Monthly Archives: May 2011

Novartis stands up for animal research

Pharmaceutical companies have traditionally tended to avoid direct involvement in the debate on animal research, even though they and their employees and contractors  are among the more frequent targets of animal rights extremism, so I was delighted to see this new video from the leading pharmaceutical company Novartis on YouTube.

That it is Novartis leading the way on this issue should not be too much of a surprise. In 2009 animal rights extremists fire-bombed the house of Daniel Vasella, then CEO of Novartis, during a vicious campaign that also included the theft of his Grandmother’s ashes from her grave.  If the extremists expected Novartis to give in to their demands (to stop dealing with contract research organization Huntingdon Life Sciences) they were to be disappointed, not only did Novartis not cave in to their attacks, but in an interview with USA Today Daniel Vasella spoke of the need for pharmaceutical industry leaders to speak out against animal rights extremists, correctly stressing the need to marshall public support for animal research.

Q: What do you get from confronting enemies? You’re not going to change their minds.

A: You win public support. With that, you can achieve anything. Without public support, you cannot achieve anything.

Q: This Q&A makes no attempt to determine right and wrong in animal testing debate. But aren’t you helping activists by giving them the soapbox they desire?

A: I don’t believe so. It’s my duty as a citizen to speak up when illegal actions take place. Suffering in silence doesn’t help anybody. You have to stand up. You have to fight for something. If everyone remained silent, then the people who are violent would prevail.

- – -

Q: If you were to do it over again, would you do anything differently?

A: I would go public earlier, immediately. We should have done more to engage politicians and the press in making them aware what was going on, because we need the public to understand.

These are messages that everyone involved in biomedical research – not just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies – should take on board.

Novartis has a good record of developing innovative treatments, and of course this success has depended on – amongst many other methods – basic and translational animal research.  A very good example of this is the broad-coverage meningitis B vaccine Bexsero which is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency, which will, if approved, become the first vaccine to protect against a a broad range of group B Neisseria meningitidis strains responsible for a disease that kills and injures hundreds of mostly young people in the USA every year, and many thousands world-wide. Naturally studies in animals played a critical role in the development of this new vaccine, as I discussed in a post on Speaking of Research in 2008.

This initiative by Novartis is in its infancy, but is a promising sign that while Daniel Vasella may have retired from his position as CEO of Novartis, his enthusiasm for engaging with the public has rubbed off on his former colleagues.

Well done Novartis!

Paul Browne

Animal Rights Vandals Help Make Our Point

The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) conducted a recent billboard campaign that confronted the public with the ethical dilemma posed by the use of animals in research.

The question was simple:

Who would you rather see live? 

Confused animal rights activists vandalize billboard

Assume you are confronted with a hypothetical situation in which you can save only one of these two individuals in a burning house scenario.   As I have discussed previously, some animal rights theorists argue that both the rat and the girl are sentient living beings and that, sentience being the only morally relevant property, we owe the same moral consideration to both.

The animal activists that vandalized the billboard make it clear that they agree on this point.  They truly believe, in fact, that the both deserve the same moral consideration.

Of course, these same activists are confused as to what the conclusion should be given this premise.  The conclusion is not that we should save the rat (that would imply we owe more consideration to the rat) but that the only fair way to decide would need to flip the coin between the two individuals.

Such behavior would be consistent with a moral belief system based on the equal moral consideration of all sentient beings.

If this is what you believe in, they you should begin any debate about the relationship between human and non-human animals stating exactly your position.

Understandably, many of these activists do not want to take such a risk.  Why?  Because the vast majority of the public do not agree that we owe the same moral consideration to the rat and the girl.

Instead of advertising their true beliefs, these animal rights activists disguise themselves as animal welfare advocates and try to convince the public that the question posed by the billboard is a false dichotomy.   They are deceiving the public twice.

There are many real-life scenarios where we face a dilemma very similar to the one posed by the billboard.   One involves cases where a human patient may have a leaky heart valve.  Let’s call him Joe.  We know, for a fact, and based on past clinical evidence, that if nothing is done Joe will die within a couple of years.

As it turns out, we also know that we have the ability to manufacture an artificial heart valve by using one from a pig.

Artificial heart valve developed from pig tissue

Though the pig is a healthy, sentient being we are confronted with two possible choices that hinge upon our moral consideration of what is at stake in the loss of life for Joe and for the pig.

Either we euthanize the pig and proceed with heart-valve replacement surgery that will save Joe’s life, let him live to see his children grow up, to see his children have families of their own, and grow older with his wife…  or we let the pig live instead and let Joe die.

