Monthly Archives: October 2011

Good Lord! They’re Defending Animal Research

Posted on October 27, 2011 by | 7 Comments

Individual European governments are currently working out how to translate a new EU Directive on Animal Research into their own national laws. It would seem a good time for governments to be talking about the benefits of well-funded, humane research using animals. Wait a minute …. the British Parliament are.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.

On the 24th October 2011 the British House of Lords (Upper House of Parliament) debated the issue of animal research regulation (click for full text of debate). In response to Lord Wills’ initial questions on the impact of the directive on UK law there was a flood of support for the medical breakthroughs made possible by animal research.

The House of Lords

Lord Winston

Lord (Professor) Winston, an eminent British scientist who works in both reproductive biology and the field of organ transplantation, spoke of the role of animals in experiments in his own field.

My field has largely been that of in vitro fertilisation and reproductive biology. It is interesting to consider that more than 1 million babies could not have existed without the research that has been carried out on rodents. That is true of my work in the screening of embryos for genetic disorders. This has been a revolution in reproductive medicine. It means that women can embark on a pregnancy knowing for certain that they will be free from having a baby which will die in the first few years of life. That was made possible purely through extensive animal research. Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field, whether it be the liver, heart, brain or kidneys, or neuroscience or any major discipline.

Lord Winston also spoke of the need for the Government, and scientific community to engage the public on this issue.

It is quite shocking that every university in this country does not admit that we have an animal house where we do animal experiments. If we do not say this very clearly to the public, if we do not make that message clear, then of course people will start to think there is something clandestine or something to be ashamed of in our research programmes. I really do not think that is true

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe, spoke clearly about the benefit of animal research and the high standards of care that exist in the UK.

From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:

“The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice”.

There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact-tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals-as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.

Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.

Lord Taverne, founder of Sense about Science, spoke about the importance of
public support.

Public support is of course important-as many previous speakers have pointed out. The progress made in the three Rs also plays a part in this, and there is no doubt that there has been better education, but it could still be improved. I would add to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it would be beneficial if every general practice surgery displayed a notice stating, “All the drugs used or recommended in this surgery have been tested on animals”.

[...]

It is for the sake not only of the health of human beings but of the welfare of animals that we continue to be vigilant to ensure that animal research proceeds effectively and with due care for the animals affected.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough

Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who formerly chaired the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (as an MP in 2010), gave the Government’s position.

Our priorities are: to promote high-quality science and patient benefits; to ensure high standards of animal welfare; to apply the principles of the three Rs; to harmonise EU regulatory requirements so that we do not have different levels in different countries; and to promote public confidence in humane animal research, which can be done only through openness and transparency. … You cannot achieve world-class research unless you treat your animal models with respect and care.

The British Government continue to affirm their commitment to well regulated biomedical research involving animals. Thank the Lords!

Cheers

Tom Holder

→ 7 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

UK Trends in Animal Rights Activism – The Rest of the Story

Posted on October 24, 2011 by | 7 Comments

Recently, I posted an analysis of animal rights extremism in the UK, USA, Italy, Germany, Mexico and Sweden. By looking at the number of Animal rights activities annually over a 3 month period I described in a drop in the number of illegal incidents in the UK.

Incidents of animal rights activism or animal rights extremism

Number of Animal Rights related incidents during the July-Sept period

In the previous post I said:

The UK had the highest levels of activism (average of 24 incidents/quarter) although a massive crackdown on extremism by UK authorities is probably a major part of the decline which has seen only 8 incidents in the July-Sept period for 2010 and 2011 combined. This is certainly promising news for biomedical research in the United Kingdom. See more about activism in Britain in the UK Experience page.

