Monthly Archives: November 2009

Who’s Afraid to Talk about Animal Research?

Posted on November 30, 2009 by | Leave a comment

Part 1:  Outreach and Education Programs by the Nonhuman Primate Research Community

One of the misleading claims often made about members of the community of scientists and others engaged in, or supportive of, animal research is that they don’t talk with the public about their work. To the many scientists and others actively involved in a broad array of both formal and informal education, outreach, and community engagement efforts it is obvious that there is, in fact, a great deal of talking about animal research. At the same time, as with any other aspect of science or area of public interest, there is always a need for more outreach and more public engagement.

Speaking of Research encourages new outreach efforts and increased participation in dialogue about the responsible use of animals in humanely-conducted and ethical research. For those seeking to become more involved in speaking out about animal research there are many sources of information and existing programs that provide good ideas, models, and assistance in setting up new efforts.

This post will begin a series that highlights different approaches to science outreach and education, particularly those focused on research with nonhuman animals.  We begin with community outreach and education programs at primate research centers.  Many primate centers have active outreach programs built around educational objectives and service to local schools, including programs that provide opportunities for K-12 students to learn about research, internships for college students, and tours of their facilities.  The focus on educational outreach and opportunities for students is in keeping with the role of scientists as educators.

The California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) is one with a long-standing educational program.  Initiated in 2003, “the Education Outreach Program (EOP) was developed as a free, public-service program to introduce K-6 students to nonhuman primates, general health science concepts, animals in research, and biomedical research programs and careers. It supports the California Science Content Standards. This program has been a huge success with the classes visited since it began in June 2003. Comments we have received indicate that the children, as well as the adults, have a greater understanding of primates and health sciences, and the positive benefits that the primate center has on their lives.”  The CNPRC website includes links to the curriculum for their outreach program as well as many resources for teachers.

The Oregon National Primate Research Center also has an active outreach program, with its mission described as:  “Scientists have a responsibility to communicate their research findings to the public, and ONPRC scientists and administration take this responsibility seriously. The Office of Education Outreach hosts tours for over 3,000 visitors to the Center each year.”  As well, “ONPRC scientists speak to Center visitors, serve as mentors for teachers and students, and visit area classrooms. In addition, they participate in various programs through OHSU’s Science Education Opportunities Office (SOAR), and collaborate with several local and regional institutions, including Saturday Academy, OMSI, and the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (NWABR).”

Rhesus Monkeys at ONPRC

Outreach programs at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and the Tulane National Primate Research Center also support interactions between local schools and scientists engaged in primate research.  At the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, a description of outreach programs illustrates an approach that, like others, includes many different audiences:  “The Department of Veterinary Sciences plays a vital role in helping to develop an appreciation for and an understanding of biomedical research by offering teachers, regional youth and the public a unique avenue to actively participate in the research process. Our formal education programs provide opportunities for individuals to dramatically increase their content knowledge in the sciences; access to scientists, veterinarians and other career role models in the sciences to both educators and students; practical hands-on student activities that coordinate with national science standards and curricular frameworks; and professional development for employees.”

At the Wake Forest University Primate Center the community outreach and education program “serves the community by providing children in grades K-12 and their teachers with opportunities to visit the WFUPC and learn about biomedical research. These tours are designed to give visitors educational information about nonhuman primates and the unique role that they play in translational research, to highlight the wide range of human health disorders that are addressed by the Translational Science Institute and the WFUPC, and to educate children about careers in science.”

Among the sources for educational and outreach materials about nonhuman primates are those provided by the American Society of Primatologists (ASP). ASP has a long history of encouraging and supporting “the development of educational programs in primatology” and “promoting improved instruction regarding primates.”  Their website includes helpful links and materials for teachers and others “looking for ideas on incorporating nonhuman primates into their lesson plans and anyone interested in learning more about nonhuman primates.”

Finally, the Primate Info Net (PIN), begun in 1995, provides many resources, links, and helpful educational material to those interested in primates, primate research, and outreach activities.  The PIN is maintained by Lawrence Jacobsen Library at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Primate Info Net is designed to cover the broad field of primatology, providing original content and links to resources about nonhuman primates in research, education and conservation. Through email lists and other resources, PIN also supports an informal ‘primate information network’ comprised of thousands of individuals around the world working with nonhuman primates in a variety of roles.”

