Monthly Archives: September 2009

Time to Link up

With over 50% of the search engine market Google is an important tool for any growing outreach organization. Google essentially ranks webpages in its searches according to the links directing towards it. To quote Google:

We use more than 200 signals, including our patented PageRank™ algorithm, to examine the entire link structure of the web and determine which pages are most important. We then conduct hypertext-matching analysis to determine which pages are relevant to the specific search being conducted.

To help us spread information about animal research about the web we need your help – if you have a blog or a website which deals with scientific issues (especially if you are an organization), then please put a link to us in any suitable section [such as why we use animals in research]. Please use www.speakingofresearch.com as the link (not .org). If you are part of a bigger organization and you do not deal directly with the website, then email your webmaster and suggest a link to us.

Searching for "animal testing" brings up many AR websites

Searching for "animal testing" brings up many AR websites

Presently Google searches regarding “animal research”, “animal testing” and “vivisection” are dominated by animal rights groups who do nothing to shatter the public’s misconceptions about medical research. By adding links to us we can move our way up the rankings and help promote the truth about lifesaving biomedical science.

We cannot promise to provide reverse links back to you – although if we deem your website to be suitable to the cause of promoting animal research then we will add it to the Links section of the website.

Cheers

Tom Holder

Scientists speak out on Journals!

Firstly, two of our committee members, David Jentsch and Dario Ringach, published pieces in the Journal for Neuroscience and Journal for Neurophysiology. Both pieces leave the research community with much to think about:

We must now face the many threats to animal research in general and to neuroscience in particular. We must prove that “scientific community” means something more than the mere fact that we publish in the same journals and attend the same conferences. We must stand together to defend those colleagues under attack and defend the research we believe to be ethical and critical for our understanding of the brain in health and disease. The public is ready to listen.
The Journal of Neuroscience, September 16, 2009, 29(37):11417-11418

Their second article urged scientists back the Pro-Test Petition (now at 10,000 signatures), as well as calling for unity among the research community.

We ask that you join us in mobilizing the entire scientific community to defend biomedical research. You can start with the easy step of signing the petition at www.raisingvoices.net, which already counts with nearly 10,000 signatories [now over 10,000 since publish date]. Write to your representatives explaining the dangers of the escalating animal rights extremism for basic and translational research and urge your colleagues to do the same. Reach out to your students and local communities to explain the value of research; no one has a greater responsibility for explaining and defending your research than you do. If you teach medical students, make sure they understand the contribution of animal research to the material they are learning. Come up with your own ideas about how to make a difference and share them with us.
Together we can have a profound impact on what is growing into an important public debate. If we stand together as a community, we will be heard.
The Journal of Neurophysiology 102(3): 2009

Finally Jeffrey Kordower, made a particularly poignant point about how people must speak up.

In summary, as individual scientists I urge you to be proactive, be concerned, and be a loud voice for the responsible use of animals in research and be completely intolerant of criminals’ intent on preventing the honest performance of our important work.
The Journal of Neuroscience, September 16, 2009, 29(37):11419-1142

Every scientist who speaks up, be it on a journal, in a newspaper, or in their classroom, helps to inspire the next advocate for lifesaving research. What will you do to get involved?

Cheers

Tom Holder

UCLA Pro-Test … in 3 minutes (video)

I recently found a second video of the UCLA Pro-Test in April 2009 (in addition to the 1 minute video) which we hadn’t previously put up.

This video was produced by FPS productions and covers more aspects of the rally than the 1 minute version (surprisingly).

The video includes clips of committee members Prof. David Jentsch, and Tom Holder, as well as Scott Waugh (Executive Vice Chancellor Provost for UCLA), Gerald Levey (Dean of the Geffen School of Medicine).

Enjoy!

Ten Thousand Strong for Research

Over ten thousand supporters have signed their name to the Pro-Test Petition (www.raisingvoices.net), which supports the rights of scientists using animals in medical research to conduct their lifesaving research free from harassment.

Among those supporting the petition are Nobel Laureates, including David Baltimore and David Hubel1, and members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute for Medicine. Further support has come from science and research organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physiological Society.