However, an interesting article in The Economist suggested the truth is not quite as positive:


A similar (but not identical) drop in the number of illegal attacks over the time period is shown as in our earlier analysis. However, this is linked by a solid rise in the number of legal protests over the same period. The Economist suggested:

The number of peaceful protests against institutions that perform research on animals has increased markedly of late (see chart), as memories of the violent attacks on the homes and cars of researchers have faded, according to information supplied by members of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, a lobby group that keeps tabs on such matters. It reckons that many moderate protesters were so appalled at the increasingly abhorrent tactics used by extremists—which culminated in a grave-robbing in 2004—that they abandoned the cause. Only after such attacks had all but halted in 2009 did they return to the barricades.

Organizations such as NETCU – the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit – have been effective at curbing animal rights extremism, but were not designed to win the hearts and minds of people to prevent the spread of animal rights ethics. It is crucial that researchers continue to reinforce the link between animal testing and the medical benefits derived from it.

A good example was the recent article in The Independent (UK national newspaper) which explained the crucial need for animal experiments despite the array of other methods that complement such research:

Professor Morris is unapologetic. “There is a lot you can do without animals. Most scientists who use animals do so as part of a whole portfolio of techniques, which will include work with isolated molecules and genes, building up to whole cells growing on plastic dishes in tissue culture to study the more complex integration of cells to work together as a single tissue,” he says. Some 90 per cent of his staff’s work is done with individual molecules and cells in culture.

“At all these stages, extensive use is made of computational modelling, and analyses of databases, to bring together all the information available on how the particular aspect we work on functions in a living body,” he continues. “And there are now non-invasive brain imaging techniques that tell us a lot. But real diseases are diseases of the whole body, and can only be studied in the whole body.”

Dopamine deficiency is a key component of Parkinson’s but the underlying cause is a complex set of interactions triggered by inflammation in the autoimmune system. “So we need to understand the interaction between two complex bodily systems – the brain, and the immune system – to understand this multi-tissue, multi-step disease. The body’s controls on how those two systems interact are lost the moment both are cultured in a plastic dish. We need to look at living brain.”

Cheers

Tom Holder

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Global Trends in Animal Rights Activism

Posted on October 19, 2011 by | Leave a comment

I note that as I write this post I have no idea how this post will conclude. In order to count the number of global animal rights incidents I began to scan the Bite Back website (warning: AR extremist website) which logs most (all?) incidents of animal rights extremism globally. I found that eight countries have dominated the statistics in the last few years – Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA.

Not having time to trawl through every month of every year from 2004 to 2011 I chose to add all the incidents from July to September (inclusive) of every year – essentially these are third quarter figures for each year. The time period was chosen because September was the most recently completed month. I came up with the following data:

Incidents of animal rights activism or animal rights extremism

Number of Animal Rights related incidents during the July-Sept period

The first point to mention is that, with the exception of a spike in 2008 and 2009, the total number of incidents has been fairly consistent at around 88 incidents over 8 countries in each annual 3 month period. Now let’s make the data a little prettier (click graph to enlarge).

Incidents of animal rights activism / extremismSo, what can we see from the graph.

The USA has seen a slight downward trend in the number of animal rights related incidents each quarter. However, the data is far from conclusive on this and may simply could equally be interpreted as showing a cyclical pattern of activism. In many ways the US data reflects the pattern in the UK (but with generally lower figures), let us hope this means there will be a general decline in the future. The USA average over the period was 11 incidents/quarter.

The UK had the highest levels of activism (average of 24 incidents/quarter) although a massive crackdown on extremism by UK authorities is probably a major part of the decline which has seen only 8 incidents in the July-Sept period for 2010 and 2011 combined. This is certainly promising news for biomedical research in the United Kingdom. See more about activism in Britain in the UK Experience page.

(Read more about the UK trends in our next post: UK Trends in Animal Rights Activism – The Rest of the Story)

Sweden has the second highest average number of incidents (17 incidents/quarter) it has seen a massive rise since 2010, increasing to 57 incidents in the 2011 period. This should be regarded as a concerning rise for authorities in Sweden. Mexico went from no incidents from 2004 to 2007 and then rose to an average of 33 incidents/quarter between 2008-2009. While there has clearly been a rise in activists in Mexico, starting in 2008, the post 2008 decline is less easy to explain.

