. When this is coupled with the ongoing campaign to prevent animals being transported by air (and in the UK, the ferries, which are seen as the best welfare option to move animals from mainland Europe into the UK) we see a concerted effort by activists to put the principles of animal rights above the welfare of animals.

On June 4th 2013, Elias Zerhouni, a former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made some comments at a Scientific Management and Review Board (SMRB) meeting that were reported in NIH Record as follows:

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he lamented. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included.” With the ability to knock in or knock out any gene in a mouse—which “can’t sue us,” Zerhouni quipped—researchers have over-relied on animal data. “The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem…We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.”

This comment has been used by many animal rights activists to claim that animal research does not work. Here is a selection (many more examples exist):

How much of this comes down to Zerhouni playing fast and loose with words, and how much comes down to the interpretation of the NIH Record reporter is unclear, but now we can clear this myth up for good.

The National Association for Biomedical Research, a national organization which provides the unified voice for the scientific community on legislative and regulatory matters affecting laboratory animal research, wrote to Zerhouni to ask him to clarify his previous comments at the SMRB meeting. His response is very clear (full letter below):

I understand that some have interpreted these comments to mean that I think that animals are no longer necessary in medical research. This is certainly not what I meant. In fact, animal models and other surrogates of human disease are necessary — but not sufficient — for the successful development of new treatments. In short, animal models remain essential to the basic research that seeks to understand the complexities of disease mechanism. [my emphasis]

We, at Speaking of Research, could not agree more. Animal models are essential to developing new medicines. They are, obviously, not sufficient - cell cultures, human studies and computer models (among others) are also crucial methods used alongside animal models.

Zerhouni’s original point in his talk was that more human studies were needed earlier in the drug development process – to help pick “winners” among promising research in animals (not all of which will successfully translate into humans).

Click image for PDF of letter

We would like to thank NABR for taking the time to write to Zerhouni. Hopefully, this clarifies his position, and the quote he’ll be remembered for will not be about “kool-aid”, but that he “can say unequivocally that animal research remains indispensable element in improving both human and animal health”.

Tom

Correction: The letter to Zerhouni was sent by the National Association for Biomedical Research, not their partners the Foundation for Biomedical Research.

A curious thing happened recently. The following picture of “animal testing” surfaced on Twitter and was retweeted over five thousand times (and counting) over the course of one week.

It runs with a message “Retweet if you say NO to animal testing. #Animalrights”. The message has been recurring on Twitter for some time, though its latest iteration has seen it tweeted thousands of times in just a few days. Many tweeters added their own messages of disgust.

Unfortunately, for the thousands of people who retweeted it, this isn’t an example of “animal testing” at all. The picture is originally appeared in an article by the Gainesville Sun – “Seized cats being readied for adopt-a-thon” with the caption “University of Florida vet school students and veterinarians work to spay and neuter cats as part of Operation Cat Nip on Wednesday.”

The story details how Alachua County Animal Services, along with US animal rescue groups, seized 697 cats on June 7 2011 from Haven Acres Cat Sanctuary in High Springs, Florida. Owners Steve and Pennie Lefkowitz described the sanctuary as a no-kill facility for unwanted felines. The Humane Society of the United States described it as the largest case of cat hoarding in the nation.

Several cats were sick with feline leukaemia and similar serious diseases and were put down. More than 300 needed to be spayed or neutered, and that is what is happening in this picture. The cats are under anaesthetic and are being operated on as quickly as possible in an emergency situation.

Why the picture, taken in 2011, has resurfaced, no-one knows. It is now watermarked with “Cause animal Nord”. In this picture’s travels across the internet it has been stripped of its original context and stamped with a new one. Somewhere along the line activists have decided this image could be recycled to misleadingly drive support for their cause.

Of course, this case of Telephone (Chinese Whispers) wouldn’t work without the thousands of internet users who have been duped into believing this lie. The irony is that animal lovers have been made to feel angry about an animal rescue, leading them to call for an end to the research that gave us the veterinary medicines the animals needed.

Chris

Update:

We have found that this story has been uncovered before.

The cats were seized on June 7, 2011 from Haven Acres Cat Sanctuary in Florida. The owners described the sanctuary as a no-kill facility for unwanted cats, but poor conditions led authorities to remove the cats and put them up for adoption.

Here is another picture of the surgery suite where you can see the clean and professional conditions which veterinarians are working in to spay and neuter these cats.

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/SpeakingofResearch

“Penicillin is toxic in guinea pigs but not to humans”

““Had they chosen to test penicillin on hamsters or guinea pigs, it is likely that it would have been discarded”

Taken on face value the statements above are true – penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs (1). The trouble comes when this is used as evidence that humans and animals do not have the same reactions to medicines

The short answer is that penicillin reacts similarly in humans as it does in almost every mammal – it fights bacterial infection inside the body. This is why penicillin is widely used in veterinary medicine. Indeed the discovery of the medical uses of penicillin depended on research on mice. Guinea pigs are one of the few species which have a significant adverse reaction to the drug, and activists have picked on it to suggest that animal research doesn’t work. This is wrong. Our understanding of animals helps us both understand why penicillin is dangerous to guinea pigs, and why we would not test penicillin on them to assess human safety.

The reasons why guinea pigs differ in their reactions from most other mammalian species are very specific. Unlike most other mammals (including humans), the intestinal flora of Guinea Pigs consists of mostly gram-positive bacteria. Overgrowth of Gram-negative bacteria such as coliforms and Gram-positive clostridial organisms such as C. difficile can result in diarrhoea and death (2). Antibiotics which strongly affect Gram-positive bacteria, such as penicillin, are therefore toxic to guinea pigs (3). Further studies have shown a number of antibiotics which, while relatively non-toxic in humans, mice, rats, rabbits and other laboratory animals, remain highly toxic for guinea pigs and hamsters, both of which have predominantly gram-positive intestinal flora bacteria (4).

It is important to note that while humans are less sensitive to antibiotic toxicity than guinea-pigs, C. difficile associated colitis following antibiotic treatment is a serious problem in clinical practice that hospitals need to be aware of and take measures to prevent.

The fundamental point is that toxicity test subjects are not randomly selected. Our understanding of guinea pigs (developed through prior animal research) means we know that they make a bad test subject for antibiotics. Species selection is important in toxicology – pharmaceuticals have no interest trying to move “bad” drugs into clinical trials as it is dangerous and costly to do so. They pick the animal models which will be expected to replicate human reactions most closely for any given chemical. It is also standard practise to test in multiple species to improve the accuracy of predicting human toxicity from animal models.

In reality, Penicillin is a good example of showing the similarity of humans and most animals. Penicillin is given to a wide range of animal species including cats, dogs, horses, poultry, sheep, cattle, pigs, and many more. Indeed, mice were key to the discovery of penicillin. After Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in 1928, the compound was not used as scientists were not aware of its potential to fight infection inside the body. The effectiveness of penicillin was found by Florey and Chain (who shared the Nobel Prize with Fleming) from a simple mouse safety test:

By 25 May 1940, the team had reached a point where they could carry out a new experiment that would test whether penicillin could be an important antibacterial drug. Eight mice were given lethal doses of streptococci. Four of the mice were then given injections of penicillin. By the next morning all the untreated mice were dead while those that had received penicillin survived for days to weeks.

With this result, Florey realised that he needed to expand production – an effective treatment for infection could be a valuable contribution to Britain’s war effort.

To return to the original question – penicillin may be toxic to guinea pigs and beneficial to humans, but scientists would not test penicillin in a guinea pig because they could predict beforehand that it would not be an accurate animal model to use. Moreover, penicillin has the same beneficial effect in most mammals as it does in humans, reinforcing the biological similarities across species that make animal research an important part of medical science.

Speaking of Research

(1)    Hauduroy, P., and Rosset, W.. Ann Int Pasteur., 75, 67 (1948)
(2)    Heidi Hoefer DVM, ABVP, Common Problems in Guinea Pigs (Atlantic Coast Veterinary Conference 2001)
(3)    Farrar, E., Kent, T., and Elliott, V., Lethal Gram-Negative Bacterial Superinfection in Guinea Pigs given Bacitracin in Journal of Bacteriology, 92 (2), 1996
(4)    Green, R., The Association of Viral Activation with Penicillin Toxicity in Guinea Pigs and Hamsters, in Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 3 166-181, 1974

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/SpeakingofResearch

As the history of landmark scientific advances clearly documents, the scientific breakthroughs are often produced by the dedicated work of enlightened individuals, such as Darwin who brought us the Theory of Evolution, Einstein who gave us the Theory of Relativity and Kenner, Lister and Semmelweis who all contributed to the Germ Theory of Disease.  Science has more recently delivered the Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT)[1], which demonstrates how current understanding of evolutionary biology and complexity explain decades of practical examples, the results of which oppose using animal experiments to try and predict human responses in medical research and the safety testing of new human medicines.

The FLOE web-site shows Greek’s book next to Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species.” Works of comparable significance?  I don’t think so.

This post by Dr. Kausik Datta, a biomedical researcher in immunology, was originally posted on his SciLogs blog, In Scientio Veritas. In it he looks at some of the scientific quotes used by PETA to defend their position, and finds that all of them have been taken out of context to misrepresent the position of the original researcher.

I work with immunology of infectious disease and study host-pathogen response. My work has naturally involved a good amount of animal experimentation, especially mouse models of various infections. These mouse models are incredibly useful, because they offer a valuable window into the process of infection, pathogenesis (‘disease production’), and the kind of immune response a vertebrate mammal generates to the infection. The same broad reasoning applies to rodent models of various metabolic and endocrine diseases, as well as cancer. These models are attractive because most often these research animals are genetically homogenous, and therefore, provide a less complex (and more manageable) environment to study the genesis, as well as treatments, of a disease – while mimicking much of the same physiological responses seen in larger and more complex animals.

Ironically, the lower complexity has also been the main argument against over-reliance on animal research. Not all the results seen in the animal models directly translate to human beings, who are physiologically and genetically more diverse and complex. But regardless of immediate translatability of observations, these results always offer crucial and pertinent clues about the disease process, and therefore, are seen as valuable stepping-stones for the journey towards bringing cures to both humans and animals alike. (Yes, an oft-forgotten aspect of animal research is that the results benefit animals, too.)

For example, studies in the lowly fruit-fly (Drosophila) revealed a protein called Toll which is essential for the fly’s immunity to fungal infections. And lo and behold! Various vertebrates (humans and other animals) as well as invertebrates were found to have a collection of very similar proteins, called Toll-like receptors, which are engaged in protecting the body against various infections. Another example is that of the Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV; SIV does not affect humans, but depending upon the species, it does cause a disease (simian AIDS, or SAIDS) that is very similar to AIDS in the humans, and chimpanzees in the wild have died from SAIDS. Not only has SIV provided important indications as to how HIV may work, vaccine research against SIV has been able to generate a successful treatment for infected Rhesus monkeys. At the same time, studies in Bonobos are on to find out how they seem to be impervious to SIV’s effects.

These advances would not have come without animal experimentation. This is important to understand. Yes, we don’t yet have a successful vaccine against HIV, but then, HIV has unique characteristics which allow it to evade immunity, hide and survive in the body. The clues obtained from animal as well as human research will continue to provide directions for humankind’s fight to eradicate this dreaded scourge.

The mindlessly agenda-driven organizations like PeTA know this. That’s why, in order to peddle their anti-science, anti-research agenda, they take recourse to outright lies, misrepresentations of the research and people who are engaged therein, as well as using quotes from well-known people in a way that appears to suggest their consonance with the PeTA agenda. However, there is an important aspect to it; credit where due, PeTA has long understood, and successfully exploited, the power of visual imagery. As with their celebrity endorsements across many countries, not to mention their objectification of women, PeTA continues to create visual campaigns – ‘memes’ – for television, internet, as well as billboards, projecting the same lies and misrepresentations, and playing fast-and-loose with the truth, in order to propagate their agenda.

And they have been immensely successful, because these memes, regardless of their lack of veracity, don’t die. PeTA takes care to put images – as gruesome as they can find, and those which would seem horrifying when seen in absence of any context – with their anti-science, anti-research memes, and those images stick with people. As a result, well-intentioned but gullible folks keep foolishly spreading those memes, and now with the power of social media, they reach far and wide, wreaking immeasurable havoc with the public understanding of science and the need for animal experimentation, and making the researchers the villains of these pieces.

One appeared on my Facebook feed this morning. This one is from a 2013 PeTA blog post, purportedly providing “8 reasons why animal testing doesn’t help humans”. In line with PeTA’s usual memes, it has distress-inducing images of cute animals being experimented upon. The images are accompanied by a slew of quotes from “esteemed scientists, government officials, and doctors” (a veritable paean to the Argument from Authority fallacy), which appear to bolster PeTA’s position on animal experimentation; however, as you will see, not all are what they seem at the first glance.

I shall spare you the gruesome images, dear reader; if you must look at them, you can click on the above-mentioned link to the PeTA blog post and see for yourself. I have, instead, chosen to use the text of the specific quotes that PeTA presented on those images, and made the effort to hunt down the sources (because, of course, PeTA doesn’t provide references) of those quotes. What I discovered was most revealing, and I present them below.

“Traditional animal testing is expensive, time-consuming, uses a lot of animals and from a scientific perspective the results do not necessarily translate to humans.” — Dr. Christopher P. Austin, director of NIH Chemical Genomics Center.

EXCEPT that this quote – found in a 2008 report in The Telegraph UK – was intended EXCLUSIVELY for the context of toxicological testing. Austin also said, “It’s a bold, ambitious thing to try to do but our goal is to eliminate animal use in toxicology in ten years” — a laudable goal in itself. He was speaking in terms of a high-throughput screening system involving various animal cell-types, in which the toxicity studies could be done for thousands of chemical substances at one go. The availability of this technology is a great achievement, but it is important to remember that this can be done because the measurable outcomes of toxicity studies, especially toxic effects on a given cell, are reasonably straightforward, as well as local, and don’t require the use of a whole animal, unless the effects of the toxicity are more global and complicated in nature. These animal-free screens can be employed gainfully to test toxicities of environmental toxins, as well as personal care products.

You can read and hear Dr. Austin’s own words in this description of a collaborative governmental effort to move toxicity studies to an animal-free system, while recognizing the tremendously valuable contribution that animal testing has made towards identifying many toxins dangerous to human and animal health.

It is also important to understand that this particular technology is a result of the constant effort by scientists under the guiding principles of 3Rs – reduction, refinement, replacement – for animal-based research. In situations such as ordinary toxicity studies, where the technology allows us not use animals but get meaningful results, we should absolutely, wholeheartedly adopt them. This has long been the stance of animal-researchers, which is something PeTA deliberately chooses to ignore and obfuscate.