The petition was launched on April 22nd 2009 during a pro-research demonstration at UCLA at which almost 800 students and scientists marched in support of the use of animals in medical research2. The rally was organized by UCLA Pro-Test (now “Pro-Test for Science”), founded by Professor David Jentsch, in response to the growing threat of animal rights extremism3, and the misrepresentation of science by “anti-vivisection” groups.

Pro-Test march snakes along Westwood

Over 700 students and scientists marched in support of animal research in UCLA (contact us for high res image)

The Pro-Test Petition is jointly sponsored by Americans for Medical Progress – a non-profit that conducts education and outreach on the issue of animal research, Speaking of Research – a campus oriented organization challenging animal rights activism in the US, and Pro-Test for Science – who organized the April 2009 rally4. The organizations plan to present the petition to key lawmakers and opinion leaders in April 2010.

Animal research has been crucial in the development of modern medical treatments such as new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine which helps prevent cervical cancer. Animal research played a vital part in the development of Insulin, Penicillin, the HIB Meningitis Vaccine, heart surgery and modern breast cancer treatments. It is also an important tool in improving our understanding of, and developing innovative treatments for, neurodegenerative disease such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Animal research plays a crucial role in the development of the treatments of tomorrow,” Speaking of Research founder, Tom Holder, said. “The Pro-Test Petition provides a voice for those that believe that the future of modern medicine should not be controlled by a small, but often violent, minority of animal rights extremists.”

Notes to Editors:

  1. David Baltimore – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1975
    David Hubel – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1981
  2. Full report of the rally: http://speakingofresearch.com/get-involved/ucla-pro-test/
    also: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/West-Side-Story-Scientists-Activists-Face-Off-at-UCLA.html
  3. Animal Rights Extremism on rise – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525039,00.html
  4. Americans for Medical Progress – www.amprogress.org
    Speaking of Research – www.speakingofresearch.com
    Pro-Test for Science – www.pro-test-for-science.org
  5. Contact Details:
    E-mail: contact@speakingofresearch.com
    Phone: David Jentsch +1-310-825-8258 or AMP +1-703-836-9595

Raising Voices: Animal Research Advocacy and Community Engagement

Animal rights groups and extremists have raised a very loud chorus against animal research. Well-funded, media-savvy campaigns and over-the-top publicity stunts ensure that the public receives a biased and negative message about the role and value of animal studies.  As a result of decades of investment in extensive campaigning, these groups have contributed to decreasing public understanding of, and support for, animal research. At the same time, frustration with failing their major goal—to end all use of animals in research—has contributed to an increase in harassment and violence directed against scientists by animal rights extremists.

Yet those of us who engage in scientific outreach and education efforts find that members of the community, including students, welcome opportunities to hear from us and to learn about other views of animal research. The great majority are interested in knowing more about why we believe animal research is essential, how we treat animals in our care, and how our studies may contribute to improvements in human and animal health.  There is no shortage of public interest in learning more about animal research. This is particularly true among the youth that are the targets for carefully crafted campaigns by groups like PeTA.

David Jentsch and Tom Holder give press conference

It is important for scientists to engage the public in the debate over animal testing

The question is not whether the public is interested and can be reached with “our” message, or whether there are ample opportunities to do so. Opportunities for scientists to engage in community outreach and education are not limited.  There are a large number of outstanding educational programs, including those with long histories as well as more recent initiatives, in which many scientists participate.  Interest in issues related to animal research and ARA activity is also reflected in active discussion in venues such as Science Blogs, where bloggers DrugMonkey, Isis the Scientist, and Janet D. Stemwedel have all  engaged their readership in posts and vigorous commentary on issues related to animal research.

The question really is whether more scientists will choose to commit time and energy to animal research advocacy efforts.  And underlying that question are others:  Among all of our obligations and competing pressures for time, why spend time on outreach and education?  What will it achieve?  Why can’t someone else do it?  Don’t animal rights people “win” if I take time away from science to speak out on animal rights issues?

The short answer to all of these questions is that the voices of scientists engaged in animal research are essential to challenge the loud chorus of misinformation rising from animal rights activists and dominating the discussion. In absence of challenge, it seems likely that the current trend towards decreasing public support of animal research will continue. It may well escalate as increasingly effective social media campaigns executed by ARA groups pervade elementary school and onward without effective counter.  The results of decreased public support are obvious, far-reaching, and—ultimately—damaging to public health.

