Quantcast
Channel: animal testing – Speaking of Research
Viewing all 90 articles
Browse latest View live

The Science of Linking

0
0

The growth of social media has given organisations new ways of engaging with audiences across the internet. However, a website’s core traffic is still derived from search engines, primarily Google (90% global market share). To increase traffic, a website needs to increase its position in search results for its key terms. This position is determined by a number of factors, most importantly by PageRank algorithm (after co-founder Larry Page). PageRank is a logarithmic scale from 1 to 10 that determines how important Google believes a page to be, it is determined by analysing the incoming links to a given website, both their quantity and quality. Bear in mind that very few websites have a PageRank of 10 (USA.gov.uk is one), even google.com and bbc.co.uk only score a 9. The best PageRank’s come from having a lot of incoming links from websites which themselves have lots of incoming links. This gives the research community a good opportunity to compete, as animal rights websites tend to have less incoming links than university and government websites. Check the video below for more information on Google’s search methods.

So let’s have a look at the scores of some animal research and animal rights websites:

UK

US

 

In the UK we can see that pro-research websites are generally doing better than the anti-vivisection societies. On the other hand, there is a much more level playing field in the US. This could be down to better connections between pro-research organisations and universities, industry and government websites in the UK.

What about the number of incoming links. Although there is no definitive way to measure this, I have used Alexa to compare all of them.

UK

US

A much more concerning picture for research, with websites opposing the use of animals in research receiving more incoming links than pro-research websites by a huge magnitude – around 5x the number in the UK and a whopping 50x the number in the US.

If you wonder why this matters then consider this. Younger generations, who typically use the internet when researching new issues (such as animal testing), are almost twice as likely to support a ban on research than the more senior members of society (Pew Research Centre 2009, Mori Poll 2012). This is, in part, because of the plethora of bright and shiny animal rights websites they come across when investigating this thorny topic.

There are a number of ways that websites can improve their search traffic, often known as “Search Engine Optimization” (SEO). This ranges from the White Hat tactics of generating good content that people want to link to (which Google encourages), to Black Hat tactics of spamming keywords and paying for links (which Google actively punishes when it finds it). Older websites, with new content, easy to navigate, with a clear layout, sitemap and up-to-date information is important, but it is all useless without the quality and quantity of incoming links mentioned above.

What can you do?

It is important for all of us to defend animal research, and one of the easiest ways you can do this is to talk to your university or institution about adding a link to Speaking of Research (as well as the other pro-research organisations) to your webpage on the use of animals in research, or a links page. It is not just large institutional links which are important. If you are a blogger, tweeter, forum-user, new article commenter, then please try to include a link to our website – it could really make a difference in our ability to provide students of today with the information they need.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: animal testing, google, links, PageRank, SEO

A Closer Look at How Animal Research Progresses from Idea to Study

0
0

Unfortunately, the “how” and “why” of the research process is of much less interest, and receives far less attention, than the “what did they find?!” part of research. The latter is what you’ll see—if we’re lucky from the science outreach perspective— on television, in the science and popular media, Facebook, Twitter, and conversations world-wide. Meanwhile, the former will be relegated to websites of federal agencies, scientific societies, and animal research advocacy groups and are read less widely.  In fact, it is entirely possible that a great many bets could be won by wagering that the public generally doesn’t care to read up on regulation or processes governing the research behind the cool discoveries that make news.

In the case of animal-based research (and some other controversial fields), the “how” and “why” do sometimes generate some public interest because they are keystones in considering questions about its ethical basis and evaluation.  Public understanding and discussion of the process by which science moves forward is important. It provides appropriate context for fact-based dialogue about the ethical evaluation, decision-making, and regulation that govern a wide range of science conducted within our democratic system. Thus, many scientists and advocates not only welcome public interest in the conduct of science, but also actively promote thoughtful, engaged, and informed collaboration on efforts for improving research practices.

Why? One reason is that the ultimate benefactor from scientific studies is the public and, within a democratic society, it is for all of us to decide whether the benefits of those studies outweigh their costs.  Another reason is that scientists are generally sensitive and responsive to societal views, but feel an obligation to ensuring that these views are informed by facts as well as emotional appeals.  This is an issue that is not at all unique to animal research. It also appears in discussions of other topics that can elicit controversy, including for example: evolution, climate change, use of embryonic stem cells, and vaccines.

For animal research, the challenges inherent in serious evaluation of its costs and benefits are not trivial. Nor is it amendable to flashy, sensationalized, and emotion-evoking campaigns.  Simplistic approaches to this issue are not useful and do a disservice to all of us.

From our perspective, it is both disappointing and frustrating to find that understanding of the process by which science moves from idea, to the conducting of the study, to the dissemination of the findings, to the evaluation of those findings receives far less attention than would be needed in order to rationally discuss the research.  Why?  Because the reality of how science is actually conducted is centrally relevant to conversations about science.  And while this is an obvious statement, it is also clear from many portrayals of science by opposing groups that the basics of scientific process and conduct are often missed in the discussion.

In the case of laboratory animal research, the starting point of many opponents is an absolutist position in which the conditions for animals, the ultimate outcome of the research, and its benefits, are irrelevant. They are irrelevant because the starting assumption is that the use of animals is morally unacceptable. For those who hold this view, there is no benefit that would justify the animal use.  There are others who hold a less absolute view and, like us, believe that the use of animals in research begins with moral and ethical consideration that requires thoughtful, fact-based weighing of both relative harm and benefit.  One major part of this evaluation is identifying whether alternatives exist to meet the same goal.  Another is identifying as closely as possible what harm may be incurred, the probability and extent of benefits. Each of these considerations is integral to regulation of animal research in the U.S. and elsewhere. They are also considerations that are so integral to the scientific process that they operate far beyond those stages typically identified as the “checks” for ethical and humane conduct of animal research (e.g., IACUC review, federal oversight).

long haul slide

How scientific research moves from idea stage, to conducting a study, to success or failure, to critical review, to dissemination and use of findings is a process that can appear somewhat opaque to public view.  The pieces of information required to construct the general pathways are publicly available.  Putting them together, however, is not necessarily straightforward for those without immediate interest, expertise, or engagement.  So while the information is neither hidden nor made secret, it is of the type that can be easily misunderstood or misrepresented.

Should this gap in basic understanding and perspectives on how scientists’ ideas move from thinking to reality concern us?  The answer is yes.  Among other reasons, the gap serves as an impediment to an informed evaluation of science.  It also weighs heavily against productive dialogue about core issues of public interest.

How does an animal research project move from scientist’s idea to finished study?

In general, the process looks like this:  Scientists generate ideas that are based in careful study of what is known, what is not known, what methods already exist, what facts we have.  They next critically evaluate and review relevant previous literature and data–  often soliciting others’ expert knowledge–  to determine whether the idea is novel (has not already been tested),  of potential importance or significance, and feasible.

Thus, while some may have the impression that scientists roll out of bed in the morning, or have an aha-moment- then  move straight to the lab to conduct whatever study occurred to them via dream – this is not the way it typically works.

As illustrated, deciding on whether an idea is worth pursuing or not is driven by many factors. If the resulting data would have little potential benefit, few scientists are likely to pursue it. Why?  Because scientists have a lot of ideas and it makes no sense to expend energy on one that won’t be useful in terms of providing significant new knowledge or understanding.  It is also true that such ideas are unlikely to compete successfully in the different arenas of expert scientific review, including review for funding, publication, and citation.

research process

If a scientist judges his/her idea worth pursuing, the next step is likely to decide whether the study is feasible or practical. What does this mean?  In short, this is a question that revolves around ethical, economic, and practical issues.  On the ethical side, for animal research the scientist will consider animal welfare and treatment, any potential for harm.  Next, on the financial and practical sides, the scientist will consider how much the study will cost and whether the necessary work can even be done. During this initial stage the scientist will also critically evaluate whether the existing literature and facts provide adequate and strong platforms for the proposed study, or whether more basic and background data are needed to guide decisions before moving forward.

For that fraction of studies that survive the scientist’s own critical examination—and likely that of his/her collaborative group and colleagues—the scientist may decide to pursue the work. If so, for animal research the next step will be to write a proposal to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in order to conduct a study.  In the U.S., IACUSs are among the main venues for thorough review of animal studies.  We have written previously about IACUCs and there is more information here.

In brief, the IACUC is comprised of individuals with veterinary and scientific expertise, as well as a public representative.  Animal studies do not proceed until the IACUC has reviewed and approved a proposal.  What do these protocols contain?  You can see some here, this site contains links to protocol forms from a range of institutions.  Although institutions vary in the format of applications, among other things, they include: information about what the study is designed to test, why it should be conducted, the literature review and strategies used to ensure that it is not unnecessarily duplicative, that alternatives do not exist, the number of animals proposed and justification for both the number and the species,  detailed description of all procedures,  and other details about the animals’ care and treatment.  In other words, the full range of information that the review committee will need in order to evaluate whether the study meets standards.

Is the IACUC process perfect in evaluating study protocols? No.  It is, however, the current system mandated by federal law and it is one that generally functions well to protect animal welfare.  It is also an evolving system, with scientists, veterinarians, federal agencies, science and animal welfare advocates engaged in its ongoing evaluation and improvement. Some of the criticisms of the existing system, however, neglect consideration of the larger context, the process by which research unfolds. For example, critics point to the fact that IACUCs approve the majority of studies put before them as evidence that “almost anything” a scientist could dream up receives approval.  In reality, IACUCs only review proposals that scientists write and submit. This means that the IACUC only sees study proposals that have already received some critical evaluation and that likely already fall within the constraints of current guidelines, practices, and norms.  Scientists, like others involved in animal research, take part in training and education about the range of issues related to animal welfare, humane treatment, and regulatory requirements.  As a result, they are generally not likely to write protocols that diverge from acceptable practices.

Following IACUC approval, the scientist may then begin conducting the study. It is often the case however, that IACUC approval is not the final step between idea and study.  Instead, for a new project, the scientist must also write a proposal to a funding agency in order to secure financial support for the research. In many cases in academic research, funding for these studies comes from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.  Competition for these funds is high and the majority of applications are not successful.  Those proposals that are funded have undergone rigorous review by a panel of scientists whose expertise is within the area of the proposal.  The criteria for review vary by agencies, but include very close examination of the significance of the research question, evaluation of its potential for success, scrutiny of the methods, expertise of the investigator, and quality of the facilities in which the research will be conducted.  The appropriateness of the animals chosen for study, their number, and their treatment are also subject to critical evaluation and discussion.  In sum, beyond IACUC review, many animal studies—including all of those funded by NIH, NSF, and other agencies— undergo another level of external expert scientific review.

Take-home message?  The evaluative process between a scientific idea, the conduct of a study, the results, and their evaluation, use, and further discovery is one with many steps and significant consideration.  The potential harm and benefit of each study receives review at each stage as well, both within and outside.

Research aimed at addressing basic, translational, or clinical questions relevant to advancing our scientific understanding and medical progress for humans and other animals is ultimately all aimed at questions with significance to many.  At the same time, it is also absolutely true that the benefits of research are not always directly or immediately apparent.  We simply do not know the answers before we conduct the work.  Furthermore, we can be confident—drawing from real conclusions from the history of science – that important, meaningful, generative breakthroughs are not entirely predictable.  As a result, it is no easy task to construct a metric by which to evaluate the potential benefit of research and to weigh that against any harm incurred during its conduct.

Considered carefully, the history of animal research and animal welfare are quite clear with respect to how the accomplishments of research and consideration of mutual interests in animal welfare provide the basis for progress in ethical and humanely-conducted animal research.   Public interests are served by dialogue based in fact and in clear accurate articulation of ethical frameworks from which animal research is considered.  Understanding the multiple levels at which research projects are evaluated from scientific and ethical perspectives is an integral starting point for this discussion.  Science doesn’t occur through simple processes or via a single stage of evaluation; nor should public dialogue about this complex issue.

