Monthly Archives: May 2009

The Monkey of the Baskervilles

If you watched the news or picked up a newspaper yesterday you’ll already be aware that scientists in Japan have created genetically modified (GM) marmoset monkeys that pass the transgene, in this case one that encodes the marker GFP protein that glows under UV light, to their offspring. Severel media outlest including the Huffington Post , ABC news, and Washington Post report this advance in… err… glowing terms, while in the Times today the British columnist Hugo Rifkind contrasts the scientists with animal rights activists who are “…prepared to sacrifice other people for monkeys“. On this Hugo has a good point, arguments frequently rage over the question of animal rights supporters using medicines developed through animal research, but the real issue is not whether or not they use these medicines themselves but that they seek to deny them to others who do not share their views.

Image provided by Nature Publishing Group

Image provided by Nature Publishing Group

It’s worth stressing that these are not the first GM monkeys, in 2001 scientists lead by Dr. Anthony Chan at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre produced the world’s first transgenic monkey, a rhesus macaque named ANDi, and last year produced the first monkey model of Huntington’s disease but none of these GM macaques have transferred the transgene to their offspring, possibly because it is not present in tissues such as the sperm and egg.

The group lead by Dr. Erika Sasaki (1) used a different technique to previous groups that have created transgenic monkeys, rather than introducing the transgene into unfertilized eggs and then fertilizing them by IVF they found that it was more efficient to take eggs that had already been fertilized naturally and then introduce the transgene, and they carefully adjusted the conditions of the transfer so that the maximum number of copies of the transgene reached the cells of the embryo. They chose the marmoset rather than the macaque for this study because it has a shorter life cycle than the macaque, which means that GM offspring can be generated much more quickly than with macaques, an advantage that means that it should be possible to establish colonies of GM marmosets for research far more quickly than would be the case for macaques. Dr. Sasaki and her colleagues expect that GM marmosets will become a valuable model for diseases where GM rodents are not able to provide all the information scientists require, including some aspects of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington’s disease.

Against that macaques are closer to humans in evolutionary terms, so that some human diseases such as tuberculosis can be studied in macaques but not in marmosets, and the smaller brain size and lower cognitive ability of marmosets compared to macaques means that GM macaques will probably complement rather than replace macaques in neuroscience research. It is also probable that some of the techniques developed by Dr. Sasaki and her team can be used to improve the efficiency of GM macaque production, so this should be seen as a boost to GM monkey research in general.

So do these monkeys herald a “health revolution” as the Independent suggests? Well, perhaps evolution would be a more accurate term. Impressive as this achievement is more work will need to be done to improve it, especially to make sure that the correct number of transgenes are safely and efficiently delivered to the tissues where their expression is required. It is certainly worth remembering that while GM monkeys may become an important resource in tomorrow’s medical research they will only ever account for a tiny fraction of GM animals, as they will be used only when scientists are unable to learn enough from GM rodents.

Interestingly Nature has accompanied this paper with an editorial entitled “Time to connect” (2) urging Japanese researchers to make greater efforts to discuss their work with the public in order to prevent the kind of animal rights extremism that we have seen in the US recently or the imposition of regulations that stifle research, as has already happened with human embryonic stem cell research in Japan. While we agree that “Animal research in Japan and its supporters should heed the lessons from the West, where researchers have won several political victories by addressing the issues openly.” we are also keenly aware that scientists and the many charities, companies and government bodies that fund animal research in the US still need to do a lot more to communicate the value and necessity of their work to the general public. We also urge them to show support not just for science but also for those scientists who are targeted by animal rights extremists, and a great way to start would be by signing the Pro-Test Petition.

Regards

Paul Browne

1) Sasaki E. et al. “Generation of transgenic non-human primates with germline transmission” Nature Volume 459, Issue 7246, Pages 523-528 (2009) doi:10.1038/nature08090

2) “Time to connect” Nature Volume 459, Issue 7246, Page 483 (2009)

Synergy

A claim frequently made by animal rights activists is that by paying for animal research charities and other funding bodies are diverting money from other areas such as clinical research. However the reality is that clinical and animal scientists work together to understand what is going wrong in disease and to illuminate previously unknown aspects of biology. A good example of this process is provided by media reports that scientists studying the low incidence of solid cancerous tumours in people with Down’s syndrome have discovered exciting new targets for the treatment and prevention of cancer.