Germany, Italy and Spain have been relatively consistent with the average number of incidents at 6.5, 8.6 and 7.8 respectively. Ireland remained fairly constant with an average of 2.8 incidents/quarter.

Overall it is hard to pinpoint any general pattern (though please use the data to make your own analysis). We must learn from the declines in countries like the UK, and use what we have learned to prevent the type of rises which have happened Sweden (and to a certain extent Mexico).

Cheers

Tom Holder

*Disclaimer: I may have made some small errors while counting by hand, however these errors should not be big enough to affect the statistics overall. It is also worth noting that not all global incidents are likely logged on BiteBack. Furthermore, I did not investigate the nature of each incident – some are arson attacks and vandalism, others are empty threats and the release or imprisonment of activists – I have not differentiated between these incidents.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

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

Guest post: Efforts to ban chimpanzee research are misguided.

Posted on October 13, 2011 by | Leave a comment

The status and future of chimpanzee research in the US are at the heart of much discussion lately in both scientific and public spheres.  Discussion of human relationships with the great apes, their role in research—past, present, and future—and our responsibility for their continued care deserve thoughtful, well-informed consideration by both the scientific community and the public.  One of the primary goals of Speaking of Research is to contribute to dialogue about animal research and to provide factual information that is sometimes missing from the public conversation. In the case of chimpanzee research, their housing and care, and the GAPA legislation, it seems clear that there is uneven understanding of the current situation in the U.S., as well as lack of attention to the details and consequences of the proposed legislation were it to be enacted.  We have asked a number of primatologists involved in chimpanzee research, care and management to contribute to this discussion and begin a series on the issue here, with a guest post from Joseph M. Erwin, Ph.D. (UC Davis, 1974). 

Cheers,

Allyson

 

Efforts to ban chimpanzee research are misguided.

The author is a semi-retired consulting primatologist, whose career included service as a zoological curator, journal editor, university lecturer, and research associate at two major primate research centers. His most recent full-time position was as a VP and Division Director for an NIH research contract company, where he developed and implemented a program of environmental enrichment for nonhuman primates, designed innovative facilities, and engaged in research projects on aging in great apes and conservation biology field studies of primate populations in Indonesia. He has held university appointments in psychology, anthropology, child development, physiology, behavioral biology, and pathobiology, including affiliations in schools of human and veterinary medicine, as well as arts and sciences. He is currently a research professor of anthropology at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.  These comments were prompted by the continuing effort to ban scientific research involving chimpanzees. These are the opinions of the author and are not represented as policies or perspectives of any of his current or former clients or any organization with which he is affiliated. 

Dr. Joseph Erwin

You may not want to read this essay if you believe it is morally repugnant and unacceptable to involve human subjects in any kind of biomedical or behavioral research or clinical trials. If you do not believe that humans are animals and chimpanzees are our nearest biological kin, well, maybe these thoughts will not appeal to you. If, however, you recognize that humans have some obligation to discover and apply knowledge that can benefit our own and other species, you might want to read on.

Chimpanzees, like humans and other animals, deserve respect and due consideration. “Due consideration” implies that better decisions can be made if they are based on knowledge and understanding than on ignorance. The more we study chimpanzees (and humans), the better we can understand them, and the more likely our decisions are to benefit their health, well-being, and conservation, and the less likely we are to perform risky, harmful, or inhumane procedures. The current quality of care, refinement of procedures, and dramatic improvement in zoological and research facilities, all testify to the fact that scientific studies of chimpanzees in nature and captivity have changed the way we think about chimpanzees and how we can appropriately and humanely learn from them.