“The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” — Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute.

EXCEPT that this quote – lifted from a 1998 Los Angeles Times feature – was meant as a comment on the pleas made by desperate cancer patients for new cures to be tried, whenever researchers published (and the media jumped upon) some study looking at the potential for some chemical substances, including those isolated from natural substances (such as garlic), to modulate the changes in cells that lead to cancer. PeTA’s use of this quote deliberately obscures the fact that many such substances are primarily tried upon static cells in cultures (something that PeTA favors as an ‘animal alternative’ method), where either they don’t show adequate effects, or their effects cannot be translated to complex organisms because of many different factors.

Tumorigenesis is complex process involving many cells in a given environment, and it is often not possible to mimic that environment appropriately in an ex vivo, animal-free, cell-based system. Positive results found in animal experiments in cancer are not the be all, end all in themselves. But they provide the scientific basis based on which human experiments and trials for new therapeutic modalities can be conceived; they engender hope. It is downright cruel of organizations like PeTA to attempt to take that important aspect from cancer patients.

“Prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.” — Dr. Albert Sabin, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

EXCEPT that this single phrase by Dr. Sabin – said in 1984 during a Congressional testimony and used by organizations like PeTA to signify his opposition to the use of animals in research – did not at all represent his complete position in this regard. In a letter written in 1992, Dr. Sabin stated unequivocally:

“… my own experience of more than 60 years in biomedical research amply demonstrated that without the use of animals and of human beings, it would have been impossible to acquire the important knowledge needed to prevent much suffering and premature death not only among humans but also among animals.”

Do read more about Dr. Sabin’s and others’ lifelong association with animal research for finding cures for dreaded diseases that afflict both humans and animals in this 2011 post in the Speaking of Research blog.

“Mice are mice, and people are people. If we look to the mouse to model every aspect of the disease for man, and to model cures, we are just wasting our time.” — Dr. Clif Barry, chief Tuberculosis Research section, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

EXCEPT that this quote – lifted from a 2011 Slate feature – has been modified by PeTA to omit the first part. The COMPLETE quote said, “The truth is that for some questions, mice give you a very nice and easy model system for understanding what’s happening in humans, but mice are mice, and people are people. If we look to the mouse to model every aspect of the disease for man, and to model cures, we’re just wasting our time.“.

The duplicity of PeTA in cherry-picking quotes apparent to you, yet?

The feature article does mention the background for this comment by Dr. Clifton Barry: the form of tuberculosis that mice get is different from the form humans get, and that is because of differences inherent in their respective immune systems. While this has restricted the efficacy of some tuberculosis studies in a rodent model, there is no doubt that this knowledge of differences in immune system was important to have, because it provided valuable clues to the differences in the disease process between mice and humans. The same article provides an instance where the indications from the mouse studies were crucial in figuring out why a specific immune-treatment failed spectacularly in human beings.

Most scientists who work with animal models are not blind to their shortcomings, which is a reason why tuberculosis research, for example, has progressed from rodents to primates to zebra-fish. Animal models can help answer specific questions, and each such answer contributes to the overall understanding of a disease, its progression, as well as its treatment. Research in nine-banded armadillos showed that aside from humans, these animals are the only natural hosts of the leprosy bacteria, which are difficult to grow in in vitro culture; the knowledge gained during his work with isolating leprosy bacteria DNA from armadillos allowed the legendary tuberculosis researcher Bill Jacobs to transport the same techniques to the study of the tuberculosis bacteria, and make a fluorescent TB bug which glows under the microscope, allowing researchers to immediately see if a drug is effective on the bug or not.

“Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” — Michael O. Leavitt, former secretary for the US department of Health and Human Services.

EXCEPT that this quote – lifted from a 2006 FDA Press Announcement – pertained to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT; the second part of the quote, which PeTA obscured, said, “The recommendations announced today will help more researchers conduct earlier, more-informed studies of promising treatments so patients have more rapid access to safer and more effective drugs.“

In this announcement, FDA was offering specific approaches for performing appropriate safety-testing with small amounts of investigational new drugs in people, which would improve and hasten the process of getting safe and effective drugs to people. This was not a commentary on the pre-clinical testing – both in vitro and animal studies – that must be done in order to show efficacy before taking the drug to the next higher level, for testing in human subjects. This announcement also pertained particularly to serious and life-threatening conditions, such as cancer, heart disease and neurological disorders, for which there was (and still is) an extreme demand with non-commensurate supply, and the traditional timeline from drug-design to marketing, along with the existing regulatory requirements, was considered too long and burdensome to provide benefit to the patients.

I hope you can understand, dear reader, how knowing the context changes the import of these quotes, cherry-picked by PeTA with deliberate dishonesty. Why they do this? I have no clue. For a better understanding how the presentation of facts outside of their contexts can skew the readers’ perception of the idea surrounding those facts, do read this 2013 post in the Speaking of Research blog.

“[Researchers] are so ingrained in trying to cure mice that they forget that we’re trying to cure humans.” — Dr. Ronald W. Davis, Stanford University.

EXCEPT that this quote – lifted from a New York Times highlight of a study published in 2013 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA – doesn’t provide the context, which pertained exclusively to the study of sepsis. It also doesn’t indicate that this crucial study comparing human and animal models, of which Dr. Davis was a lead author, was the first to figure out that mice used different groups of genes to deal with acute conditions such as burns, trauma and sepsis, whereas humans use a similar genes for all three. While this work highlighted the need to use human cells in order to study human sepsis, the condition and its treatment, in no way does it diminish the importance of the discovery that mice use different genes for these conditions, and that there is a difference between mice and human subjects in this regard.

“Patients have been too patient with basic research. Most of our best people work in lab animals. Not people. But this has not resulted in cures or even significantly helped most patients.” — Dr. Ralph Steinman, Immunologist at Rockefeller University.

EXCEPT that Dr. Steinman made this comment in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT. In 2002, Steinman wrote in the journal Cerebrum about the crucial need for training more physician-scientists, scientists who are trained as physicians, and are able to bring that perspective to scientific and clinical research; the lack of such physician-scientists, he considered, was the reason why there was a failure to “maintain a crucial transmission belt between basic research and clinical applications” and why “potential benefits [of basic research] for treating serious illnesses [were] taking too long to reach patients”, even if the basic research, with animal experimentation, has been immensely productive. In absence of properly-trained physician-scientists, he wrote, “We risk being able to treat models of diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS), cancer, and depression in rats and mice, but not having enough scientists, expertise, or funding to test much of this critical work on humans in a timely fashion”.

Giving examples of his own research from more than two decades ago, Steinman described how animal experiments helped him identify an important component of cellular immunity in the body. He lamented that this knowledge needed to be applied appropriately in human populations, in order to further our understanding of the immune process and diseases, in order to accomplish which more physician-scientists were needed.

Puts quite a different perspective, doesn’t it, on that Steinman quote, cherry-picked by PeTA and placed out of context to further their own anti-science agenda?

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. We all drank the kool-aid on that one, me included. The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem… We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” — Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health.

EXCEPT that this quote – gleaned from Dr. Zerhouni’s 2013 lecture at the NIH – is, again, NOT the complete quote, which is (from the link):

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he lamented. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included.” With the ability to knock in or knock out any gene in a mouse — which “can’t sue us,” Zerhouni quipped — researchers have over-relied on animal data. “The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem… We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” — Note how the complete quote mentions the specific context of the ability of performing genetic manipulation relatively easily in mice, which in his opinion has led the researchers to rely over-much on animal model data?

Without a doubt, there is an important lesson to learn and remember. The relative ease of working with animal models and the ability to answer specific, directed questions with these models have sometimes swayed some researchers away from the bigger picture, the ultimate goal of delivering a cure to the patients who need them. However, it is basic science research, utilizing the animal models precisely for those reasons, which makes the seminal contributions to the understanding of disease mechanisms; animal models are necessary, and they complement well the knowledge gained from other, equally necessary, non-animal based models as appropriate, such as cell-culture, computer simulations, and the ultimate test, human trials. When asked to clarify his remarks, Dr. Zerhouni said as much; he wrote:

“I understand that some have interpreted these comments to mean that I think that animals are no longer necessary in medical research. This is certainly not what I meant. In fact, animal models and other surrogates of human disease are necessary — but not sufficient — for the successful development of new treatments. In short, animal models remain essential to the basic research that seeks to understand the complexities of disease mechanism.”

Do read the whole response from Dr. Zerhouni and the relevant discussion regarding animal experimentation in this 2014 post in the Speaking of Research blog. Not the kind of nuance you’d find in a PeTA screed, is it?

I have earlier written about this opposition of animal research from PeTA, and how such mindless opposition actively harms the cause of biomedical research that benefits both people and animals. If PeTA and their ilk did indeed have solid arguments to present in support of their position, why all these lies, misrepresentations, subterfuge, cloak-and-dagger stage-show? In view of this, I must again ask, who really benefits from this stance of PeTA, if not PeTA’s coffers?

Dr. Kausik Datta

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

The following guest post by Kirk Leech originally appeared in the Huffington Post, and is reprinted here with permission from the author. Kirk, is the Executive Director of the European Animal Research Association (EARA). EARA is a communications and advocacy organisation created to better inform the European public on the continued need for, and benefit of, the humane use of animals in biomedical research. Follow them on Twitter via @The_EARA.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently announced that Justin Bieber agrees that “Air France Sucks” for Sending Monkeys to Labs. That the singer is known to have kept monkeys as pets seems to have escaped the group’s opportunist propaganda eyes. Yet Bieber joins a growing number of celebrities, including UK comic Ricky Gervais and US actor James Cromwell, who have put their names to campaigns by PETA and the British Union Against Vivisection (BUAV) to stop Air France from transporting non-human primates (NHPs) for biomedical research into the EU and the USA. Air France is currently the only commercial airline prepared to do so.

The campaign to stop research involving NHPs has also become pretty nasty in Germany. The group Tierversuchsgegner Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Opponents of Animal Experiments Federal Republic of Germany) recently placed a belligerent full-page advertisement in two national and three regional newspapers. The advertisement directed much of its venom toward Professor Andreas Kreiter, a neurobiologist from the University of Bremen, whose research on NHPs includes working towards treatments of epilepsy and the control of prosthetic devices.

The advertisement shows a photograph of Kreiter placed next to that of a primate with a number tattooed onto its chest and its head held against movement during an experiment. An opening quote attributed to neurologist and animal protectionist Herbert Stiller reads, “Animal experimenters are a particular type of creature – one should not casually call them human”. This was a conscious attempt to link the work of Kreiter to that of National Socialism and the Holocaust. It is also worth remembering that the category of sub human was used by the Nazis to dehumanize Jews, gypsies and the handicapped as justification for their extermination.

In response, the German Alliance of Science Organisations (which includes some of the country’s most influential organisations such as the Max Planck Society, the Conference of University Rectors and the German National Academy of Sciences) released a statement condemning the article, and making the case as to why animal research is necessary.
Whilst this public support for animal research is to be welcomed, in many German cities daily protests against the transportation of NHPs take place outside the offices of Air France and at airports. These protests, which have involved criminal activity, pass with little comment from the German scientific community or from German patient groups who rely on research involving NHPs for their disease areas. PETA and the BUAV clearly think they have the winning hand in their campaign to halt NHP research and stop the last airline prepared to transport animals.
Let’s for one moment imagine that this campaign had taken place say 30 years ago; that it had been successful in the 1980’s in halting the transport of primates and research. What discoveries, what advances in scientific understanding involving NHP’s over the past 30 years would we not have today?

Here are four examples:

1) Parkinson’s disease: Research using non-human primates has been critical to developing life-changing treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Dopaminergic therapies, deep brain stimulation to reduce tremor, and constraint-induced movement therapy all resulted from research on NHPs
2) HIV/AIDS: The introduction of the antiretroviral therapy (ART), developed using NHP models, has dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality of those infected with HIV.
3) Macular Degeneration: Surgical treatment for macular degeneration has come through research involving primates.
4) Stroke: New techniques in stroke rehabilitation therapy have been developed through research involving primates.

And there are plenty more.

If all airlines had taken the decision in the 1980’s that PETA and the BUAV are trying to force Air France to do now, then our quest to understand and treat infections and diseases associated with human physiological processes such as ageing, reproduction, endocrine function, metabolism, and neurology would have been set back decades.

Monkeys are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Insights into human disease may be obtained from other animals but studies using primates are especially valuable. That said, research primates are used in relatively small numbers (currently 0.05% of all animal use in the EU) but they remain of essential use. A recent article in the American Journal of Primatology set out the issues surrounding research NHPs very well, “We are at a critical crossroads in our society and unless NHP research is given the philosophical, emotional, and financial support and infrastructure that is needed to sustain it and grow, we are in danger of losing irreplaceable unique models and thus, our ability to continue to explore and understand, and develop preventions and treatments for numerous conditions that inflict great suffering on humans.”

It is a credit to Air France that they continue to transport NHPs for biomedical research. If campaigners are successful in halting the transportation of NHPs they won’t think ‘job done’ and put their feet up. Emboldened by their victory they will move onto all other animal models. Global biomedical research is reliant on the air transport of research animals. Many significant advances in modern medicine have been based on research involving primates. If we want this to continue, we need to Keep Research Flying. The European Animal Research Association intends on making the European public and decision makers aware of this in the coming period.

Kirk Leech

Today the British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror published a truly execrable piece of animal rights propaganda dressed up as journalism, in an article attacking neuroscience research undertaken using cats at University College London. The article mischaracterized the two research projects, which were published in the Journal of Neurophysiology in 2012 and 2013,   from start to finish, and as you can see below included a litany of basic errors (or were they deliberate lies?). This is not the first time that the Mirror has got its story very, very wrong.

It’s interesting to see the source of the images of cats used in the report, as they tell you something about what is going on here.

The first image may seem familiar to some readers, as it is an image that PETA have used in a campaign against hearing research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison It is a campaign marked by a mixture of clever publicity and a willingness to distort and misrepresent the facts, and of course two independent investigations refuted PETA’s allegations.

The second image, also from PETA, shows a connector to a 10×10 silicon micro-electrode array first developed at the University of Utah in the late 1990’s, which later formed a key part of  the Braingate system. In 2012 the Braingate system enabled a woman named Jan Scheuermann, quadraplegic for over a decade due to a spinal  degenerative disease, to feed herself using a brain-machine interface that monitored her motor neuron activity and allowed her to manipulate a robotic arm and hand.

It’s worth noting that valuable to advancing medical science as the implants used in the UW-Madison and University of Utah research are, they were not used in the UCL research  that the Daily Mirror is attacking, but when has the Mirror ever let the facts (or truth) stand in the way of a good image*?