The team led by Dr Sandra Ryeom of the Children’s Hospital Boston knew that among people with Down’s syndrome the mortality rate from solid tumours is less than 10% of what would be expected, indicating that one or more of the 231 genes that people with Downs syndrome have an extra copy of as a result of the chromosome 21 trisomy (three copies rather than the normal two) is responsible. But which gene? From earlier in vitro studies they knew that large amounts of a protein called DSCR1 could block angiogenesis* by suppressing a pathway activated by the hormone vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that is produced by many tumours. What they wanted to know was whether the relatively small increase in the level of Dscr1 seen in Down’s syndrome could block angiogenesis, and to do this they turned to animal models where the interaction of tumour cells with surrounding tissues, including blood vessels, could be studied, and in particular to the Ts65Dn mouse model of Downs syndrome where the mice have an extra copy of 104 of the genes found in human Down’s syndrome and exhibit many Down’s symptoms. In their paper published online in Nature (1) they describe how Dscr1 is one of the 104 extra genes and that when they transplanted two types of cancer cell into the mice they found that the tumours grew far more slowly in the Down’s mice than in control mice. On examination tumours from Ts65Dn mice were found to contain fewer blood vessels than those from control mice.

Image kindly provided by NCI - www.cancer.gov

Image kindly provided by National Cancer Institute - www.cancer.gov

They then performed further studies that demonstrated that the decrease in tumour growth was due to suppression of new blood vessel growth rather than interference with the tumours ability to hijack the blood supply in existing blood vessels. A question that remained was whether Dscr1 was the only extra gene involved, so they created a mouse model which has only the normal 2 copies Dscr11 but still has an extra copy of the 103 other genes. In this mouse model tumour growth was slower than in normal mice but faster than in the Ts65Dn mouse, suggesting that one extra copy of Dscr1 is necessary for maximal suppression of tumour growth via inhibition of tumour angiogenesis but that other genes are also involved. Further work showed that Dscr1 acts by decreasing the levels of the enzyme Cyclooxygenase 2, which is an important mediator of the angiogenic response to VEGF in the VEGF-calcineurin-NFAT pathway, and that another gene called Dyrk1a that is also present in an extra copy in Downs blocks the same VEGF-calcineurin-NFAT pathway, but by altering the function of NFAT.

Taken together with the clinical observations of the low levels of solid tumours in people with Down’s syndrome these results emphasize how important angiogenesis is to the transition from non-cancerous micro-tumours to larger tumours that may eventually metastasize, and identify the VEGF-calcineurin-NFAT pathway as a promising target for the development of new anti-cancer drugs. It seems appropriate that the author list of this very interesting paper that will no doubt stimulate much research over the next few years includes Judah Folkman, a true pioneer in the field of angiogenesis who died last year.

* Angiogenesis is the growth of blood vessels and in cancer plays is important role in the growth of some tumours and their subsequent metastasis to other tissues in the body.

Regards

Paul Browne

1) Baek K.-H. et al. “Down’s syndrome suppression of tumour growth and the role of the calcineurin inhibitor DSCR1″ Nature, Advance online publication 20 May 2009, DOI:10.1038/nature08062;

David Jentsch speaks about his research

As a Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at UCLA, my students, colleagues around the University and I are engaged in an endeavor to improve the quality of life of individuals who suffer from major mental disorders. As committed as we are to making tangible progress towards improving the prognosis and welfare of people suffering from psychoses or addictions, we also concern ourselves with the quality of life of the animals who are the subjects of research, both because we care, and because the quality of our science requires it. To date, a variety of postings on the Speaking of Research website have addressed methods (including the “3 Rs”) for improving the welfare of animals involved in research; here, I outline the scientific necessity for doing so wherever possible.

Vervet Monkeys
In part, our research focuses on discovering the biological determinants of naturally-occurring differences in brain function and behavior. In humans, these individual differences, whether environmentally or genetically determined, can often index vulnerability for mental disorders.  For example, young people who are more impulsive are more likely to drink, smoke, take illicit drugs and engage in high-risk sexual behavior – as well as to develop complications stemming from those behaviors. We find that, like people, some monkeys will impulsively engage themselves in new and risky situations, while others approach more cautiously and try to keep a low profile.  An overlapping set of genes influence these traits in monkeys and in man. Therefore, the animal model represents a very powerful tool to locate unknown genes that influence human traits, and more importantly, to understand (at the biochemical, genomic and cognitive levels) how those genes act to influence temperament and behavior. Without insights about the basic biological determinants of these traits – something not discoverable in humans at the present time – prevention or treatment strategies of any type are difficult or impossible to create.

Vervey Monkeys 2
With these goals in mind, our research program very much depends upon the ability of our animals to exhibit their natural behavioral repertoire, whilst still being maintained under controlled conditions that allow us to isolate external influences and to perform our studies. Consequently, we maintain our animals in social groups, in open air arenas with access to sunlight, with a wide array of environmental stimuli that promote normal foraging and social behaviors. Many of our social groups include families, and most monkeys are raised by their mothers until puberty.  Early separation would produce an “experimental” effect on behavior that would alter the “natural” expression of their traits. In the case of our studies, the conditions needed for enhancing animal welfare and the conditions needed for scientific discovery are the same, and we – like many other scientists – are dedicated to ensuring that we never impede the welfare of our animals when it is unnecessary or unjustified. Poor animal welfare often implies poor science; we avoid both with unrelenting diligence.