The continuing campaign to ban invasive research involving chimpanzees relies heavily on stories about chimpanzees who were treated in ways none of us would currently condone. Even in the exaggerated tone with which these stories are told, there is some truth. During the fifties, sixties, and even to some extent in the seventies and eighties, some chimpanzees were kept under very restrictive conditions and were subjected to tests and procedures that are no longer considered humane or acceptable and have been discarded.

By about thirty years ago, things had begun to change. Environments became less restrictive. The critical value of maternal rearing and social grouping was recognized. Scientists and facility managers began to insist on improved physical facilities. The value of information obtained noninvasively became clearer, including acceptance of the important role of behavioral monitoring and training to cooperate with caregivers, in contrast to the coercive methods that were previously thought to be essential.

But, the drum beat continues to ban “invasive” research involving chimpanzees, with claims that scientists in research facilities continually and routinely “torture” and “abuse” chimpanzees. “Invasive” has a nasty sound to it, and most of us would not approve of what is implied by the term. That serves those who use the term deceptively very well. First, they equate “invasive” with “torture,” “abuse,” and “vivisection.” Then they formally define the term in ways that would prohibit procedures we currently welcome for ourselves and our loved ones. The proposed research ban would criminalize procedures of which well-informed people of good conscience would certainly approve. The implications are far reaching, and they are not in the best interests of either humans or chimpanzees.

Most chimpanzees in scientific and educational institutions (research colonies and zoological gardens) live in spacious, social, and secure environments, where they are provided with excellent professional healthcare, and are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act, through inspection by the USDA, and publicly available reports of those inspections. The legislative ban would require removal of chimpanzees from decent facilities that were built at great public expense, and would deposit hundreds of chimpanzees in “sanctuaries” that provide no assurance of competent professional care, are not subject to Animal Welfare Act protection, and are not publicly transparent.

The proposed legislation to ban chimpanzee involvement in research is fundamentally dishonest. It claims to provide an improved quality of life for chimpanzees, without providing any verifiable assurance that it would actually do so. It also claims that the legislation would result in cost-savings for taxpayers. How would money be saved? Perhaps by provision of facilities that are less expensive because they are less secure or do not meet the standards required of zoos and universities; possibly by using well-meaning unpaid volunteers, rather than professionally qualified care and veterinary staff; and maybe by ensuring that scientific grant funding from government sources could not be used for any kind of research (no matter how humanely conducted). Elimination of public research grant funds is a major aspect of the proposed cost savings. The authors of the legislation are surely aware that the public will continue to be financially responsible for the long-term care of chimpanzees owned by the government, whether the chimpanzees are involved in productive research or not. Further, when well-meant sanctuaries financially fail, as some are sure to do (consider the examples fromEurope), US taxpayers will be on the hook to care for the chimpanzees. Neither humans nor chimpanzees would benefit from the restrictions imposed by this kind of excessive regulation that will not live up to its claims.

We continue to have much to learn from the careful and humane scientific study of humans and great apes, including chimpanzees. Noninvasive research (more accurately defined as the sorts of procedures that are ethically acceptable for human subjects and are based on due consideration of chimpanzee and human differences) can provide much mutually beneficial information on aging and life span development, genomic influences on health and behavior, best healthcare practices, preventive medicine, and the cognitive and emotional characteristics humans share with our sibling species. Do care about chimpanzees and work hard to ensure that they are well cared for. Don’t fall for legislation that is anti-science, anti-research, and ultimately harmful to humans and chimpanzees.

Joseph M. Erwin

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

A paralysed man touches his girlfriend’s hand…thanks to animal research.

Posted on October 13, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Earlier this year we reported that scientists at the University of Pittsburgh had launched clinical trials of two different brain implant systems, known as brain machine interfaces,  that aim to give quadriplegic patients control over a prosthetic limb. At the time we noted that this technology was built on years of basic and translational research in animals, with research on monkeys playing an especially important role.