UCL has issued a statement on the use of cats in research, which concludes by saying:

Despite advances in non-animal methods it is still essential to use animals where no viable alternatives exist – for both the clinical science which directly informs medical treatments, as well as the basic science which, by advancing understanding of biological processes, is an important precursor to it. The earlier work carried out on cats provided an excellent understanding of how the visual system works. As a result, it is no longer necessary to use cats as the model for this type of work which is why it has been discontinued.

So here goes, a run through of what is  – hopefully – one of the worst pieces of yellow journalism that you’ll see this year.

* The Mirror has a long history of distorting research to advance animal rights propaganda. In the late 1980’s they made false allegations against Professor Colin Blakemore of the University of Oxford, and were eventually forced to print a retraction.

Speaking of Research

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

The philosophy and bioethics community was rocked and in turmoil Friday when they learned that groundbreaking experimental psychologist Professor Harry Harlow had died over 30 years ago. Harlow’s iconic studies of mother and infant monkeys have endured for decades as the centerpiece of philosophical debate and animal rights campaigns.  With news of his death, philosophers worried that they would now need to turn their attention to new questions, learn about current research, and address persistent, urgent needs in public consideration of scientific research and medical progress. Scientists and advocates for a more serious contemporary public dialogue were relieved and immediately offered their assistance to help others get up to speed on current research.

To close the chapter, psychologists at the University of Wisconsin provided the following 40 year retrospective on Harlow’s work and its long-term impact (see below).

Internet reaction to the scientists’ offering was swift, fierce, and predictable.

“We will never allow Harlow to die,” said one leading philosopher, “The fact is that Harlow did studies that are controversial and we intend to continue making that fact known until science grinds to a halt and scientists admit that we should be in charge of all the laboratories and decisions about experiments. It is clear to us that we need far more talk and far less action. Research is complicated and unpredictable–all that messiness just needs to get cleaned up before research should be undertaken.”

Animal rights activists agreed, saying:

“For many decades Harlow and his monkeys have been our go-to graphics for protest signs, internet sites, and articles. It would simply be outrageously expensive and really hard to replace those now. Furthermore, Harlow’s name recognition and iconic monkey pictures are invaluable, irreplaceable, and stand by themselves. It would be a crime to confuse the picture with propaganda and gobbledygook from extremist eggheads who delusionally believe that science and animal research has changed anything.”

Others decried what they viewed as inappropriate humorous responses to the belated shock at Harlow’s passing.

“It is clear to us that scientists are truly diabolical bastards who think torturing animals is funny. Scientists shouldn’t be allowed to joke. What’s next? Telling people who suffer from disease that they should just exercise and quit eating cheeseburgers?” said a representative from a group fighting for legislation to outlaw food choice and ban healthcare for non-vegans and those with genetic predispositions for various diseases.

A journalist reporting on the controversial discovery of Harlow’s death was overheard grumbling, “But what will new generations of reporters write about? Anyway, the new research is pretty much the same as the old research, minus all the complicated biology, chemistry, and genetic stuff, so it may as well be Harlow himself doing it.”

A fringe group of philosophers derisively called the “Ivory Tower Outcasts” for their work aimed at cross-disciplinary partnerships in public engagement with contemporary ethical issues made a terse statement via a pseudonymous social media site.

“We told you so. Harlow is dead. Move on. New facts, problems require thought+action (ps- trolley software needs upgrade, man at switch quit)”

Harlow himself remained silent. For the most part, his papers, groundbreaking discoveries, and long-lasting impact on understanding people and animals remained undisturbed by the new controversy.

Statement from Psychologists:

Harlow’s career spanned 40+ years and produced breakthroughs in understanding learning, memory, cognition and behavior in monkeys¹ (see Figure 1). In a time period where other animals were generally thought of as dumb machines, Harlow’s work demonstrated the opposite — that monkeys, like humans, have complex cognitive abilities and emotional attachments. Harlow and his colleagues developed now classic ways to measure cognition^2,3. For example, the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus (WGTA; see Figure 1), in which monkeys uncover food beneath different types of colored toys and objects, allowed scientists to understand how monkeys learn new things, remember, and discriminate between different colors, shapes, quantities, and patterns.

The discoveries of Harlow and his colleagues in the 1930s and forward provided the foundation not only for changes in how people view other animals, but also for understanding how the brain works, how it develops, and –ultimately–how to better care for people and other animals.

Figure 1

In the last decade of his long career, Harlow, his wife Margaret– a developmental psychologist, and their colleagues, again rocked the scientific world with a discovery that fundamentally changed our biological understanding.³ Contrary to prevailing views in the 1950s and before, the Harlows’ studies of infant monkeys definitively demonstrated that mother-infant bonds and physical contact—not just provision of food—are fundamentally important to normal behavioral and biological development. Those studies provided an enduring empirical foundation for decades of subsequent work that shed new light on the interplay between childhood experiences, genes, and biology in shaping vulnerability, resilience, and recovery in lifespan health.

For a brief time at the very end of his career, Harlow performed a small number of studies that have served as the touchstone for philosophers, animal rights groups, and others interested in whether and how animal research should be done. The most controversial of the studies are known by their colloquial name “pit of despair” and were aimed at creating an animal model of depression. In this work, fewer than 20 monkeys were placed in extreme isolation for short periods (average of 6 weeks) following initial infant rearing in a nursery.

At the time, the late 1960s, the presence of brain chemicals had recently been identified as potentially critical players in behavior and mental illnesses like depression and schizophrenia. New understanding and treatment of the diseases was desperately needed to address the suffering of millions of people. Available treatments were crude. They included permanent institutionalization– often in abject conditions, lobotomy (removing part of the brain), malaria, insulin, or electric shock therapies. As some scientists worked to uncover the role of brain chemicals in behavior and mood, others worked to produce drugs that could alter those chemical networks to relieve their negative effects. In both cases, animal models based on similar brain chemistry and biology were needed in order to test whether new treatments were safe and effective. It was within this context that Harlow and his colleagues in psychiatry studied, in small numbers, monkeys who exhibited depressive-like behaviors.

By the 1970s and over the next decades, scientists produced medications that effectively treat diseases like schizophrenia and depression for many people. The therapies are not perfect and do not work for everyone, which is why research continues to identify additional and new treatments. Regardless, there is no question that the suffering of millions of people has been reduced, and continues to be alleviated, as a result of new medications and new understanding of the biological basis of disease.

Infant rhesus monkeys playing in nursery. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. @2014 University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

Looking back while moving forward

Nearly 50 years later, it is difficult to imagine the time before MRI and neuroimaging and before the many effective treatments for depression, schizophrenia and other diseases. It is perhaps even more difficult to imagine a time in which people believed that genes and biology were destiny, that other animals were automatons, or that mothers were only important because they provided food to their children. Casting an eye back to the treatment of monkeys, children, and vulnerable human populations in medical and scientific research 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago, is difficult as well. Standards for ethical consideration, protections for human and animal participants in research, and the perspectives of scientists, philosophers, and the public have all continued to change as knowledge grows. Yet, what has not changed is an enduring tension between the public’s desire for progress in understanding the world and in reducing disease and the very fact that the science required to make that progress involves difficult choices.

There are no guarantees that a specific scientific research project will succeed in producing the discoveries it seeks. Nor is there a way to know in advance how far-ranging the effect of those discoveries may be, or how they may serve as the necessary foundation for work far distant. In the case of Harlow’s work, the discoveries cast a bright light on a path that continues to advance new understanding of how the brain, genes, and experiences affect people’s health and well-being.

Mother and juvenile rhesus macaque at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. @2014 University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

In the 30 years since Harlow’s death, new technologies and new discoveries—including brain imaging (MRI, PET), knowledge about epigenetics (how genes are turned on and off), and pharmacotherapies—have been made, refined, and put into use in contemporary science. As a result, scientists today can answer questions that Harlow could not. They continue to do so not because the world has remained unchanged, or because they lack ethics and compassion, but because they see the urgent need posed by suffering and the possibility of addressing global health problems via scientific research.

Harlow’s legacy is a complicated one, but one worth considering beyond a simple single image because it is a legacy of knowledge that illustrates exactly how science continues to move forward from understanding built in the past. An accurate view of how science works, what it has achieved, what can and cannot be done, are all at the heart of a serious consideration of the consequences of choices about what scientific research should be done and how. Harlow and his studies may well be a touchstone to start and continue that dialogue. But it should then be one that also includes the full range of the work, its context and complexity, rather than just the easy cartoon evoked to draw the crowd and then loom with no new words.

Allyson J. Bennett, PhD

The author is a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The views and ideas expressed here are her own and do not necessarily represent those of her employer.

¹  Suomi SJ & Leroy, HA (1982) In Memoriam: Harry F. Harlow (1905-1982). American Journal of Primatology 2:319-342. (Note: contains a complete bibliography of Harlow’s published work.)

²Harlow HF & Bromer J (1938). A test-apparatus for monkeys. Psychological Record 2:434-436.

³Harlow HF (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review 56:51-65

⁴Harlow HF (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist 13:673-685.

If you are a PPC who has arrived on this page via a link sent by a colleague or voter, it is because they wish you to have the facts on animal research before making any decisions on the BUAV’s 6 PPC pledges.

Introduction

The BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) has been contacting Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) in the UK’s upcoming 2015 General Election, urging them to back their six pledges against animal research. They are also urging their supporters to send similar emails and tweets to their local PPCs.

The information provided in their email contains many examples of misinformation regarding animal research. We urge our readers (especially any PPCs) to share it with their colleagues and PPCs to ensure future UK parliamentarians make their decisions based on solid scientific evidence and not the misinformation of an antivivisection activist group. UK residents should make sure their candidates are kept informed – you can use the BUAV’s candidate finder search bar to find contact details for your local PPCs (remember to delete the BUAV’s preset email or tweet). You can find a suggested letter to your local candidates encouraging them to read this post at the bottom of the page (or click here).

Click to Enlarge or go straight to the BUAV’s PPC finder

Speaking of Research has criticized the BUAV before for dishonesty in their claims:

• The BUAV – Spies, Lies and Inspection Reports
• The BUAV – Spies, Lies and Videotapes

The BUAV Email

Click on any of the claims in the BUAV email below to be taken to the section of this post debunking it.

Dear <Candidate>

I am writing to announce the launch of our Vote Cruelty Free website, a new platform publicising the views of candidates, to encourage compassionate people across the UK to use their vote for animals in laboratories in the 2015 General Election.

Did you know that over 4 million animals are used for experiments in the UK each year?

The 2010 Coalition Agreement included a pledge to work to reduce the number of animals used in ‘scientific procedures’, but since then the number of animals licenced to suffer in experiments has increased by more than 11%.

Yet according to a 2014 Government survey, only 37% of people agree that it is acceptable to use animals for research.  And 95% of new drugs tested on animals fail in human trials.

The BUAV and Cruelty Free International, which work to end animal experiments, have set out six simple steps to reduce animal experiments in the next Parliament:

1. Ban experiments on cats and dogs
2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments
3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories
4. End non-medical experiments
5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review
6. Stop suffering in the most extreme experiments

Please can you let us know which of the above steps you support? Please send your response to [us] by 5th January. Candidates’ views are being publicised on the Vote Cruelty Free website, which we will be promoting from January, so that compassionate people in your constituency can use their votes for animals in May.

The BUAV Claims: DEBUNKED

“Did you know that over 4 million animals are used for experiments in the UK each year?”

It is true that over 4 million animals were used in 2013 (4.12 million procedures on 4.02 million animals), but let us add some context. The numbers have been generally rising from around 2.5 million in 2000, however, it is far below the historical high of 5.5 million in in the mid-1970s. Furthermore, to put the numbers into context of other animal use, we eat around 900 million chickens per year, and an estimated 220 million animals are killed by pet cats per year.

Read more about the numbers of animals used in the UK.

“The 2010 Coalition Agreement included a pledge to work to reduce the number of animals used in ‘scientific procedures’, but since then the number of animals licenced [sic] to suffer in experiments has increased by more than 11%.”

We have written about the BUAV’s misguided criticism of the “Broken Promises” on reduction before. Ultimately the problem comes from the word “reduce”. While many people understand “reduce” to mean using less animals overall, reduction (one of the 3Rs) is about using fewer animals in any given experiment to achieve the same standard of results.

Realising this confusion on “reduction”, the Government clarified its position in 2014, in a paper called “Working to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”. It said:
“[In] 2010, the Government made a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. This commitment is not focused on baseline numbers which are influenced by a range of extraneous factors. Instead, it encompasses replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) more broadly, putting them at the heart of a science-led approach.”

The reality is that animal research numbers are based on many factors including current research techniques (so while the growth of GM mice research increased animal numbers, the CRISPR GM technique could help reduce it.), funding for animal research, research environments in other countries etc.

“Yet according to a 2014 Government survey, only 37% of people agree that it is acceptable to use animals for research”

The BUAV has shown incredible bias in its reporting of the 2014 Government survey. Here is the first paragraph of the key findings, which include the 37% statistic:

“Overall the public (British adults aged 15+) is supportive of the use of animals in scientific research (68% agree it is acceptable ‘so long as it is for medical research purposes and there is no alternative’), but there is also widespread agreement (76%) that more work should be done to find alternatives to using animals in such research. Fewer than four in ten (37%) endorse the use of animals for all types of research – even where there is no alternative. Ensuring animal welfare is an important proviso; almost seven in ten (69%) can accept such research ‘as long as there is no unnecessary suffering to the animals and there is no alternative’.”

To take quotes from the survey (remember that legally animal research can only be done where there is no viable alternative).

• “68% agree that they can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as it is for medical research purposes and there is no alternative, with 17% who disagree”
• “69% agree that they can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as there is no unnecessary suffering to animals and there is no alternative, with 14% who disagree”

The survey found 37% believed “It is acceptable to use animals for all types of research where there is no alternative“. The reality is that most of us can think of some type of research we would disagree with (perhaps cosmetic testing, which has been banned across the EU) even if there were no alternative, so it is no surprise that only 37% agreed (and 41% disagreed) to all types of animal research. However the polls clearly show a majority of people do agree with animal research for medical or scientific purposes.

“And 95% of new drugs tested on animals fail in human trials.”