J. David Jentsch, Ph.D.

Positive Comments for Pro-Test Petition!!

The Pro-Test Petition has now reached well over 2700 signatures – have you signed yet? This petition, supported by  Speaking of Research, Americans for Medical Progress, and UCLA Pro-Test,  aims to show the world that the majority do support animal research – and moreover they dare stand up and sign their name to it. On April 22nd around 800 people stood up at UCLA in support of lifesaving medical research – now it’s up to you. Tell your friends, family and colleagues to go to:

www.raisingvoices.net

The Petition has also been getting a lot of positive feedback – here is a selection:

I went to the pro-test rally and really enjoyed the information that was shared and the support of the community. I do research for Alzheimer’s and spend more time with my mice and rats than I do with my own pets at home. I’m also the IACUC contact member for my lab and spend A LOT of my day making sure my animals are comfortable and happy. This research needs to continue for both humans and animals to prosper. Thanks for setting up this petition, let’s get it around to as many as possible!
- Dana Grant

I am a animal researcher and a cancer survior and my son is alive because of our work he had heart problems when he was a baby and had life saving open heart surgery at 9 months of age. Neither of us would be around if not for the benefit of research.
- David Miller

Working in the biomedical research field, everyday I witness the dedication of people who work tirelessly to improve the quality of human and animal life. Now these hard working people must also deal with the risk of being targeted by misinformed, lawbreaking individuals who would harass and threaten them and their families at their homes. I stand strong in my support of Pro-Test and salute the people on the front lines.
- Mike Aertker

The Pro-Test Petition states that “We the undersigned believe:

  1. That animal research has contributed and continues to contribute to major advances in the length and quality of our lives.  It remains vital to understanding basic biological processes and for the development of new treatments and therapies such as antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants, and cancer medicines.
  2. That animal research is morally justifiable provided animal welfare remains a high priority and no valid non-animal alternatives are available.
  3. That violence, intimidation and harassment of scientists and others involved in animal research is neither a legitimate means of protest, nor morally justified.”

Cheers

Tom

Animal Liberation Front Press Office become desperate

In a pathetic attempt to be noticed, North American Animal Liberation Press Officer (NAALPO), Jason S. Miller, decided to send an email to a group of researchers, research institutions and pro-research groups (including SR).

In an email containing links to typical AR pseudo-science, misinformation and misanthropic philosophy, Jason kindly explained our future:

Your newly formed “vivisector resistance movement,” as exemplified by Speaking of Research and other whoring shills for your cozy little industry, will quickly sink into the moral cesspool over which it is constructed. Your blatant speciesism, torture, murder, and anachronistic scientific practices are doomed to extinction.

Charming. I must confess I almost feel honored that Speaking of Research gets a mention – could it be we’ve hit a nerve? With animal research helping develop the medicines of tomorrow (fighting swine flu, combating HIV and offering hope for DMD patients) it would seem that such methods are far from anachronistic. I also wonder if Miller has ever seen the inside of a lab? Animal welfare is of the highest priority as you can read in our “Why Animal Welfare Matters” blog post. Oh, and what on earth is a “vivisector resistance movement”?

The Vivisector Resistance Movement?

The Vivisector Resistance Movement?

So who is this Jason Miller? Other than a member of NAALPO, an organization which reports on the violent actions of the Animal Liberation Front and the Animal Rights Militia, Miller is the founder of the “anarcho-veganist” website, Thomas Paine’s Corner (TPC):

[TPC] approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position, as portrayed in the graphic above by the juxtaposition of the Boy Scout–a victim of one of the indoctrinating mechanisms for our imperialist, patriarchal, faux Christian, corporatist, statist, speciesist society–against the anarchist symbol.

TPC Logo

It’s only missing “military industrial complex” and “marxism” to complete the hand (no, wait, there’s sections on the website for both of those…). Miller’s email might also have something to do with us ignoring his last hissy-fit written on TPC. Talking about the UCLA Pro-Test rally:

In that nauseating spectacle the unapologetic monkey-torturer, David Jentsch, and industry shill Tom Holder, the “founder” of Speaking of Research and a “founding member” of Pro-Test in the UK, whipped a crowd of adoring sycophants into a frenzy with a chant calling for animal testing.