Now the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the first success of these trials. An Electrocorticographic implant enabled Tim Hemmes, who has been paralyzed below the neck since a motorcycle accident 7 years ago, to control a robotic arm with great precision, just as had been predicted from the studies in monkeys.  Being able to gently touch his girlfriends hand was a very emotional moment for Tim Hemmes, but it could hardly have been much less emotional for the team of scientists and physicians who developed the implant.

Tim Hemmes reaches out. Associated Press.

It is exciting news, and one that will spur further research in this fast-moving area of research. One drawback in the brain machine interface technology that is being evaluated in the current series of trials at the University of Pittsburgh is that the system does not include sensory feedback – the person using it cannot feel what they are touching and must rely on sight alone to guide their movements.

A solution to this problem may be close, earlier this month a team led by Professor Miguel Nicholelis of Duke University reported that they have developed a brain machine interface that uses electrical signals sent directly to the brain to enable monkeys to “feel” what a virtual arm is touching, and then control the movement of that virtual arm in response to the sensation. It is an important advance, and again one that depended on years of careful animal research to identify the correct parameters for the electrical signals used, and the optimal location for implanting the brain machine interface.

 

Human trials of the brain machine interface system developed by Prof. Nicholelis and his colleagues are expected to begin within the next few years.

The development of brain machine interface technology to this point, where it is offering the hope of greater independence and mobility to thousands of quadriplegic patients, is a great achievement of animal research.  In order to ensure that this technology, and many others at the cutting edge of medical science, to fulfill their potential we must continue to support the use of animals in biomedical research.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Science News

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

All in a day’s work: Scientists promote alternatives

Posted on October 12, 2011 by | 4 Comments

Once upon a time, the medication BoTox (made by a company called Allergan) was tested for its potency, on a batch by batch basis, in living animals. This medication, which is really a protein derived from bacteria, has many important therapeutic purposes. For example, it has been shown to be very effective in the treatment of chronic migraine headaches – a condition that can have disabling effects on those who suffer from it. It is used to treat disorders in which people sweat profusely (hyperhidrosis) or have overactive bladders, both of which affect people’s qualities of life by impairing normal social functioning. It has also been used in the treatment of motor disorders like spasticity and dystonia, preventing the irregular and disruptive involuntary movements that are found in these disorders, thereby reducing the physical pain that is so often a consequence of them. Of course, it has also been used for aesthetic reasons, an arguably less compelling medical use.

BoTox is used to treat patients with spastic cerebral palsy, lesseing the pain they suffer as a result of their uncontrolled movements

Because the potency of individual batches of BoTox produced vary, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States required Allergan to test each batch on live animals. For each batch, studies were conducted in which the amount of BoTox that was required to produce a specific toxic effect was evaluated in live animals, and the dose was adjusted to ensure that the potency of the drug across batches could be accounted for (roughly, if the batch was half as potent, this can be accounted for by giving twice the dose, ensuring that clinical effects were stable over time). This testing involved a lot of animals, mostly mice.

However, earlier this summer, the FDA changed its mind. It was approached by an organization that had – at considerable expense – developed a test that could determine BoTox potency just as well as the animal tests – but without involving live animals. The test is conducted on cells in a dish.

The organization spent millions of dollars to develop the test and to petition the FDA to consider this replacement for live animal use based upon its empirical results. They were successful.

Who was this organization? Was it the Humane Society of the United States? Perhaps it was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine?

It was none of these. Indeed, since none of these organizations spend their operating budgets on the laboratory research that is required to develop alternatives to live animal studies, it couldn’t have been any of them.

So, who accomplished this? It was Allergan itself. Biomedical researchers at the company who used animals in their tests became determined to find a model system that could replace living animals, and they didn’t stop until they found one. They did this though it came at a huge expense to the company. They were committed to producing medicines that people need and to use the fewest animals in the process, and they accomplished that. As the Allergen press release notes, there have been several attempts, using a variety of methods, over the past two decades to develop a replacement for the LD50 test, but until now all these have fallen short.  A report from a 2008 scientific workshop convened by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)  and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Program for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) provides a good overview of many of the challenges involved in delevoling a replacement for the LD50 test, and the different approaches used to address them.