What does animal rights theory tell us to do?

An animal rights activist would probably ask us if we are also willing to use another, healthy human individual instead of the pig to save Joe.  If our answer is no, then we shouldn’t be using the pig either as, according t to the theory, our moral consideration for both living beings ought to be exactly the same.

In other words, animal rights theory tell us we have to let Joe die.

What would you do?   What would you do if Joe was your father?

If you believe in animal rights the conclusion is inevitable  – Joe must die.   If this is what you think you must say it clear and loud.  Explain this to Joe’s wife and his children.  Gather the courage to explain your position to their faces.   In fact, you can find Joe, and many other patients like him, in your local hospital.   Why miss the opportunity to “educate the public” about your ideas before it is too late?

You see… by vandalizing the billboard you helped make our point.

No, sentience is not the only morally relevant property.

No, the same things are not at stake when we consider the loss of life for Joe and the pig.

That’s why we, along many heart surgeons around the country, pick Joe over the pig and believe it is a morally permissible decision to make.

A paralyzed man stands again…thanks to animal research!

Yesterday an article appeared in the New York Times describing how scientists, supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, have used electrical stimulation of the lower spinal cord to enable a man who had been completely paralyzed below chest level to stand again,  and even to take steps on a treadmill. The good news has since spread around the world, being reported on the BBC, The Times of India, and Canadian TV

While the reports have – perhaps understandably –focused on the fact that this breakthrough has for the first time enabled a man with complete paralysis to stand and take a few steps, the Lancet paper describing this work also reports “improved autonomic function in bladder, sexual and thermoregulatory activity that has been of substantial benefit to the patient”. Such improvements are important as they have a huge impact on the overall wellbeing of a paralysis victim.

In this video Professor V. Reggie Edgerton of UCLA, who lead the team that undertook this study, describes the background to this study, and how discoveries made in both animal and clinical research made it possible.

 

Regular readers of the  Speaking of Research science blog may recognize his name, in October 2009 Prof. Edgerton wrote an article for Speaking of Research  in response to media coverage of a study he and his colleagues had published on the use of implanted electrodes to restore motor function in rats whose spinal cord had been severed, allowing the rats to stand and walk again. This study in rats – which can be read in full in PubMed Central – proved that in the absence of input from the brain due to the spinal cord being severed, electrical stimulation of the caudal segments of the spinal cord could enable the nerve circuits in the lower spine to use input from sensory nerves to control movement, and led directly to the clinical breakthrough reported yesterday.

But as is almost always the case this advance did not come from only one study, many years of basic research in both animals, intitally in cats – where it was first shown that an animal can walk despite the complete transection of the spinal cord -and later in rats, provided the scientific basis for this work, as Prof. Edgerton himself wrote in 2009:

 It has been characterized as a major breakthrough in facilitating the level of recovery of locomotion following a severe spinal cord injury. This in itself implies that these findings were the result of a single experiment with rats. But the reality is that these experiments were based on 100s of other experiments by not only my laboratory, but many other scientists. All of the previous animal experiments relevant to our understanding of the control of movement, involving many different species ranging at least from fish to humans, have contributed to the evolution of the concepts that underlie our most recent publication.”

Only time will tell what this study will mean for the millions paralyzed by spinal injuries – breakthroughs like this are better viewed as the end of the beginning than as the beginning of the end – and much further research will be needed to evaluate and improve this technique before it can be considered for widespread clinical use.

Firstly, the electrode arrray used in this study was relatively basic, but was FDA approved for use in humans and so appropriate for this early clinical study. Prof. Joel Burdick of Caltech, an author on this weeks Lancet study, is working to improve the design of the electrode arrays and the patterns of electrical stimulation applied to the spinal cord. Improvements in the way in which the electrical stimulation is delivered should increase the effectiveness of the technique.

A possible second improvement could be the addition of drugs that activate the locomotor nerve circuts. In the 2009 rat study some animals were treated with agonists for the 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A/7 serotonin receptors – on the basis of earlier research in mice and rats – in addition to receiving electrical stimulation, and it was found that this combination was considerably more effective than electrical stimulation alone. Unfortunately the serotonin agonists used in the 2009 rat study are still experimental and not approved for human use, and so could not be used in the clinical study reported in the Lancet. Hopefully 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A/7 serotonin agonists suitable for use in humans will soon be developed and evaluated in clinical trials, perhaps this weeks result will encourage investment in such drugs.