The BUAV seems to have caught up very late on this statistic. It was publicised by Speaking of Research in January 2013 in a guest post from Professor Robin Lovell-Badge. Unfortunately, they seem not to have read Prof Lovell-Badge’s post, which explains how this type of statistic has been misused exactly as the BUAV has done:

Reading Lovell-Badge’s original post is the best way to get your head around the statistic (which should be 94% unless you count registration of a drug as a human trial), but the basics of note are:

• All the drugs which pass animal tests and fail at some point in human trials, have all passed pre-clinical tests using non-animal methods (e.g. in vitro, computer screening etc). In that context, if we were to use the same form of words, it would be much more than 95% of new drugs tested using non-animal methods which failing in human trials.
• “Of all the drugs which pass Phase 1 clinical trials in humans, 86% will fail in later stage human trials. Yet, we do not hear activists suggesting that humans are an entirely inappropriate model for drug development” – Prof Lovell-Badge
• “In over 30 years there has not been a single death in a Phase 1 clinical trial in the UK … animal testing has been exceptionally effective at keeping dangerous drugs away from people.” – Prof Lovell-Badge

The BUAV’s Six Pledges: DEBUNKED

So we move onto the BUAV’s six pledges that they wish PPCs to defend:

“1. Ban experiments on cats and dogs”

Firstly, it should be noted that cats and dogs, together account for just 0.12% of all animal experiments in the UK (mice, rats, fish and birds together account for 97% of all procedures). Both species (and monkeys and horses) have special protections to ensure that they are only used where no other species would be viable.

The reality is that banning experiments on cats and dogs would end the development of veterinary medicine for those species. Examples of research that might have been lost by such a ban include the use of dogs use to study spinal injuries, which has allowed both pet dogs, and people, to walk again thanks to a nasal cell transplant

The use of cats and dogs in research has fallen dramatically in the UK in the last two decades, nonetheless, an arbitrary ban would be bad for science and medicine

“2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments”

The BUAV has been focusing on this issue for a while despite the fact that nearly everyone – including industry and government – want to reform the Section 24 “secrecy” clause. The Government is well on its way to finalising these reforms. Read this article from Chris Magee, Understanding Animal Research Head of Media and Policy, explaining Section 24 reforms.

“3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories”

Most primates used in research in the UK are imported from abroad. All these animals are F1 or beyond, meaning both they were bred in captivity – there are no wild primates in UK labs (most UK primates are F2 or beyond meaning both they, and their parents, were captive-bred).

Primate breeding centres tend to be in hotter countries with large outdoor corrals which allow large amounts of monkeys to play together – this is good for animal welfare. UK climate is not conducive to this.

Primates account for less than 0.08% of all animal experiments in the UK, they have special protections to ensure they are only used where no other species would be viable.

Nonetheless, primates are essential to work in understanding neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Deep Brain Stimulation – a treatment to stop tremors of Parkinson’s patients – was developed through the use of monkeys in research.

“4. End non-medical experiments”

The statistics which the Government publishes each year tries to distinguish different areas of research including “Fundamental biological research” (28%), “Applied Studies – human medicine or dentistry” (13%), “Applied studies – veterinary medicine” (4%) and “Breeding of GM or HM animals” (51%). This BUAV pledge wants to limit research to the “Applied Studies – Human Medicine or Dentistry” (insinuating this is the only research important for human health). The reality is that without the fundamental research (often called “basic research”), and the breeding of GM animals, the Applied research could not happen.

This is not to mention that the BUAV seems happy to ban veterinary research – which is important for animal welfare.

“5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review”

GM animals offer a way of “humanising” animals, increasingly their physiological similarity to humans. We can give an immunocompromised mouse a human cancer and then work out the best combination of treatments to destroy the cancer, we can splice in GFP gene (fluorescence gene from jellyfish) to allow us to measure cell death, and GM animals have many other uses. Watch this little video from Understanding Animal Research for more information on the importance of GM animals.

“6. Stop suffering in most extreme experiments”

When researchers apply for a licence to conduct animal experiments they have to estimate the level of suffering of the animal (from next year they will have to record actual suffering and submit this information back to the Home Office). This can be Mild, Moderate, Severe or Unclassified (where the animal is never woken from anaesthesia). In 2012, 2% of licences were “Severe”, though this does not necessarily mean 2% of experiments are severe. See more on licences here.

The Government states on its website that: “We have legislated so experimentation is only permitted when there is no alternative research technique and the expected benefits outweigh any possible adverse effects.” Essentially, if any severe licence will be approved, it is on the basis that this higher level of suffering is justified by the potential benefits to human and animal health.

Overall what we see is more misinformation from the BUAV. We urge parliamentary candidates from all parties to reject the BUAV’s approaches, and stand up for the important role of animals in research.

If you wish to discuss these points further, please contact us by email or phone.

Addendum

Here is a template email you can send to your local candidates, though we encourage you to personalise it as much as possible:

Dear <Candidate Name>,

I am aware that many PPCs have received emails from the Vote Cruelty Free campaign (run by the BUAV) asking candidates to support their six pledges on animal research. I am concerned that some of the information sent in these emails may not be entirely accurate.

Before making any pledges I encourage you to read an article by Speaking of Research, who have taken the time to address the claims made in the Vote Cruelty Free email. This post can be found here: http://speakingofresearch.com/2014/12/23/the-buav-is-misinforming-uk-policy-makers/

Speaking of Research also provide a general briefing on animal research in the UK which covers the key issues in a factual and scientific manner. https://speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/background-briefing-on-animal-research-in-the-uk.pdf

Yours sincerely,

<Your name>

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is a UK anti-vivisection group with a history of infiltrations to labs and unsubstantiated allegations against labs. A newly published report from a government investigation reveals just how far the BUAV bent the truth when they made false allegations against the University of Cambridge last year.

Fool Me Twice

In October, 2014, we wrote about how two separate investigations by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU; the Government’s inspection unit) found allegations by the BUAV to be almost entirely groundless. In both cases the allegations had followed an infiltration by a BUAV activist.

The first report investigated the BUAV’s allegations against Imperial College London:

Over 180 individual allegations, made by the animal rights organisation, of non-compliance were investigated. Of these, all were found to be unsubstantiated apart from five formal non-compliance cases which have been completed – one category A and four Category B [none of which involved significant, avoidable or unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animals].

A second ASRU report into BUAV allegations against a pharmaceutical company conducting tests on veterinary medicines found:

No non-compliance with authorised programmes of work was detected apart from two minor issues with no welfare implications.
[…]
Our detailed investigations and review of available records and other evidence, does not support the allegations in the investigation report.

So twice last year the BUAV has been found misleading the public with their unsubstantiated claims.

Third Time Lucky?

In the post “The BUAV – Spies, Lies and Videotapes” we discussed an infiltration by the BUAV at Cambridge University. The infiltration and subsequent “expose” regarded research on sheep into Huntington’s and Batten’s disease. The allegations made were that there was “…distressing animal suffering, unlawful regulation by the Home Office, in adequate care of animals and inadequate enforcement by the inspectorate”. The 32-page report by the BUAV was supplemented by a four-and-a-half minute edited video (put together from hours and hours of footage by the infiltrator) but when ASRU officials wrote to them requesting further video footage they might have, the BUAV replied that “there was nothing further they wished to share with ASRU”. One guesses hours of footage of Cambridge University researchers abiding by the laws and regulations was not in BUAV’s interest to share. It also proves that the BUAV’s aim is not to address animal welfare issues at Cambridge, but to score points in their stated effort to “end all animal testing”. This month ASRU released their report into the allegations.

A sheep with Batten’s involved in the study at the University of Cambridge (Image credit: University of Cambridge)

Cambridge had previously provided a strong rebuttal of each the claims made by the BUAV. These claims appear to be a mix of exaggerated information and flatly false information. For instance Cambridge noted:

It is alleged that a lamb had to be euthanized at a UK airport after becoming sick during transit from New Zealand. One of the lambs did appear disorientated on arrival in London, but was cleared by the Veterinary surgeon as being fit to continue his travels. No adverse effects were seen in any of the animals on arrival in Cambridge a few hours later.

ASRU’s report is equally clear about this claim [p.13]:

In summary, we conclude that this allegation is simply untrue in relation to the sheep imported for the Project Licence holder’s research. No animals required euthanasia or were found dead on arrival a Heathrow Airport.

And some of their allegations appear to be of the BUAV’s own making. Cambridge noted:

We are careful to avoid causing stress to the Batten’s disease sheep. As their disease develops, they become confused and can become agitated, particularly when approached by unfamiliar people or surroundings. Thus the animal care team is careful not to isolate any sheep from its flock-mates, allow interaction with strangers, or make sudden or unnecessary changes to their routines. It appears that the BUAV infiltrator not only disrupted their routines in the making of the undercover videos, but also isolated the animals. This will have made the sheep appear more agitated than they are when under routine care.

ASRU have added that [p.13]:

The Establishment has mechanisms in place for whistle-blowing, and it is of note that no animal welfare concerns had been raised by any staff at the Establishment, including the animal rights organisation’s infiltrator…

A similar comment was made in the ASRU report into the Imperial allegations. The conclusion to the ASRU report makes damning reading for anyone who believed in the integrity of the BUAV.

Our detailed investigations, and review of available records and other evidence to do not support any of the allegations made by the animal rights organisation
[…]
None of these allegations has been substantiated nor has any allegation given us further cause for concern with regard to compliance with the requirements of the legislation at this Establishment.

Sound familiar? Once again the inspection reports have found the BUAV telling lies, with their spies and their videotapes.

One additional paragraph in the ASRU report on the University of Cambridge gives an insight into what the inspectors really thought about the BUAV’s allegations:

A small number of the allegations were based on hearsay evidence and we can neither confirm nor deny these. However given the overall lack of substance where relevant evidence was to be found we do not consider it likely that any of these other allegations would be substantiated.

Ouch!

The BUAV

Of the £1.3 million that BUAV spent in 2014 (not including money spent by their three associate companies, Animal Properties, BUAV Charitable Trust and Cruelty Free International), around £200,000 was spent on “Investigations”. Any curious journalist should be asking the BUAV whether they were paying these infiltrators, how much these payments were, and what they expected (video wise) from their employees.

To remind people of what we have said before. These are not casual whistle blowers, but people who are working at animal research facilities with the express intention of creating horrifying videotapes. Be it a school, a hospital, a factory or a restaurant, there are few businesses for which you could not create a cleverly edited 5 minute shock video having secretly filmed for hundreds of hours.

One has to wonder how many BUAV infiltrators are in labs around the UK. Moreover, one wonders, how many BUAV infiltration videos were never publicised due to the lack of shocking footage (even after clever editing)?

Speaking of Research

Banner at UW-Madison, April 2015.

Each April a group of people committed to ending all use of animals for any purpose, including medical and scientific research, orchestrate events for a week they designate World Week for Animals in Laboratories (WWAIL). Among the primary objectives of WWAIL is to generate media coverage via picketing and protests. The event often culminates in World Day for Animals in Laboratories (WDAIL).

WWAIL events are primarily coordinated by Michael Budkie, leader of Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN). Budkie is also known for previous misrepresentation of animal research and its rebuttal by federal agencies. Budkie’s group is funded primarily by the Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Foundation, a “Biblically based organization” that believes “our call to mission is to restore God’s original creation intent of a plant based diet (Genesis 1:29-30).”  The  mission of the Hoffman Foundation  is quite clear: “To promote through education the elimination of the use of animals in biomedical research and testing, their use as food, or their use for any and all commercial purposes…

Sit-in at UW-Madison during WWAIL (April 18, 2015).

SAEN is like other absolutist groups whose position is that no matter what potential benefit the work may result in, no use of animals is morally justified. This extends across all animals – from fruit-fly to primate. Furthermore, all uses of animals, regardless of whether there are alternatives and regardless of the need, are treated identically. In other words, the use of a mouse in research aimed at new discoveries to treat childhood disease is considered morally equivalent to the use of a cow to produce hamburger, the use of an elephant in a circus, or a mink for a fur coat.

WWAIL protests are focused specifically on research. Thus, the sites for protest tend to be universities and other research institutions where scientists engage in work that produces the new knowledge and discoveries that drive scientific and medical progress to benefit humans, other animals, and the environment. The protests also target individual scientists with the kind of “home demonstrations” we’ve written about before (see more here and here).  In some cases the protests target businesses that support animal research.

Although the WWAIL activities vary some each year, they have a few consistent themes:

• First, the primary objective appears to be media coverage. In fact, a quick view of the “successes” claimed by the primary organizing group shows that number of news stories is the prize accomplishment.
• Second, the number of people participating in the activities is typically a few to a dozen.
• Third, most of the materials used in the protests, social media coverage, and news releases reliably rely on outdated, out-of-context images and little reference to the protestors’ broad agenda and position.

We agree that public consideration of animal research is important. Stimulating serious, thoughtful education efforts and inclusive public dialogue about science, public interests, medical progress, and animal research are critically valuable to public decision-making and, ultimately, to global health. Informed decisions based in accurate information and in an understanding of the complex issues involved in animal research are in the best interest of the public, science, and other animals.

For that reason, many scientists, universities, educators, advocacy groups, and individuals engage in public outreach, education, and dialogue about scientific research with nonhuman animals. Their goal is to provide the public with accurate and thoughtful information about the range of issues that bear on decisions, policies, and practices related to animal research. Among those topics are:  how science works, its process, timescales between discovery and application, why animal research is conducted, in absence of alternatives; who benefits and what would be lost if it did not occur;  how animals in research are cared for, how ethical review occurs, and how regulation and oversight function.

None of these are simple issues, which is why there are many websites, books, articles, and interviews on the topic. WWAIL provides a unique opportunity for the research community to help point people towards these resources for education, dialogue, and serious consideration of animal research.

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we have one example of how to do just that.  The website referenced in the banner shown in the photos here (animalresearch.wisc.edu) provides extensive information about animal research.  The site provides facts, interviews, videos, photos, and links for those interested in learning more about why animal studies occur, the role that they play in scientific and medical progress that serve public interests, how research is conducted, its ethical consideration, and the practices, policies, regulation and oversight that govern animal care.

By contrast, we have the signs held by those below participating in a WWAIL sit-in at UW-Madison on Saturday.  Among the signs are photos of animals from other decades and other countries.  For example, note the repetitive use of a picture of Malish, a monkey who was involved in research in Israel in 2001 (not exactly relevant to UW).  We also see quotes by an actor and numbers that do not reflect those from UW-Madison.  None of these are difficult errors or misrepresentations to correct; but they probably won’t be corrected in absence of voices and sources to provide accurate information.

Sit-in at UW-Madison during WWAIL (April 2015).

This year, if your university or facility is among those that attract attention during WWAIL,  we ask that you join in the conversation by providing protestors, public, and media your own voice.  Whether it is via banners, websites, or talking with reporters– speak up for science and for public interests in advancing scientific understanding and medical progress. Although it may not matter to those committed to an absolutist agenda, it can matter to those who are interested in building a dialogue based in fact and serious consideration of the complex issues that surround public interests in the future of science, health, and medicine.