As always, the alternatives that exist for animal use in biomedical science came from the very scientists who are otherwise roundly criticized by the anti-animal research movement. Maybe the irony is lost on organizations like PCRM, HSUS and PeTA, but not on us. At UCLA, our administration has instituted a funding program that provides seed funding to scientists to promote work on refinement, reduction and replacement. What have the leading anti-research groups done? Nothing, but complain. Perhaps instead of criticizing scientists, these organizations should join with us in attempting to discover alternatives and reduce animal use.

Regards,

David Jentsch

→ 4 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , ,

I don’t like Rick Bogle

Posted on October 10, 2011 by | 6 Comments

In a new essay Mr. Rick Bogle says I don’t like him.

He is right.

He never met me.  He doesn’t know me.  He has never been to my Lab.  He doesn’t understand my work.  He doesn’t know what I stand for.  He doesn’t know about my social activism, political views or my life in general.

He merely knows that I am involved with the use of animals in medical research.  This alone is sufficient for him to publicly condemn me as a despicable monster in the ugliest possible terms. He wishes death upon scientists.  His hateful fantasies ended up compiled into a book that, he appears to hope, will inspire others with more courage than his own.

I don’t like Rick Bogle.

In his moral righteousness he justifies violence against members of our community.  He demands public debate, but simultaneously decrees that the public cannot possible decide on moral issues regarding animal research (“they don’t really know the issues”). Violence is his one and only idea on how to resolve moral disputes. Unless, of course, you peacefully comply with his views.

I don’t like Rick Bogle.

But I will nevertheless answer his recent critique of my position which he misinterpreted, as his challenge to pick a threshold on the IQ distribution of human individuals to assign them moral status is irrelevant to my position.

I believe, like Carl Cohen, that humans have rights by virtue of their ability to participate as full moral agents in a community of equals.  A full moral agent is one that can purposely act against its own interests in respect of the rights of others.  All such moral agents have the same moral status (yes, I agree — it is self-evident that all men are created equal.)

Non-human animals cannot have rights, properly understood, because they are unable to participate in such a moral community of equals.  This does not mean that we can do with animals as we please.  Animals, in my view, have (graded) moral status and must be the object of our (human) moral concern.  This is the theoretical basis for animal welfarism and environmental ethics.

I believe it is up to all of us, as a society, to decide on what we consider morally permissible in our interactions with other species.  I think this is the only productive conversation we can have. In fact, it is the only meaningful question we can ask.  How we (humans) should treat them (non-human animals).

Mr. Bogle discards my proposal as a “rhetorical device and delusion” on my part, making it clear he is not interested in any such a dialogue.  It is easy to understand why.  As a true animal rights believer, he denies the notion of graded moral status.  To him, if animals are to have any moral status at all, they must have the exact same status as that of a human being.  It is all or nothing.

We also differ in that animal rights activists are moral individualists.  They believe our moral concern for a living being must be based exclusively on each being’s intrinsic characteristics.  It is only under such a premise that they ask why experimenting on a monkey is justified but not on a mentally disabled human child of comparable cognitive abilities.  To them, relational properties, such as the existence of a suffering family and community that cares, protects and loves that child is completely irrelevant.

Thus, our philosophical differences are deep and irreconcilable. It becomes increasingly clear that any sort of meaningful dialogue with such animal rights extremists is impossible.

Mr. Bogle closes his post with a  rather hilarious comment.

 “I don’t know whether Ringach eats animals. If he does, then all his justifications for using animals in science are just hollow nonsense.”

If this argument held any validity I could have written a much shorter article indeed.  One that simply states that all animal activists complaints about the work are bogus because they vaccinate their children and pets, and seek medical attention if the need it, benefiting from the work of scientists with animals in research.