Many avenues towards repairing spinal cord damage or restoring function are currently being studied, and it is possible that this approach might be superseded in some, or even most, cases by advances in stem cell and regenerative medicine, and of course the various brain machine interfaces that we’ve discussed earlier may prove more appropriate for some conditions and patients.

 For today though, we offer Prof. Edgerton and his team our most heartfelt congratulations on an achievement that gives new hope to thousands.

Let’s also remember that this is but one of many examples of medical progress that animal rights activists would have prevented if they could have.  Fortunately, they did not succeed. It is up to us – medical researchers, health professionals and supporters of science and progress – to make sure it stays that way!

Paul Browne

Open your eyes: go blind for a day!

May is “Healthy Vision Month,” a good time to celebrate the past accomplishments of scientists and clinicians in advancing vision health and to draw attention to the importance of the sense of sight.

The occasion also brings back memories of animal right activists distributing pamphlets at UCLA declaring that “blindness is not a life threatening disease” and that,  in their opinion, “animal research in this field is not justified.”  (Of course they don’t approve of any research at all, but that’s a different story.)

Here is a simple exercise for activists with such shortsighted beliefs – one that I hope will help open their eyes.  Simply blindfold yourself for one day and go about your daily routine (but please, don’t drive).  I am not asking for much; go blind for just one day in your life.  In the process, you will surely learn what is that you take for granted every day and gain a deeper understanding of the impairments that come with vision loss.

The UCLA mobile eye clinic screens thousands of children for vision problems at schools every year.

So take good care of your vision and that of your family.   How?   To celebrate “Healthy Vision Month”, the National Eye Institute Director issued the following press release that includes some very good recommendations:

During Healthy Vision Month, the National Eye Institute (NEI), part of the National Institutes of Health, encourages people and organizations around the world to recognize the value of the sense of sight and make vision health a priority.

In focus groups conducted by NEI in 2005, the majority of participants reported that though they consider eyesight to be important, they take it for granted. In surveys conducted the same year by the NEI’s National Eye Health Education Program and the Lions Club International Foundation, American adults noted that the loss of eyesight would have an extreme impact on their daily lives — though more than 25 percent said their last eye examination was more than two years prior, and 9 percent had never had an eye exam.

Unfortunately, an estimated 14 million Americans are currently visually impaired due to eye diseases and disorders, and this number continues to grow as the population ages. Of adults aged 40 and older, more than 4 million currently have diabetic eye complications, more than 2 million have glaucoma, and more than 1.75 million have age-related macular degeneration. Millions of Americans have common, correctible vision problems such as nearsightedness, farsightedness, presbyopia, and astigmatism. The prevalence of nearsightedness alone has increased 66 percent in the past 30 years, according to a 2009 NEI study.

Recent investigations by NEI scientists have indicated that many eye diseases impact certain races and ethnicities more often, a key observation for eye care professionals and for members of the general public who have the ability to take charge of their eye health. For example, African-Americans have about a 12 percent risk of glaucoma, which affects peripheral vision. This is more than twice the risk of non-Hispanic white Americans. Both Asian-Americans and Hispanics have a risk of about 6.5 percent.

Another major NEI-supported study recently determined the first estimates of visual impairment and eye disease development in Latinos, the largest and fastest-growing minority population in the United States. Researchers found that Latinos have higher incidence rates of visual impairment, blindness, diabetic eye disease, and cataracts than non-Hispanic whites. The same scientists previously showed that more than 60 percent of eye disease in Latinos remains undiagnosed.

The best way for any person, regardless of their ethnicity, to detect vision problems at the earliest, most treatable stages, is through a comprehensive dilated eye exam. This simple, painless procedure allows an eye care professional to examine the eye through an enlarged pupil and gain a more complete look at any changes in eye health.

Comprehensive dilated eye exams can reveal common and correctable refractive errors as well as eye diseases that have no or few early warning signs, including diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration. Early detection of risk factors for these and other blinding eye conditions can lead to earlier treatment with vision-saving therapies that NEI researchers have developed over the past decades.

For example, scientists have shown that laser therapy is effective in preserving sight in those with diabetic eye disease, and recent studies indicate that additional drugs may lead to even better vision. Another study revealed that high levels of antioxidant vitamins plus zinc reduce the risk of the progression of and vision loss from age-related macular degeneration. Researchers also found that eye drops used to treat high eye pressure reduced the development of glaucoma by more than 50 percent in people who are at a high risk for the condition.