Allyson J. Bennett


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: Allyson J. Bennett, animal models, animal research, animal testing, animal welfare, IACUC, NIH, regulations in research

Essay on Animal Testing? Look No Further

0
0

Students writing essays on animal research can now celebrate. Understanding Animal Research, a UK not-for-profit which explains the role of animals in medical research, has produced a fantastic set of resources aimed at helping school and university students create well-referenced essays.

The resources provides an introduction to five animal research-related topics including “costs and benefits” and “ethics”, as well as a list of books and internet resources for more information. Each resource is briefly summarised, and then a Harvard reference is provided which students can put straight into their essay reference list. See below for a sample:

References Animal Testing

Two online resources from the “cost and benefit” section

There are also a list of websites on both sides of the issue for students to check out. The sections are:

These resources are most helpful for students doing extended school projects (like the UK Extended Project Qualification [EPQ]) as well as university students who are required to write more detailed arguments.

Another good resource aimed at K12 uses animal testing as a example of the difference between a persuasive essay and an argumentative essay.

Speaking of Research aims to promote informative and useful resources on animal research. If you know of any don’t hesitate to email us.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, EPQ, essay, extended essay

For Life on Earth – The Birth of Another Pseudoscience Organisation

0
0

Who are FLOE?

There is a new British animal rights group on the scene called “For Life on Earth” or FLOE for short. Founded by Louise Owen, who has worked with both Medical Research Modernisation Committee and Seriously Ill Against Vivisection (both now defunct), the website seems almost an advertising tool for the various writings of Ray Greek and Niall Shanks (There are no shortage of Amazon links on the site and recommendations that you “buy it now”), with typical pseudoscience about how animal research is no longer necessary.

A professionally finished video on the front page (above) informs us that since we don’t take ourselves down the vet, or our pets to a hospital, that “common sense” would suggest research cannot cross species lines. It is worth noting that veterinarians deal with a variety of different species (so much for not crossing species lines), furthermore, the One Health Initiative DOES aim to get greater collaboration between veterinary and human medicine due to their overwhelming similarity. The Zoobiquity website discusses many aspects of the similarity between human and animal treatments.

The video goes on to suggest that personalised medicine offers opportunities for “treatments [that] are tailor made for you and you alone, for your unique genetic makeup”. Again, they negate to note the huge influence  and growing role of animals in personalized medicine (such as the creation of mouse avatars which are injected with a person’s tumour cells so as to find the specific treatments that will work for that person). I also recommend reading our earlier post “When Personalised Medicine and Animal Research Meet”.

The video finishes with the curious phrase:

“We at For Life on Earth present science illustrated by “Animal models in light of evolution””

This makes me wonder if the whole website is not simply a straight marketing tool by Greek and Shanks’ publishers.

Much of the website revolves around Ray Greek’s regular writings (often on “Opposing Views”) that assert that animal models are not predictive. In reply, you should read a great post by Dario Ringach, an excerpt of which can be found below:

Researchers create models of disease in animals by trying to replicate what they believe are the essential components at play. These animal models can then be used to generate predictions for therapeutic interventions, which can then be tested in human clinical trials. If a prediction is falsified, so is that specific animal model of the disease.

When this happens, scientists seek to understand how the data depart from the prediction, what factors were ignored that might play a role, and use prior knowledge and intuition to develop a better, improved model. In the course of developing and refining such a model, scientists will go through many such cycles. A model is expected to be valid if and only if it captures all the key ingredients of the human condition.

The fact that one can postulate inaccurate animal models of human disease does not invalidate the whole methodology of animal research, it merely shows the work is difficult. But animal models can in fact be successful.

So what are the aims of FLOE?

For Life on Earth (FLOE) - Animal Research Science

“For Life on Earth is committed to making this level of science debate happen. Our objective is to ensure that such debates are broadcast live on television, via a platform such as BBC’s Newsnight or Question Time, both being suitable for the seriousness of such an important topic, and able to incorporate audience participation.“

It is a common claim among animal rights groups that there is no debate. In Britain, over the last 11 years, there have been four independent enquiries about animal research: House of Lords Select Committee (2002), Animal Procedures Committee (2003), Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) and the Weatherall Report (2006). On television there has been one Newsnight debate (below) on the scientific merits of animal research between Michelle Thew (BUAV) and Professor Tipu Aziz. Perhaps Ray Greek is simply frustrated that his fellow anti-viv organisation chose not to put up a scientist, but rather their own CEO. Question Time would not fit For Life on Earth’s vision of a scientific debate; as it is a current issues discussion programme dominated by the 3 partisan political panellists (of 5 total) that rarely discusses scientific issues. An animal research debate would be held in short sound bites, with political panellists trying to get the biggest applause. In terms of other opportunities for debate, Dr Greek himself has debated against scientists like Dr Michael Conn on CNN (contrary to the website’s assertion that such debates have never happened).

“For Life on Earth will focus on the most efficient routes by which to advertise the fact that veterinary principles must not be applied to ill, or critically ill humans. An effective pressure campaign, coordinated with the help of the international community, can then help to ensure that legislative decisions made by governments implement current scientific knowledge.”

This straw man argument suggests that current biomedical methods are based on veterinary principles. While there are some similarities between veterinary and clinical medicine (they both try to make ‘animals’ better), there are also clear differences. Given the overwhelming majority of scientists are in support of animal-based research, perhaps FLOE should not be so confident about explaining what “current scientific knowledge” entails. Modern animal research remains at the cutting edge of scientific discovery.

Wait, who are For Life on Earth again?

Well this is where things get interesting. FLOE is registered to a virtual London address through the company British Monomarks. This is not remarkable in itself, until you discover the host of other animal rights organisations that also use this same company for a virtual mailing address.

WC1N 3XX FLOEFLOE are in the company of the Animal Liberation Front Press Office and Supporters Group (offering support to jailed animal rights extremists). They also share their address with the Gateway to Hell campaigns and SHAC – who have a long history of animal rights extremists in their ranks. One wonders what individual connections draw these same organisations to use the same virtual address company.

Overall, For Life on Earth shows all the signs of being another antivivisection, pseudoscientific organisation. I guess it’s another excuse to get out the Animal Rights Bingo.

Speaking of Research

Addenum 13th May 2013

FLOE have removed the address from their website since this article was posted. Click the image below to see a cached version of the website for evidence.

For Life on Earth Address


Filed under: Animal Rights News, News Tagged: animal rights, animal testing, FLOE, For Life on Earth, Personalized medicine, Ray Greek

Skeptical Science: Debunking Animal Rights Misinformation

0
0

Speaking of Research regularly puts its efforts into debunking the pseudoscience put about by animal rights groups. This post aims to bring together some of the more popular of those articles. Naturally, much of our debunking exists on our “Bad Science” page, where we explain the science behind some of the so called “myths of vivisection”. Perhaps my favourite from here is one I have always found so clearly dishonest that it could only have been created by a wilful attempt to mislead the reader:

Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.

This claim, which is supposed to give the impression that 55% of Nobel Laureates don’t agree with vivisection, is probably the most petty of many misleading claims. However to get to the bottom of this claim we must see the source.

The source for this is the anti-vivisection newsletter VIN (issue 2):
“Andrew Blake of Seriously Ill for Medical Research … wrote to all living Nobel prizewinners [sic] [in Physiology and Medicine]. Of these 71 winners, 39 replied. Of the 39 who replied, 31 (80%) agreed that animal experiments were crucial to their work. This was 45% of total living prizewinners.” [See screenshot of poll]

82% who partook in the questionnaire agreed (or strongly agreed) that animal experimentation was crucial to their work (indeed 32 out of 39). It should be further mentioned that 100% agreed that “animal experiments have been vital to the discovery and development of many advances in physiology and medicine” and 100% agreed that “Animal experiments are still crucial to the investigation and development of many medical treatments”.

SIMR (since closed) is a small group that campaigns in support of medical research. The fact that over half of the Nobel Laureates responded to the questionnaire sent by a small group that almost none had previously heard of is itself testimony to the value they place on animal research.
The methodology of the anti-vivisection analysis suggests that if you walk around a high street and ask 100 people if they prefer Winston Churchill or Adolph Hitler and 0 say Hitler, and 30 say Churchill, and 70 ignore you altogether, then we should assume that only 30% of people prefer Churchill to Hitler. You only ever include those who partake in your survey in your statistics.

We have also spoken about the attempts by activists to suggest that alternatives could fully replace animal research. We have long said that the word “alternatives” is itself misleading, and the phrase “complementary methods” would give a better understanding. Just as hammers, chisels and screwdrivers might complement each other, so too do in vitro methods, computer modelling and animal models. Nonetheless, we have written more detailed explanations on the limits of fMRI and computer simulations in order for people to see that all these methods are used in conjunction, so as to bypass the limitations of any one of them.

Debunking the misinformed bits of science can be difficult. Apparently simple claims often need quite complex answers. Prof. Lovell-Badge wrote a great reply (one of our most popular articles, and well worth reading) to the claim that animal testing is useless because 92% of drugs still fail during clinical trials. On other occasions we have found that apparently complex arguments contain simple errors, such as a claim made by animal rights activist Michael Budkie when he accused scientists of pointlessly duplicating publically funded research – and once again SR debunked the claims (as did the National Institutes of Health days later). Sometimes the claims suffer not from complexity but from oversimplification as with the New York Times piece entitled “Mice Fall Short as Test Subjects for Humans’ Deadly Ills”. This was put through the skeptic looking glass in a guest post by Mark Wanner. Sometimes we also need to deal with more prevalent misunderstandings, perpetuated by animal rights groups, such as when we explained the difference in the terms “animal research” and “animal testing”.

We also regularly investigate the animal rights groups and individuals who involve themselves in spreading these myths – looking at their claims and connections. Most recently we deconstructed the website of a new pseudoscience group – For Life on Earth. In 2012, we debunked the claims made by Stop UBC Animal Research (SUBCAR) about scientists at the University of British Colombia. Occasionally we hit a very raw nerve. After exposing Prof. Stephen Best as a hypocritical animal rights extremist we received legal threats by email. To counter this, we wrote another article backed up with further evidence that showed he was helping to fund the animal rights extremist group, Negotiation is Over.

Of course sometimes we just simplify everything and turn it into a game of bingo. Much more fun.

 Animal Rights Bingo

We are always keen to debunk the claims of the animal rights crank, so make sure you contact us with any new claims you read and we’ll do our best to get to the bottom of the sources. You should also check out the Science Action Network, which aims to combat the misrepresentation of animal research in the media. Follow @ARnonsenseRT on Twitter to get alerts. Together we’ll get over the STORM.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: News, SR News Tagged: animal rigts misinformation, animal testing, debunking, pseudoscience, skeptic

Today’s Science live chat: Scientists discuss ethics of studying chimpanzees in captivity

0
0

In anticipation of NIH announcing a closely-watched decision on the potential retirement of hundreds of federally-funded chimpanzees, Science is hosting a live chat this afternoon at 3 p.m. EDT. The chat features several well-known scientists who will discuss some key issues relevant to the future of chimpanzee research, including:

“What, if any, research should continue with captive chimpanzees? Are there ethical ways to conduct biomedical studies on our closest relatives? And what do behavioral studies of captive chimps reveal that cannot be learned from studying chimps in the wild and vice versa?”

Scientists contributing to the discussion include:  Prof. William Hopkins, a psychologist who studies behavior and the neurological correlates of various aspects of cognition in chimpanzees. His research has focused mainly on language and communication, handedness and social behavior. He is based both at Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Georgia State University, both in Atlanta. Prof. Pascal Gagneux, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at San Diego. His work includes field studies of chimpanzees in the Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire, as well as laboratory research that relies on biological materials from wild and captive chimpanzees. Prof. Brian Hare, an evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who has previously been active in advocating for ending much captive chimpanzee research. Hare’s research includes behavioral and cognitive studies of both chimpanzees and bonobos living in African sanctuaries.