Having seen some of Prof. Jentsch’s vervet monkeys I was impressed at the high standards of welfare – as well as the personal care and responsibility that Jentsch felt towards his animals. A far cry from Miller’s claims of “monkey torture”. However Miller falls into the mistaken belief that we could switch to “alternatives” tomorrow:

We have multiple other means by which we can advance our medical and scientific knowledge, including epidemiology, clinical testing, autopsies, biopsies, genetics, post-marketing drug research, computer modeling, tissue cultures, microdosing on human animals, personalized medicine, and nanotechnology

Check the “alternatives” page for scientific a deconstruction of this argument. A few intersting choices in his list – much genetics are  studied in animals, particularly mice, where you can “knock out” a certain gene to see its effect on the animal and thus the phenotype of the gene. Such work offers hope to sufferers of genetic conditions such as Cystic Fibrosis and Duchennes Muscular Dystropy. Biopsies are done on animals except the animal rights movement tends to rebrand it “vivisection”. Personalized medicine is an ideal which will certainly require animal research in its creation. The fact is these methods are complementary on animal research, not alternatives.

Well Jason, I hope you’ve learnt something – and please stop emailing large groups of people to make spurious and misanthropic claims about the research you appear to know so little about.

Regards

Tom Holder

HSUS Donations Scandal

ABC recently ran an expose on HSUS donations – how HSUS have misled the public over their relations with the local humane societies (which run local shelters):

Click here for the video

Check HSUS’s annual budget yourselves (part 2). Of a little over $100 million they receive in donations, only around $6 million (6%) goes towards local humane shelters. The rest is used to make the case for animal rights on the hill.There is also some suspicion surrounding where money for certain projects has gone. Be under no illusion, HSUS is an animal rights not an animal welfare organization.

Cheers

Tom

Top Websites on Animal Research

There have been many new and old websites that cover the facts on animal research – many of which can be found in the links section. Here are some of the ones I’ve found particularly helpful and informative:

www.animalresearch.info

Animal Research Info is possibly the most comprehensive source of information on the web regarding the role that animals have played, and continue to play, into our understanding and treatment of a wide variety of diseases. Particularly good sections include their Timeline of lifesaving research, the explanation of the role that animals played in each Nobel Prize, a look at the drug development process and the part in which animals play, and a information on each type of animal that is used in research. In short this website is hands down the best research tool for those interested in learning more about animal research.

Understanding Animal Research (UAR) is a new UK organization which merged the Research Defence Society and the Coalition for Medical Progress. They are also the brains behind the AnimalResearch.Info website (above) and their main website is almost as informative. What really makes the UAR website stand out is the large amount of photo and video footage of animals and labs. They provide a large amount of information of how animal research plays a part in the medicines we take for granted all around us, as well as dispelling some of the common AR myths.

Americans for Medical ProgressAmericans for Medical Progress provide some great information on how to go about speaking up about research, as well as recounting some more personal stories of people who’s lives have been touched by research.There is also 3 days left until their Michael D Hayre fellowship ends (see our post) and you can order a free DVD on research from them.

Animal Research for Life

Animal Research for Life is a flash-based website from Europe which is available in English, French and German. As a flash site I cannot link to individual sections, but I fully suggest investigating the section on the 3Rs and alternatives, as well as the photo gallery which includes many pictures from inside animal laboratories.

The more observant might see that 3 out of the 4 websites above are based in Europe – and with websites as good as these it is no surprise that the public in these countries is generally much mroe behind research than in the US. If we cannot provide the general public with the facts about research then we will fail to bring them over in support of animal research.

This is a selection of some of the best sites on the web, however other websites often have particularly great individual pages on their websites. So it is worth looking at Pro-Test’s ethics section, Foundation for Biomedical Research’s in-depth look at vaccines, and some of the Neuroscience videos available from the JOVE website.

Keep making the websites!

Cheers

Tom

Pro-Research message starts to spread across YouTube

For a long time YouTube has been the home of animal rights activists showing montages of outdated experiments in an attempt to misrepresent current research. However times are changing and so I’m going to take a moment to show you a few of the videos which support research and the researchers on the web. Speaking of Research were among the first of the organizations supporting research who began to use YouTube to spread our message, with videos debunking Peta, showing primate facilities,  and our best video – a general explanation of the crucial role of animals in research:

However we are not the only ones doing this, here are several other great videos. The first is made by Americans for Medical Progress – their Chairman, Dr. John Young, a veterinarian at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, took some cameras round his lab:

See more AMP videos on their YouTube page.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research have produced a series of one minute “survivor tales” of patients and scientists whose lives have been saved through research:

Finally a veterinary technician at UCLA produced a series of videos of the Pro-Test rally at UCLA – my favourite of which was part 3 (see also parts 1, 2 and 4):

So there you go, some videos that are in support of lifesaving medical research. Nonetheless if you type “animal testing”, or even “animal research” you get a set of videos which are 95% against it – it’s up to you to bring balance!

Cheers

Tom Holder