Monthly Archives: March 2009

Stand up for Research at UCLA – April 22nd !!

pro-test-ucla-banner2

Storm clouds are gathering for a clash of wills during the upcoming World Week for Animals in Laboratories. Animal Rights groups are organizing a rally at the UCLA campus on April 22nd, but their lies and misinformation will go unchallenged no longer. UCLA Pro-Test, an organization of students and scientists is gathering on this very same day for a Pro-Research, Pro-Science demonstration to stand up against animal rights extremism and explain the crucially important role than animals play in medical research.

David Jentsch, and a number of other scientists who have also been the victims of animal rights extremism in California have decided to take a stand. With the support of Speaking of Research, and Pro-Test UK, they are organizing a demonstration to show that the students and scientists of UCLA and its neighbouring universities support animal-based medical research.

On Wednesday, 22nd April 2009, at 11:30 we call for all students, scientists and members of the public to make their way to the UCLA campus and meet at the junction of Westwood Blvd and Le Conte Ave.  Stand up for Science, Research and the Medicines of Tomorrow – Stand up and have your voice heard at the UCLA Pro-Test rally!!

Keep updated through our new UCLA Pro-Test page on this website!

Will you play your part? Not only are we looking for the silent majority to find their voice and march with us, but also for a few motivated individuals to get involved and help us get the word out. Anyone interested should contact us at contact@speakingofresearch.com, and we’ll make sure you get in touch with the right individuals.

Cheers

Tom

Addendum:

This movement now comes with its own Facebook Group (as every good movement should)  so join it now and invite your friends today. The word must spread!

How Monkeys Help to Prevent HIV Infection

With the European Parliament voting on the future of primate research there is no better time to discuss the medical benefits that such research provides – and which would be lost if primate research is severely restricted or banned.

We are all familiar with the use of drug regimes such as HAART to control HIV levels and prevent progression to AIDS in people infected with HIV, but an often overlooked area of HIV research is the development of drugs regimes that prevent infection taking place in the first place Examples of such regimes are the drugs used to prevent transmission of the virus from a HIV infected mother to her child during birth and the post-exposure prophylaxis that helps medical profesionals to avoid infection after accidental exposure to HIV-infected blood. Here Dr. Koen Van Rompay, a virologist at the University of California at Davis and founder of the development organization  Sahaya International, explains how important animal research was to the early development of such HIV prophylaxis regimes, and how important it continues to be as scientists develop ever better treatments.

Since the piece is a little longer than the average blog post (but still a very readable length) it is attached as a word document which you can read by clicking NHP Prophylaxis – Van Rompay.

Primate Freedom to propose killing … primates?

Rick Bogle, co-founder of the Primate Freedom Project, which fights to ban primate research (and, sadly, the life-saving research that goes with it), has decided to join the ranks of extremists such as Jerry Vlasak in condoning the murder of researchers. Sorry Rick, researchers are primates too!!

On the Primate Freedom blog, Mr. Bogle has this to say:

Rick Bogle

Trauma surgeon Jerry Vlasik [sic] has suggested, and I think he’s right, that if just a few vivisectors were murdered that millions of animals might be spared much suffering. Many vivisectors would simply quit. I don’t see how this isn’t likely to be true. [emphasis added]

You can read more about Jerry Vlasak from our previous posting about him. Note Bogle’s agreement with Vlasak’s stance. Bogle continues:

Extending this line of thought, if one were to start killing vivisectors in order to terrorize other vivisectors into stopping their diabolical investigations, should the murders be secret? sanitary? neat? Maybe not. It makes a certain sort of dark sense that one very sensational murder could have a greater impact than many hidden murders. There is an equation of sorts suggested by this. If it’s true that a series of murders might slow the attack on animals in the labs, wouldn’t lives be saved if the smallest number of murders possible were employed? What might be done to make one murder more noteworthy or a more efficient tool than another? [emphasis added]

At least he’s more or less admitting such extremism is terrorism. Nonetheless re-read the bolded part. Despite Bogle suggesting a few public, grizzly murders instead of a lot of “secret” and “neat” ones, it is still clear that more grizzly murders would be more “effective” (more researchers quitting, thus less animals used) than fewer grizzly murders. From that basis then we must assume that the lives being saved from the “smallest number of murders” is referring to the lives of researchers. Let me thus paraphrase:

Wouldn’t researchers be saved if we murdered only a small number of them?

Some of you will already be screaming “NO, if you want to save researchers then don’t murder any of them!” For those of you not screaming yet let me show you an analogous scenario of a murderer caught by the police:

Murderer:    But Sir, I saved lives as well
Policeman:  And how did you do that?
Murderer:    Well I was going to murder 5 people, but I decided to just kill just 3 people, thus saving 2 people’s lives!!
Policeman:  You can’t claim you saved someone because you didn’t kill them

Well at least the policeman realises the flaw in the argument, even if Rick Bogle doesn’t.