Here, a funny anecdote comes to mind.  When I asked an animal rights philosopher if he vaccinated his children he responded: “Yes I do. But this could only mean that I am a hypocrite, not that any of my arguments against animal research are invalid.”  And he was right.

So it is true that I don’t like Rick Bogle.

It is also true that I pity him.

I imagine it must be a constant, depressing struggle to walk out of your house every day into what you consider is a morally repugnant society with the goal of exterminating its monsters.  It is a difficult quest indeed, as these monsters are to be found at every corner and anywhere you look.  From that family eating hot dogs, to the violinist in the park whose bow is made of animal products, to that couple enjoying an ice-cream, and of course those scientists working to advance medicine. Above all, I pity him because, one day, he will realize that the monsters he truly seeks are the ones living within.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News

Tagged , , , , ,

Science’s Voices Must be Heard!

Posted on October 6, 2011 by | 1 Comment

When my colleagues and I were first confronted with violence from animal rights groups we were offered the following justification:

“… direct action is the only choice available when all other attempts at open discussion are brushed off. The university’s resistance to public discussion is proportional to the frustration it engenders by doing so.  To those awakened to this holocaust, inaction is morally responsible.  Escalation [of violence] seems sadly inevitable in light of the university’s refusal to talk about the suffering within its laboratories.”



Clearly, these activists feel in possession of a moral upper hand.  In their mind, your refusal to talk to them in their terms justifies the use of violence against you and your family.

The above was written in an article by Rick Bogle entitled “Hiding Jews and Throwing Rocks through Vivisectors’ Windows: Hallmarks of Heroism” in response to the vandalism and attack on one of my colleagues.

Mr. Bogle is the founder of the Primate Freedom Project, a former advisor to the Animal Liberation Front Press Office, and now works for Alliance for Animals in Madison, Wisconsin.

These activists’ views are wrong on multiple counts.

First, moral disputes in our society cannot be possibly settled by means of violence. If we allowed this, a democratic society as we know it could not exist.  For example, in my experience, most animal right activists are pro-choice when it comes to abortion issues.  I seriously doubt they consider the killing of abortion doctors, or even the harassment  of abortion providers in their homes, by pro-life supporters acceptable.  Nor they will likely accept the intimidation and beating of individuals because of their sexual orientation.  Paradoxically, when it comes to their own cause, they see the violence justified.

Second, it is a fact is that these activists and the public have ample information in the NIH, FDA and CDC web sites that explain the scientific rationale for the use of animals in biomedical research.  The information was available (still is!) that explains why we, as a society, have decided that this research is important to the advancement of medical knowledge and the federal and sate guidelines that are in place to ensure the welfare of the animals in the process.

But, as confused as these activists are about the science, they also bring with them an ethical complaint. They argue that, independent of the benefits of the work, the use of animals in research is unethical and should stop immediately.  The reason is simple: they believe all living beings as having a basic right to life and freedom that we should respect.

I was initially surprised to discover little to no discussion on the ethics of animal research in the resources listed above.  Perhaps I should not have been… after all, the USDA does not include a moral justification for the use of animals in our food chain either.

However, I noticed with some sadness that, except for a handful of accounts in the literature (such as the Cohen and Regan debate), the voice of scientists seemed largely absent from the ethical debate.

We must bring our voices to bear on the ethical debate. We ought to explain the public not just the scientific basis of our work, but also why we see it as morally permissible. It was with this in mind that I participated in two recent debates and organized a symposium on animal cognition.

In my conversations with opponents of Animal Research I have learned about many of their key objections to our work. I have now published a symposium article in the the American Journal of the Medical Sciences summarizing some of my personal views on both the scientific and ethical objections to animal research, which can be read here.

I know not all colleagues will necessarily share my thoughts on all these issues.  I encourage everyone to voice their views as well.

The public and our society will benefit from having scientists’ voices heard.

Dario Ringach

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , ,