Author Archives: Editor

Announcement About NIH Monkey Research Leaves Unanswered Questions

Late Friday, Buzzfeed broke a story reporting on the planned phase-out of on-site housing of monkeys at one of the National Institutes of Health intramural laboratories, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Laboratory of Comparative Ethology in Poolesville, Maryland. As NICHD Director  Constantine Stratakis outlined in an interview with Science News, the phase-out has been in the planning stages for some time and reflects a combination of economic considerations, the age of the facility, and the eventual retirement of the lab’s 69-year old head, a scientist whose 30+ year career has– and continues– to produce a great many important discoveries. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with other recent announcements about primate research, the news left many with questions and impressions about broader impacts.

Monkeys involved in developmental and behavioral research at Stephen Suomi's lab in Poolesville

Monkeys involved in developmental and behavioral research at Stephen Suomi’s lab in Poolesville, Maryland.

What is clear is that the science is valuable and that the work is conducted with care for the animals (see previous NIH reports, here). Science is the essential foundation of medical progress and discovery that benefits society, humans, animals, and the environment. Dr. Stephen Suomi and his scientific collaborators – leading scientists around the world — have together made scientific discoveries that are reflected in over 500 published papers. (see list here).

The significance of those findings is reflected in the over 10,000 times Suomi’s papers have been cited in peer-reviewed publications. The citations are by a broad range of clinicians and by scientists studying humans and other animals in order to better understand genetics, immunology, neurobiology, pharmacology, behavior and other aspects of health. The esteem in which this work is held was clear in statements of support issued by both the  American Psychological Association and American Society of Primalogists (ASP) earlier this year,  as well as the NIH’s own response to PETA’s allegations last January.

Dr. Suomi’s collaborators include over 60 scientists – with PhDs and MDs – from five different institutes at NIH and 40 different institutions, universities and research centers, including those from 7 different countries outside of the US.

The US is a leader in funding medical and scientific research that benefits people around the globe. NIH’s own research centers – the intramural program – provides scientists and students from all over the world the opportunity to conduct research, make discoveries, and train the next generation of basic and clinical researchers.

The NIH has not ended primate research within the intramural program.  There are many scientists and laboratories whose work depends on humane, ethical studies of monkeys. Those studies continue.

It is work that has contributed to new understanding of a broad range of threats to human health and well-being —stroke, Parkinson’s disease, autism, depression, cancer, diabetes, addiction, and more. The list is long and includes diseases that touch nearly everyone, resulting in suffering and harm that scientists are obliged to address with expert knowledge and training, using the best approaches to discovery that they have available now.

The science is led by experts working for the public to make the world better for the public. The US has a strong system for direction, review, and oversight of animal research.  The public contributes to that via its elected representatives. Political campaigns by groups fundamentally opposed to all use of animals in research threaten the very fabric of science on which medical progress depends.  The public should be concerned about efforts to undermine science and medicine. The future depends on serious, fact-informed, and thoughtful dialogue.  Anything less is a serious harm to public interests in science and to future generations.

Speaking of Research

 

Where should US chimpanzees live?

Understanding what research is, what it means, and how chimpanzees are cared for in captive settings matters to decisions, the animals, public interests, and preventing unintended consequences.

Photo credit: Kathy West

Photo credit: Kathy West

Ongoing decisions and news coverage about US chimpanzee research have provoked continuing debate and raised questions about the best course of action for the animals, science, and public interests. Like many complex, emotional, topics the arguments and language that have surrounded the discussion have been polarized and have left many with impressions that are less than accurate. In turn, thoughtful and serious consideration has often been stymied.

One of the primary areas of confusion surrounds what exactly is meant by the term “research.” Another is what standards of care best provide for chimpanzees’ welfare. Here we cover some common questions about chimpanzee research in the US and the implications and consequences of decisions about chimpanzees living in dedicated research facilities. We also highlight and compare standards for care, external oversight, and public transparency for chimpanzees living in different settings in the US. We share two documents that provide details about the many scientific discoveries published over the past several years from scientists working in dedicated chimpanzee research facilities. One is a list of over 175 representative publications from recent years. The great majority of these scientific publications report discoveries from behavioral, cognitive, and neurobehavioral research. The second document highlights media coverage that demonstrates public interest in these discoveries and studies.

Pdfs here:  Chimpanzee Research Representative Publications (2007-2015)  and Chimpanzee Media List

CC-BY-NC-SA

1) Isn’t chimpanzee research in the US finished?

On November 18, 2015, the US National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins issued a public statement that NIH will no longer support biomedical research on chimpanzees. While the statement (and ensuing media coverage – here, here, here) clearly references biomedical research, what is unclear is the impact of this decision on non-invasive behavioral and cognitive research with chimpanzees. Much, if not all, of the media coverage on the issue of chimpanzee retirement has focused on research with chimpanzees for developing vaccines for Ebola and studying infectious disease. At present, it does appear that NIH’s decisions will truncate infectious disease research with chimpanzees.

Infectious disease research is not, however, the entirety of chimpanzee research. It is important, but also a relatively small part. Thus, conclusions about the need, value, or future of infectious disease research should not be mistaken for conclusions about chimpanzee research itself. In fact, in the public discussions and headlines about NIH’s decisions, very little attention has been paid to the enormous amount of non-invasive and minimally-invasive research that has contributed to new discoveries and knowledge about behavior, cognition, genetics, social, emotional, and neural processes in chimpanzees. Such research is vibrant, ongoing, and makes substantial contributions, as is evidenced by the many cognitive and behavioral studies that dominate this representative list of over 175 scientific publications over the past several years (Chimpanzee Research Representative Publications (2007-2015)

The work also has broad support. Public fascination and support of research that helps us better understand these animals is illustrated by the plethora of news stories in just the last several years, since the initial NIH decision on retiring chimpanzees from research (Chimpanzee Media List).  Furthermore, NIH—as well as NSF and other agencies and foundations—continue to fund this type of chimpanzee research. Last, but certainly not least, much—if not all—of the behavioral and cognitive research with chimpanzees meets the principles and criteria elucidated by the Institute of Medicine panel that reviewed the need and value of chimpanzee research. The panel’s conclusions were accepted by NIH, and their recommendations are reflected in ongoing behavioral and cognitive studies with chimpanzees.

CC-BY-NC-SA

2) Why does chimpanzee behavioral and psychological research matter?

A psychologist who works with chimpanzees was once approached at a conference by an animal-rights activist who heatedly accused the researcher of being a terrible person for confining chimpanzees and doing research with them.  The activist argued that chimpanzees were too smart to be kept in captivity.  He argued that they could learn language, mathematics, had theory of mind, and showed sophisticated cognitive skills and social skills.  The researcher asked this activist how he knew these things, and whether he had worked with chimpanzees or had ever been around them.  No, was the response, but the activist had seen all of these things demonstrated in videos and documentaries, and he countered that everyone knew how smart chimps are.  The researcher then asked him exactly where he thought those documentaries were filmed, and explained that nearly all of those amazing capacities were discovered and documented with chimpanzees studied, and in many cases nurtured through decades of excellent care, in research facilities in the US.

This discussion highlights the point that it is exactly the behavioral research that is becoming difficult, or impossible, to do in this country that originally led to the public’s recognition and support as they came to see chimpanzees as being worthy of protection.  If such behavioral research ceases to exist with captive chimpanzee groups, or only occurs in settings in which longitudinal cognitive and behavioral science is secondary to other management aims, we will lose the chance to learn more about the mental lives of our primate cousins.  Imagine that 50 years ago all chimpanzee behavioral research stopped in laboratories.  If it had, chimpanzees likely would have been zoo curiosities and little more.  Ape language, numerical cognition, metacognition, bartering, reciprocity, episodic memory, and other similar capacities would never have been demonstrated. Considering that makes one wonder whether, in that reality and in absence hallmark demonstrations of chimpanzees’ human-like intelligence, present-day activists would even care about chimpanzees in captivity.

The success of behavioral research in highlighting the social and cognitive sophistication of chimpanzees (and, more recently, the complementary neuroimaging data that show even more similarities between ape and human cognition) has become its own worst nightmare rather than a natural justification for asking new questions of these animals.  What we have learned has changed the way that the public and scientists view and treat animals. And it demonstrably has changed perspectives, policies, decisions, and care practices. But it should not result in a blanket prohibition against research with animals. Nor should it be used to support a default conclusion that research captivity is inherently bad, and sanctuary housing is inherently good. Both restrict the apes for their protection and the public’s, and both provide environments that support the animals’ physical and psychological well-being. But it would seem that the best place to ensure that chimpanzees are optimally cared for would be a place that is dedicated to studying chimpanzee behavior and mental health—a dedicated research facility.

If—on the hand—the ultimate result of new discoveries is to truncate research, the costs will be severe not only to our knowledge about these animals’ mental lives, but also to the perceived value of the animals to future generations of humans who will be faced with the imminent extinction of wild great apes and will have to address that threat.

CC-BY-NC-SA3) Can’t behavioral, cognitive, genomic, and other minimally-invasive research be done in zoos and sanctuaries?

Zoos and sanctuaries have always played an important role in studying the cognition of great apes, and other species.  And, that will continue.  But, it would be patently false to argue that many of the discoveries of sophisticated chimpanzee cognitive abilities would have been possible in those settings.  To give just one example, the ape-language studies with chimpanzees all were undertaken in traditional “laboratories” and often under the support of federal grants to universities.  Those projects showed that rearing conditions were critical to demonstrating (and instantiating) the highest degrees of language and communication skills in apes. This research was done in laboratories, not zoos, sanctuaries, or field sites.

Most critically, the research could only have been done in laboratories—in settings where researchers could control the animals’ experiences and maximize the chimpanzees’ opportunities to learn; where the apes’ lifelong health and participation could be ensured, and where researchers could make use of the chimpanzees’ natural curiosity and motivation; and where the chimpanzees’ full-time job could be learning and partnering with researchers in the science. Those facilities, some of which still exist, are research laboratories, and so those who advocate against laboratory chimpanzee research are advocating against the very places that have defined the (current) upper limits of ape cognitive abilities.  To cease research with chimpanzees in laboratories would cease those research programs and others that are currently funded to push even further our knowledge of chimpanzee cognition.

4) What is the difference between standards of care for chimpanzees in dedicated research facilities, in zoos, and in sanctuaries in the US?

The picture below shows chimpanzees in four settings. Where are they?  Two are current research facilities, one is an NIH-funded sanctuary, and one is a publicly-funded zoo. The settings look remarkably similar because they are in many ways. And to the chimpanzees, the sign over the door – research, zoo, sanctuary—doesn’t matter, as long as it doesn’t affect the animals’ care, housing, and welfare.

chimp housing [Autosaved]

Clockwise: Top – Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA (Note: Yerkes’ chimpanzees are not NIH-owned or supported); Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL; MD Anderson Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine, Bastrop, TX; Chimp Haven, Keithsville, LA.

The question then, is what kind of housing and care matters to the animals’ well-being. In fact, the majority of research chimpanzees in the US live in settings that are similar. The facilities provide outdoor housing, including natural ground and sunlight. They also provide extensive and complex climbing structures, opportunities for foraging and tool-use, toys, fresh produce and treats, bedding, interaction with expert and compassionate caregivers, and state-of-the-art medical care and facilities.

The standards that govern housing and care of chimpanzees vary, as does the level of external oversight and public transparency. The figure below shows aspects of that variation in terms of federal, public, non-voluntary requirements. Dedicated research facilities that receive NIH or other federal funding are required, by federal law, to provide care and housing exceeds the standards specified by the Animal Welfare Act. By contrast, zoos and other facilities licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) must only meet the AWA standards. Any facility registered or licensed by the USDA is subject to oversight by the federal agency. Furthermore, records of registration, inspection, or investigation of complaints are available to the general public via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. For NIH-funded research facilities, additional oversight and public transparency is provided via the NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).

Private sanctuaries are neither required to be licensed by the USDA, nor required to meet AWA standards. It is important to note, however, that some sanctuaries voluntarily elect to be licensed by the USDA as exhibitors. Private sanctuaries do not fall under the type or extent of public oversight or transparency as do dedicated publicly-funded research facilities. That does not mean that the care provided in private sanctuary facilities is insufficient; but it does mean that the public has little venue to ensure the animals are well cared for and virtually no means to evaluate evidence of that care, request investigation, or receive information.

One of the primary points often offered in response to observation of this regulatory unevenness is that there are also accreditation agencies and programs. It is true that each type of facility has voluntary, private accreditation agencies. For many dedicated research facilities, this is AAALAC accreditation. For many zoos, it is the American Zoological Association (AZA) accreditation. For many sanctuaries, it is accreditation via the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA) or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS).

The question for the public, however, is the extent to which standards of care, external oversight, and maintenance of records and information should be left to private, rather than public, agencies. For animals and facilities that are privately owned and administered, this may be entirely appropriate. But for animals and facilities that are public – as are NIH’s chimpanzees and chimpanzee research – it is the public standards, oversight, and transparency that ensure the animals’ care and the public interests. Indeed, when those facilities also support research, additional levels of public oversight exist in the form of peer review (which formally includes review of ethical treatment of animals) when this research is published or submitted for grant support.

CC-BY-NC-SA

Photo credit:  Kathy West

Summary

In summary, regardless of headlines about the end of US chimpanzee research, there is clearly ongoing work that is humanely-conducted, ethical, of value, and consistent with public interests. The critical questions that remain are about how to best protect the animals and to balance scientific discovery that benefits chimpanzees, other animals, humans, and the environment.

Allyson J. Bennett, Michael J. Beran, Sarah F. Brosnan, William D. Hopkins, Charles R. Menzel, and David A. Washburn

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions. The authors are psychological scientists whose research includes studies of chimpanzees and other primates.

 

 

One step closer to a vaccine for cytomegalovirus: Monkeys transmit CMV the same way as humans

Today’s guest post is by Jordana Lenon, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and Kathy West, California National Primate Research Center.

PregnantWomanResearchers at Duke and Tulane take the lead, the National Primate Research Centers provide critical resources and expertise in this first-ever proof of CMV placental transmission in nonhuman primates.

Researchers now have a powerful new model for working on a vaccine for cytomegalovirus, or CMV, which is the leading infectious cause of birth defects worldwide.

Now, for the first time, a nonhuman primate CMV has been demonstrated to be congenitally transmitted similar to congenital HCMV infection. The discovery was published this week in the high impact journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and reported in The New York Times and Science Daily, among other news outlets.

Rhesus macaque mothers can transmit CMV across their placentas to their unborn infants, discovered the teams of co-senior study authors Sallie R. Permar, M.D., Ph.D., Duke University, and Amitinder Kaur, M.D., Tulane University. The lead author was Kristy Bialas, a post-doctoral fellow at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute.

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

The finding establishes the first nonhuman primate research model for CMV transmission via the placenta. The macaque reproductive, developmental, and immunological systems are highly analogous to those of humans. Thus, scientists can now utilize the biologically relevant RhCMV system in a controlled scientific setting to try to find new pathways towards an HCMV vaccine.

“A huge impediment to CMV vaccine development has been our lack of ability to determine what immune responses would be needed to protect against mother-to-fetus transmission,” said Permar, of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute in a Duke Medicine news release Oct. 19.

“It means that we can now use this model to ask questions about protective immunity against congenital CMV and actually study this disease for which a vaccine is urgently needed,” said co-senior author Kaur, of the Tulane National Primate Research Center in a Tulane University release Oct. 19.

The rhesus monkey model for HCMV persistence and pathogenesis has been developed over the past 30 years by co-author Peter Barry, Ph.D., California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) core scientist, and co-developer of the rhesus intrauterine pathogenesis model with Alice Tarantal, Ph.D., CNPRC core scientist. Barry has recently shown that there is a strong immune response in rhesus monkeys to a potentially paradigm-shifting approach to HCMV vaccine design, and contributed important expertise and resources to this current research.

CNPRCrhesus,K_WestUCD, 4

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

The work highlights the collaboration of Duke University researchers with experts in rhesus immunology and virology at the National Institutes of Health National Primate Research Centers. Contributing authors also included David O’Connor, Ph.D., and Michael Lauck, Ph.D., experts in macaque virology, pathology and genetics at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, Xavier Alvarez, Ph.D., at the Tulane National Primate Research Center, and Takayuki Tanaka, D.V.M., Harvard Medical School and the New England National Primate Research Center, which provided macaques for the study. Additional authors’ contributions are included in the Duke news release.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Director, NIH National Cancer Institute, NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Derfner Children’s Miracle Network Research Grant.

Reference:

Kristy M. Bialas et al. “Maternal CD4+ T cells protect against severe congenital cytomegalovirus disease in a novel nonhuman primate model of placental cytomegalovirus transmission” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511526112

Guest Post. How to Engage with the Public About Animal Research: Society for Neuroscience Panelists Offer Strategies to Scientists During Annual Meeting

Today’s guest post is from Amanda Dettmer, Ph.D.,  a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Dr. Dettmer is a developmental psychobiologist whose research examines the early life organization of sociocognitive development in nonhuman primates. She received her PhD in Neuroscience & Behavior from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2009. You can follow her on Twitter.
Dr. Amanda Dettmer

Dr. Amanda Dettmer

 

During their annual meeting in Chicago, the Society for Neuroscience (SFN) yesterday held a 2-hour lunchtime session dedicated to public outreach concerning animals in research. The panelists were international experts on communicating the importance of animal research to the public, and they offered invaluable advice to the hundreds of scientists in attendance.

While it’s clear that scientists – and the institutions that employ them – must be more proactive in communicating the importance of their research and the animal models they use, the panelists offered several tangible pieces of advice on how to achieve this goal. The strategies offered cater to researchers working with various animal models and, more importantly, with varying degrees of comfort in engaging the public in their research.

The session opened with remarks by the chair of the SFN’s Animals in Research Committee, Dr. Michael Goldberg, who stated, “We’ve been staying under the radar to avoid animals rights activists, and this strategy is not working,” particularly with respect to nonhuman primates in research. Earlier this year, Goldberg and the President of SFN, Dr. Steve Hyman, submitted a letter to Science in response to an article published there, “Embattled Max Planck neuroscientist quits primate research.”

AM15_Logo_CMYK_Horizontal_SavedForWebThe first panelist, Dr. Rolf Zeller, is the founding president of the Basel Declaration Society (BDS) and a founding signatory of the Basel Declaration, by which researchers recognize the necessity of animal research in biomedical research, and endorse the highest standards of ethically responsible animal research. Stating that researchers will “never convince PETA, but we can convince the public,” Zeller stressed the importance of engaging the public and offered the BDS’ most effective strategies for communication in Europe: regular media training sessions for trainees and established scientists, persistent use of social media, and open access publications on scientific communication. Zeller offered his “Golden Rules” for public outreach, which included:

  • 1) Receive good training in science communication,
  • 2) Be proactive and honest about your research,
  • 3) Discuss your animal research with colleagues, especially any who might be skeptical, so that they understand why it is important,
  • 4) Make it clear you care about animals,
  • 5) Explain why animal research is essential for patients, and
  • 6) Join the BSD and sign the Declaration to be part of a proactive community.
Pro-Test Italia

Pro-Test Italia

Dario Padovan, President of Pro-TEST Italia, a non-profit that “aims to promote and disseminate to the public correct knowledge on scientific research,” followed with an emboldening presentation on how the group increased positive public perception of animal research in Italy with regular strategies easily and equally employable in the US: 1) active, daily activity on social media (the group responds to every incorrect/negative Facebook comment on their page, 2) engaging young scientific experts to reach their contemporaries (saying “most users of social media are 18-34 years”), 3) regularly producing YouTube videos that show detailed primate research in a humane and responsible way (which receive tens of thousands of views and >90% net “thumbs up” ratings), 4) fighting fire with fire by creating satirical anti-animal rights propaganda, and 5) getting patients who benefit from animal research involved in public outreach.

Pigtail macaques at the Washington National Primate Research Center

Pigtail macaques at the Washington National Primate Research Center

Dr. Michael Mustari, Director of the Washington National Primate Research Center, then highlighted the outstanding care that nonhuman primates at his, and all of the other six, National Primate Research Centers in the US, receive, as well as the significant contributions primates have made in the advances of such diseases as HIV/AIDS, polio, ebola, and Parkinson’s disease.

Mustari said, “People who argue against nonhuman primate work do not pay attention to reality.” He drove home the need to engage with the public by showing the type of video that the public needs to see regularly to understand the value of primates in research, like this one showing a quadriplegic serving himself a beer for the first time in 13 years, thanks to advances made possible by primate research. Mustari ended by discussing the inspiring global outreach the WaNPRC performs under the directorship of Dr. Randy Kyes, Head of the Division of Global Programs at the WaNPRC.

Jason Goldman

Jason Goldman

Dr. Jason Goldman, an animal-researcher-turned-science-writer, rounded out the session by sharing lessons he’s learned from animals in communicating to a variety of audiences. Using brown-headed cowbirds and betta fish as examples of animals that change their messages based on who’s listening, Goldman said, “Animals have learned what I tell scientists over and over: Different messages are required for different audiences.” Goldman offered tangible pieces of advice for burgeoning (and established) science communicators, including 1) tell personal stories whenever possible and evoke emotion (using Cecil the lion as an example), 2) use simple visuals and avoid complex graphics (even popular infographics can be hard to digest), use memegenerator.net to make your own memes to communicate science on social media (this is perhaps the easiest tip to pick up, as I was able to create my own – and first! – meme in about 30 seconds during his presentation), and 4) be relatable and make the public feel smart, not stupid.

The session concluded with a Q &A session from the participants seeking additional advice on best ways to communicate the importance of animal research to the public when you feel like your institution is resistant to the idea, how to deal with the internal struggle of loving animals while conducting research with them, and more. Given that the session went 20 minutes over its scheduled time, it was clear the audience found it an invaluable resource.

Later in the afternoon, Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, gave a Special Presentation to SFN attendees in which he discussed recent advances in neuroscience with a particular emphasis on the BRAIN initiative. Though he rarely mentioned animal models in his talk, he did field anonymous questions from the audience afterward, one of which asked 1) what his personal opinion was on the role of animals, especially nonhuman primates, in the BRAIN Initiative, and 2) what concrete steps the NIH Directorship was taking to engage the public in the importance of animal research.

Collins stated that although the NIH worked with the Institute of Medicine to end chimpanzee research in the US, this “should not be seen as a reflection of how we feel about other nonhuman primates in research.”  He concluded by acknowledging the need for primates in some of the more invasive studies for the BRAIN Initiative that cannot be conducted in humans, and by underscoring the need for continued outreach to the public on the importance of animals in advancing biomedical research.

Amanda Dettmer

Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Her writing does not reflect the opinions of the NICHD or the NIH.

Society for Neuroscience Today: Session on Animal Research and Public Outreach

Are you among the almost 30,000 neuroscientists are attending the annual Society for Neuroscience (SFN) meeting in Chicag0 this week?  Are you looking for a session aimed at building outreach and education efforts for better public understanding of animal research?  If so, SFN’s Committee on Animal Research has a session today at noon.

ME13  ANIMALS IN RESEARCH PANEL: Proactive Strategies to Increase the Positive Public Perception of Animals in Research.

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM  N427

Panelists: Jason Goldman, PhD; Michael Mustari, PhD; Dario Padovan, PhD; Rolf Zeller, PhD

Description:  As scientists become increasingly visible and engaged with the public through blogs, citizen science, traditional media, and other outlets, there is also increasing interest in open communication to gain public support for animal research and to underscore its critical contribution to scientific and medical progress. This panel will answer questions like: How can scientists and organizations engage the public and speak effectively about animal research? What strategies and venues (both novel and time-tested) are being employed to engage different audiences and how can interested scientists learn and contribute? What challenges exist in this area and how are different groups addressing them?

Contact: advocacy@sfn.org

Panelists include:

  • Prof. Rolf Zeller is a developmental geneticist that studies the molecular mechanisms governing organogenesis. He is a founding signatory of the Basel Declaration, by which researchers endorse the highest standards of ethically responsible animal research. He is the founding president of the Basel Declaration Society (BDS), an international grass-root organization dedicated to the Basel Declaration and actively promoting education on animal experimentation and the dialog with the general public, politicians and moderate critics.
  • Dario Padovan is the current president of Pro-Test Italia, which is an association that aims to promote and disseminate information about scientific research to the public. He was one of the founders of Pro-Test Italia and was the first chair of its Scientific Committee. He has masters degrees with honors in biological sciences, nutrition and dietetics, and bioethics.
  • Dr. Michael Mustari earned his Ph.D. in neuroanatomy from the University of Washington.  He is currently a Research Professor of Ophthalmology (UW). Dr. Mustari also serves as Director of the Washington National Primate Research Center (NPRC) at UW. He is responsible for providing scientific and administrative leadership to ensure an optimal environment for the care and well-being of nonhuman primates, which often provide the best animal models for studies of complex systems. All 7 NPRCs support the NIH mission of advancing scientific knowledge needed to develop new treatments and cures for diseases.
  • Dr. Jason G. Goldman is a science writer based in Los Angeles. He writes about human and animal behavior, wildlife biology, ecology, and conservation for various publications. He was editor of The Open Laboratory 2010: The Best of Science Writing on the Web, is co-editor of The Complete Guide to Science Blogging, and hosts a podcast called The Wild Life. He received his PhD at the University of Southern California.

NABR letter: “Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science Anti-Science?”

The letter below, from Frankie Trull of the National Association for Biomedical Research,  is reprinted with permission from NABR. It was sent on October 8, 2015 to Dr. Rush Holt, Chief Executive Officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, Editor-in-Chief, Science family of journals, AAAS; and Mr. Tim Appenzeller, News Editor, Science, AAAS.

nabr index

National Association for Biomedical Research

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Drs. Holt, McNutt and Mr. Appenzeller:

We are writing to express our concerns with the recent coverage in Science Insider featuring the Beagle Freedom Project, an animal activist organization. The fact that a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has seemingly become a mouthpiece for an organization counting among its officers a felon convicted under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is very troubling. Further it is difficult to imagine how continuously featuring the efforts of animal rights groups dedicated to ending animal research advances science, which is embodied in the very name, AAAS.

The most recent example of such anti-science reporting has been written by a member of the Science staff who appears to have his own agenda. The article in question highlights the efforts of a group dedicated to eliminating canines as a proven and valued animal model, and it is worth noting this author also published a book that appears to advocate human legal protections for canines. The article demonstrates a clear bias.

The same author also recently devoted multiple pages in Science to a lengthy profile of an animal rights activist working for PETA. NABR expressed its dismay with this unprecedented coverage in the pages of Science in a letter to Dr. McNutt and to your predecessor, Dr. Alan Leshner on January 26, 2015. AAAS and its related science publications have provided extensive coverage which either directly or by implication negatively portray animals as research models. A partial listing of stories is included below:

  • September 17, 2015 – Nature changes animal policy after cancer study comes under fire
  • August 21, 2015 – Crowdsourcing animal research
  • August 18, 2015 – Has U.S. biomedical research on chimpanzees come to an end?
  • August 12, 2015 – Animal advocacy group targets cat and dog research using novel crowdsourcing campaign
  • July 30, 2015 – Judge rules research chimps are not ‘legal persons’
  • July 10, 2015 – Use of regulated animals in U.S. biomedical research falls to lowest levels on record
  • June 12, 2015 – The scientist behind the ‘personhood’ chimps
  • June 12, 2015 – Research chimps to be listed as ‘endangered’
  • April 20, 2015 – Judge’s ruling grants legal right to research chimps
  • April 16, 2015 – How dogs stole our hearts
  • April 13, 2015 – Monkey deaths prompt probe of Harvard primate facility
  • January 23, 2015 – The insurgent (lengthy profile of PETA activist Justin Goodman)
  • January 22, 2015 – Slideshow: PETA’s crusade against animal research
  • August 29, 2014 – Animal welfare accreditation called into question
  • December 6, 2013 – Lawsuits Seek ‘Personhood’ for Chimpanzees
  • February 26, 2010 – Dog Dealers’ Days May Be Numbered

In reference to the August 29, 2014 article “Animal welfare accreditation called into question,” Science chose to highlight a study in which the authors are not only affiliated with a well-known animal activist group, but who also refuse to share the data supporting their study making it unreproducible. In essence, Science ran a story about a study whose authors have adopted a position that AAAS, most other scientific publishers, and funding agencies reject; a policy that could easily invite fraud, dishonesty and questionable science. It is incomprehensible that Science would then choose to honor one of these activist authors with a lengthy and biased profile.

To the best of our knowledge, AAAS publications are not in the practice of publishing articles that provide a platform to other special interests with political agendas such as anti-climate change, pro-tobacco, anti-GMO or anti-human embryonic stem cells. This leaves us to question why Science has devoted so much time and space specifically to individuals and organizations opposed to essential basic and biomedical animal research.

There has been significant coverage in The Atlantic, PBS NewsHour, and most recently the New York Times highlighting the role of the chimpanzee model in vaccine research which aims to protect wild chimpanzee populations from devastating Ebola outbreaks. These articles rightly question whether policy makers have acted too hastily in making research with chimpanzees in the U.S. more difficult, and in some cases, impossible. Yet AAAS publications seem to have spoken with their silence by providing no coverage on this contentious debate. Many biomedical researchers are now questioning whether AAAS publications have abandoned their biomedical research constituents in favor of groups with animal rights agendas.

We strongly urge AAAS to support biomedical research and the scientific community, and to maintain the high standard of reporting excellence that has defined Science and ScienceInsider. Your own constituents in the research community and the many members of the public respect AAAS’ commitment to scientific rigor and factual evidence. We are hopeful that your recent detour into animal rights hyperbole, personal opinion, and special interests is an aberration that will be corrected. In the meantime we will keep our members well-informed with regard to these concerns.

Sincerely,

Frankie L. Trull, President, NABR

NABR-Letter-to-AAAS

Caveat Emptor

A current USDA case involving a major antibody producer underscores the need for the research community to demonstrate its commitment to high standards of animal welfare.