In conclusion all I can say is that Rick Bogle can join the ranks of absolute nutter, alongside Vlasak – and dangerous nutters at that.

Cheers

Tom

Progress towards a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe inherited muscular dystrophy that causes progressive muscle degeneration which eventually leads to loss of the ability to use muscles and death, and every year tens thousands of children are born afflicted with the disease. It is caused by mutations in the DMD gene that encodes dystrophin, a protein vital to the maintenance of muscle cell structure and function. Not surprisingly there are several charities around the world dedicated to finding a cure, and it looks as if their persistance may soon pay off.

Earlier this week the NIH announced some exciting results from a study (1) of a cocktail of morpholinos, small artificial molecules also called antisense oligonucleotides which mimic DNA and bind to it, that in a process termed exon skipping act as patches to allow the production of dystrophin where it would otherwise fail due to a mutation in the DMD gene. The team lead by Dr. Eric Hoffman found that they when they injected this morpholino cocktail into the bloodstream of dogs that suffer from duchenne muscular dystrophy skeletal muscle degeneration stopped, though the degeneration of cardiac muscle continued. They chose dogs for this experiment because they accurately mimic the physiological effects of human DMD, so the researchers were able to tell if the exon-skipping approach could actually restore enough of the dystrophin function to halt the progression of the disease. Mouse models of DMD, particularly the Mdx mouse which has a mutation in exon 23 that prevents it from making dystrophin, have proved invaluable to research on exon-skipping and other approaches to treating DMD. Their drawback is that the mice only develop a relatively mild version of the disease, and so are not always ideal if you want the determine whether a “patched” dystrophin will actually prevent muscle deterioration. While the truncated dystrophin protein produced as a result of exon skipping does not function as well as normal dystrophin in this study on dogs,  they did demostrate that enough dystrophin function was restored to halt deterioration and make a real difference to patients.

Where this work is an advance on previous research is that it uses an intravenous injection that then relied on the bloodstream to circulate the morpholinos to all muscle groups, rather than directly injecting the morpholinos into each of the muscle that need treatment. This is a significant improvement that will make the technique far more practical in the clinic. The use of a cocktail of morpholinos that each target different mutation sites in the DMD gene is also interesting, many DMD patients have several different mutations in their DMD genes and previous methods using antisense oligonucleotides have only been of potential benefit to a small proportion of patients, whereas the cocktail approach may benefit more that 90% of them.

As I mentioned above a serious drawback with the morpholino cocktail technique was that it failed to restore dystrophin function in the heart, but another recent research paper (2) suggests that this problem can be solved by attaching a cell-penetrating peptide to the morpholino. Using this approach Dr. Qi Lu and colleagues at the McColl-Lockwood Laboratory for Muscular Dystrophy were able to safely restore almost full dystrophin activity in both cardiac and sleletal muscles by intravenous injection of a cell-penetrating peptide linked to a morpholino that patches the exon 23 mutation in the Mdx mouse model of DMD.  This is an excellent result, and if it can be combined with a cocktail approach has great potential for the future treatment of DMD.

All in all morpholinos are looking like an increasingly promising approach to treating DMD, and along with other approaches including the drug PTC124 that is currently in clinical trials* and stem cell transplantation, offer hope to the many thousands of DMD sufferers around the world.

*As you might expect the basic research that underpinned the dicsovery of PTC124 and the subsequent pre-clinical evaluation of its efficacy and safety relied heavily on  mouse models of  Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis (3).

Regards

Paul Browne

Related posts:

Stem Cell Hope for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Promising Clinical Trial Result for Exon Skipping in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

1) Yokota T. et al. “Efficacy of systemic morpholino exon-skipping in duchenne dystrophy dogs” Annals of Neurology Published Online: 13 Mar 2009, DOI:10.1002/ana.21627

2) Wu B. et al. “Effective rescue of dystrophin improves cardiac function in dystrophin-deficient mice by a modified morpholino oligomer” PNAS Volume 105(39), pages 14814-14819. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0805676105

3) Hirawat S. “Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of PTC124, a nonaminoglycoside nonsense mutation suppressor, following single- and multiple-dose administration to healthy male and female adult volunteers.” J Clin Pharmacol. Volume 47(4), pages 430-444 (2007) DOI:10.1177/0091270006297140

Have you been targeted – Don’t back down, Speak out!

As violence continues to dominate the animal rights agenda there are plenty of scientists and researchers who are more than happy to stay out of the spot light. We see articles in local news and student papers containing statements from police, activists and occasionally university officials, but the voice of scientists and researchers is sadly missing. We see strong condemnations of violence, calls for tougher legislation, but no explanation of why animal research is necessary for modern medicine – no wonder students are flocking to join AR movements when no one explains to them the truth behind the groups they support – that although they may support animals, they are fundamentally misanthropic in nature.

SR calls on scientists to write to their local paper, their student paper, their own blogs,  to explain why we need animal research. “I am Prof. X and I believe that animal research is crucial because…” (I advise you don’t actually call yourself Prof. X, unless you want to sound like a Bond villain). Last week we published an article by an animal care technician who explained the importance of his job. We are llooking for researchers, technicians and students to stand up and contribute your own views to the website. So contact us now and start writing.