Over the course of the past several years the topic of captive chimpanzee research has received extensive consideration by the scientific community, the public, press, and the federal agencies that fund their housing, care, and much of the chimpanzee behavioral and biomedical research. We have written previously about a range of issues that should inform consideration and decision-making about the future of these animals, including those that seem to have received far less public attention than deserved. Among them are understanding of the current housing and care of the animals, responsible plans for the animals’ long-term care, and the definition of ‘invasive’ research.  The topics posed in the live chat description capture many of the central issues, though we would suggest that it could also be framed as “Is it ethical not to study captive chimpanzees?”

Consideration of both the use of chimpanzees in research, as well as responsible plans for their optimal long-term housing and care, are complex issues and deserve serious, fact-based discussion.  We these look forward to hearing today’s discussion with Profs. Hopkins, Gagneux, and Hare and appreciate their willingness to contribute to an important public discussion.

Speaking of Research

Previous posts:

On the definition of invasive research, including video of voluntary, cooperative blood sampling:  http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/11/21/a-closer-look-at-great-ape-protection-act/

On the cost of retiring chimpanzees and federal legislation aimed at ending chimpanzee research:  http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/12/08/what-cost-savings-a-closer-look-at-the-great-ape-protection-and-cost-savings-act-of-2011/

http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/12/11/animal-rights-bill-under-consideration-in-the-senate/

Guest post by primatologist Dr. Joseph Erwin:  http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/10/13/guest-post-efforts-to-ban-chimpanzee-research-are-misguided/

On the IOM chimpanzee panel:  http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/08/12/facts-must-inform-discussion-of-future-of-chimpanzee-research/


Filed under: News, Science News Tagged: animal research, animal rights, animal testing, animal welfare, Brian Hare, Chimpanzee, GAPA, IOM, Pascal Gagneux, William D. Hopkins

Frequently Asked Questions up on Website

0
0

We have just put a new FAQ up on the website which covers five of the most frequently asked questions we get about animal research. They are:

  • Aren’t animals different than people?
  • Don’t we have alternatives to animal research?
  • Is all research on cats, dogs and primates?
  • Don’t the animals suffer in experiments?
  • Who cares for animals’ welfare in labs?

It is important that the scientific community deals with all types of queries from the public about animal testing. This FAQ aims to address some of the most basic questions that those interested about animal experiments may have, however it is also important to debunk many of the myths which are propagated by animal rights groups (e.g. Doesn’t aspirin kill cats).

Speaking of Research aims to provide clear and accurate information about the role of animals in research. If you feel there is more information that would be helpful then please let us know.


Filed under: News, SR News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, FAQ, speaking of research

Charities doing animal research outreach right

0
0

A while ago we assessed the five biggest medical research charities in the US for the strength of their position statements on animal research. None got more than 1 star our of 4. Yet good practise by charities for discussing animal research does exist. Take this example:

Alzheimer’s Research UK has just produced a fantastic new leaflet entitled “Why research using animals can help defeat dementia” (click below to download).

Click to Download Pdf

Dementia affects 820,000 people in the UK, so it’s important that it continues to get funding (mainly from donations). Nonetheless, to help their stakeholders understand why they use animals, they have created this document. Throughout the leaflet there are pictures of mice and fruit flies, reflecting the main species used by Alzheimer’s Research UK.

The leaflet makes two particularly important points about animal research.

1.       Animal Research is important

They explain this using case studies such as:

Animal Research is Important

2.       Animal Research is regulated

The leaflet is clear on the regulatory framework.

The Alzheimer’s Research UK website discusses many individual cases where animal research has yielded important insights into this disease. For example, last year they announced that ARUK funded scientists at the University of Southampton had studied GM mice to discover why a particular genetic variation increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and they are currently funding a project at the University of Cambridge that will use the fly Drosophila melanogaster to study how aging affects the amyloid protein that forms plaques in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

Animal Research is Regulated3.       Animal Research is only used where there are no alternatives

Animal Research is only used where there are no alternatives

Alzheimer’s Research UK is not the only charity to be proactive in discussing animal research (though they are probably in a minority); In 2011 the British Heart Foundation ran the Mending Broken Hearts Campaign which discussed why zebra fish are important to researchers looking at heart disease. Similarly, Cancer Research UK wrote a long article on their blog in 2011 entitled “Animal Research is helping us beat cancer” – while only a start, such actions play an important part in informing public opinion.

Hopefully more charities will follow Alzheimer’s Research UK’s approach of openness in explaining how and why they used animals in research.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: Alzherimer's Research UK, animal research, animal testing, dementia research, outreach

Fair partners in dialogue: Starting assumptions matter and they should be spelled out

0
0

The importance and need for civil, open dialogue about the complex set of issues involved in use of animals is among the points of agreement between members of the scientific community, the public, animal rights activists, and others.  Speaking of Research, along with others, has consistently advocated for such dialogue and has engaged in it via a number of venues, including our blog, public events, conference presentations, and articles.

Such dialogue often takes place without clear specification of the starting positions held by the people engaged in the conversation. The problem with this approach was recently highlighted by Dario Ringach in his posts about a series of public forums on ethics and animal research (here, here, here).

The basic position of those engaged in animal research is obvious in part by the nature of their work. Furthermore, the very structure of the current regulations and practices reflect– both implicitly and explicitly– a set of positions on the ethical and moral considerations relevant to the use of animals in research.

For example, in the U.S., the laws and regulations that govern animal research mandate that proposals for use of vertebrate animals (including rats, mice, birds) provide, among other things:  1) a justification of the potential benefits of the work; 2) an identification of potential harms and means to reduce them; 3) evidence that alternatives to using animals are unavailable; 4) use of the least complex  species; and 5) much detail about the animals’ care and treatment, including the qualifications and training of the personnel involved.  Consideration of these issues occurs not only at the stage of IACUC evaluation, but throughout the scientists’ selection of questions and studies to pursue, peer review and selection of projects for funding (more here). Furthermore, the entirety of the project must proceed in compliance with a thorough set of regulations designed on the basis of the 3 Rs – reduce, replace, and refine (for more about regulation see here, more about 3 Rs, here).

In other words, while there is always room for continued improvement, the structure is designed to require that the major ethical and moral considerations relevant to animal research be addressed by those involved in performing and overseeing the work. This structure also incorporates explicit consideration of changes that arise from new knowledge.  That includes evolving knowledge about different species’ capacities and needs, as well as the development of alternatives to animal-based studies for particular uses.  It also includes  advances in our scientific understanding that demonstrate greater need for basic research that requires use of animals to address key questions.

One of the important purposes of dialogue is to communicate diverse viewpoints and values on animal research. One key to understanding those viewpoints and values is consideration of the basic starting assumptions, or positions, from which they arise.

What are the positions of those who oppose laboratory animal research?  In some cases, these are clearly stated.  In the case of absolutists, the 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.

In this framework, the focus often excludes consideration of the harms that would accrue as a consequence of enacting the animal rights agenda. For example, the harm to both humans and other animals of foregoing research or intervening on behalf of animals.  As a result, while the absolutist position is often represented as one that involves only benefits and no harms, this is a false representation. While some animal rights groups are clear about their absolutist position, others—to our knowledge—are not.

On the other hand are those who avoid identifying directly with an absolutist position, but instead focus on the need for development of alternatives to use of animals.  This is a goal that may be widely desired and shared. It does not, however, address the question of what should be done in absence of alternatives and in light of current needs that can only be addressed by animal studies. In turn then, this position is silent with respect to moral and ethical consideration of a broad swath of research and fails to offer a framework to guide current actions.

We believe that the goal of promoting better dialogue would be assisted by making these positions clear and we provide a starting place below.  We welcome additions by individuals and groups, as well as clarification or correction if any are unintentionally misrepresented.

_______________________

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Offers clear statement of absolutist position. “PETA has always been known for uncompromising, unwavering views on animal rights. PETA was founded in 1980 and is dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.”

In Defense of Animals:  Offers clear statement of absolutist position.  “We work to expose and end animal experimentation”

New England Anti-Vivisection Society:  Offers clear statement of absolutist position. “Is NEAVS against all animal experiments? Yes. For ethical, economic and scientific reasons, NEAVS is unequivocally opposed to all experiments on animals and works to replace them with humane and scientifically superior alternatives that are more relevant and predictive for humans.”

Alliance for Animals (Madison, WI):  Offers clear statement of absolutist position.  “It is Alliance for Animals’ guiding principle that all animals, human and nonhuman, should never be treated as the property of another.” AFA is a non-profit 501(c)3 animal rights organization whose fundamental belief is that all animals, human and nonhuman, should not be treated as the property of another.

Stop Animal Exploitation Now:  Offers clear statement of absolutist position.“Exposing the truth to wipe out animal experimentation.”  And: “To promote through education the prevention of suffering and cruelty to any of God’s creatures, human or otherwise, including, but not limited to their diet, their health, and their living conditions. 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; and to protect the environment in which we all live, so that no living beings suffer from its destruction or pollution.”

Humane Society of the United States:  Does not, to our knowledge, offer a clear position on whether it is morally acceptable to use animals in research when there is no alternative. What they do say“As do most scientists, The HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research and testing that is harmful to the animals. Accordingly, we strive to decrease and eventually eliminate harm to animals used for these purposes.”

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:  Does not, to our knowledge, offer a clear position on whether it is morally acceptable to use animals in research when there is no alternative.  What they do say“We promote alternatives to animal research and animal testing.”

_______________________

For those engaged in dialogue about the ethical and moral considerations related to the use of non-human animals in research , even this brief list makes clear that it is important to ask participants to begin by putting their basic starting assumption forward.  Why?  For one reason, because those assumptions are key to identifying whether there are potential areas of agreement or none at all.

For example, discussing refinement of laboratory animal care with an absolutist—someone fundamentally opposed to animals in laboratories—misses the point. No amount of refinement would make the work acceptable to them. In this case, the more critical questions for discussion would include consideration of the relative harms and benefits of failing to perform research for which there are currently no alternatives to animal-based studies.  Consideration of species’ capacities and criteria for differential status– if any– would also be a useful starting point.

What about dialogue with those individuals and groups who do not provide a clear position?  Does it matter?  Some would argue that it does not because the dialogue is only concerned with animal welfare and with reducing harm to nonhuman animals, or with pushing forward to develop non-animal alternatives for some types of research. In fact, framed in this way, most scientists are not only in the same camp, but are also the people who work actively to produce evidence-based improvements in welfare and development of successful alternatives.

The problem, however, is that real-time, critical decision-making about human use of other animals in research is not simple.  It does require serious, fact-based consideration of the full range of harms and benefits, including consideration of the welfare of both human and nonhuman animals.  It also requires clarity about alternatives, where they exist and where they do not.  And it requires some understanding of the time-scales in which knowledge unfolds – often decades – and a basic appreciation for the scientific process.

It is easy to argue that developing non-animal alternatives should be prioritized. But this argument does little to address the question of what to do now, what we do in absence of these alternatives, and what choices we should make as a society. Those questions are at the center of dialogue and the core issues with which the scientific community and others wrestle.  To address them productively, and in a way that considers the public interest in both the harms and benefits of research, requires articulation of starting assumptions and foundational views.

Allyson J. Bennett


Filed under: News, Outreach News, Philosophy Tagged: Alliance for Animals, Allyson J. Bennett, animal research, animal rights, animal rights activists, animal testing, animal welfare, Dialogue, hsus, IACUC, PCRM, peta, SAEN

Time for a change?

0
0

Scientists and the scientific community receive some fairly standard advice when it comes to direct response to some animal rights groups’ stunts and campaigns. What is it?  Typically some variant of:  Ignore it.