Speaking of Research

In April 2014 Speaking of Research founder, Tom Holder, published a paper in EMBO reports looking at the structure and motivations of antivivisection groups and organizations, as well as how he got involved in defending animal research. Now, a year after its publication, this article is free-to-view online, or as a pdf. We are reproducing it below with the permission of EMBO reports (long form links have been converted into hyperlinks for the sake of the web format).

Standing up for Science

The antivivisection movement and how to stand up to it

Animal research has been and remains crucial to the development of modern medicine. The reasons for ongoing research are manifold from finding ways to treat cancer to understanding the mechanisms behind neurodegeneration to developing new vaccines against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Nearly all of us benefit from medical treatments made possible through animal research, and with so much at stake, it is important that scientists make the case for the importance of using animals in research. With animal rights extremism at an all‐time low, there has never been a better time for scientists to overcome their reluctance to talk about the benefits of their work.

Sadly, polls show that opposition to animal research among young people, for example in the UK and USA, is significantly higher than among those aged over 65 [1], [2]. In my view, this is in part because of the large amount of misinformation propagated across the Internet by opponents of animal research—the “antivivisection” (AV) movement. Moreover, the past decades have seen bouts of intense activism—including harassment, threats and violence directed towards scientists—aimed at shutting down animal research. During the same period, the scientific community have worked diligently to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals in research, making much progress; however, these efforts have not been sufficient to satisfy the passions of some activists.

Part of the problem is that scientists rarely engage with those who are opposed to animal research, which can leave them detached from the need to justify or explain their work. This lack of communication also creates an information vacuum in the public sphere about the need to use animals. In a recent poll in the UK, only 31% of respondents felt “fairly well informed […] about science and scientific research/development” [2].

“With animal rights extremism at an all‐time low, there has never been a better time for scientists to overcome their reluctance to talk about the benefits of their work.”

Ignoring the animal rights community has not worked. Wherever there has been a vacuum of understanding about research, they have filled it with disinformation based on rare instances of negligence and shocking examples of seemingly barbaric experiments, accompanied by stories describing animal research as unnecessary and out‐dated. Some animal rights groups mask their aim to ban animal research behind the noble banner of animal welfare—legitimately criticising incidents involving substandard animal care but then implying that these represent not the exception, but the rule. Yet, the huge improvements in laboratory animal welfare will never satisfy those animal rights groups that have a fundamental ideological opposition to such experiments. Instead, AV groups often buttress their position with unfounded assertions that such methods can be entirely replaced or cannot provide useful results. As activists build a seemingly stronger—even if bogus—case against the value of using animals in research, the public support for, or indifference to, some illegal activities rises.

I actually dislike the term “antivivisection.” It is scientifically inaccurate, as much animal research is non‐invasive and does not involve cutting live animals (vivisection). Nonetheless, those opposed to animal research, particularly in the UK, have taken the word to describe their movement and it is a useful term for their subsection of the wider animal rights movement.

I first became interested in the issue of animal research and animal rights as a student at Oxford University in the UK in 2005. Studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics, I was probably more qualified to become a politician than I was to discuss animal research, but as I returned to my second year at Oxford, the hot topic was that AV extremists had burned down our student boathouses in protest against the new animal research facility the university was building. I became interested in the subject and spent some time researching AV websites. I was surprised to discover claims that animal research does not work and that it has held back science by many decades. The “33 facts of vivisection”, for example, references 33 claims (sometimes this list is expanded or reduced) as to why animal research does not work. What I found most concerning at the time was that the claims seemed to me to be the result of purposeful misrepresentation.

In early January 2005, it became apparent that a number of Oxford students felt the same way. The (now defunct) Oxford Gossip Internet forum was full of heated debates about animal research, and pro‐research/anti‐AV groups were gathering support on Facebook. At the same time, animal rights groups were posting calls to action to harass students, professors and partners of the university. On 22 January 2006, a communiqué from the Animal Liberation Front read: “This ALF team is calling out to the movement to unite and fight against the University on a maximum impact scale, we must stand up, DO WHATEVER IT TAKES and blow these fucking monsters off the face of the planet. Information, tools and resources are out there for everyone to take part in smashing the University of Oxford, all you need do is find them! All that stands between the animals and victory is our fear, GET OVER IT! Fear is their most valued weapon and the animals cannot afford for us to work within their boundaries. We must target their construction companies and the University’s current and future building projects. We must target professors, teachers, heads, students, investors, partners, supporters and ANYONE that dares to deal in any part of the University in any way. There is no time for debate and there is no time for protest, this is make or break time and from now on, ANYTHING GOES. We cannot fail these animals that will end up in those death chambers.”. This climate of hostility and fear understandably deterred many scientists from speaking up for research, which left the animal rights movement free reign to control the arguments presented in the media.

Ultimately, the galvanisation of the animal research advocacy movement fell to Laurie Pycroft, a then 16‐year old boy of whom British professor Sir Robert Winston described as having: “put the medical and scientific establishment, drug companies and universities to shame”. On 28 January 2006, while visiting his girlfriend, Laurie came across an animal rights demonstration protesting against the construction of the new Oxford Biomedical Research Facility. Frustrated with what he saw, he entered a shop, bought a large piece of card and marker pen and made a placard saying “Support Progress—Build the Oxford Lab!” He stood near the animal rights protest and held up his sign, despite the abuse hurled at him by AV activists.

Laurie wrote a blog entry about his day, announcing that he would hold a pro‐research rally in Oxford on February 25 to coincide with a national animal rights march through Oxford (a “pro‐test,” one of his blog followers wryly noted). In response, a handful of Oxford students approached Laurie and the “Pro‐Test” committee was born. The committee came to the decision that if we wanted people to follow us, we would have to shed our anonymity and come out publicly. To date, none of the committee has received anything nastier than a few vitriolic emails.

The Pro‐Test rally was hugely successful and the headline in the Guardian said it all: “The silent majority finds a voice”. Outnumbering the AV rally more than five‐to‐one, 850 students, scientists and members of the public marched through the streets of Oxford. From this point on, the pro‐research movement expanded rapidly, engaging in school, university, radio and TV debates up and down the country. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister at the time, signed the Coalition for Medical Progress’s “People’s Petition,” which accumulated more than 20,000 signatures in support of animal research. Moreover, Blair wrote an open letter to the Telegraph newspaper stating his support for animal research and the Pro‐Test movement. In June 2006, Pro‐Test held a second rally, once again bringing hundreds of people to the streets of Oxford.

Oxford University opened its new Biomedical Sciences Building in October 2008, offering state of the art equipment and a “gold standard” in animal care. Perhaps Pro‐Test’s biggest contribution was breaking the taboo that said that those who supported animal research should not say so openly. It is a taboo that must continue to be broken.

In March 2008, I became a fellow in public outreach at Americans for Medical Progress (AMP, USA) and founded Speaking of Research (SR), which aimed to provide accurate information about animal research and help mobilise students and staff to defend it. Over the next year, a committee of researchers, advocates technicians and science communicators came together to help run SR, giving talks, writing articles and reaching out to those affected by AV extremism.

The USA presented different challenges to the UK. National coverage is much harder to come by: incidents in one state are often not reported in the next, causing institutions to believe that tackling activism is “someone else’s problem.” I spent much time touring facilities and it was easy to see stark differences in approach. Those who had been targeted by animal rights protesters in the past had opened up their facilities for local journalists and residents to see. In this way, their local communities could assess for themselves the veracity of animal rights accusations. Those universities that were less open sometimes found themselves on the end of a protracted animal rights campaign. Scientists at UCLA, for example, had their houses flooded and were sent bombs and razor blades by mail. It was beginning to look like Oxford all over again.

In 2009, several weeks after David Jentsch, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry & Behavioural Sciences at UCLA, had his car firebombed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), he and a small committee, myself included, organised a rally to stand up against this extremism. UCLA Pro‐Test was born; it was later renamed Pro‐Test for Science.

On 22 April 2009, 40 animal rights activists gathered for World Week for Animals in Laboratories. Across the road, approximately 800 scientists, animal technicians and other members of UCLA marched in support of science and in opposition to animal rights extremism. The rally gave scientists an opportunity to explain the importance of animal research to journalists and members of the UCLA community. The Pro‐Test petition launched at the event garnered more than 11,000 signatures and was handed to representatives of the NIH at a second pro‐research rally 1 year later.

As SR marks its sixth birthday, I have learnt the importance of scientists supporting one another. Many researchers have felt isolated by their institution’s leadership, some of whom would rather end controversial research than stand up to activists. SR has always aimed to reach out to those researchers who have been targeted, giving them an outlet to discuss their research when their institution will not.

During 8 years of involvement, I have seen many different approaches to communicating the role of animals in research—everything from open discussion to a complete unwillingness to even acknowledge such research is conducted at an institution. I have also had many opportunities to interact and discuss with those opposed to animal research. This has allowed me to build a picture of how I believe the AV movement functions, how it is structured and the factors affecting its size and strength.

“Many researchers have felt isolated by their institution’s leadership, some of whom would rather end controversial research than stand up to activists”

AV groups and organisations vary in size and structure. Some can count their members on the one hand, while others, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA, USA), claim their membership in millions. Many of the larger animal rights organisations deal with a variety of related issues including animals for food, fur farming, pet ownership and hunting, while smaller groups often focus on just one issue.

Activists are those employed, either professionally or as volunteers, by AV groups (AVGs) and AV organisations (AVOs). While the line between AVGs and AVOs is not clear‐cut, AVOs are usually formal organisations that employ staff and tend to have a much larger turnover and greater assets. Examples of AVOs would include the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV; UK), Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM; USA) and PETA. Conversely, AVGs tend to be smaller, usually less established groups that do not salary their members, but may remunerate them for work done. Examples include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC; UK), SPEAK (UK), Negotiation is Over (NIO; USA) and Fermare Green Hill (Stop Green Hill; Italy). AVGs may grow into AVOs; both PETA and SAEN (Stop Animal Exploitation Now!, USA) grew from being groups of like‐minded people into tax‐registered non‐profits. However, many AVGs appear to prefer the flexibility associated with their informality and small size.

To study the AV movement, it is important to keep in mind that animal rights activism has become a profession for many of those involved. While many sociologists originally believed that social movements were simply forms of collective action by individuals with common grievances, the view was later criticised as incomplete since many such grievances exist without associated social movements. The development of Resource Mobilisation Theory (RMT) noted that individuals require sufficient resources to be available to form a movement and that this has a significant impact on the potential success of a movement [3]. Figure 1 uses RMT to illustrate the movement of people and resources in the AV movement. Key resources include money, communication tools, influential networks and the activists themselves.

Click to Enlarge

The amount of money provided by supporters is not small. In the USA, PETA had an income of US$35.3 million in 2013, while the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) received US$180 million in 2012 from its 11 million supporters. The combined income of the three largest AV organisations in the UK exceeds £5 million. Even non‐registered groups can accrue large sums of money. SHAC activists amassed “around £1 million in donations to SHAC’s collection buckets and bank account”.

Given these sums, it is not surprising to see a certain level of competition for supporters and funding between organisations. The AVOs work hard to break the biggest stories, for example through undercover filming or by trawling through research papers or reports for sensational and often groundless claims about animal abuse. Between 2007 and 2011, for example, SAEN made more than six complaints per year to the USDA, often following up on rejected complaints with accusations that the USDA was failing in its role of regulator (e.g. here). In 2012, PETA alleged animal cruelty relating to sound localisation experiments on cats at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison. Both the USDA and the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal cleared the university and found the allegations baseless.

Despite the competition and some friction between animal rights groups, many appear to be closely intertwined, with activists moving between them. Jerry Vlasak, who is currently a press officer for the Animal Liberation Press Office—the mouthpiece for the ALF—has been involved in SPEAK, the Animal Defence League, Sea Shepherd and PCRM. These fluid movements are reminiscent of the way top businessmen move between the boards of firms as the skills gained within the animal rights movement are easily transferable. Alistair Currie moved from Campaign Director at BUAV to Campaign Coordinator at PETA and finally left the AV movement to become a spokesman for Free Tibet. Just as an experienced marketing consultant may move from a clothes firm to a car manufacturer, so a professional activist moves from movement to movement as the relative tides change. This reflects the professional nature of activism; however, some activists have suggested a “contamination” effect from animal rights activism that can make it harder to move out of the AV movement and into unrelated areas of campaigning.

However, it would seem that some prominent activists have also risen through the ranks, particularly of AVGs, on the back of extreme activities they have carried out under the banner of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), an extremist group made up of small autonomous cells. Mel Broughton was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson in 1999 but went on to lead several campaigns, including against Oxford University. Luke Steele was sentenced to 18 months in 2012 for “harassing staff at Harlan laboratories” and now runs several AV organisations including the Anti‐Vivisection Coalition. Those serving prison sentenced gain prestige among parts of the AV community who support them and are quick to welcome them back into the fold upon release.

The tide of resources into the AV movement has ebbed and flowed over time. In 1903, after Stephen Coleridge, head of the National Anti‐Vivisection Society, lost £2,000 (over £200,000 in today’s money) in a libel action brought by the researcher William Bayliss during the Brown Dog Affair [4], the issue of animal research came to the attention of the media. As a result, resources flowed in; NAVS raised £5,735 (over £500,000 in today’s money) in just 4 months. Growing public disquiet about animal research also led to a string of dog protection bills being presented to parliament including the 1906 Dogs Act.

Activism waxed and waned in the following decades. In the 1960s, Ronnie Lee founded Band of Mercy, a direct action hunt saboteur group. Such groups helped to train animal rights activists in direct action methods. In 1975, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer wrote the seminal book, Animal Liberation, which provided the moral case for a new generation of activists [5]. The following year Ronnie Lee founded the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The 1980s saw the founding of the Animal Rights Militia, who sent bombs to politicians and animal researchers. By the early 1990s, AVGs were becoming more active. Extreme groups such as the Justice Department and Animal Rights Militia were abandoning the doctrine of non‐violence. There were dozens of bomb attacks against researchers and organisations.

In 1996–1997, activists Greg Avery and his first wife Heather Nicholson ran a 10‐month campaign that closed the Consort Kennels, a facility that bred dogs for medical research. In 1997, activists began a similar campaign that would eventually close Hillgrove Cat Farm. These campaigns were, on the face of it, legally conducted protests. Nonetheless, as support flowed in, some activists believed they had licence to take more extreme, illegal, actions: the Hillgrove Cat Farm campaign resulted in 21 jail sentences.