There are many other ongoing outreach, education, and community engagement efforts. Those highlighted here provide just a few examples of the types of programs that encourage interaction.  Speaking of Research encourages scientists and others supportive of animal research to get involved in public outreach activities through the broad range of existing programs such as those highlighted above, but also by developing new initiatives.  Members of the Speaking of Research Committee work actively in many different types of public outreach and education and are available to share advice and experience with others.  We encourage you to use the comments section or to write posts to share your own experiences and programs and, by doing so, help to continue to build networks for supporting and increasing these efforts.

Allyson J. Bennett, Ph.D.

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Animal Rights Network Grows

Posted on November 25, 2009 by | 4 Comments

A network of animal rights blogs has revealed its latest creation. The Negotiation is Over blog, the Thomas Paine’s Corner blog, Stephen Best and the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, have come together and

…formed the Alliance for Progressive Science (APS) to attack Pro-Torture on both scientific and ethical grounds.
- Negotiation is Over blog (Warning: AR Extremist Website)

Just to clear up who “Pro-Torture” refers to:

The transatlantic Pro-Test – more accurately characterized as Pro-Torture — network seeks to generate mainstream support for vivisection

The Alliance for Progressive Science exists purely to attack Speaking of Research and Pro-Test for Science. How progressive!

This alliance exists to perpetuate the same misinformation about animal research that the AR community has been spreading for years (among other “facts” the article mentions the previously debunked myth that 9/10 drugs that pass animal trials fail in humans). Their introduction is littered with references to Speaking of Research and its founder – clearly our growing movement is causing them some concern:

We need to unite our community to address the imminent threat that the new vivisection activists present.
While Pro-Torture forces are small, weak, and amateurish, they must not be underestimated.

The movement also intersperses its more violent agenda – casually referring to the concentrated harassment of researchers as a normal tactic of the moment.:

Animal rights activists now have an obligation to acknowledge and counter the new breed of vivisection champions. Their reaction to our alliance indicates that relentless exposure, interspersed with targeted aggressive campaigns against individuals, has put them in a defensive, reactionary mode and exposed their weaknesses.

So let us look at this network of animal rights groups (and cosignatories of the Alliance of Progressive Science):

  • Camille Marino – a rising star of the animal rights networks, with her alarmingly named “Negotiation is Over” blog. She seems desperate to become the next ALF (Animal Liberation Front) Press Officer.

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! [link]

  • Jerry Vlasak – An AR Extremist and press officer of the ALF who openly advocates the murder of researchers

If vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work [...] And I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. [link]

  • Stephen Best – An animal rights philosopher and senior editor of the militant animal rights blog, The Thomas Paine’s Corner, who would – according to his lectures – save a dog before a human. Not that we should be surprised – misanthropy reigns supreme when your fellow compatriots think the murder of researchers something to consider.

What Dr. Best is saying is that the personal pleasure his dog brings him trumps the value of your mother, your child, your spouse, your sibling, and he’d rather see any one of them burned to a crisp than lose his dog. Assuming, of course, that they haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Best and impressing on him that they are every bit as worthy as is his dog.
Animal Crackers Blog

However Best’s extremist views are more clear from his essay where he endorses

…a form of abolition that (1) defends the use of high-pressure direct action tactics, along with illegal raids, rescues, and sabotage attacks; [Link - Warning AR Extremist Blog]

  • Jason Miller – The Anti-Capitalist-Anarcho-Vegan, founder of the Thomas Paine’s Corner Blog and newest Press Officer of NAALPO (sorry Camille, seems Jason beat you to it). He was one of the first activists to rant about the formation of Speaking of Research.

Quite a collection of characters – we urge you to do your own research about them.

Nonetheless this new group simply shows us the size of the task ahead – to explain to the public the vital role of animals in medical research at a time when animal right groups are purposely promoting disinformation in the public domain. We hope everyone gets involved with Speaking of Research to counter this pseudoscience.

Regards

Speaking of Research

 

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A look at responsible research with monkeys

Posted on November 18, 2009 by | 1 Comment

At the last Pro-Test for Science rally (then UCLA Pro-Test) I was trying to explain opponents of research that the images of bleeding monkeys shown in their signs were either from decades ago or from other countries, not the US or the European Union, and certainly not representative of research at the University of California. To counteract the effect of such misleading images, one of my colleagues in Germany has made a large amount of information available to the public, not only publishing their animal protocols and methods (which can also be obtained by reading the scientific publications), but also illustrating the experiments with both actual pictures and videos taking from his laboratory.

The surgical suite of Prof. Logothetis showing anesthesia and monitoring equipment comparable to those found in the best human surgical suites in hospitals.

You can see the animals in their living quarters, and watch training sessions and how the animals are transferred from their cages to the Laboratory.  You can watch a monkey perform a task while the activity of neurons in their brains is being recorded and a video camera follows the movement of the eyes.   There is a detailed and illustrative explanation of how recording chambers are implanted, and how a description of the entire surgical suite and protocols.  There is also a nice explanation of why alternative methods are not available that would allow investigators to study brain electrophysiology in the intact animal.

This impressive effort by Professor Nikos Logothetis to set the record straight on what is going on inside the laboratories is to be commended and replicated.  We hope UCLA and other US institutions can follow up on his example, once researchers and institutional officials become more confident that our openness won’t lead to more threats from animal right extremists.  After all, the only way to counteract a campaign of mis-information by opponents of research is to show the public the truth — that research with animals at academic institutions like the Max Plank Institute or the University of California is carried out with responsibility using the most advanced methods available.

Regards

Dario Ringach

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , ,

Gene therapy on the brain

Posted on November 16, 2009 by | Leave a comment

Hot on the heels of last weeks report of the successful use of gene therapy to treat the eye disease Leber’s congenital amaurosis comes a report that scientists lead by Nathalie Cartier and Patrick Aubourg of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research have combined gene therapy and stem cell medicine to successfully treat two boys with the disease cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD).

X-ALD is caused by mutations in the ABCD1 gene that plays a key role in the transport of fatty acids within cells, and lack of ABCD1 causes long-chain fatty acids to build up within cells known as microglia and oligodendrocytes in the brain. Affected microglial cells and oligodendrocytes eventually cease to maintain the insulating myelin sheath that is required for effective transmission of electrical impolses along nerve cells, leading to brain damage and ultimately death at an early age. The disease was made famous by the film “Lorenzo’s oil” which describes a dietary supplement that may delay the progression of the disease, though the only treatment that is currently considered truly effective is allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation where healthy bome marrow stem cells from a donor are transplanted into the X-ALD patient. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation works because the microglial gells and oligodendrocytes develop from cells that migrate to the brain from the bone marrow, so that healthy cells from the donor eventually replace some of the patient’s ABCD1 deficient cells and help maintain the myeline sheath. Unfortunately it is often difficult to identify a suitable donor, and even if one is found the procedure is risky due to problems such as graft-versus-host disease where immune cells in the donated bone marrow mount an immune response against the patient’s tissues.

Gene Therapy

MRIs of X-ALD patients over 24 months. The top line is untreated, the bottom is with gene therapy

Dr. Cartier and colleagues examined the possibility of using gene therapy to modify the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells so that they express a functioning ABCD1 gene and then injecting these cells into the patient to replace their faulty bone marrow hematopoietic cells, thereby avoiding the problem of donor and host incompatability. Rather than attempt to genetically modify and transplant all types of human bone marrow stem cells they concentrated on a subset of cells called the CD34+ cells that give rise to many cells of the immune system. These have the great advantage that they can be isolated from the blood, avoiding the need for surgery to harvest bone marrow. To assess whether genetically modified CD34+ cells could develop into cells of the immune system when injected into the bone marrow they selected the NOD/SCID mouse that lacks a functioning immune system and is often used to assess human stem cell transplantation techniques and to study aspects of the human immune system. Initial results with retroviral vectors were disappointing but using the NOD/SCID mouse model they developed a lentiviral vector based on HIV-1 that enables the functioning ABCD1 gene to safely incorporate into the genome of a significant proportion of the cells and drive ABCD1 expression in immune system cells derived from them (1). What is more they found that as well as the expected range of immune cells the genetically modified CD34+ cells migrated to the brain and differentiated into microglial cells (2). Of course if the therapy is to prevent disease progression the vector needs not only to drive expression of ABCD1 but to do so reliably for many years,. To assess whether the lentiviral vector could do this they transplanted Sca-1+ cells, the mouse equivalent of human CD34+ cells, containing the ABCD1 expressing lentiviral vector into mice that lacked a functional ABCD1 gene, and found that even 12 months after transplantation almost a quarter of microglial cells in the mouse brain expressed ABCD1 (3).

These promising results in mice were enough to persuade Dr. Cartier and her colleagues that this therapy should proceed to a pilot study in human patients who are in the early stages of this desease. While it will take several years of observation and clinical trails involving larger numbers of patients before we can be sure that this therapy is a success, this exciting news is yet another sign that gene therapy is finally coming of age.

Regards

Paul Browne

1) Benhamida S. et al “Transduced CD34+ cells from adrenoleukodystrophy patients with HIV-derived vector mediate long-term engraftment of NOD/SCID mice.” Mol Ther. Volume 7(3), pages 317-324 (2003) PubMed: 12668127

2) Asheuer M. et al. “Human CD34+ cells differentiate into microglia and express recombinant therapeutic protein” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Volume 101(10), pages 3557–3562 (2004) PubMed Central: PMC373501

3) Cartier N. et al. “Hematopoietic Stem Cell Gene Therapy with a Lentiviral Vector in X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy” Science Volume 326(5954), pages 818 – 823 DOI: 10.1126/science.1171242

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Debate on Animal Research

Posted on November 13, 2009 by | 3 Comments

The opening footage for the CNN Blogger Bunch discussion “Is animal testing necessary?” on Wednesday highlighted one of the reasons for a recent increase in public attention and media coverage of the role of animals in biomedical and behavioral research. The scorched front door of a scientist’s home illustrated the kind of “direct action” advocated by a number of animal activist groups who hope that harassment, threats of violence, and property damage directed at individual scientists will deter them and lead to an end of animal research. Unfortunately however, the debate also included repeating tape that featured shocking but contextless images of laboratory and farm animals.

The CNN debate also demonstrated the willingness of research advocates and animal rights activists to participate in open and public discussion.

Two leaders in research advocacy, Tom Holder (Founder of Speaking of Research) and scientist Dr. P. Michael Conn (Associate Director of Oregon Health Sciences University, author of “The Animal Research War”) presented clear, factual, and direct information about why animal research is crucial to human and animal health.  Two leading opponents of animal research, Peter Young (Animal Liberation Front supporter) and Dr. Ray Greek (President of Americans for Medical Advancement), made the case for halting animal research, but did not provide a clear vision of alternatives that could address major challenges to public health.

The debate touched upon many of the critical points of separation in views of about the use of animals in research.  Tom Holder and Dr. Conn provided the essential rationale for animal research: that it improves human and animal health by providing critical basic understanding, knowledge, and discovery of new prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies.  The counterpoint represented by Peter Young was that the value of all animals’ lives—including mice—are equal to those of humans and, in turn, that no animal research should be conducted regardless of its benefit to humans or other animals.  By contrast, Dr. Greek argued that animal research is ineffective and has not contributed to medical progress. Both of these arguments have been the subject of previous SR posts.

Young and Greek both failed to address the moderator’s direct question about animal studies used in, for example, the research, vaccination, and treatments of H1N1 viruses.  Both also strayed off point with talk of non-research use of animals (Young and the benefits of releasing farmed mink back into the wild) and such red herrings (Greek) as how chocolate is delicious to humans and fatal to dogs.

The time constraints of the program precluded in-depth coverage of some points and didn’t provide opportunity to challenge some of the statements that were misleading or inaccurate.  SR will continue to post follow-up to the debate with detailed analysis and discussion of additional specific points. Wednesday’s debate did, however, serve as a very public marker of the current shift in discussion, strategies, and attention to animal research.  The past decade’s escalating violence against scientists and others who support the responsible, ethical use of animals in research has increased their resolve to be more visible and active in their efforts to engage the public in discussion of the issues.

Discussion of the moral and ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in research is not new, nor is the participation of scientists in talking with the public about their work. Many speak about their work often and openly. They speak to community audiences, to college and other students, and to the media. What is new is the groundswell of support, widespread interest, and new groups (Speaking of Research, Pro-Test, Pro-Test for Science) that have catalyzed and organized efforts to challenge misleading campaigns and expose tactics of harassment used by animal activists in attempts to misinform the public on the one hand, and to discourage scientists from research on the other.

In addition, Wednesday’s debate provided an excellent demonstration that these efforts are successful.  The program provided basic factual information that is key to informed discussion of issues surrounding animal use in research, yet is rarely presented by animal activists. This information is often not clear to the public.  For example, the moderator provided statistics about the number and type of animals in research. These numbers highlighted what would not often be apparent from animal activists’ campaigns: the fact is that of animal in research, 95% are rodents, less than half of 1% are dogs or cats, less than a quarter of 1% are nonhuman primates (United States Department of Agriculture).

Another example:  the show began with images of property damage inflicted by animal activists and quotes by two scientists (Drs. David Jentsch and Dario Ringach) from an article advocating public dialogue about animal research.  The CNN moderator drew attention to the shift in the last decade from protests against institutions to direct harassment of individual scientists and their families.  Bringing the illegal actions taken by animal activists into widespread public awareness is important to informed discussion of the current state of animal research, including both its benefits and challenges. Those who rationalize violent actions against scientists, including murder, are often willing to do so in ostensibly public forums. Unfortunately these forums are frequently not familiar to the broader public reached by better-known and more “mainstream” animal activists groups.  As a result, the public view of animal rights groups generally fails to include not only the scope of their agenda and its far-ranging implications—including the end to all animal research—but it also ignores the extreme views and actions they endorse.

SR will continue discussion of points raised in the debate over the coming weeks.  We appreciate CNN hosting this debate and the participation of Tom Holder, Michael Conn, Peter Young, and Ray Greek.

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.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in News, SR in the Media

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Debate

Posted on November 12, 2009 by | 1 Comment

The aforementioned CNN debate can be viewed below:

For Animal Research:

Against Animal Research:

  • Peter Young – Animal Rights Activist
  • Ray Greek – President of Americans for Medical Advancement

Full report and analysis later.

Speaking of Research

→ 1 Comment

Posted in News, SR in the Media

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Debate – CNN – Wednesday 9th November

Posted on November 10, 2009 by | 2 Comments

Given the increasing media interest in the animal research issue CNN have decided to do a short web debate on Wednesday 9th November (tomorrow) . The debate starts noon EST (9am PST / 5pm GMT) and can be watched live on http://www.cnn.com/video/ – alternatively watch it afterward on CNN here. This  will hopefully put to rest some activist claims that “we” are unwilling to publicly debate – we are willing and we intend to put the record straight.

The four participants are:

For Animal Research:

Against Animal Research:

  • Peter Young – Animal Rights Activist
  • Ray Greek – President of Americans for Medical Advancement

There is an opportunity for viewers at home to send in their questions – so make sure you’re watching the segment.

Regards

Speaking of Research

→ 2 Comments

Posted in News, SR in the Media

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Opponents of animal research should get their facts right

Posted on November 9, 2009 by | 7 Comments

Dr. Lawrence Hansen, along with fewer than a dozen other anti-research activists from PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), demonstrated at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago.  His opinion piece reveals that they were protesting neuroscience experiments on animals that, they maintain, will never benefit human health.

In stark contrast, nearly 30,000 scientists from all over the world gathered inside the convention center to share their latest findings.  Attendees ranged from winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, to patient advocates, to brilliant young graduate students.   Clearly, those inside the convention center felt differently about the role of science and animal research in medical advancement.

Our work centers around the basic functions of the brain, how it fails in disease and how we can develop treatments to everything from Alzheimer’s disease, to schizophrenia and drug addiction — horrific conditions that slowly consume human beings in front of their families, day by day, a little bit at a time.

Hansen and Goodman of PETA

Hansen (left) and Goodman (right) of PETA misrepresent science at Society for Neuroscience

Dr. Hansen and PeTA contend that scientists perpetrate cruel experiments on animals merely because they have financial interests in animal experimentation.  They are wrong.   Our interests lie in finding out how the brain works and how to treat it in disease. Opponents contend that these questions can be answered using brain scanning methods in human subjects.  They are wrong again.  While brain imaging is useful for some applications, the real clues to disease are at the molecular and cellular level – processes not observable with magnetic resonance imaging or other non-invasive techniques.

Animal activists seem to forget all these alternative methods have been develop by scientists themselves, including X-rays, tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging.  These are all the products of basic research performed by scientists.  Not by animal activists, not by physicians, but scientists.   We would we refuse to use the tools we develop?

Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health.  This is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense.  All living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species.   Simply put, we are made up of the same stuff.

While opponents are entitled to their own ethical position on the use of animals in research they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

The fact is that without animal research, our ability to develop new cures will largely come to a stop.  The fact is that there are no current alternatives to the use of animals when studying cellular and molecular events in an intact, living organism.  If alternatives were available, we would be using them.

Opponents of research have long been very vocal about their opinions, while scientists have remained largely silent.  Not any more.

The full story needs to be presented to the broad public who, we are convinced, will come to the conclusion that responsible research involving animals is crucial for the continued advancement of medicine and the health of both human and non-human animals.

Regards

Dario Ringach

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,