Some people are philosophically committed to a position in which no use of animals, for food, entertainment, research, is morally acceptable. The majority of people, however, do not equate animals’ rights with those of humans.  Many times people confuse animal welfare with animal rights.  Many people do not understand how animal studies contribute to breakthroughs in medicine and why these studies are necessary for progress. People are also often not aware that animal research is conducted humanely and is well-regulated at federal and local levels.

All of these issues are complex.  The success of many animal rights groups’ campaigns depend heavily upon poor public understanding of animal research, uncountered misrepresentations of scientists and their work,  and exploitation of the misconceptions and negative perceptions that many people have of the use of animals in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Unfortunately, for the most part, animal rights groups have also been able to count on launching misinformation campaigns with very little threat of organized, public response from the scientific community.

Scientists can provide an effective counter to animal rights extremism by presenting accurate representation and information, by demonstrating visible and active support for their own and their colleagues’ work, and by engaging in respectful exchange of ideas with those who seek open discussion of the use of animals in research.


Speaking of Research
provides a venue for scientists to speak out in favor of lifesaving research developed with animals.  SR was founded by Tom Holder and inspired by the successful British student movement “Pro-test”. In the UK, Pro-Test’s experiences have shown that an informed public will rally together against animal rights extremism and come out to support scientists in their use of animals in lifesaving biomedical research.

SR aims to challenge animal rights dominance of the issue by participating in talks and debates on campuses across the country and by utilizing web-based communications tools to organize a network that can provide encouragement, information and support to all who care about medical progress. We also challenge ARA campaigns directly when they are based upon misrepresentation.
SR is run by a committee of people who believe that animal research remains crucial to the future of medicine.  Among its successes is the first mass pro-research demonstration in the US in April of 2009 at UCLA, site of a spate of attacks against researchers. Following a car fire attack by animal rights extremists, Professor David Jentsch, founded UCLA Pro-Test and held a rally that drew 700 supporters and demonstrated the strength of active and visible animal research advocacy.

There are many ways to serve as an advocate for animal research. Some are as easy as signing an online petition.  Coordinated efforts and vocal, concerted support is important to all of us and to the future of biomedical research that is essential to improvements in human health.

A member of the SR Committee, I have recently founded the North Carolina Chapter of Speaking of Research (NCSR). NCSR seeks to support scientists in active and visible efforts to provide the public with accurate information and resources about the importance of animal research in medical science. It also serves as a local exchange for news about issues related to advocacy and about local animal rights extremism.  Please join our facebook group or email me at NCSpeakingofResearch@gmail.com for more information.

Allyson J. Bennett, Ph.D.

The views expressed on this website/blog are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, Wake Forest University Health Sciences.

Blind Dogs Lead Researchers to Treatments

Leber’s congenital amaurosis (LCA) is a form of blindness that affects about 1 in 80,000 people.  This inherited disease, in which the retina progressively degenerates, results in severe loss of vision, and frequently patients can only see well enough to count fingers or see bright lights.  Unfortunately, many of these patients also experience eye pain from bright lights.  LCA is caused by mutations in a number of genes, including the RPE65 gene.  Currently, there is no treatment for this disease but clinical trials using gene therapy have recently shown some promise.

Today, Lancelot (shown) continues to see well after a single gene therapy treatment in 2000. Credit: Foundation Fighting Blindness.

Today, Lancelot (shown) continues to see well after a single gene therapy treatment in 2000. Credit: Foundation Fighting Blindness.

The ability to deliver a gene using viral gene therapy was successfully demonstrated in rats and mice in the 1990’s.  Given these technical capabilities, it seemed that LCA might be a good target for gene therapy – delivery of the vector to the small space below the retina could deliver a normal copy of the gene exactly where it is needed.  The next question was, could vision loss be prevented in animal models of LCA?   Briards, a type of sheepdog, are predisposed to blindness, and genetic testing showed they often have mutations in RPE65, just like LCA patients.  Delivery of RPE65 using viral gene therapy to these afflicted dogs gave encouraging results:  the dogs had improved vision as shown by their electroretinograms and their ability to navigate obstacle courses in dim light (Acland et al., 2001).