In 1999, Avery founded SHAC, whose members harassed and threatened staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), HLS’s clients and HLS’s clients’ other clients over a period of 10 years. These tactics have spread widely: the same were used in Oxford to target the contractors, and the HLS campaign was exported to the USA in 2004 under the leadership of Kevin Kjonaas, who had spent 2 years working with Avery in the UK. John Cook, the author of a Salon article on SHAC, summarises their tactics thus: “SHAC’s modus operandi is simple, elegant and shockingly effective: Publish the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of executives and employees of Huntingdon and any companies it does business with; identify these individuals as ‘targets’” [6].

The approach of seasoned activists is professional: they take on a campaign, complete it and then look for the next one to start. It seems to me that the speed and size of a campaign is often determined by the donations to the previous campaign; in my analysis, each of Greg Avery’s campaigns was bigger than the last. As such, successful campaign leaders become role models and groom supporters to become activists (Fig 1).

Most campaigns have been relatively short. Consort Kennels was closed in 10 months, Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge achieved its goals within 1 year and its successor, SPEAK, forced out the first Oxford lab building contractors in less than 6 months. As a campaign drags on, it can become harder to find supporters to volunteer time and money to the cause. This can increase the pressure to take more desperate measures. Perhaps the most drastic was the grave‐robbing of Gladys Hammond’s body by the Animal Rights Militia (ARM) in 2004. As the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign (SNGP) dragged into its fifth year, ARM extremists stole the remains of the deceased mother‐in‐law of one of the guinea pig farm’s owners. Four members of SNGP were later convicted of using the desecration to blackmail the family into shutting down the farm, which happened the following year.

Such actions brought widespread public condemnation and the British police were granted new powers to tackle animal rights extremism. The UK Government set up the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) to deal with domestic extremism. The crackdown and subsequent arrests included Mel Broughton (10 years), Greg Avery (9 years) and Kevin Kjonaas (6 years). Suddenly young activists were deprived of experienced mentors and many AV activists moved into other related movements. For example, Amanda King, a British protester who was previously involved in the campaign against Oxford University and the Newchurch guinea pig campaign, was most recently involved in protesting against the UK Government’s proposed badger cull. Alongside her were veteran hunt saboteurs and campaigners who had protested against HLS and Hillgrove Cat Farm, UK.

AV extremism fell steadily from around 2005, which was likely due to a number of factors. NETCU focused heavily on animal rights extremism, with judges handing down harsher sentences. Pro‐research communication was also increasing with the Coalition for Medical Progress and the Science Media Centre both founded in 2002, and the Pro‐Test movement was gaining widespread media and public support. Finally, the public condemnation that followed high profile incidents, such as the grave‐robbing of Gladys Hammond, made animal rights a less attractive issue for young activists.

While extremism in the UK and USA has fallen to an all‐time low, there are signs that activism is on the rise in other countries. In particular, activists from across Europe are targeting Italian pharmaceutical companies, universities and breeders in a sustained campaign that may pose a serious threat to research in Italy. In the past 2 years, activists have broken into a beagle breeding facility at Green Hill, “liberating” dozens of dogs; blockaded a shipment of beagles to the pharmaceutical company Menarini until the dogs were given to activists; and broken into the University of Milan, where they mixed up the animals’ records and seized approximately 100 animals. Fortunately, a vigorous response is already underway, with the newly formed Pro‐Test Italia attracting hundreds of scientists to rallies in Milan and Rome. Nonetheless, such strong responses are few and far between—after a Brazilian research facility recently shut down after activists raided it, taking almost 200 dogs, there was only minimal response from the scientific community.

“In particular, activists from across Europe are targeting Italian pharmaceutical companies, universities and breeders in a sustained campaign”

Back in the UK, online campaigns against universities seem to be increasing in number and magnitude, while a multi‐faceted campaign by many AVGs and AVOs to prevent airlines transporting primates has left only a few willing to do so. In January 2012, the last of the ferry companies transporting laboratory animals across the English Channel stopped its service as a result of pressure from AV groups.

So what should we be doing now? Thanks to the efforts of pro‐advocacy groups and the outreach activities of many research institutions and scientists, there have been positive developments in how we discuss the use of animals in research. Furthermore, as many extremists in the UK and USA are in jail, or are recently released and under control orders that ban them from being involved in AV activism, there is little danger of extremism.

Scientists must spend more time explaining their work to the public, why animals are vital to biomedical research and the measures taken to minimise their suffering in laboratories. Social networks and online outlets, such as university departmental webpages, science blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, all offer ways for scientists to interact with the public—particularly younger audiences. Understanding Animal Research’s (UAR) “Science Action Network” points the scientific community towards articles that misrepresent animal research and posts links to Twitter with the hashtag #ARnonsense. Scientists who search for this hashtag, or who follow @ARnonsenseRT, can then go to these articles and leave comments correcting the misinformation within them. The result is that members of the public who come across these articles can quickly reassess their content.

Younger scientists often find it the hardest to speak up. Nevertheless, their voices are important. Start small; conversations with friends and family play a crucial part in “normalising” the issue of animal research, as well as practising science communication skills. Simple things like sharing animal research stories on Twitter or making mention of animal research on Facebook provide another avenue for discussion. A step further would be to write for a blog, student or local newspaper. Speaking of Research started a series of guest posts entitled “Speaking of Your Research” to provide scientists and animal care staff with a safe environment to discuss why they use animals. With science becoming more popular with the general public, there has never been a better time to discuss this issue (note the 12+ million likes for the “I Fucking Love Science” Facebook page).

“… scientists still go surprisingly quiet about animal research.”

While researchers directly involved in animal research are in the best position to talk about what they do, they are also open to accusations of bias. Therefore, it is important that the rest of the scientific community helps to explain why such research is carried out. All scientists should promote the value of both basic and applied science in all fields. I know plenty of researchers who have defended the Rothamsted Research Institute’s genetically modified wheat trials in the UK in the face of anti‐GM protests in May 2012. Yet, scientists still go surprisingly quiet about animal research.

Institutions must also speak louder. It was reassuring, for instance, that the Bremen University in Germany legally and financially supported researcher Andreas Kreiter against attempts to shut down his research on macaque monkeys. Yet, in my view, too many research institutions, particularly in the USA, lack clear and open statements about the existence and importance of their animal research programmes. This is especially true of those organisations which fund, but do not carry out, animal research, such as medical research charities. The more details provided, along with pictures and videos, the better; otherwise, activists will be happy to supply their own, unrepresentative images. Organisations also need to work with local communities, inviting residents and journalists to tour facilities and sending scientists to schools in the local area. This can help minimise the resources (of local supporters) available to a new AV campaign (Fig 1). Importantly, such actions must happen in the good times, or else risk being perceived as a cheap public relations stunt.

“The more details provided, along with pictures and videos, the better; otherwise, activists will be happy to supply their own, unrepresentative images”

While we still have a way to go, the UK continues to provide the best practice in pro‐research advocacy. Newspapers regularly report on interesting or promising research involving animals, thereby normalising the animal research issue. Universities and other institutions have driven this change by mentioning the animals used in research more regularly. Nonetheless, the long wait between initial studies in animals and the launch of new treatments means that the public can often lose sight of the link between the two. Those working on clinical research have a duty to recognise the contribution of animals when discussing new therapies with the press. In 2012, more than 40 institutions and organisations signed the Declaration on Openness, pledging to do more to communicate the important research they carry out. This is a positive step that could be emulated in other countries.

Medical research involving animals is important to all of us, and we all have a duty to provide the accurate information the public needs to make up their mind.

References

1. Pew Research (2009) Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
2. Ipsos Mori (2012) Views on the Use of Animals in Research. London, UK: Ipsos Mori. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/I/ipsos-mori-views-on-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research-September-2012
3. <em>McCarthy JD, Zald Z N (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. Am J Sociol 82: 1212–1241 CrossRef
4. Illman J (2008) Animal Research in Medicine: 100 years of Politics, Protests and Progress. The Story of the Research Defence Society. London: Research Defence Society
5. Singer P (1985) The Animal Liberation Movement: its Philosophy, its Achievements, and its Future. Nottingham: Russell Press
6. Cook J (2006) Thugs for puppies. Salon, Feb 7. www.salon.com/2006/02/07/thugs_puppies/

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/embr.201438837

Animal rights proponents defend the idea the we do not have the right to use animals for anything, including food, clothing, entertainment and scientific research. However, they seem to be having a hard time convincing people to stop eating meat, wearing leather and having pets, so they have disproportionately targeted animal research, where the link between animal use and the benefit that we derive from it seems less obvious [1]. Still, once they start thinking about it, people soon realize that using animals to find new cures is far more ethically justifiable than eating a steak or wearing a leather jacket [2]. For that reason, animal rights proponents have found it necessary to put forward an additional argument: that in fact animal research does not accomplish its stated goals. Lately, we have seen this idea repeated over and over again as a key argument against animal research. In this article I will argue against it. To be absolutely clear what I’m arguing against, I am spelling out that claim as follows:

“Animal research is useless because disease mechanisms are very different between animals and humans, so drugs that work on animals do not work on humans.”

The first part of the claim implies that there are fundamental differences in physiology between animals and humans. Is that true? Quite the opposite: the great many discoveries made in biochemistry and molecular biology show that all the basic mechanisms of life are common to all living beings. Perhaps one day we will discover extraterrestrial life that is radically different for ours, but all living beings on Earth work pretty much the same way. All use DNA to store genetic information and RNA and ribosomes to translate that information to proteins. That translation is based on the genetic code, which is common to all living beings. All living beings have proteins made with the same 20 amino acids, and only with the L stereoisomers of these amino acids. All living beings use glycolysis, the Krebs’s cycle and the respiratory chain to generate ATP for energy. All living beings have a double-layer of lipids as a cell membrane. And these are just a few examples. It seems that the basic functioning of cells was set by chemical evolution billions of years ago, even before multicellular systems started to evolve, and has not changed ever since. There are more similarities than differences even between the mayor kingdoms of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. If we focus just on animals, we find that their nervous systems are formed by neurons of similar characteristics, with similar neurotransmitters and receptors. Mammals have a majority of genes in common and their organs are very similar.

“Mammals have a majority of genes in common and their organs are very similar”

Moving on to the second part of the claim, is it true that some drugs work on animals but not on humans, and vice versa? Yes, this is true for a few drugs. For example, take catnip: cats can get high on catnip but this doesn’t happen to humans or to most other mammals. Nevertheless, many other psychoactive drugs, like morphine and barbiturates, have similar effects in all mammals. The important thing, however, is that even if some drugs do not have the same effect in animals and humans, this does not represent a major problem for animal research. To understand why, we need to go into the details of why there are differences in the action of drugs between species. The key lies in the structure of proteins. Proteins are like nanomachines that carry all the essential functions in life: catalyzing chemical reactions, moving chemicals in and out of the cell, processing signals inside the cell, generating action potentials in neurons, contracting muscle, copying DNA, making other proteins by translating DNA, etc. They are made of 20 amino acids linked to each other in long chains. The amino acid sequence is what determines what a protein does, just like the sequence of the 26 letters of the alphabet determines what this article says. The amino acid sequence of all the proteins in the body is encoded in the sequence of the DNA, so that each gene in the DNA is translated to a particular protein. This long string of amino acids folds itself into a blob whose shape determines what the protein does. In particular, there are nooks and crannies in these blobs where different chemicals (a neurotransmitter, a hormone, a metabolite, etc.) can attach themselves like a key to its lock, subtly changing the shape of the protein and its function. Drugs works by binding to the protein instead of its natural ligand, acting like a key to turn the protein on or off. The shape of the binding site is determined by the few amino acids that configure it, whose sequence is encoded in the DNA. Now, here is the catch: a small mutation in the DNA can change one of the amino acids that configure the binding site and this would cause a drug that before fitted into it, like a key into a lock, to not fit any more. So small changes in DNA from one species to another can cause a drug that worked in one species to not work on another species.

A protein binding site

Then, doesn’t this problem prevent us from developing drugs in animals? Not at all! There are many ways to work around this problem. First, nowadays it is very easy to sequence a protein, so that we know the amino acids that form its binding sites in every species. Then we can select a particular species whose protein has a binding site similar to a human protein. That is why we need a wide choice of animals in which to perform research, not just mice and rats. Recently, the perfect solution was found: we can take the human gene for a given protein and swap it for the original protein in a mouse, so the mouse now has a protein identical to humans. Hence, differences in protein binding sites are no longer a problem. In fact, today this represents only a minor inconvenience in animal research. We have much bigger problems to tackle. Contrary to the view presented by animal rights organizations, drug testing is just a very minor part of the animal research enterprise. We use animals in scientific research to accomplish four different goals.

Goal 1: describing physiological mechanisms

The human body is the most complex thing that we know. We have many different organs regulated by a multitude of signals from the endocrine, the immune and the nervous system. Each organ is formed by different types of cells that interact which each other. Inside each cell, specialized signal transduction pathways ensure that the cell perform its particular function. Before we can alter this enormously complicated system with medications, we need to know how it works. Fortunately, organs and cells work in the same ways in all mammals, so we can use a variety of mammal species to investigate these phenomena. The human brain is quite different from the rodent brain, but similar enough to the monkey brain to study some higher brain functions in it. We have at our disposal a vast collection of experimental techniques that can be used to study the organization of the body (anatomy), the functioning of every organ (physiology) and the behavior of the animal as a whole. Advanced technologies include electrophysiology (patch-clamp, multiple neurons, single nerve fiber, etc.); optogenetics to stimulate or inhibit neurons using light; DREADD to change the behavior of an specific population of cells with a harmless drug; functional imaging (PET, fMRI); immunohistochemistry; confocal microscopy; electron microscopy; behavioral tests to study pain, anxiety, drug abuse, etc. These methodologies are incredibly sophisticated and took decades to develop. Yet, they all have in common that they used animals in their development. Thanks to the application of these methodologies in experimental animals, we are discovering how the mammalian body works. However, given its enormous complexity, much work still remains to be done.

Optogenetics involved using light to control genetically modified cells inside the body

Goal 2: create animal models of disease

Understanding physiology in the healthy condition is not enough, to cure a disease we also need to know how it is changed by the disease. In fact, many of the most challenging diseases that we face nowadays, like Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, chronic pain and cancer, are alterations of physiological mechanisms. Since there are obvious ethical limits to do invasive procedures in human patients, we need to study diseases in animals. In the best case scenario, the disease that we are investigating also occurs in the animals, so we just need to get some animals that have it. However, there are diseases that are unique to humans, like Alzheimer’s, or that rarely occur in animals, like heart disease and some forms of chronic pain. In these cases we need to create a condition in the animal that resembles as much as possible the human disease. We call that an “animal model” of the disease. For example, mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease have been created by changing some of their genes [3, 4]. In another example, models of chronic pain can be generated by injecting chemicals in the paw of mice and rats [5]. The problem here is that the animal model is based on a hypothesis on how the disease works; if the hypothesis is wrong, so is the animal model. Therefore, much work has to be devoted to the validation of an animal model before it can be used to study the disease. Inevitably, some animal models turn out to be invalid. Instances of this have been taken as a proof that the whole concept of animal models of disease is wrong [6]. It is actually the opposite: the creation of the models is already an investigation of the disease. Discarding a model is progress, the same way that discarding a hypothesis is part of the scientific method.