Join NEI in making vision a health priority for the nation. To find more information about Healthy Vision Month and resources for raising eye health awareness, including e-cards, educational handouts, and teaching tools, visit <http://www.nei.nih.gov/hvm>. For additional information on eye diseases and disorders, visit <http://www.nei.nih.gov/health>.

As you might expect animal research plays a key role in the development new treatments for blindness,  recent examples include the use of gene therapy to reverse a form of childhood blindness called Leber congenital amaurosis and the development of the monoclonal antibody treatment lucentis for wet age related macular degeneration.

Happy Healthy Vision Month everyone!

Help Defend Research: Apply for the Michael D Hayre Fellowship

Our colleagues at Americans for Medical Progress are taking applications for the Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach. In 2008 I became the Inaugural Fellow, using the opportunity advance public understanding of medical research through Speaking of Research (which was joinly supported by AMP and Pro-Test). I would recommend anyone interested in defending lifesaving medical research has a look at this Fellowship. Here are some more details:

We need your help finding the next generation of research advocates: young leaders with new ideas and energy for public outreach.  Please help us get the word out about our Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach.

The AMP/Hayre Fellowship supports college students and young adults in creating innovative peer education projects focused on the importance of animal research to medical progress.  Fellows receive a $5,000 stipend and project support.

Named in memory of AMP’s late chairman, Michael D. Hayre, DVM, ACLAM, the Fellowship program began in 2008.  Tom Holder, a founding member of the U.K. student group Pro-Test, was the Inaugural Fellow.  This year we were fortunate to have three Fellows: Gillian Branden-Weiss and Brenna Caltagarone, both veterinary students at the University of Pennsylvania, and Megan Wyeth, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Neurobiology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.  You may read more about the Fellows and learn about some of their lasting contributions to advocacy.

Here are a few ways ways that you can help us find the next Hayre Fellows:

Post the Fellowship announcement on your website.

Print out and distribute the Fellowship flyer to potential candidates.

Share the news with your friends and colleagues.

Ask others to pass the information along.

If you have additional ideas on how to get the word out about the Fellowship, or if you would like more information, or can offer other support for the AMP/Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach, please let me know.

Thank you.  We appreciate all that you do on behalf of medical research!

So even if you’re not interested yourself, passing it on to your friends and colleagues.

Cheers

Tom

More Moral Confusion at PeTA

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) are, once again, intent on proving their deep moral confusion to the public.   This time, they felt necessary to comment on the killing of Osama bin Laden with an invitation to bite his head off:

If you’re a little hungry after being up all night watching the news and chanting “USA! USA!” we’ve got the perfect snack for you: PETA’s “Bin Laden Bites” chocolates.

Many vegan readers of PeTA’s blog were not amused by this invitation.

One commented:

[...] How can we promote ethical treatment of animals if we promote violence against human beings as well. Your slipping up PETA. I expect a higher level of ethics and sincerity in your efforts.

Another exclaimed:

This is disgusting! An absolute disgrace to humanity. I cannot actually believe my eyes. What on EARTH does this have to do with the protection of animals? You people have gone off the plot and those who came up with the idea and the ones who signed this off are sick in the head. You are as bad as the sickos who beheaded and burned Americans in Iraq.

A third one pondered:

Shame on you PETA! Since when did you became an organization that promotes and celebrates cruelty, hatred and violence? You should apologize for this stupid ad!

It is a very good question. When has PeTA become an organization that promotes and celebrates cruelty, hatred and violence?

One question is whether or not you support the goals of the organization; another one is if you support its methods and tactics.   Consider the following comments by the leadership of PeTA that have been previously documented:

* In the December/January 2000 issue of ‘Genre’, PETA’s Dan Mathews was asked to name men of the 20th century he admired. Mathews told the magazine he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan, “because he got Versace to stop doing fur.”

* In 1999, an animal rights terrorist group calling itself the Justice Department sent letters booby-trapped with razor blades to medical researchers and fur farms in the United States and Canada. When asked about the letters, Newkirk said, “I hope it frightens them [the researchers] out of their careers. If experimenters feel afraid now, that’s nothing compared with the fear, harm and death they have inflicted on their victims.”

* In a new author’s note in her book about the Animal Liberation Front, ‘Free the Animals’, Newkirk writes, “Determined to cause economic injury to the exploiters, ALF members burn down their emptied buildings and smash their vehicles to smithereens. Perhaps, after reading this book, you will find that you cannot blame them.”

* In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded guilty to firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.