Cheers

Tom

Twittering on Research

Why speak when you can tweet!

Speaking of Research are now on Twitter, the new social networking site which is taking the world by storm. Have Speaking of Research updates delivered to your computer or phone. You can find us under the username “SpeakofResearch” (damn character limit on names!), so start following us today and keep abreast of the latest news, events and other activities of Speaking of Research.

And the fun doesn’t end there – we’re also on Facebook and YouTube.

Cheers

Tom

Animal Care Staff: ‘Why animal welfare matters’

Today begins a series of posts that try and show the activities and motivations of a handful of the dedicated animal care technicians from across the country’s animal laboratories who work tirelessly to ensure animal welfare remains the highest priority. [Tom]

For decades the animal rights movement has worked to define those working in animal research as “monsters” and “murderers” who only look to harm the animals we work with and don’t care about their welfare.  The reality, however, is very different.  In fact, as someone who works in animal research, animal welfare is extremely important both to me personally and to the results obtained from the studies.

Animal welfare is a collaboration between the animal caretakers who are in the rooms changing cages every day, myself as the veterinary technician on the veterinary staff and the investigators doing the research.  Our rodent cages are provided with nesting squares that the mice can chew up to simulate the natural behavior of building a nest.  Plastic houses can be used as a cage enrichment device although careful attention must be paid to ensure that fighting for the house doesn’t occur.  When there are swine in the facility, I have found that providing them with plastic balls that can be filled half way with water is something they particularly enjoy.  These balls then roll in random directions and give the pigs something to push around with their nose.  An older alternative was to provide bowling balls but this could cause considerable damage to the room floors as the pigs would roll them up the wall and let them drop.  Previously I had also tried deflated basketballs thinking they would like to carry them around but the pigs didn’t seem particularly interested.  The plastic balls, on the other hand, were a huge hit!

Mouse houses are an important part of enrichment

Mouse houses are an important part of enrichment

Animal welfare is not limited to just cage enrichment.  It’s the whole process from effectively washing the cages and bottles to provide a clean habitat, to handling the animals gently to prevent injury and stress.  It means adequately training the personnel in techniques and to teach update techniques as they become available.  I often provide training to new grad students and laboratory technicians in the proper way to restrain their animals and the common methods of injections and sample collection.  I’m at the disposal of any of the labs should they ever need training in a new technique or a refresher on something they haven’t done in awhile.  Finally it means providing veterinary oversight to make sure the animals are being housed and treated according to the regulations and to provide health care when needed. Several times a week I’ll go through our various facilities spread out across campus and check in with the caretakers to see if there are any problems I should be aware of or information that needs to be passed along.

Working with laboratory animals is a responsibility that I take very seriously; ensuring that the animals are treated humanely and that the research never becomes more important than the animal.

Dave Bienus
Veterinary Technician
Penn State University

Restoring science to its rightful place

Yesterday President Barack Obama took a decision that the scientific community has been eagerly awaiting ever since he was sworn in last January, when he issued an executive order ending the severe restrictions that President George W. Bush imposed on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research eight years ago.  This was however not the only sign that President Obama intends to follow through on his promise that his administration will “restore science to its rightful place“, in a memorandum on scientific integrity sent to all heads of government departments to the President states that:

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.  Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.  If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.  To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking.  The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

Music to our ears!

Does this mean that the scientific community can relax and get back to the laboratory? Sadly we think not. While some threats to scientific progress are diminishing others are growing, indeed we have just heard that there has been another arson attack on a scientist in California, but there are more insideous threats to scientific medicine that we cannot ignore.

Last week the science blogger Orac wrote a couple of items on his Respectful Insolence blog about attempts of a Senator Tom Harkin to undermine efforts to create an evidence-based medical system through political interference in the work done by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (part of the NIH).  It turns out that two of the woo-meisters that Sen. Harkin recently invited to speak to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Andrew Weil and Dean Ornish, are members of the advisory board of PCRM , the notorious psuedo-science organisation that we discussed only yesterday. That the advisory board of PCRM should include cranks should come as no surprise, after all its most well known member is Dr Henry Heimlich who has over the years attempted to convince the public that the anti-choking maneuver he made famous should be used for conditions such as drowning and asthma  for which it is totally inappropriate.  More recently he has been conducting thoroughly unethical trials of scientifically dubious malaria therapy for a range of diseases including HIV/AIDS.  Just remember, when people refer to “scientific anti-vivisection” these are the people they are talking about.  Perhaps the inclusion of the word “responsible” in the name “Physicians Committee for responsible Medicine” is not entirely honest!

So amid the celebrations we must not relax into complacency, if we are to defend science and science-based medicine we will need to continue to make our voices heard on the airwaves, in the press, on the web and ultimately in the corridors of power.

Paul Browne