  • Don’t give them free publicity, the attention just helps them grow.
  • Don’t acknowledge that their campaigns affect us, it will just reinforce and encourage them.
  • They win if it gets to you; they win if you take time and energy away from your science in order to respond.

The question is whether this advice, fairly standard over at least the last couple of decades, is good advice.  Is ignoring animal rights and absolutist campaigns a good idea?  Is it effective in the short-term? Does it decrease an individual scientist’s risk of being subjected to harassment campaigns?  Does it decrease an institution’s exposure to activists’ campaigns and “bad” publicity?

Picture Credit: Lorenzo Todaro

Pro-Test Italia: They’re not ignoring the problem.

What about the long-term?  Does an “ignore it” strategy work against the goal of promoting public understanding of the role of humane, necessary and legal nonhuman animal-based research is science and medicine? More broadly, does a blinder-based strategy hinder efforts to increase scientific literacy and understanding via scientists’ participation in public education, outreach, and engagement?

Unfortunately, there is little solid data or empirical study to support an evidence-based approach in selecting the best strategy for responding to various campaigns by groups opposed to nonhuman animal research.

What if we look to the current state and conclusions of those engaged in fighting back against other anti-science campaigns?  Campaigns to undermine other areas of science and medicine, ranging from evolution to climate change to vaccines, have resulted in significant negative effect on the public, science, and scientists.  Viewing all of these, we see that almost without question, more public engagement and accurate information is what is required to mount an effective defense and to bring informed, serious consideration to a public that otherwise may fail to hear us above the noise.  We also see robust education efforts  for evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

We have written many times here about education and outreach programs for nonhuman animal research and the perils of “no comment” approaches. On the animal research front, history also provides evidence that we should not always ignore what appear to us as outrageous and ridiculous stunts and campaigns. Ignoring them does nothing to diminish their impact or growth. Nor does silence provide help for those who would like to respond but may not have full or accurate information with which to address the issues activists raise.

Despite being primarily ignored by the scientific community for decades, animal rights groups have not gone away. Their number, reach, income, and supporters have only grown. Consider PETA, for example. Founded by two activists in 1980, it is now arguably the most famous animal rights group in the world. They also claim to have three million members and supporters. PETA’s 2012 revenue of over $30 million, with $15 million going to outreach and international grassroots campaigns, solidly demonstrates its growth over 30 years.

Ignoring PETA has not made them go away.  Nor does PETA’s success depend upon attention directed at them from the scientific community.  At this point in time, a mix of celebrity endorsements, stunts, and emotive campaigns successfully drive and sustain PETA’s publicity. Additional efforts by the scientific community to counter campaigns of misrepresentation, provide accurate information, and to condemn PETA’s promotion of violence toward scientists can at least make sure that the voices of scientists are heard in the media coverage. In some cases effective engagement early on can help journalists to see that the claims are inaccurate, and stop the story in it’s tracks.

On the contrary, an argument can be made that ignoring PETA’s escalating antics and failing to advance a public counter to their claims may have facilitated the success with which PETA has gained support.  For example, if there is no public response or condemnation when PETA does something like releasing a videogame that promotes “beating up” scientists, the game is unlikely to go away. There will be little chance that scientists will reach this audience in order to counter the game’s gross misrepresentations of laboratory animal care.  If we say nothing, the individuals playing the videogame, the game’s designer, and those providing positive media coverage of the game will fail to receive the message that it is not ok to promote violence against scientists (or others with whom you disagree). In effect, violence against scientists will be further “normalized” as a tactic that can be rationalized or acceptable.

PETA's MMA game depiction of animal research.

PETA’s MMA game depiction of animal research.

Failing to respond to PETA’s game and failure to launch a sustained and effective response to other animal activist campaigns has another downside. Without a firm response we may signal that animal-based research is a relatively weak target for activists’ campaigns. Scientific animal research is a tiny fraction of all human use of nonhuman animals. Yet the energy and resources activist groups direct toward this use likely outstrips that directed to agricultural use.  There are multiple reasons for this.  Among them is that the great majority of the public eats animals and is unlikely to be sympathetic or comfortable with campaigns against agriculture.

Another reason is that laboratory research and science in general are more difficult for the public to understand. As such, they are easier to misrepresent, particularly if the scientific community doesn’t effectively, consistently, and strongly counter with facts. Finally, scientists likely appear to be relatively easy targets for harassment.  Can we counter this effectively?  Yes.  Beyond engaging in more public scientific education, there are a number of ways to protest when PETA does something like launch “Cage Fight.”  Draw public attention to it.  Explain why it should be condemned.  Write to the fighters and their sponsors. Write to the celebrities endorsing it, to the company that designed the game.  Ask scientific societies to speak out against this tactic.

It is sometimes puzzling that the scientific community expresses relatively little interest or sustained attention to the efforts of animal activist groups that aim to end our work.  Competing time demands are the primary reason, but probably not the whole story. Rather, many may be unconvinced that the activities of these groups will have any substantial effect on science, the public, or the future. Parallels to the effects that climate change denialists, anti-vaccine proponents, or creationists have had on science and the public suggest otherwise.

It may also be the case that most scientists are simply unaware of the scope and depth of activities by groups like PETA.  Rather than assuming knowledge of the current state, reach, and effect of anti-animal research activism, take even a few minutes to pay closer attention to PETA and other groups.  View their materials not only through your eyes, but also those of students and other citizens who have a voice in policies that affect science.

One starting place:  Look at these four websites—each designed for a specific demographic group.

In other words, ignore the standard advice and consider that it may be time to change strategies. Consider that our efforts at education, outreach, and public engagement need to continue to evolve in order to be responsive and relevant. When we largely ignore groups that oppose animal research, we also remain ignorant of the messages and information that the public receives about our work.  In turn, we miss opportunities to bring scientists’ knowledge and perspectives to discussion that is occurring in widely-consumed public forums– blogs, facebook, twitter, and other media.  These discussions will not stop or wait for scientists to contribute, they will simply continue without the balance that we could provide.

The rise of groups like PETA has demonstrated that the ear of the public is attuned to hearing about animal research, especially so for those who have grown up with PETA.  In order to be heard, however, we also need to listen and to understand public questions, concerns, and priorities. Despite all of the escalating pressures on science, it is time to renew and increase efforts to more broadly communicate to the public that our science is in their interest and to their benefit.

Some may choose – as animal rights groups and absolutists advocate—to believe that animal research should end and that all should forgo the benefits that it produces for society. More likely however, is that those who understand the necessity and benefits of the work will also understand that the choices PETA offers are not harmless. It is for this reason that groups like PETA have the most to gain when we remain silent. In absence of counter with accurate information they are able to paint a picture of a world in which ending animal research has no downside for the public.  It is up to us to show this cartoon vision is false and to engage the public in serious dialogue about the challenging decisions that science presents to all of us.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News, Outreach News Tagged: animal research, animal rights extremism, animal testing, media, peta, public outreach

To engineer a new heart, first you take a pig…

0
0

This week the prestigious science journal Nature carries two fascinating reports on the progress being made in the exciting field of tissue engineering that we recommend to our readers – both are open access so you don’t need a subscription to Nature to read them.

The first is a feature article by Brenden Maher entitled “Tissue engineering: How to build a heart” which focuses on the research being done by Doris Taylor  at the Texas heart Institute and  Harald Ott at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He also discusses research being done on other tissues, including several that we have discussed on this blog, such as relatively simple tissues like bladders, tracheas and blood vessels which are already being trialed in patients, and more complex tissues such as lungs that require more laboratory research before they can move to the clinic. Brenden Maher’s article, and the accompanying video and podcast, are an excellent overview of this exciting field.  It’s an overview that highlights the key contribution of animal research, not just the provision of the raw material, the decellularized pig heart scaffolds upon which new organs can be built and the stem cells used to seed these scaffolds, but also the evaluation and continuing refinement of the artificial organs and tissues produced.

The second article “Miniature human liver grown in mice” by Monya Baker provides another example of how the field of tissue engineering is progressing. There have been several previous attempts to create artificial liver tissue in the laboratory, but this is the first time that an engineered liver has been produced that is vascularized and when transplanted into a mouse model of liver failure was able to connect with the mouse blood vessels and function as a liver.

Like the heart grown by Harald Ott, the artificial liver buds were produced by Takanori Takebe and colleagues were created using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), but rather than using a scaffold they found – after hundreds of experiments – that if they mixed iPS cell derived liver precursor cells with other stem cells that develop into tissues such as blood vessels, and got the ratios of cells and conditions just right they would self-organize and develop into a functioning liver bud.  It’s an example of why scientists need be able to use a wide variety of approaches in tissue engineering, the technique that works best for the heart may not be best for the liver, while another technique again might work best for the trachea.

Studies in mice were key to the assessment of engineered mini-livers

Studies in mice were key to the assessment of engineered mini-livers

This artificial liver bud holds great promise for use in transplant operations, though before that becomes a reality the liver buds will need to be studied for longer times in mice to ensure that they continue to function over extended periods and do not develop abnormalities such as cancer, and the technique needs to be improved in order to produce the far larger amounts of liver tissue required for human transplants. In the shorter term the liver buds may have a role in preclinical screening of new drugs, as the initial studies in mice reported by Takanori Takebe and colleagues (1) demonstrated that when the mice were given a range of small molecules – including two drugs they are metabolized differently by human and mouse livers -  they produced a metabolic profile that closely resembled that of an adult human liver. It is also likely that this liver bud technology, or a derivation more suitable for high-throughput screening, will be used to screen chemicals in vitro, reducing the number that need to be evaluated in live animals later.

It’s a great window on an exciting area of 21st century medicine, one that we will all be hearing about a lot over the coming years.

Speaking of Research

1) Takanori Takebe et al. “Vascularized and functional human liver from an iPSC-derived organ bud transplant” Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12271


Filed under: News, Science News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, heart transplant, iPS cell, liver transplant, stem cell, tissue-engineering, transplant

A bad week for medical research in Italy – but science is fighting back!

0
0

The approval on Wednesday by the Italian Chamber of Deputies of the amendments to directive 2010/63/EU – referred to as Article 13 – was a very sad day for science in Italy (and there have been far to many of these lately). While some of the provisions in Article 13 are quite innocuous, even rather pointless as they just restate what the directive already says in a slightly different form of words , several of the amendments have the potential to do enormous and lasting damage to biomedical research in Italy.

Picture Credit: Lorenzo Todaro

Italian scientists must continue to fight for the future of medical research!

Article 13 states (in translation from an article on the Pro-Test Italia website)

Article 13.

(Criteria for delegation to the Government for the transposition of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes)

1. In the exercise of the delegation for the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, the Government is obliged to follow, in addition to the guiding principles and criteria referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, the following guiding principles and specific criteria:

a) directing research to the use of alternative methods;

b) prohibit the use of primates, dogs, cats, and specimens of species in danger of extinction unless it is research aimed at human health or the species involved, conducted in accordance with the principles of Directive 2010/63 /EU, with the approval of the Ministry of Health, after consulting the Board of
Health;

c) consider the need to refer to other experiments an animal that has already been used in a procedure, to those in which the actual severity of the previous procedures was classified as “moderate” and the next one belongs to the same level of pain or both classified as ‘mild’ or ‘non-recovery’ within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 2010/63/EU;

d) prohibit the experiments and procedures that do not provide anesthesia or analgesia, if they involve pain to the animal, except in the case of testing of anesthesia or analgesia;

e) to establish that the generation of strains of genetically modified animals must take into account the evaluation of the relationship between harm
and benefit, the actual need of the manipulation and the possible impact it could have on animal welfare, assessing the potential risks to human health and animal health and the environment;

f) prohibit the use of animals for experiments of war, for xenotransplantation and for research on drugs of abuse, in the areas of experimental and teaching exercises with the exception of university education in veterinary medicine and advanced training of doctors and veterinary preparations;

g) prohibiting the national territory in the breeding of dogs, cats and non-human primates used in experiments;

h) define a framework and appropriate sanctions such as to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even taking into account the Title IX-bis of Book II of the Penal Code;

i) develop alternative approaches which could provide the same level or a higher level of information than that obtained in procedures using animals but
which do not involve the use of animals or use fewer animals or involve less painful procedures, in limit the financial resources generated by the application referred to in subparagraph h), assessed and recognized in the financial statements;

l) to allocate an annual sum in the context of national and European funds for research aimed at the development and validation of alternative methods,
consistent with the commitments already made to the legislation in force, in regular training and refresher courses for operators of establishments approved and take all measures deemed appropriate in order to encourage research in this area with the obligation for the competent authority to communicate through the bank of national data, the transposition of the methods and substitutions.