Goal 3: finding targets for drug development

Unraveling a physiological mechanism leads to the identification of the proteins that are involved in it, working together like machines in an assembly line. This way we can find key proteins whose function we can tweak to adjust that physiological mechanism the way we want. These are what we call “target” proteins, because that is where the drugs that we want to develop will act. Once we know which ones they are, we can compare their amino acid sequence across species to identify differences from the same protein in humans. Of course, it is a bit more complicated than that, because entire signal pathways may differ between species, but once we know them in one species we can explore what these variations are. Again, this is why we need to use species other than rodents for biomedical research to be successful.

Goal 4: Drug screening

This is, indeed, the “animal testing” that is often presented as the sole endeavor of animal research. In fact, a lot of drug screening is not done in animals at all! If we have found the physiological mechanism (goal 1) involved in a particular disease (goal 2), and identified a target protein (goal 3), we can simply express that protein in a cell culture and use it to test thousands of drugs very quickly to find the ones that have the best effect. The drugs that are validated this way are then tested in animals. For that we will choose an species in which the protein is similar to its human version. Most likely, a drug will be tested in several species and animal models of the disease before moving it to clinical trials in human patients.

When a target protein is identified it is possible to test thousands of drugs very quickly to find the most effective ones. These drugs are then candidates to move on to animal tests. Credit: ECVAM

Therefore, both parts of the claim made by animal rights proponents are false. Physiology is similar enough between humans and the rest of mammals to make it possible to translate discoveries from animals to humans. Furthermore, science has developed the right strategies to investigate human diseases in animals and use the findings to develop medications that work in humans (and in animals as well, in the case of veterinary medicine). Of course, I can only provide here a very general overview of tremendously difficult problems that are trying to be solved by some of the best minds in the world. Not everything is smooth sailing, there are some big obstacles in translating discoveries made in animals to humans. Nobody said that science was easy. However, giving up animal research following the advice of animal rights ideologues would the most foolhardy thing to do. The ultimate proof that animal research is able to produce cures for human diseases is that it has done so on countless occasions in the past.

Juan Carlos Marvizon, Ph.D.

References

1. Morrison, A.R., Perverting medical history in the service of “animal rights”. Perspect Biol Med, 2002. 45(4): p. 606-19.
2. Ringach, D.L., The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research. American Journal of Medical Sciences, 2011. 342(4): p. 305-313.
3. Van Dam, D. and P.P. De Deyn, Animal models in the drug discovery pipeline for Alzheimer’s disease. British Journal of Pharmacology, 2011. 164(4): p. 1285-1300.
4. Sturchler-Pierrat, C., et al., Two amyloid precursor protein transgenic mouse models with Alzheimer disease-like pathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1997. 94(24): p. 13287-13292.
5. Marvizon, J.C., et al., Latent sensitization: a model for stress-sensitive chronic pain. Curr Protoc Neurosci, 2015. 71: p. 9 50 1-9 50 14.
6. Shanks, N., R. Greek, and J. Greek, Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 2009. 4: p. 2.

This post was originally written by Tom Holder and posted on the Understanding Animal Research blog. It has been reposted here (with permission). This is not the first time Speaking of Research has posted on this issue, with a previous post by Dario Ringach here. The original post was geared to UK audiences – we had added comparable US statistics where possible in red.

I recently wrote an article for Huffington Post UK on why we should support the new dog breeding facility to be built in Yorkshire. Like many articles dealing with animal research the comment section has a recurring theme – why not use convicts? This is usually (but not always) qualified by suggesting such testing be limited to the most violent offenders (usually murderers and paedophiles). Here is a selection of the comments found below the article:

Perhaps I should be unsurprised by the number of commenters supporting testing on convicts, given that support for capital punishment for those convicted of certain crimes has generally been over 50% in the UK (though dropping to 48% in 2014; in the US support was approximately 61% in 2015).

UK Support for Death Penalty

US Support for Death Penalty. Image not in original post.

But what about the scientific and practical issues relating to the use of prisoners in research?

We will, for the sake of time, ignore the legal arguments. But it should be noted that in order to allow the forced testing of prisoners in the UK we would have to withdraw from numerous UK and EU laws such as The Human Rights Act, 1998.

I am also putting aside the ethical arguments. Following World War II and the discovery of medical experiments on prisoners at Nazi concentration camps, the medical community came up with a set of 10 ethical principles called the Nuremberg code, which ruled out human experimentation without informed consent, and insisted that such research should only happen after prior knowledge gained from animal experiments. This was later built into the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethical debates are wide-ranging, but many of the arguments for and against align closely with those for and against the death penalty.

Medical Histories – do we have them for prisoners?

When scientists want to conduct an experiment to test a theory, they try and limit all other variables. So if researchers want to understand if a medical intervention is having a positive effect, they need to make sure that food, temperature, liquid intake, prior health etc, are as similar as possible. This can be done in animals, where such variables have been controlled and recorded; often since the animals’ birth. From this the researcher can see the benefits (if any) of the intervention, and begin to make conclusions knowing that the only thing that differed between the control group and the main group was the intervention.

This same is not possible with prisoners, whose medical history will be more limited. The individual could have picked up natural immunities to all manner of diseases, creating confounding variables in the research. Many of those in prison have past problems with drugs or alcohol, or other health related issues which may interfere with the experiments.

Genetics research – how could it be done?

There were almost 280,000 procedures done in 2013 to look at genetics. However, there were many more procedures where genetics were studies in relation to other diseases. For example, researchers may have been interested to know whether a certain gene was a risk-factor in cancer, or whether blocking a certain protein (coded for by a gene) would treat the symptoms of heart disease. In 2013, 52% of all procedures in the UK involved the breeding of a genetically modified animal – this is over 2 million procedures.

So, much research into genetics requires scientists to breed mice with certain genes turned on or off in order to understand what effects this has. This obviously has ethical problems with humans; surely the prison-born offspring of a guilty prisoner should be treated as innocent (and thus not eligible for testing). Even if we swept such ethical considerations aside, human reproduction takes 9 months to produce one baby, and then another 15-17 years for the offspring to reach sexual maturity. Mice can reproduce in 20 days, and the offspring are sexually mature within 6-8 weeks. A researcher can study the inheritance and effects of a gene over multiple generations of mice within a single year – the same research would take a lifetime to conduct in humans. The result is that many genetic studies would be almost impossible to conduct in prison populations.

Numbers – are there enough prisoners?

Currently, it is illegal to give a new medicine to a human volunteer until it has been safety tested in animals. This toxicology testing involves giving the new compound to animals and then carrying out a post-mortem examination in order to see if any harm has been done to any part of the animal. Thus toxicology testing using prisoners would necessarily mean the death of the individual. At the moment, around 109,000 animals are used each year in the safety testing of pharmaceutical compounds in the UK. How does this stack up with our prison populations?

Let’s have a look at the prison populations. In 2013 there were 83,842 prisoners – but our commentators want us to limit ourselves to the worst offenders. So limiting the population to those sentenced to more than 4 years (serious crimes) for either violence against a person (which includes murder, manslaughter as well as slightly less serious offences such as assault etc) or sexual offences (which include rape and paedophilia) leaves us with just 21,572.

Alternatively we could have looked at the annual sentencing. Most violent crimes that people have mentioned in the comments were either violent sexual offences (rape or paedophilia) or murder. Of the 3,687 custodial sentences for sexual offences in 2014, fewer than 2,800 were for serious crimes where the average sentences were over 2 years (which would certainly include rape and paedophilia). Of the 11,098 “violence against the person” custodial sentences, fewer than 700 were crimes involving death (murder, manslaughter, or a driving offence involving someone’s death). So overall we have up to 3,500 new serious violent criminals being added to the potential convict testing numbers every year. While comparable US statistics are difficult to get, consider that the US passes only around 100 death sentences per year to those whose crimes it consider heinous enough to justify the punishment.

In the UK we conduct around 4 million procedures on animals each year (4.1 million in 2013). Even if humans could be used more often, and even if fewer of them were needed for each experiment, it seems hard to square the 4 million procedures with either the 20,000 or so violent criminals in prison at any one time, or the 3,500 new ones coming into the system each year (as others complete their sentences and leave). Even if we just used prisoners for toxicology testing, this currently requires around 375,000 animals each year in the UK. In the US, around 12-25 million animals are used each year, though the number for toxicology is not collated.

Veterinary research

A final area where human research makes no sense (prisoner or otherwise) is veterinary science. While not all treatments are initially developed using the target species (a mouse may help develop a cancer treatment which is eventually given to dogs), the target species will need to be used at some point to test safety and efficacy. Such research could not be done on humans. Just as we use clinical trials on humans to determine the final safety of a new human treatment before it goes to market, so we use animals to test the safety of a new veterinary treatment for that animal before it can be used commercially.

In Conclusion, No

Overall, we see that it would not make scientific sense to replace many of the animal studies with human experiments. Prisoners do not come with lifetime medical histories, their genetics cannot be manipulated, and frankly, there just aren’t enough of them. It would not make scientific sense to use humans as a replacement for animals.

And while I said I would not ponder the ethics of testing on convicts, I will share a single ethical question that a colleague put to me. If it were morally acceptable to conduct medical testing on violent criminals, would it also be morally acceptable to eat them?

Tom Holder

A few weeks ago we wrote about the misinformation the Animal Justice Project was spreading about malaria research at the Karolinska Institute. Now PETA are at it. We thought we’d explain what was wrong with their claims.

PETA getting it wrong about the Karolinska. Click to Enlarge

In this post we look at whether or not Jeremy Bentham, an eminent 18^th and 19^th century English philosopher,  was opposed to animal experiments. Ahead of his time in many areas, Bentham advocated for freedom of expression, abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, and the separation of church and state. His Utilitarian philosophy has influenced philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and, more recently, Peter Singer.

In his 1789 book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he briefly muses the question of rights for non-human beings. In a footnote, the following can be found.  

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

This bolded section (my emphasis) has been held up by the animal rights movement as an argument against animal research. The quote can be found on the websites of PETA, Animal Aid, New England Anti-Vivisection Society and many other animal rights groups.

NEAVS website, April 2016

You can read a full debunking of Bentham’s argument for the rights of animals in our “Animal Rights Philosophy” section. An extract can be found below:

Bentham neglects to explain why suffering should be a basis for rights. Central to this question is that of “What grants rights?”

[…]

It is the power for entirely autonomous thought and action which grants rights to human, uniquely among all animals. However there is more to the advent of rights. With a right comes a duty. My right and your right not to be arbitrarily killed are fundamentally linked to your duty, and my duty, not to arbitrarily kill someone else. My right to property hinges on my duty not to steal from other people. Before civic society came about, humans were free of any laws preventing them from killing each other, however killing your neighbor would justify your neighbor’s friend in killing you. So an unuttered agreement formed that said “if I don’t kill you, you don’t kill me”, and the beginnings of society could come about.

Animals cannot partake in any agreement. They cannot understand the duties required of them that would allow them to receive the protection that rights would offer them.

However, to return to the original question: Was Jeremy Bentham an Antivivisectionist? Many have taken his quote to mean that he was, however, in a Letter to Editor to the Morning Chronicle, March 4^th 1825, Bentham tackles this question head on. His first sentence outlines his position clearly:

Sir, —I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it.

He goes on to say what the vast majority of us would agree with – that unnecessary animal suffering should be avoided.

So there you have it – Bentham was not against animal research. Such tactics of adopting people based on single sentences has been common. We have seen Albert Sabin – creator of the oral polio vaccine – misrepresented, we have seen former NIH director, Elias Zerhouni misrepresented. And Bentham is not the only philosopher. While Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, has certainly supported principles of animal rights on a Utilitarian basis, his views on the matter are more nuanced than many activists give him credit for. In 2006, while debating the issue with Prof Tipu Aziz – a brain surgeon who has conducted pioneering work into deep brain stimulation – Singer agreed that Aziz’s use of monkeys could probably be justified. The Independent writes:

In the film Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing, Singer is seen in discussion with the Oxford academic Professor Tipu Aziz, who has been conducting experiments on macaque monkeys as part of his work to find a treatment for Parkinson’s disease and other illnesses. Told by Aziz that tests on some 100 monkeys has led to positive treatment for 40,000 patients, Singer responds that he “would certainly not say that no animal research could be justified.

Or watch the segment of the documentary Monkey Rats and Me, below:

Next time you see Bentham quotes plastered on animal rights websites, just remember:

Sir, —I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it.

Speaking of Research

This article was originally posted on 16 March 2015. On 4 June 2015 we received representation from Cruelty Free International (CFI) asking us to reconsider some of the wording. On 2^nd December 2015, at a Judicial Review, CFI and the Home Office agreed to make two, small clarifications to an ASRU report. Having considered all of CFI’s comments, the Judicial Review, and reflected upon the article, we have amended these and reposted them as they appear below.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is a UK anti-vivisection group with a history of infiltrations into labs and of making allegations  which do not always stand up to scrutiny of investigations of the Government inspectors (The Animals in Science Regulation Unit; ASRU). A newly published report from a government investigation reveals just how far the BUAV bent the truth when they made a number of false allegations against the University of Cambridge last year.

Fool Me Twice

In October, 2014, we wrote about how two separate investigations by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU; the Government’s inspection unit) found allegations by the BUAV to be mostly groundless. In both cases the allegations had followed an infiltration by a BUAV activist.

The first report investigated the BUAV’s allegations against Imperial College London. This was made via a 71 page submission to the Home Office and accompanying video footage that together contained over 180 “events which might have formed the basis for an allegation of non-compliance” :

Twenty-one potential cases of non-compliance were identified and 18 were formally investigated. Of these, all were found to be unsubstantiated apart from five formal non-compliance cases which have been completed – one category A and four Category B.

Category B means that while there may have been “some animal welfare implications“, it “[did] not involve significant, avoidable or unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm“, there was “no evidence of intent to subvert the controls of ASPA“. Typically a category B non-compliance case results in a written reprimand and individuals involved may require additional training.