* In fact, Newkirk herself has expressed a wish to carry out arson. At a 1997 animal rights convention she said, “I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.” In 1999 she expanded on that sentiment, telling the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education’, “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”

On one hand PeTA is satisfied that Osama bin Laden has been killed by the U.S. and invites everyone to celebrate by biting his head off.  On the other, the comments by the leaders of the organization suggests PeTA, in fact, supports the use of methods and tactics that are not awfully different from those of other terrorist organizations.

Let us be clear, Osama bin Laden believed strongly on the correctness of his moral position and that violence was indeed justified to achieve justice against the West.  The same, of course, can be said of the Animal Liberation Brigade, the so-called Justice Department, other animal rights terrorist groups.

What about PeTA?

Perhaps it is time for PeTA to think a bit more deeply about its moral principles, issue a formal institutional position on the use of violence, and explain why an organization that is purportedly based on “compassion for all living beings” so often appears in the news as endorsing the same methods that made bin Laden despised across much of the civilized world.

Some Journals are Less Equal than Others

A recent press release announced the launch of the “ground-breaking” new Journal of Animal Ethics. It is the product of collaboration between the University of Illinois Press and the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (not affiliated with Oxford University). It aims to be “journal of inquiry, argument, and exchange dedicated to exploring the moral dimension of our relations with animals”. Fantastic! Well thought out ethical discussions on the use of animals (both animal research and their wider use and ownership in society) is exactly what need to take place to enhance human understanding on this issue.

But…

The value of such discussion is only as good as the forum in which it can happen, and the Journal of Animal Ethics is showing many signs of not being one of them.

Let’s start with the editors, who are also the Director and Associate Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (OCAE), Revd Professor Andrew Linzey and Professor Priscilla N. Cohn.

Prof Andrew Linzey (pictured) has written and edited a multitude of books which defend animal rights – generally from a religious (Christian) perspective. His biblical view on ethics can be quite difficult to counter if reject his base premise – that all rights are derived from God. This is especially important when you consider that atheism and agnosticism are much more prevalent among the scientific population than among the general populous.

The second editor is Prof Priscilla N. Cohn is also a proponent of animal rights, having published several books on the issue. Prof Cohn has also founded PNC Inc, “a non-profit animal rights foundation”, and been a board member of Humane USA

The Consultant Editors, those people who help advise the above Editors on potential submissions, are almost entirely (47 out of 48) Fellows or Associate Fellows of the OCAE. Now this would be fine if the Centre itself did not have a bias on the issue of animal ethics, but in truth it has more than a slight animal rights bent. David Sztybel, a Fellow of the OCAE, described the centre as an “animal-rights-friendly organization whose Director is a known animal rights philosopher

The language used by the Centre’s website is confused – it aims to make “an effective ethical case for animals”, but doesn’t explain the meaning behind this. One can make an ethical case for animal research, one can make an ethical case for animal rights, however you cannot make an ethical case “for animals” anymore than you can make an ethical case “for humans” or an ethical case “for tables” – it makes neither grammatical, nor philosophical sense.

Returning to the new Journal and some other concerns begin to arise such as the submissions guidelines, which include:

In addition to the normal policies against libelous and discriminatory language, all authors should avoid derogatory or colloquial language or nomenclature that denigrates animals (or humans by association), such as: beasts, brutes, bestial, beastly, dumb animals, sub-humans; companion animals should be used rather than pet animals, and free-living or free-ranging rather than (or in addition to) wild animals. [My highlighting]

Why is a Journal that should be discussing ideas of Animal Ethics demanding its authors use the lesser used “companion animals” over “pets”. The former has heavy connotations of animal rights language (especially groups like PETA). This would seem a great issue to discuss in the journal, but not something one should take for granted. The difference between the two terms lies with the nature of ownership of pets – something which should be accepted as a divisive issue.

Reporting in the Telegraph newspaper, the editors said:

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,”

“Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

“We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’”

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.”

“Owners” may well have certain connotations, but also helps realise certain truths – that I (legally) can’t (and morally shouldn’t) take home any dog from the park, regardless of how willing it is to come with me.

In the Daily Mail’s article, one reader made the following incisive comment (albeit rather sardonically):

I asked my pet cat and she has stated categorically she doesn’t want to be a companion, she expects to have her every need catered for and companion sounds like she might have to put some effort into this relationship.

Although I applaud the concept of a new Journal to investigate issues of Animal Ethics, I am not sure this will be the one to do it. The heavy Animal Rights orientation of those behind it (both editors and advisers) is already showing its agenda – even before the release of the first edition.

Cheers

Tom Holder