2. In the application of the principles and criteria referred to in paragraph 1, the Government is obliged to respect the obligations arising from legislation or national pharmacopoeias, European or international.

3. Since the implementation of delegation of power referred to in this Article shall not derive new or increased charges for public finance.”

As a recent article on this blog explained, parts (d) (f) and (g) are a serious threat to biomedical research and the welfare of laboratory animals in Italy, though other parts – notably (b) and (e) - are so poorly defined that they may also cause problems. These are the amendments approved by the Italian Senate earlier in July and then by the Chamber of Deputies on Wednesday.

For example, the amendment dealing with xenotransplantation alone has the potential to hamper many areas of medical research – and even medical practice – as it does not define what is meant by “xenotransplantation”. It may block vital cancer research that involves xenografts or tumorgrafts,  the use of porcine heart valves in cardiac surgery (a common procedure that has saved many thousands of lives) as well as research to improve those valves, block bioengineering/tissue engineering research which involves transplanting tissues from one species in another, and even stop significant numbers of stem cell research projects where stem cells from one species are transplanted into another .

These amendments must not be enforced, if they are they will do terrible damage to science in Italy. It’s a bad situation, and one more example of how the far too many Italian politicians are out of touch with science.

Fortunately there is some hope.

The law transposing the EU directive into Italian law was rushed through the Chamber of Deputies by the Italian government because Italy was facing large financial penalties due to being late in transposing and implementing the Directive, so the government did a deal with the Deputies so that the text approved earlier by the Senate was approved without further amendment (any amendments would have been sent back to the Senate for approval again causing more delays). In doing this the Parliament agreed to delegate to the government  the drafting of the specific laws and regulations  implementating of the Directive. So now the ball is in the government’s court: it will have to write the legislative decrees, and the Government will have to do so in a manner consistent with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 13, which states that “In the application of the principles and criteria referred to in paragraph 1, the Government is obliged to respect the obligations arising from legislation or national pharmacopoeias, European or international”Article 2 of Directive 2010/63/EU specifically bars countries from imposing additional stricter national restrictions on animal research unless they were in force before 9 November 2010, which of course means that the most worrisome amendments in Article 13 are actually in breach of Directive 2010/63/EU.

As an article posted earlier today on the Pro-Test Italia website (in Italian) points out the Italian government, and specifically health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin, has accepted the advice of the parliamentary commission and several orders-of-the-day made by deputies who do realise the importance of animal research on Wednesday that some of the amendments in article 13 are highly problematic both legally and scientifically. The Government now has the opportunity to introduce safeguards that ensure that these amendments do not harm Italian science (and lead to the EU starting infringement procedures against Italy), and to prepare new amendments to correct the problems at the next reading in the Italian parliament.

In short there is still everything to play for, and it has become apparent that the voices of science are beginning to be heard by an increasing number of Italian politicians. The mobilization of the scientific community in Italy on this issue in the past few weeks has been unprecedented, and our friends in Pro-Test Italia have played a leading role in encouraging and coordinating that response. Now is the time for the Italian scientific community – and their colleagues throughout Europe and beyond – to redouble their efforts and make sure that these amendments are consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Paul Browne


Filed under: Animal Rights News, News, Science News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, Directive 2010/63/EU, Italy, Pro-Test Italia, transposition

As Italy prepares to rally for science, science rallies for Italy!

0
0

Tomorrow scientists from all over Italy will travel to Rome to join Pro-Test Italia in a rally to save medical research in Italy.

At the rally, which will be held in Rome’s via Colonna Antonina (Montecitorio), from 15.30 until 18.30, speakers from several of Italy’s leading research organizations will join politicians from all major parties and members of Pro-Test Italia. There they will unite to send a message to the Italian people and government that “There is no future without research!” and that they must reject damaging amendments to EU directive 2010/63/EU on animal research, amendments that threaten many promising areas of medical research, and actually contravene the EU directive itself!

We have written before about the dire impact that these amendments will have on research in Italy if they are implemented, but also of the opportunity that the Italian government has to prevent this from happening. For a great introduction to the situation in Italy, watch this video produced by members of the group  Italia Unita Per La Corretta Informazione Scientifica.

Among those backing the Pro-Test Italia rally are some of the most prestigious scientific associations, institutes and advocates in Italy, including the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Gruppo 2003, Associazione Ricercatori San Raffaele,  the Italian Association of Biotechnologists, the Italian Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Sindacato Veterinari Liberi Professionisti (Italian veterinary professionals association) and the Associazione Luca Coscioni, and with their support Pro-Test Italia will add more voices to those of more than 3,000 scientists from Italy’s leading medical research charities who recently called on the government to save medical research from bad laws.

But it’s not just Italian scientists that are backing Pro-Test Italia, the Basel Declaration Society, European Mind and Metabolism Association, and the European Animal Research Campaign Centre and UK advocacy group Understanding Animal Research issued a statement of support for Pro-Test Italia.

UAR – Pro-Test Italia Statement

EARCC – Pro-Test Italia Statement

Scientific organizations in the USA are also rallying in support of Pro-Test Italia. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), the USA’s largest coalition of biomedical researchers, which represents 27 scientific societies and over 110,000 researchers from around the world, issued a strong statement of support for their Italian colleagues and Pro-Test Italia on the eve of the rally.

FASEB Pro-test Italia Rally Statement

The American Physiological Society (APS), an organization whose membership of over 10,000 health professionals and scientists is dedicated to devoted to fostering education, scientific research, and dissemination of information in the physiological sciences, also added their voice in support of Italian science.

APS statement on Pro-Test Italia rally

So as Pro-Test Italia gather in Rome they will be giving a voice not just to their fellow Italians, but also to scientists and supporters of medical progress around the world who have watched the developing crisis in Italy with growing concern.

Follow events tomorrow on the Facebook groups of Pro-Test Italia and Speaking of Research, and on twitter by following the hashtag #iostoconlaricerca (I’m for research).

We wish our friends in Pro-Test Italia well as they prepare for tomorrow’s rally for the future of Italian science, the hopes of many thousands of scientists, physicians and patients across Italy – and indeed the world – are with them.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News Tagged: 2010/63/EU, animal research, animal testing, Article 13, EU directive, Italy, Pro-Test Italia, Rome

Learning From Locusts

0
0

Fifty years ago President Kennedy established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development:

. . . We will look to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for a concentrated attack on the unsolved health problems of children and of mother-infant relationships. This legislation will encourage imaginative research into the complex processes of human development from conception to old age. . . For the first time, we will have an institute to promote studies directed at the entire life process rather than toward specific diseases or illnesses.
—John F. Kennedy, October 17, 1962

The founding vision was to support world class research into human development spanning the entire lifetime, with an emphasis on pregnancy as well as intellectual and developmental disabilities.  Congress named the institute after Eunice Kennedy Shriver in honor of her advocacy for people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

The mission of the NICHD is to ensure that every person is born healthy and wanted, that women suffer no harmful effects from reproductive processes, and that all children have the chance to achieve their full potential for healthy and productive lives, free from disease or disability, and to ensure the health, productivity, independence, and well-being of all people through optimal rehabilitation.

locust

To accomplish this mission,  NIHCD broadly supports laboratory, clinical and epidemiological research.  It is not always obvious how laboratory research relates to human health care, and given the description of the NICHD mission, insect studies, for example, may not be the first kind of research that springs to mind as fitting the bill.  The following video explains why locust research is relevant to humans, and why what we learn about the sense of smell is important to our understanding of neural networks, with implications for neural disorders.

Megan Wyeth


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: animal testing, locusts, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Primates in Medical Research – Free Literature

0
0

The following post by Richard Scrase of UAR discusses a new free e-book (also available as pdf) which Understanding Animal Research (UAR) and Moshe Bushmitz has produced. It’s well worth a download, so please share with friends.

How do researchers work with primates? Which species do they use? What has research with primates revealed? How are the primates looked after?

These are the questions answered in our new iBook, Primates in Medical Research. Making full use of the iBook’s capability to show video, images and sound, Primates in Medical Research shows the vital role of primates in medical research. The iBook feature recent video clips recorded in primate research and breeding facilities in the UK, US and Israel. Its galleries include over 80 images of primates that illustrate the iBook’s 71 pages, along with archive material and a timeline showing medical advances with primates stretching back a century.

Primates in Medical ResearchPrimates in Medical Research is free to download from iTunes. Currently it can only be viewed on iPads. A PDF version can be downloaded from our website here.

Primates in Medical Research was produced by Understanding Animal Research in collaboration with primate specialist Dr Moshe Bushmitz.

Please download here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/primates-in-medical-research/id676974662?mt=11

Richard Scrase


Filed under: News, Outreach News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, macaque, medical research, monkey experiments, primates

Animal welfare inspectors clear UW-Madison cat research of PETA allegations, important hearing research continues

0
0

A second federal agency charged with oversight of animal research has completed a thorough investigation of an animal rights group’s complaints about sound localization research with cats at the University of Wisconsin. Summary of the result:  “there was no direct noncompliance with the PHS Policy or serious deviation from the provisions of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”

We have written previously (here, here, here) about reviews conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This time the report is from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).  Once again, the complaint by PETA is based on hundreds of pages of records that the animal rights group received from the UW via open records requests.  In response to these complaints both federal agencies have sent teams that include veterinarians to look at the animals, records, and research at UW-Madison.

new graphic - AR cycle 10.07.13 ajbIn addition to the USDA and OLAW reviews, during this period the NIH institute funding the sound localization project, the National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD), also took action. NIDCD suspended one part of the research— but not the entire project— from April-September 2013 when the final report was issued. Whether the suspension was the result of PETA’s allegations is not clear. What is clear is that the NIH and scientific community have long supported and valued this specific research and– more broadly–  the contribution of animal models to success in this field and advances in scientific understanding and human health. The PI of this work, Professor Tom Yin, has been funded by NIH for many years. As is the case of all NIH-funded research, a competitive expert scientific panel provides rigorous critical analysis of the proposed science. Only a small fraction of proposals are identified as valuable, worthwhile, and likely to succeed. In this case, the PI’s research was deemed justifiable and worthy following scientific review, NIH review, and IACUC review. Furthermore, the scientific contributions Yin’s work is evident in many ways. For example, it is widely cited in the field (e.g., over 5000 citations of his scientific papers). Yin discusses the targeted research in these videos:

In brief, Professor Yin’s laboratory conducts fundamental basic research that has resulted in better understanding of complex brain function and how hearing works. By using a combination of electrophysiological recordings, anatomical studies and behavioral studies, the lab is studying the mechanisms used by the brain to put together inputs from the two ears to improve hearing. The scientific discoveries have public benefit because they provide foundational understanding with broad applicability. Knowing how the brain integrates sound received by both ears and how that allows for localization of sounds is an important part of work towards improving the quality of life and functioning of millions of people with hearing impairment.

Many types of research in this area require recording and studying a real functioning brain, there are no non-animal alternatives. Cats are among the best animal models for this work for a number of reasons. Among them: most of the information we have about the auditory system comes from studies in cats, they are nocturnal hunters with excellent sound localization abilities, and what we know about the cat’s nervous system shows that it is very similar to that of humans. The importance of cats and other animal models to research in this field is widely acknowledged, including by this year’s Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, and particularly the work of Graeme Clarke, which laid the foundations for the development of multichannel cochlear implants through studies in cats and rats.

As we have discussed previously, consideration of the use of animals in research includes not only weighing its potential benefits, but also evaluation of the animals’ welfare. The welfare of all of research animals is a priority and one that is ensured through the careful efforts of research, veterinary, and animal care personnel. Furthermore, oversight of animals’ care and treatment occurs at individual, institutional, and federal levels. A small number of cats (less than a dozen) participate in UW-Madison’s sound localization research. The cats are healthy and well-adjusted to their work, play, and living environments as was documented in the OLAW report. In that report, external reviewers who had thoroughly reviewed the lab and records, examined the animals, and interviewed the animal care and veterinary personnel, research staff, and scientists were satisfied with the animals’ condition and treatment.  Potential for pain or suffering is minimized through careful efforts: Surgery is performed under deep anesthesia, just like surgery for humans. Infections are a risk, but they affect the animals only a fraction of the time they are in study. Furthermore, infections are caught early through extensive and careful monitoring, treated immediately and resolved quickly in all but a very small number of cases. In no cases are they allowed to be untreated or to cause suffering or unrelieved pain.

OLAW’s summary conclusion, released September 30, confirmed that the research and animal treatment were appropriate: “there was no direct noncompliance with the PHS Policy or serious deviation from the provisions of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.” Furthermore, the report concluded that PETA’s specific allegations were unsupported. The report also acknowledged UW’s efforts to continue refinement in the animals’ care and treatment:  “OLAW found that while the specific allegations did not accurately reflect the entire clinical and research condition of the cats, changes were made to enhance the care of the animals and potentially improve research outcomes.” Furthermore, the report includes many extremely positive descriptions of the animals’ condition and care.

UW responded:

“The OLAW investigation is the third review of the lab and its animal subjects by the federal government, all instigated by PETA within the past year. To date, none of the many allegations of mistreatment made by the organization to the U.S. Department of Agriculture or OLAW have been substantiated. ‘Contrary to the misleading claims made by PETA, the conclusions cited in the OLAW report reflect our view that the animals in the study are in excellent health, are well treated and cared for, and used to further important research in an appropriate and humane manner,’ says Dan Uhlrich, UW-Madison associate vice chancellor for research policy.  ‘Significant university and federal resources have been repeatedly redirected to respond to these unfounded allegations. This is a questionable use of scarce and valuable public resources, which we feel damages the best interests of the public, science, affected researchers, and the dedicated animal care and veterinary staffs responsible for the health and wellbeing of our animals.”

The OLAW summary report, including 36 appendix exhibits, can be found on their website. The UW has also shared detailed information about the research, the reviews, and the animal program with the broad public via its website, release of hundreds of records, and videos in which the scientist and others speak about the value of the work and how it is conducted.  In other words, as we’ve noted before, there are many venues for the public to learn more about the work, its conduct, and the detailed process of regulatory oversight.

What was PETA’s response?

Hint:  It did not include acknowledgement that OLAW, USDA, and the University of Wisconsin gave serious consideration to PETA’s complaint, performed a thorough investigation, and provided a detailed, specific public response on each of the allegations that the animal rights group raised. Nor did PETA’s response include an acknowledgement that perhaps they were wrong.  And nothing in their public responses indicated – front and center – that PETA’s mission and objective is to end all animal research. PETA’s position is fundamentally absolutist. Regardless of animals’ welfare and regardless of the consequences for the public that benefits from responsible, ethical and humanely-conducted animal studies, PETA is opposed to all use of nonhuman animals. Thus, there are presumably no conditions under which PETA would find laboratory animal research acceptable. (We welcome correction from PETA if this is a misrepresentation of their position.)

It is not surprising then that, as reported in the Wisconsin State Journal, PETA’s spokesman did not accept the OLAW conclusion, but rather vowed:  “This campaign is going to continue until that lab is empty and there are no cats in it,’” Goodman said without specifying the group’s next steps.”

PETA’s next steps in its quest to close the laboratory will probably include some of the characteristic stunts for which they are famous. At the UW this has included small protests on campus, the PETA mobile billboard truck driving around Madison, and an actor and PETA staffer gaining media coverage for disruption and arrest at a UW System Board of Regents meeting. Review of their campaign strategy thus far provides a few other clues for what to expect at the UW and elsewhere. For example, last week PETA set up at the campus job fair to recruit for an “undercover investigator.”  PETA’s Jeremy Beckham netted a local television interview with the tactic. Not a new tactic for animal rights groups, as seen in this campaign directed at Oregon Health Sciences University several years ago.

As we’ve written before however, focusing on these stunts and underestimating the broader gains that PETA has made and that negatively affect science and public interests can be a mistake.  In the case of this campaign and all of the associated events, two things in particular are worth notice by the broader community.  First, the way in which PETA used the openness of records and the public responsiveness of the regulatory process to feed their campaign; and second, the use of emotive tactics that encourage harassment of scientists and others in research institutions. The graphic above captures the general strategy used by many activist groups, highlights the costs, and raises a number of questions. In particular, one question that merits serious discussion is how to better assess the full range of actual costs and critical evaluation of realized benefits to animal welfare, science, and public interests.

Despite the conclusion of multiple federal reviews that failed to support their allegations, PETA is continuing to smear the research and to promote petition and email campaigns to the NIH, UW-Madison, and others. As one of the exhibits in the OLAW report shows, the NIDCD received 562 phone calls and approximately 190,000 emails about cat research. While that represents a tiny fraction of the American public and likely includes many form messages, its inclusion in the OLAW report suggests it may have been relevant to the NIH’s response.  No doubt that number increased after PETA linked a form email to its mixed martial arts assault on scientists videogame in order to encourage players to complain to NIH about the UW research.  Of course the game also encourages players to entertain the idea of harming scientists. As we’ve seen before, these highly emotional tactics can have the general effect of eliciting threatening and disturbing messages from those who follow PETA. For example, this recent tweet:

Beth Carter 10.5.13 tweet

The PETA campaign and response following the USDA and OLAW reports makes their objective clear once again:  to end research and close labs. Nothing new there. The question to ask now however, is how research institutions, scientists, federal agencies, and the public should respond to campaigns like this. In particular, this set of events provides additional strong evidence that there is little broad value in engagement with groups that have a singular agenda and little interest in serious dialogue, accuracy, or acknowledgement of the complex issues and choices in animal research conducted for public benefit.  For scientists and research institutions interested in dialogue and better understanding of animal research, using that time and energy to communicate directly with the public about their research, why they are doing it and what it involves makes more sense.

More here:

http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/20/defending-science-and-countering-falsehood-at-the-university-of-wisconsin-madison-2/

http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/10/12/as-predicted-uw-cleared-peta-caught-lying-again/

http://speakingofresearch.com/2013/02/08/a-lesson-in-hypocrisy-as-peta-cries-foul-over-one-cats-death-while-secretly-killing-hundreds-more/


Filed under: Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News Tagged: animal models, animal research, animal testing, animal welfare, cat, hearing, NIH, OLAW, peta, sound localization, Tom Yin, University of Wisconsin, USDA

More Charities Doing Animal Research Outreach Right

0
0
Cancer Research UK animal Research

Click image to download CRUK’s leaflet

This is the simple message that Cancer Research UK (CRUK) hope to get across in their new leaflet about why they fund and conduct research on animals.

The leaflet covers many important points, including why CRUK uses animal models:CRUK - why we need animals in research

Its efforts to replace animal tests:Replacement - CRUK animal testing

And how animal welfare is maintained:CRUK animal welfare

That such research is needed is made clear by today’s report that deaths from prostate cancer have fallen by 20% in the UK in the last 20 years, due to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. While this is good news it highlights the need for further improvement in the treatment of prostate cancer. An example of improving therapies for prostate cancer is the drug Abiraterone (marketed as Zytiga), which was approved for use in advanced prostate cancer in the UK last year, and was identified through research in mice by scientists at what is now a CRUK funded research centre (CRUK was founded in 2002 when the Cancer Research campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund merged). Last year also saw the approval of the skin cancer therapy vasmodegib, a drug whose CRUK supported development started with a study of the regulation of development in fruit flies.  This work continues today as CRUK funded scientists make discoveries through animal research that will help to develop the next generation of therapies for a wide range of cancers.

We have previously mentioned the efforts by medical research charities in the UK to discuss their reasons for funding animal research. This includes Alzheimer’s Research UK’s leaflet and the British Heart Foundation’s Mending Broken Hearts Campaign. CRUK’s leaflet is another fantastic contribution by British medical research charities. Sadly, US charities still have some way to go, as we found when assessing the strengths of their position statements.

Speaking of Research


Filed under: News Tagged: animal testing, Cancer Research, Does Cancer Research UK test on animals?, fund animal testing, medical research charities

Animal research and diabetes: Now the truth must be told – Part 1

0
0

Today we will take a look at the series of discoveries and innovations that led to the development of insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes, and tomorrow we will take a closer look at some of that claims made about this by animal rights activists.

With the World Diabetes Day coming up on 14th November, it is no surprise that activists are targeting diabetics by saying that cures and supportive treatment of this disease owe nothing to research on animals. They as usual, support their claim by a series of misinformation, statements taken out of context and in some arguments, deliberate distortions.

Although the remedy for diabetes was discovered in the 20th century, it is a disease that has plagued mankind since the ancient times. It was first described some 3,500 years ago by Egyptian physicians. Since then, various physicians of different civilizations – Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Arabic – have separately recorded descriptions of this disease, with the Greeks giving it the name ‘diabetes’ in reference to the increased frequency of urination that is characteristic of it. The predominant school of thought at that time was that the disease was due to kidney malfunction.

From the 16th to 18th century, diabetes was further described by European doctors, and from the idea that the disease was caused by kidney malfunction, various other hypotheses were also put forward – liver malfunction, systemic disease or even a malfunction of the central nervous system.  Amongst the various hypotheses put forward, one from Dr Thomas Cawley in the late 1700’s, linking diabetes to a damaged pancreas, based on the autopsy of a diabetic patient. During the 19th century evidence for a role of the pancreas in diabetes increased, but it was not clear if the damage seen was related to the cause of the disease or was a consequence of the disease, and how the pancreas might be regulating blood sugar. The pancreas was known to secrete digestive enzymes into the intestines via the pancreatic duct, but it was not clear how this function was related to the proposed role in controlling blood sugar levels.

The first experimental proof that the pancreas played an important role in carbohydrate metabolism and that diabetes could be of pancreatic origin was provided in 1890 by Von Merin and Minkowski  using dogs as research models. Their work showed that if the pancreas was removed from a dog, the animal got diabetes, but if the duct through which the pancreatic juices flow to the intestine was ligated the dog developed minor digestive problems but no diabetes, indicating that the roles of the pancreas in digestion and regulating blood sugar were separate (1). Later Minkowski and French scientist Edouard Hedon showed independently that if the entire pancreas was removed but some pancreatic tissue was grafted under the dog’s skin then diabetes was prevented, thus conclusively demonstrating that the  sugar regulating function of the pancreas was independent from its role in digestion (2).

While the role of acinar cells of the pancreas in the production of digestive juices was well understood at that time,  the small clusters of cells (‘islets’) discovered by Paul Langerhans in the pancreas of rabbits in 1869 still had no function attributed to them.   Dr Edouard Laguesse in 1893 suggested that these ‘islets of Langerhans’ might constitute the endocrine tissue of the pancreas responsible for the glucoregulatory role of this organ. Further evidence for this role came in 1900 from the pathologist Eugene Lindsay Opie, who noted damage to the islets of langerhans in diabetes patients (4). A year later Leonid W. Ssobolew demonstrated that a ligature of the pancreatic ducts in rabbits, cats, and dogs leads to gradual atrophy and destruction of the enzyme-secreting acinar cells, whereas the islet cells remained intact for weeks, with no evidence of excessive sugar in the urine (5).

In 1905, William Bayliss and Ernest Henry Starling, introduced the concept of hormones to designate the chemical messengers of the body’s endocrine glands, following their identification of the first hormone “secretin” through research on the regulation of digestion in dogs (3). Extrapolating on this concept, in 1913, Sir Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer – another pioneer in the field of endocrinology – suggested that a hormone responsible for lowering blood sugar concentration was being secreted by the islets of Langerhans and he named this hypothetical hormone ‘insulin’. Independently, 4 years earlier, Jean de Meyer, a Belgian physician had produced an extract from the pancreas that lowered blood sugar concentrations and he also, concluded that the extract contained a substance from the islets of Langerhans and he named that hypothetical substance ‘insuline’ (Latin: insula,island).

Once it was clearly established that there was a link between diabetes and the pancreas – more specifically,  a substance produced by the islets of Langerhans – researchers from various parts of the world were focusing on treating diabetes with pancreatic extracts. Several workers including Zuelzer (Germany), Paulesco (Romania), Scott and Kleiner (North America) had all been able to produce pancreatic extracts that often reduced hyperglycemia or glycosuria in animals and, in a handful of cases with mixed results, in humans. However, due to toxic reactions after the initial relief of symptoms and the outbreak of the First World War, their work was discontinued or slowed down. The problem of how to isolate the hormone insulin in a form sufficiently pure for clinical use remained for now unresolved.

On 30 October 1920, while preparing for a physiology lecture, Frederick Banting came across the article by Moses Barron, “The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans to Diabetes, with special reference to cases of pancreatic lithiasis” (6). While doing routine autopsies, Dr Barron had come across a rare case of the formation of a pancreatic stone. Rarer still, the stone had completely obstructed the main pancreatic duct. Dr Barron observed that this obstruction had caused the atrophy of all acinar cells while the islets of Langerhans had remained intact, and he observed that there was a similarity to Leonid W. Ssobolew’s earlier animal studies where the ligature of the pancreatic ducts in rabbits, cats and dogs lead to the gradual atrophy of the enzyme-secreting acinar cells.

If Frederick Banting was alive, I'm sure he'd be writing about his research for us.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Banting and Macleod

Although not a researcher (he was a general surgeon and part time lecturer), Banting’s thoughts were triggered by Dr Barron’s article, as he describes in his 1923 Nobel Prize Lecture. He suspected that in the failed attempts of those scientists who were using pancreatic extract to cure diabetes, the digestive enzymes of the pancreas were destroying the active principle responsible for lowering glucose levels. He started thinking about what if the extract came from a fully degenerated pancreas (through duct ligation) – something that no one had tried before.  He brought his idea to John Macleod, department head at the University of Toronto and a leading authority on carbohydrate metabolism. After much convincing, Macleod agreed to provide research facilities including 10 dogs as research animals and overview the testing of Banting’s proposal. He employed Charles Best to be a research assistant to Banting with work starting in May 1921 (7).

The team had to first refine their surgical techniques on dogs – namely to ligate the pancreatic duct in some animals, and in other individuals to completely remove the pancreas. On 30 July, they managed to obtain an extract from a duct-tied dog which was administered to a depancreatised dog that was displaying the symptoms of diabetes. The extract caused a reduction in blood sugar. The experiments were replicated and recorded frequent decreases in blood sugar as well as sugar excreted in urine. The team had experimental evidence of having isolated an extract with antidiabetic properties – they named the extract ‘Isletin’.

They next refined their technique by using a hormone, secretin, to exhaust acinar cells and obtain extracts from the pancreas free from digestive enzyme trypsin, thus bypassing the duct ligation procedure. They also explored the avenue of obtaining pancreatic extract from fetal calves – in which there was no active acinar secretion, hence free from the digestive enzymes. This was successful but still not efficient enough to be appropriate for large scale production. The next advance was to employ an extraction method that used slightly acidified alcohol rather than saline water, as the ethanol could then be evaporated to leave behind the active hormone. With the help of James Collip, a biochemist who joined the team  in early December 1921, they managed to secure the active principle from fresh whole beef pancreas, and Collip even managed to isolate the active principle as a powder, still with impurities but far purer than any previous extracts. This was tested on rabbits as newer methods for blood testing had been developed that required a far lesser volume of blood as sample. These new methods for testing blood sugar levels had been instrumental in the further purification and testing of the extract as it was more precise, more rapid and required  a small volume of blood (hence, smaller animals could be used). After the assay of tests, it was realized that the extract was sufficiently pure for testing on humans.

On 11 January 1922, the extract was administered to Leonard Thompson, a 14 yr old boy with severe diabetes, however, although they recorded a drop in blood sugar levels, it was considered not effective enough.  A second trial on 23 January 1922 with a more highly purified extract prepared by Collip was performed, and this time a more significant blood sugar level decrease as well as glucose excretion level decrease was obtained. In February 1922, 6 more patients were treated, all with favourable results (8). In later papers the active principle was re-named ‘Insulin’.

When moved to industrial production, with the help of the chief chemist from Eli Lilly and Co, Georges Walden, insulin was being produced at greater yields, better stability and much purer than what was obtained before. Diabetic patients were being treated successfully and the team was achieving fame, honours and prizes with the culmination of the Nobel Prize being awarded to Banting and Macleod in October 1923.

Further work by other scientist on Insulin resulted in its sequencing by Frederick Sanger in 1958. Chemical synthesis of the two protein chains of insulin was achieved in 1967. For many years, beef/pork insulin was the only source of insulin until 1974 where Sieber and his colleagues managed to chemically synthesise human insulin. Subsequently human insulin was produced by recombinant DNA technology by scientists working for the biotechnology company Genentech Inc. and in 1982 the first synthetic insulin analog “Humulin” was approved by the FDA. Nowadays more than 300 insulin analogues exist – with differences in their absorption and duration of action characteristics according to the needs of the patients.

Prior to the introduction of insulin therapy, most patients with diabetes died within a year of diagnosis.  Today’s life expectancy for people with diabetes is still lower than that for the general population by about 10 years, but better control is leading to longer and healthier life. Much of this improvement is thanks to animal testing.

Tomorrow, in the second part of this article,  we will take a closer look at some of the specific claims that animal rights activists are making about the role of animal research in the development of insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes.

Nada and Paul

1)      von Mering J, Minkowski O. “Diabetes mellitus nach Pankreasextirpation”. Centralblatt für klinische Medicin, Leipzig, 1889, 10 (23): 393-394. Archiv für experimentelle Patholgie und Pharmakologie, Leipzig, 1890, 26: 37

2)      Hedon E. “sur la consommation du sucre chez la chien apres l’extirpation du pancreas” Arch Physiol Narmal Pathol Vth series 1893; 5: 154-63.

3)      Bayliss WM, Starling EH.”The mechanism of pancreatic secretion.” J Physiol. 1902 Sep 12;28(5):325-53.

4)      Opie EL. “The relation of diabetes mellitus to lesions of the pancreas. Hyaline degeneration of the islands of Langerhans.” J Exp Med 1900;5:527-540

5)      Ssobolew LW. “Zur normalen und pathologischen Morphologie der inneren Secretion der Bauchspeicheldrüse.” Archiv für pathologische und anatomie und physiologie und für klinische medizin 1902;168:91-128.

6)      Barron M. “The relation of the islets of Langerhans to diabetes with special reference to cases of pancreatic lithiasis.” Surg Gynec Obstet 1920;31:437-448.

7)      Rosenfeld L. “Insulin:Discovery and controversy.” Clinical Chemistry 2002 48:12 2270-88

8)      Banting FG, Best CH, Collip JB, Campbell WR, Fletcher AA. “Pancreatic Extracts in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus.” Can Med Assoc J. 1922 Mar;12(3):141-6.


Filed under: News, Science News Tagged: animal testing, banting and macleod, history of insulin, insulin, World diabetes day

Animal research and diabetes: Now the truth must be told – Part 2

0
0

In yesterday’s post we described how animal research contributed to the understanding and treatment of diabetes – most importantly with the discovery of insulin. In this post we address some of the common misinformation that activists are circulating on social media about the role of animal experiments in diabetes research.

a)      One of the most valuable advances in understanding diabetes was made by Dr Moses Barron.

Prior to 1920, many researchers had worked on the relationship between the pancreas (or even more specifically, the islets on Langerhans) and diabetes. Banting and Best were by no means the pioneers in this field.  In the literature review of their February 1922 paper (1), they cited the article of Barron for having inspired their work and allowed them to formulate their hypothesis. They also cited precursor work of Mering & Minkowski, and Sscobolew, amongst many others. Banting and Best made use of groundwork already done before them and used this as support to bring their research to higher heights. This is something very usual in biomedical research, groundbreaking discoveries/advances are never achieved in a nutshell – they all rely on previous precursor work.

b)      Barron explained that his discovery ‘could be made in no other way, not even by experimental ligation of the ducts in animals’

In his November 1920 paper (2), Barron was not speaking about his ‘discovery’. In fact the purpose of the paper (page 1) was to present examples of typical changes in the Islets found in cases of true diabetes together with one histopathology case study of pancreatic lithiasis (formation of stones in the pancreas) and to correlate these findings with those recorded in the literature as obtained in experimental ligation of the ducts in animals.

On page 8 of his paper, while he is describing his 4th case study,  he describes the lesions of pancreatic lithiasis as ‘by their very nature, being of long standing, presents gradually progressive changes in the parenchyma, that could be obtained in no other way, not even by experimental ligation of the ducts in animals”.  This is indeed true as experimental ligation would bring an abrupt obstruction in the pancreatic duct while the formation of stone (lithiasis) would be something gradual and hence bring progressive changes in the functional parts of the pancreas. This has of course been taken completely out of context by activists.

Animal rights activists also conveniently occlude the statement of Barron on the next page of his paper after he finishes describing the case study, that:  “ The study of this case reveals results that are remarkably similar to those found in experimental ligation of the ducts”. Thus the principle impact of Barron’s work was not providing groundbreaking information, the role of the pancreas and the islets of Langerhans in diabetes was already known by the time he published his 1920 paper, but in providing additional evidence that what had been observed in animal studies was also true in humans, and of course in bringing diabetes to the attention of Banting, whose interest in the field was sparked by reading Barron’s paper.

c)       Diabetes was understood and insulin was applied primarily thanks to human clinical study and autopsy.

Prior to 11 January 1922, most of the work done to understand the mechanism of diabetes was on animals (dogs, cats, rabbits). Human clinical studies of pancreatic extracts in the treatment of diabetes were almost inexistent due to problems observed in the preclinical animal studies, and the few clinical studies that had been attempted in the previous decades produced severe adverse effects that prevented the therapy entering clinical use. Toxic reactions due to impurities in the pancreatic extract prevented its application by Banting, Macleod and Best to humans until January 1922, when a sufficiently pure extract was produced to allow human trials.

As for autopsy, it was apparent decades before the paper of Barron from autopsy/surgical findings that the pancreas might play an important role in diabetes, but it was through animal research that the role was confirmed and mechanism through which the pancreas regulated sugar levels was determined. It was only one chance autopsy that indicated to Barron that it was indeed the islets of Langerhans that played an important role in the disease in humans.  The disease that allowed this observation was very rare, in fact, Barron said that this was the first case of pancreatic lithiarsis that he encountered in a series of several thousand autopsies.

The understanding of diabetes and the role of insulin that allowed the development of insulin therapy was obtained from the interplay between crucial discoveries made through both clinical observation and animal research, so assigning primacy to one or the other is nonsensical.

d)      Claude Bernard had by 1895 experimented on dogs and come to the incorrect conclusion that diabetes had nothing to do with the pancreas.

Claude Bernard (who died in 1878 – more than a decade before the discoveries of Von Merin and Minkowski and the discovery of the first hormones) lived in a time where it was generally accepted that diabetes was a disease of the kidney due to the excessive levels of sugar in the urine. In the mid to late 19th century, various scientists had been exploring other possibilities to the cause of diabetes, including Bernard who believed that the sugar present in diabetic urine was stored in the liver as glycogen.  In a series of animal studies in the late 1840’s and early 1850’s Bernard made crucial discoveries about the role of the liver in storing and producing glucose.  He also found – correctly – that the central nervous system was involved in controlling blood glucose concentration by working with rabbits, though he believed that this was through a direct nerve communication between the CNS and liver, whereas in fact the conversion of glucose to glycogen in the liver was controlled indirectly via the hormone epinephrine – produced by the adrenal gland – and then insulin (and of course insulin also affects other tissues as well as the liver). So the situation is not that Bernard concluded that diabetes had nothing to do with pancreas, it is merely that he did not explore this avenue, principally because he did not think that it was possible to surgically remove the pancreas without killing the animal being studied. Bernard’s animal research did not provide a complete explanation of how glucose levels are regulated, but it was the starting point for the key discoveries made over the next 70 years, as Professor J. Sjöquist of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine of the Karolinska Institute noted in his presentation speech for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on December 10, 1923.

It is true that the observation by Tidemann and Gmelin in 1827, that starchy foods are under normal conditions transformed into sugar in the intestinal canal and that this is absorbed by the blood, marks an important advance; but really epoch-making was the discovery of the great French physiologist Claude Bernard in 1857 that the liver is an organ that contains a starch-like substance, glycogen, from which sugar is constantly being formed during life; in the words of Claude Bernard, the liver secretes sugar into the blood.

In connection with his investigations into the circumstances that affect the formation of sugar, Claude Bernard observed that in certain lesions of the nervous system the sugar content of the blood was increased and that the sugar passed into the urine of the animals in the experiments. For the first time, therefore, an appearance of sugar in the urine – a glycosuria, though of a transitory nature – was experimentally produced; and consequently this discovery by Claude Bernard may be characterized as the starting-point of a series of experimental researches into the causes and nature of diabetes.”

e)      Macleod and Banting did not discover insulin as it had been identified and named before their experiments.

It was strongly hypothesized that the pancreas and more specifically the islets of Langerhans were producing a substance responsible for controlling blood sugar levels well before 1920 on the basis of animal research and clinical observations. Various names were proposed for this substance, insulin being one of them as this particular name had its Latin root derived from ‘islets’ (Latin: insula,island), but there is a big difference between inventing a name for a hypothetical substance and actually proving it exists and purifying it.

The quest for insulin was the ‘holy grail’ amongst scientists working in this field. Macleod, Banting and their fellow co workers had devised a series of experiments whereby they proved the hypothesis that insulin indeed came from the islets of Langerhans, they managed to produce an extract containing insulin and purify it to a degree that it retained its potency and efficiency in animal testing. They then further purified it to allow clinical testing, with the same positive results. They even refined their techniques to eventually reduce and replace animals that had to be used in the research and managed to produce the insulin in a stable, pure form in commercial quantities – making it available to the general public for diabetes treatment.

Irrespective of the controversy regarding who identified/named insulin, two things must be considered:

i)                    Almost all the scientists working in this field had been using animals as research models.

ii)                   The work of Macleod, Banting and their team was done over a short time (2 years) at the end of which, this resulted in clinical treatment of diabetes .Their Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology was amply deserved as they had according to the will of Alfred Nobel, made a discovery during the preceding year, “that conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”.

f)       Use of dogs was not necessary as human tissue was available

The study of diabetes required whole organisms – not just tissue/organ samples. The complex interactions behind production of insulin and its action in the metabolism of carbohydrates as well as the fact that diabetes affects several organ systems in the body made it crucial that whole organisms were studied. In addition insulin could not be obtained from any source other than as an extract from the pancreas, and human pancreases were not available for this purpose.

Dogs were the preferred animal model in the initial studies on diabetes because of their availability, the fact that their anatomy was well understood, hence making surgical techniques more efficient and most importantly, because at the time they began their experiments a large volume of blood needed to be sampled, thus the research animal could not be any smaller.

While in the course of their work, with newer methods being developed to test blood sugar levels in smaller volumes of blood, the team switched to smaller animals (rabbits). In fact, they acknowledge that the development of such techniques allowed their work to be done more precisely and more quickly.

beagle_UAR

g)      Synthetic insulin was developed in 1936

Synthetic insulin could not be made until a full understanding of its molecular structure was achieved. Sequencing of insulin was achieved in 1958 ; Chemical synthesis was first achieved in the lab in 1974 and it was only in the 1980s that synthetic insulin made by recombinant DNA technology was made available to the public. Until recombinant insulin became available almost all insulin was obtained from cattle, horses, pigs or fish.

h)      Diabetics owe nothing to animal experimenters.

Diabetics owe everything to animal researchers. The basic understanding of the anatomy and physiological functions of the pancreas was made possible thanks to work on animals. Duct ligations and depancreatisation experiments which gave insights into the functioning of the islets of Langerhans and allowed the isolation of pancreatic extracts containing insulin were made on animals. Although later this stage was deemed unnecessary due to the development of alcohol extraction methods, it provided the key stepping stones to the team to better understand the mechanism and properties of insulin, allowing them to move on to better techniques of obtaining insulin from whole pancreas. The testing of the pancreatic extract containing insulin of various degrees of purity had to be tested first on animals before being considered safe enough for humans. Even today, new insulin analogues need to be tested first on animals for efficacy and toxicity before moving on to human trials.

Research in the field of diabetes is still ongoing nowadays. Scientists are working to find alternative routes of insulin administration either by the oral route or by inhaling. Hopefully, in the near future, insulin injections will be something of the past. Work is being undertaken in the field of pancreatic or islet cell transplantation to cure Type I diabetes, including innovative stem cell based therapies that are being developed through animal research. Newer classes of therapy, including insulin pumps and insulin sensitizers that allow more precise control over blood sugar levels are being developed. All this progress relies on the continuing use of animals in the research.

So tomorrow on World Diabetes Day remember the many millions of lives around the world that have  been saved through animal research conducted by scientists over many decades, and also the thousands of scientists around the world who continue to strive to develop even better therapies – and even cures – for diabetes.

Nada and Paul

1)      Banting F.G. and Best C.H. “The internal secretion of the pancreas.” The journal of Laboratory and Clinical medicine, 1922;Vol VII No 5: 251-266

2)      Barron M. “The relation of the islets of Langerhans to diabetes with special reference to cases of pancreatic lithiasis.” Surg Gynec Obstet 1920;31:437-448.


Filed under: Animal Rights News, News, Science News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, Banting, Claude Bernard, diabetes, Moses Barron, type 1 diabetes, World diabetes day

Conversation Starter? PETA’s Bus Ads on University of Wisconsin Hearing Research

0
0

As predicted, PETA’s ongoing campaign against scientific research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison continues, escalating this week with a striking advertisement on 100 Metro buses. The ad calls for an end to UW research aimed at better understanding how the brain processes sound. A central question is how sound arriving at both ears is combined to allow us to determine the direction of its source with respect to our body. Sound localization ability allows us, for example, to quickly react to an approaching car that we might not have seen. In turn, this kind of basic understanding has provided the knowledge necessary to help people with hearing disorders and to guide the way for cochlear implants. It is the work of a highly respected scientist, Professor Tom Yin, whose discoveries and research have been funded by the National Institutes of Health for decades. His research is publicly funded because the scientific leadership of our country determined that the work is important to serve the public’s interest in advancing scientific understanding and public health. Furthermore, and contrary to PETA’s claims, the  cats are healthy and treated humanely, in accord with federal regulation, as demonstrated by the public reporting of thorough oversight by multiple federal agencies.

Metro bus displaying PETA ad. Image: Wisconsin State Journal.

Metro bus displaying PETA ad. Image: Wisconsin State Journal.

The ads that PETA is running on the buses don’t mention that.  What they do instead is show a picture of a cat, a participant in the research and the phrase “I am not lab equipment. End UW cat experiments.”

The picture is one PETA obtained from an open records request. Video of the research, many pictures, and interviews of the scientists whose research is targeted can be found here. The PeTA ads also don’t mention that both the US Department of Agriculture and the NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare investigated PeTA’s complaints and cleared Prof. Yin and UW of any wrongdoing.

We have written previously (here, here, here) in detail about PETA’s sustained efforts to use the federal regulatory system to end the UW’s sound localization research. We’ve also written about their other approaches to generate public and media attention – ranging from celebrity protests at the UW Board of Regents meeting to Bill Maher robocalls to an MMA fighting game where players are encouraged in violence (and sending emails to NIH opposing UW’s research).

Through all of this, PETA has made their position quite clear. Their goal is to end animal research regardless of the consequences for human and animal health, regardless of public interests.

While PETA’s campaigns are marketed as concern about animal welfare, even a superficial analysis quickly shows that it is not their central mission. After all, this is the same group with an abysmal record of killing the cats and dogs in their care.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that PETA’s investment in various campaigns is proportional to the number of animals involved in different uses. Only a tiny fraction of animals are used in research, in contrast to the vast majority in food, clothing, entertainment, service, and companionship. Yet animal research remains a major investment for PETA campaigns.

What PETA is aiming for when it targets animal research, particularly when it invests so much effort and so many resources to shut down a program involving only a dozen animals is political and obvious. They have selected a target that they believe will capture public emotion and sentiment in a way that serves a broader political goal that otherwise would be difficult to raise public attention and support.

In all of these campaigns, PETA is banking on a couple of expectations. First, that the public will not take the time to learn more about the research. Second, that the scientific, medical, advocacy, and patient groups will decline to engage or counter PETA’s outrageous claims. If, and when, those expectations are no longer met, PETA will lose its power to detract from a serious, civil and public consideration of science, medicine, and animal research.

For that reason, we believe that it is a critical responsibility of our community to continue to provide clear, factual, and responsive engagement to the public—regardless of how silly or wrong PETA’s tactics appear.

In the case of the Madison Metro bus ad campaign, we encourage the public and journalists who are interested in learning about the science– why it is conducted, the discoveries of the scientific team, the clinical applications, and the treatment of the animals—to take the time to learn more. The scientist and the University of Wisconsin have written extensively about the work. They have placed videos, photographs, interviews, papers, and point-by-point responses to PETA’s allegations in public view (more here). In fact, the scientist targeted by PETA for several years has provided a lab tour and interview to a local journalist.

Representatives of the university administration and animal research program have also consistently engaged with the media in a way that goes far beyond boilerplate responses and the university has hosted public discussions that have included contributions from both scientists and animal rights activists. At the time when PETA first made their allegations 65 of Prof. Yin’s colleagues even backed an Op-Ed piece written for the local newspaper. In other words – and no surprise –there is more to the story than a bus shrink-wrapped with a PETA billboard.  UW-Madison has made that clear time and again, with consistent and sustained effort to provide the public with clear, factual information and to engage when questions are asked.  More than that though, they also have a strong track record and commitment to science education and outreach in a great many venues.

While it is tempting to dismiss PETA’s tactics, it is worth public consideration that there is a sure long-term harm of acting on PETA’s commands without understanding the consequences to public interests, public health and the science that serves all of us. The scientific, academic, advocacy, patient, and other communities, on the other hand, know the value of the work that Prof. Yin and his colleagues are doing and can view this latest campaign as yet another time to speak up for the research.


Filed under: Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News Tagged: animal research, animal testing, cat, peta, PETA game, Tom Yin, University of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Viewing all 90 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images