Now, a report in the Human Gene Therapy and a commentary appearing in both the New England Journal of Medicine and Scientific American highlight a Phase 1 clinical trial to treat LCA using viral delivery of a normal copy of RPE65(Cideciyan et al., 2009).  Within weeks of receiving the vector, all three patients could detect dim light, a task they could not previously do.  Importantly, these visual improvements were still apparent 1 year after treatment. Phase 1 clinical trials are specifically designed to test safety of a treatment and to date, viral gene delivery of RPE65 has passed this test.  These three patients have not developed an immune response to the viral delivery system, a critical aspect for efficacy and safety of the treatment.

Studies in animals are also helping to clarify how and when the treatment will be effective. An important consideration is that people or animals need to have a good number of retinal cells left if the gene therapy is to be effective:  this treatment only works before retinal degeneration has progressed too far.  The patients in the clinical trials were adults with some intact photoreceptors, however most LCA patients lose photoreceptors in early childhood.  Studies using mice or dogs of various ages have shown promising results indicating that the younger the animal is treated, they more effective treatment is (Dejneka et al., 2004) .  Consequently, early intervention, before extensive degeneration has occurred, will likely be critical to preventing the severe loss of vision that characterizes this disease.  Additional Phase 1 clinical trials are ongoing and include children with LCA.

Can thes patients that have received RPE65 through gene therapy expect the same prognosis as their canine counterparts?  Only time will tell, but they should be optimistic about their long-term outcomes.  The LCA briard dogs, including Lancelot who was one of the first dogs treated, have shown functional recovery that lasting for more than 7 years.

Regards

Anna Matynia

Acland, G.M., Aguirre, G.D., Ray, J., Zhang, Q., Aleman, T.S., Cideciyan, A.V., Pearce-Kelling, S.E., Anand, V., Zeng, Y., Maguire, A.M., et al. (2001). Gene therapy restores vision in a canine model of childhood blindness. Nat Genet 28, 92-95.

Cideciyan, A.V., Hauswirth, W.W., Aleman, T.S., Kaushal, S., Schwartz, S.B., Boye, S.L., Windsor, E.A., Conlon, T.J., Sumaroka, A., Pang, J.J., et al. (2009). Human RPE65 Gene Therapy for Leber Congenital Amaurosis: Persistence of Early Visual Improvements and Safety at 1 Year. Hum Gene Ther.

Dejneka, N.S., Surace, E.M., Aleman, T.S., Cideciyan, A.V., Lyubarsky, A., Savchenko, A., Redmond, T.M., Tang, W., Wei, Z., Rex, T.S., et al. (2004). In utero gene therapy rescues vision in a murine model of congenital blindness. Mol Ther 9, 182-188.

Violence vs Non-Violence? The AR Debate!

A Fractured Movement?

It is easy to believe that the animal rights movement is one giant bloc, working together to abolish animal research using tactics which range from the legal, to the dubious, to the outright criminal. However it is these range of tactics which prove to be the most divisive point for activists, and is causing large fractures and infighting between groups. Recently the Thomas Paine’s Corner blog (TPC) (Warning: AR Extremist Website) has been attacking those parts of the animal rights movement who reject the use of “militant direct action”. The editors of this website include two Animal Liberation Front Press Officers (Jerry Vlasak and Jason Miller – see links for more details on them) and numerous other pro-violence extremists such as Camille Marino and Gary Yourofsky.

Emotion & passion drive action; not sterile debate. Attitudes change when people engage and feel. BE DISRUPTIVE. UNRAVEL COMPLACENCY. IT’S OUR JOB. We need to obliterate the status quo — not tolerate it; not become a part of it. Be loud! Be unafraid! Be Militant!
- Camille Marino – “Negotiation is Over” blog (Warning AR website)

“Do not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture,” [Yourofsky] has written to supporters.
Matter of fact, if an “animal abuser” were to get killed in the process of burning down a research lab, “I would unequivocally support that, too.”
- The Toledo Blade, Sunday, June 24, 2001 (copy of article on AR website here)

TPC "approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position"

TPC "approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position"

TPC’s pro-violence rants have reached epic proportions, as this recent piece by Jason Miller (ALF Spokesman) on the TPC blog shows:

Call it [attacks on vivisectionists] extensional self defense. Call it justifiable homicide. Call it vigilante justice. A rose is a rose by any other name and it’s time for that flower to blossom in the AR movement. One of the master’s principal tools to maintain power, domination, and affluence is violence or the threat of violence—be it physical, psychological, social, political, or economic.

Consider this. Hideous as their agenda may be to some of us, anti-abortionist activists love embryos and fetuses enough to utilize violence as a form of extensional self-defense on their behalf. The question isn’t, “Do we agree with their agenda?” The question is, “Have they been effective?” Their record speaks for itself. Assassinations of doctors who performed abortions have nearly eliminated the practice of late-term abortions in the US. Food for thought.

Essentially Miller argues that any tactic that works – no matter how disgusting or morally reprehensible – should given consideration by his fellow activists. This kind of pro-violence rant, and the violence it encourages, has brought comment from non-violent AR activist Gary Francione. I’m no supporter of Francione, but I applaud his condemnation of the violent fringes of the AR movement:

Those who claim that there is such a thing as destroying a building or engaging in a break-in that does not result in harm or the risk of harm to sentient beings (humans and nonhumans alike) are simply deluding themselves.
- Francione’s blog “The Abolitionist Approach”

A Novartis executive has his house burned down by the Animal Liberation Front in August 2009

Did this arson attack risk harm to sentient brings? Almost certainly!

Sadly, other parts of Francione’s blog contain questionable pseudoscience (often thrown these in as “extras” to his arguments) and an even more questionable justification of anti-vivisection through arguments of sentience (see the AR belief section for a counter-argument).

Nonetheless, the fury of TPC against Gary Francione has been disgusting. His position of non-violence pro-veganism has apparently (according to Francione) resulted in him and his supporters receiving death threats. The TPC and “Negotiation is Over” blogs attacks have brought many other groups, such as HSUS, into the crossfire, as the fractures in the AR movement become more and more public:

[Francione's] amoral and unconscionable actions became so regressive and dangerous, we have penned this response to denounce him unequivocally not only as a fraud, charlatan, opportunist, and megalomaniac, but also as a traitor and enemy to the animal liberation movement and as a major impediment to social transformation. Just as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS recently demonstrated that he is a collaborator with systems of oppression, so too Francione has now degenerated into an agent of state repression. He and Pacelle have now both attempted to defame and falsely accuse the radical wing of the animal liberation movement of terrorist actions and have sought to enlist and join forces with the state, the police and the FBI to break the back of militant forces in the movement.
- Camille Marino on TPC and Negotiation is Over blogs (Warning: AR wesbite)

Violence vs Non-Violence?

I will briefly end with my own assessment of the violence question. AR extremist groups frequently defend their actions by comparing themselves with other violent liberation movement in history e.g. The French Resistance who fought the Nazi’s in Vichy France.

The problem is that the entire argument fundamentally relies on the movement being morally justifiable. If you are willing to murder for your cause then you do so in the belief that you are in the right, that does not make it right. History is littered with examples of reistance/liberation movements who committed murder in the belief it would further their liberation cause – The Red Army Faction (Bader-Meinhof Group) killed many trying to liberate Germany from capitalist oppression, the Black September massacre at the 1972 Munich olympics was an action committed for liberation, recently Russia helped “liberate” South Ossetia from the Georgian Government and in 1945 the Soviet Russian forces liberating Germany raped and killed tens of thousands of unarmed German civillians.

The problem is that those animal rights extremists willing to commit arson, grave robbings and other attacks, do so in the belief that they are one of the “good” liberation/resistance movements – the fact that they are a tiny minority of people does not effect them if they believe they have billions of animals on their side (especially if they grant these animals moral equivalence) . There is little we can do to convince these extremists that their actions are wrong and immoral – many of these individuals have given years of their life to the liberation movement – for them to change their mind would be to say that the prime of their life has been wasted – something few people would be willing to accept.

Sadly there are a small number of people for whom jail will be the only deterrent – however our efforts in debating them can serve to stop them creating the next generation of animal rights extremists.

Cheers

Tom