A second ASRU report into BUAV allegations against a pharmaceutical company conducting tests on veterinary medicines found:

No non-compliance with authorised programmes of work was detected apart from two minor issues with no welfare implications.
[…]
Our detailed investigations and review of available records and other evidence, does not support the allegations in the investigation report.

So twice last year the BUAV has been found  making unsubstantiated claims that are likely to have painted a misleading picture about the reality of conditions within labs.

Third Time Lucky?

In the post “The BUAV – Unsubstantiated Claims, Spies and Videotapes” we discussed an infiltration by the BUAV at Cambridge University. The infiltration and subsequent “expose” regarded research on sheep into Huntington’s and Batten’s disease. The allegations made were that there was “…distressing animal suffering, unlawful regulation by the Home Office, inadequate care of animals and inadequate enforcement by the inspectorate”. The 32-page report by the BUAV was supplemented by a four-and-a-half minute edited video (put together from hours and hours of footage by the infiltrator) but when ASRU officials wrote to them requesting further video footage they might have, the BUAV replied that “there was nothing further they wished to share with ASRU”. One guesses hours of footage of Cambridge University researchers abiding by the laws and regulations was not in BUAV’s interest to share. It also suggests that the BUAV’s aim is not to address animal welfare issues at Cambridge, but to score points in their stated effort to “end all animal testing”. This month ASRU released their report into the allegations.

A sheep with Batten’s involved in the study at the University of Cambridge (Image credit: University of Cambridge)

Cambridge had previously provided a strong rebuttal of each the claims made by the BUAV. These claims appear to be a mix of exaggerated information and flatly false information. For instance Cambridge noted:

It is alleged that a lamb had to be euthanized at a UK airport after becoming sick during transit from New Zealand. One of the lambs did appear disorientated on arrival in London, but was cleared by the Veterinary surgeon as being fit to continue his travels. No adverse effects were seen in any of the animals on arrival in Cambridge a few hours later.

ASRU’s report is equally clear about this claim [p.13]:

In summary, we conclude that this allegation is simply untrue in relation to the sheep imported for the Project Licence holder’s research. No animals required euthanasia or were found dead on arrival a Heathrow Airport.

And some of their allegations appear to be of the BUAV’s own making. According to the University of Cambridge’s report:

We are careful to avoid causing stress to the Batten’s disease sheep. As their disease develops, they become confused and can become agitated, particularly when approached by unfamiliar people or surroundings. Thus the animal care team is careful not to isolate any sheep from its flock-mates, allow interaction with strangers, or make sudden or unnecessary changes to their routines. It appears that the BUAV infiltrator not only disrupted their routines in the making of the undercover videos, but also isolated the animals. This will have made the sheep appear more agitated than they are when under routine care.

ASRU have added that [p.13]:

The Establishment has mechanisms in place for whistle-blowing, and it is of note that no animal welfare concerns had been raised by any staff at the Establishment, including the animal rights organisation’s infiltrator…

A similar comment was also made in the ASRU report into the Imperial allegations.

The conclusion to the ASRU report into the Cambridge infiltration makes damning reading for anyone who believed in the integrity of the BUAV.

Our detailed investigations, and review of available records and other evidence to do not support any of the allegations made by the animal rights organisation
[…]
None of these allegations has been substantiated nor has any allegation given us further cause for concern with regard to compliance with the requirements of the legislation at this Establishment.

Sound familiar? Once again the inspection reports have found the BUAV spinning the facts.

One additional paragraph in the ASRU report on the University of Cambridge gives an insight into what the inspectors really thought about the BUAV’s allegations:

A small number of the allegations were based on hearsay evidence and we can neither confirm nor deny these. However given the overall lack of substance where relevant evidence was to be found we do not consider it likely that any of these other allegations would be substantiated.

Ouch!

The BUAV

Of the £1.3 million that BUAV spent in 2014 (not including money spent by their three associate companies, Animal Properties, BUAV Charitable Trust and Cruelty Free International), around £200,000 was spent on “Investigations”. Any curious journalist should be asking the BUAV whether they were paying these infiltrators, how much these payments were, and what they expected (video wise) from their employees.

To remind people of what we have said before. These are not casual whistle blowers, but people who are working at animal research facilities with the express intention of creating newsworthy videotapes. Be it a school, a hospital, a factory or a restaurant, there are few businesses for which you could not create a cleverly edited 5 minute shock video having secretly filmed for hundreds of hours.

One has to wonder how many BUAV infiltrators are in labs around the UK. Moreover, one wonders, how many BUAV infiltration videos were never publicised due to the lack of newsworthy footage (even after clever editing)?

Speaking of Research

On 21^st July the UK government released its stats on how many animals were used in UK research and the race was on. Many British universities raced to tweet the numbers of animals they’d used in 2015 and draw attention to their webpages on the subject. Science organisations raced to explain to the media what they were looking at in terms of real-world research. Animal rights groups raced to get their fantasy narrative into as many newspapers as possible.

Upon hearing of a 0.5% increase from 2013, Michelle Thew of Cruelty Free International said “This lack of progress is completely unacceptable”. This is perhaps unsurprising: in 2012, Thew noted of a 2% rise that “the lack of progress is completely unacceptable”; In 2013 (8% rise), Thew noted “This lack of progress is completely unacceptable”; and in 2015, after stats showed a 6% FALL in the animal statistics, she still noted “This lack of progress is completely unacceptable”. Perhaps it’s time for a new speechwriter?

Cruelty Free International also press released that “A shocking 30% of experiments were assessed by animal researchers and the Home Office as being moderate or severe”. This was a bit of statistical trickery. Having just mentioned that there were “4.14 million experiments* completed during 2015”, the 30% only referred to “experimental procedures” and not “procedures for creation and breeding of genetically altered animals” (see table below). The truth is that of the 4.14 million procedures, only 18.2% were moderate or severe (13.7% vs 4.5%), down from 19.2% in 2014 (14.4% moderate vs 4.8% severe)**.

*CFI’s press release uses ‘experiments’ and ‘procedures’ almost interchangeable. The UK tends to prefer ‘procedures’, which is any intervention, or set of interventions, which have the potential to cause suffering or harm equal or greater than a simple injection.

Severity of animal research procedures in the UK in 2015

Hyperbole came thick and fast from PETA, whose own press release noted “126,000 animals didn’t regain consciousness after experiments classified as ‘non-recovery’” before going on to mention severe experiments. Non-recovery studies mean animals are put under with anaesthetic and intentionally given an overdose of anaesthesia to ensure they never wake up**. These animals do not suffer from the procedure – they are completely anaesthetised from the beginning of surgery until death.

**For more information about severity categories in the UK, please read “Advisory notes on recording and reporting the actual severity of regulated procedures“. 

A special distinction, though, goes to Julia Baines from PETA, who wrote an article for International Business Times that gleefully twists reality to the point that Mark Twain would probably have considered it a credible piece of satire.

“Four million animals were used in British experiments in 2015 – why aren’t we using alternative methods?”

The title is fairly quickly answered by the fact that in the UK, it is illegal to use an animal if there’s an alternative. The author knows this, but still decides to spend another 651 words not mentioning it.

“Britain is officially one of the worst offenders in Europe for scientific animal testing. According to the annual government statistics released today, cats, dogs, monkeys and other animals were used in a staggering 4.14 million experiments in 2015, a figure comparable only to France and Germany throughout the continent.”

Well on a purely empirical level this is false. British, French and German figures are all considerably lower than those in Norway, which used 4.82 million animals in 2014 (mostly fish). Then there is the rather tricky description of animals used. Rather than mention the mice, rats and fish that account for over 93% of research, they pick three species which  together account for 0.2% of animal studies in the UK.

“Currently, despite evidence that experiments on animals systematically fail to benefit humans, scientists in Britain …”

This huge statement is taken as fact. No “evidence” is provided. Perhaps she does not wish to bore us with details.

“continue to withhold food and water from animals in order to make them cooperate with experimenters; poison them with ever-increasing doses of toxic chemicals until they die; and attach bolts to their skulls so that they can be “fixed” to a chair.”

There is NOTHING in the article linked to, which suggests food was withheld, or even restricted. The study did restrict water intake for 6 days per week (It was not withheld; animals were always given adequate hydration). We spoke to the study author, who told us:

“All animals get as much food and liquid as they want and need, and the animals are not food or water deprived. We maintain controlled access to food or liquid and give specific amounts for behavioural reactions, and we supplement food or water if they don’t get enough during experimental sessions.”

The second claim is even more egregious, as of the list of 19 studies linked to, NOT ONE involves repeatedly increasing the dosages of a compound until an animal dies. Rather, studies are full of phrases like “Animal welfare costs are minimised by the careful selection of dose levels to reduce the likelihood of unexpected toxicity” and other such animal welfare considerations.

The final claim is misleading due to the information left out. The description seems to evoke images of Frankenstein’s monster. The original paper says “The monkeys were trained to sit in restraining chair in front of a computer with the head fixed”. Surgical screws are required to fix their head. The surgery is done under anaesthesia in a sterile environment.

“Worse even than the fact that these tests are ineffective is that for decades, some doctors believe experiments on animals have actually derailed medical progress. For example, according to Steven R. Kaufman and Neal D. Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and co-chairman of the Medical Research Modernization Committee, we delayed our understanding of polio transmission, heart disease, and diabetes because we studied them in other species.”

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine have previously been criticised for their activism and claims by the American Medical Association, who passed a resolution in 1990 that condemned PCRM for “implying that physicians who support the use of animals in biomedical research are irresponsible, for misrepresenting the critical role animals play in research and teaching, and for obscuring the overwhelming support for such research which exists among practicing physicians in the United States” [Page 123]. Their claims about the delayed understanding of polio transmission, heart disease and diabetes have been thoroughly debunked by us before:

• Debunking the claims that animal studies delayed our understanding of polio
• Debunking the claims that animal studies delayed our understanding of heart disease
• Debunking the claims that animal studies delayed our understanding of diabetes

All of this also seems to ignore that monkeys were key to our understanding of polio and development of an oral vaccine; a number of animal models were essential for the development of treatments for cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation; and dogs were indispensable for the discovery and isolation of insulin to treat diabetics.

Indeed the president of the Royal College of Surgeons said in 1993, “I think there is no doubt whatsoever that all forms of cardiac surgery which depend upon the heart-lung machine were developed through experiments on animals. There is no way that the heart-lung machine could have been devised and developed other than through studies on living creatures”.

“And Richard Klausner, the former head of the US National Cancer Institute, has also admitted, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades – and it simply didn’t work in humans.””

Now we come to the misrepresentation of someone who does have credibility, Dr Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute. Speaking of Research has mythbusted before the claim that “We have cured mice of cancer for decades – and it simply didn’t work in humans.”, but it was a throwaway quote lifted from this Los Angeles Times feature. Back in its proper context, it’s a reaction to the pleas made by desperate cancer patients for new cures to be tried, i.e. it means ‘we’re trying!’ Of course, other treatments for cancer based on animal studies did/do work. Why does Dr Baines think we don’t have cancer treatments? Breast cancer drug Herceptin is based on a humanised mouse antibody. How would Dr Baines have acquired this without a mouse?

Dr Baines’ next few paragraphs discuss alternative technologies such as ‘organs on a chip’ and 3D human skin cultures. No doubt these are exciting and important methods which, in their rightful place, can help to improve our understanding of medicine and disease. However, they are just one of a number of tools – including animals – which are used together to build up a picture of biomedical research. To this end I must return to my earlier point that under UK law you must use non-animal methods instead of an animal wherever they can be used. However, sometimes we need a full, living organism – for example neither skin cultures nor organ on a chip  get pregnant – they are of limited use in such research. The Home Office website clearly states “Implementing the 3Rs requires that, in every research proposal, animals are replaced with non-animal alternatives wherever possible”. Alternatively check the original legislation – Section 5 (5).

“Seventy-nine per cent of the British public wish to see more exploration of these kinds of non-animal methods. The problem is that at the moment, the scientific community and the government lack the political will to end animal tests. It is unconscionable that of the £300 million in UK government funding for biosciences, only about 1 per cent is directed towards replacing animals in experiments.”

It is unclear where Dr Baines got her £300million figure from since just one of the UK’s bioscience funders – The Medical Research Council (MRC) – allocates some £678 million [p.20] each year to research. Other government funders of animal research include the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council  (BBSRC; £334m) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Not all of this funding is for animal studies, for instance the MRC estimates one third of its research programmes involve animal studies. This is likely to be much lower for the EPSRC.

Calculating funding into replacements is similarly hard. The National Centre for the 3Rs, which looks at developing alternatives to animals, had an annual budget of around £10 million (the actual amount changes year to year). The BBSRC estimates they spend £1.5m on 3Rs research. Many other Government-funded projects will involve furthering the 3Rs, but will not be noted as this if it is not the prime objective of the research.

Another problem is in comparing funding for the developing of non-animal methods, with funding for using animal methods. Dr Baines has not attempted to look at the millions of pounds spent using non-animal methods – computers, tissue studies, human studies. Nor has she compared funding into developing replacements with funding for developing new, better, animal models – which will account for only a small proportion of overall animal studies. Apples and pears indeed.

There’s a just a bit of time to fit in some scaremongering before she leaves us.

“But if this nation continues down the same road it always has regarding animal testing, then uncoupling from EU legislation could lead to lowering animal welfare standards and permitting tests on animals that are currently deemed illegal under EU law – betraying both humans and animals.”

This is of course about the UK leaving the EU. What Dr Baines fails to mention is the fact that EU regulations around animal research have never been policed at the European level – they’re transposed into a UK law via Parliament so leaving the EU should not affect them. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that EU law was heavily based on the UK system, which has been in place since 1986.

Finally is the question of pictures. It is unclear if those responsible for the choice of images are Dr Baines or IB Times. The first image is that of a chimp. Now, chimps aren’t used in UK research. No Great Ape has been used for over 30 years in regulated research in the UK, and reading the caption the picture was taken in Germany in 1995. How illustrative of UK research! For good measure we also have some rats but they’re not from the UK either, they’re from China in 2008, a country with less strict animal research laws than exist in the UK. We can see how the images contrast with those taken by The Sun newspaper a few days earlier, showing what a UK lab actually looks like.

Overall, what’s striking about the article is how divorced its narrative has become from reality and I can only wonder at what mental gymnastics are required by the author to convince themselves they’re not purposely trying to misinform.

While we have taken apart PETA’s claims one statement at a time, not everyone has the scientific knowledge to do so. Many are left innocently believing, and even repeating, the claims made by PETA. Dr Baines, on the other hand, should know better. It is disappointing to see any scientist abusing the trust her position affords her by writing articles like this.

Chris and Tom

Speaking of Research