On August 18-20, 2015, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (SCBT) went before Administrative Law Judge Janice Bullard in Washington to rebut charges of Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations at its California antibody production site. The hearing was supposed to conclude on August 21. However, according to an account of the hearing posted by the Animal Welfare Institute (“Key Hearing in DC from August 18 to August 20”), the proceedings were suspended on the last day and the parties were given until September 30, 2015 to negotiate a settlement. As of this writing, no settlement agreement has been reached. Therefore the allegations against SCBT remain just that—allegations: Final judgment must be withheld until the legal proceedings are concluded. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the USDA’s charges against SCBT demands attention.

Why antibodies matter

Antibodies play an increasingly important role in both clinical medicine and research. The immune system generates antibodies when it detects a foreign protein. Antibodies are proteins that tag these “invaders,” enabling other immune cells to find and destroy them. Because each antibody targets a single protein, they also have many useful applications. Antibodies can be used to diagnose and treat diseases, such as cancer and autoimmune conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Just this past August the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the antibody-based drug Repatha (evolocumab), the second in a new class of drugs that can lower cholesterol dramatically by targeting a specific protein.

Antibodies are also widely used in research to detect specific proteins in blood or tissue:

Yates lab neurotransmitter photo

Antibodies “light up” a neurotransmitter in this sample of brain tissue. Yates laboratory, University of Pittsburgh

Antibody production is a multi-billion dollar industry, and SCBT is a major player.

Making antibodies

Antibody production starts by injecting animals with the protein to be tagged. One production method involves collecting blood from animals injected with the protein and then extracting the antibodies. This method produces polyclonal antibodies that are comprised of a collection of immune cells.

Another method uses hybridoma technology which produces monoclonal antibodies that consist of only one type of immune cell. This method also begins by injecting an animal with the protein to be tagged. The next step is to remove an initial batch of antibody- producing cells from the animal’s blood and fuse them with a harmless cancer cell to produce a cell line that can generate the desired antibody in the lab. César Milstein and Georges J. F. Köhler shared the 1975 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing this methodology.

When performed properly, the creation of antibodies using either of these methods causes minimal pain or distress to animals.

SCBT produces antibodies with various animals including goats and rabbits, species regulated under the AWA. The USDA sends inspectors at least once a year to visit all facilities that conduct research, teaching, or testing with regulated animal species to ensure their compliance with the AWA.

In a formal complaint filed August 7, 2015, the USDA accused SCBT of “repeated failures to provide minimally-adequate and expeditious veterinary care and treatment to animals” (2015 complaint, paragraph 5). USDA said further that the company had “demonstrated bad faith by misleading APHIS personnel about the existence of an undisclosed location” where goats were housed (2015 complaint, paragraph 6).

SCBT history of non-compliance citations

This was not the first time SCBT has been cited for AWA compliance issues. According to the August 7, 2015 complaint, in July, 2005, the company paid a $4,600 penalty to resolve allegations of AWA violations from 2002-2004 (2015 complaint, paragraph 7). Seven years later, on July 19, 2012, USDA filed a complaint against SCBT alleging the following:

  • SCBT failed to “establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care.” (2012 complaint, paragraphs III. B.-C based on findings from a July 13, 2010 inspection; 2012 complaint, paragraphs IV. C.-D, based on findings from a February 8, 2011 inspection; and 2012 complaint, paragraph VI. B. 5, based on findings from a March 6, 2012 inspection);
  • During the March 6, 2012 inspection, the inspector cited SCBT for not only having “failed to establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a doctor of veterinary medicine,” but also having “failed to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care.” (2012 complaint, paragraph VI. A);
  • On July 13, 2010, the USDA inspector cited SCBT for animal care staff who were not properly trained. (2012 complaint, paragraphs III. A.-B. and E.1);
  • On July 24, 2007, the USDA inspector cited SCBT for improper handling of animals. (2012 complaint, paragraph II.D.1.-2).

The 2012 complaint also noted various shortcomings of SCBT’s institutional animal care and use committee or “IACUC.” According to the AWA, the IACUC is required to “assess the research facility’s animal program, facilities, and procedures,” including semi-annual inspections of the facilities that identify and report “significant deficiencies.” (9 C.F.R. section 2.31 (c) (1-3)) A significant deficiency is defined in 9 C.F.R. section 2.31 (c) (3) as a problem that “is or may be a threat to the health or safety of the animals.” The IACUC is also required to review and approve animal use protocols before the research commences, to review and approve significant changes to ongoing protocols, and to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized.

The 2012 complaint alleged these problems with SCBT’s IACUC:

  • The AWA requires the IACUC to determine that the principal investigator had considered alternatives to potentially painful procedures and failure to ensure that the animals’ pain and distress would be minimized by providing pain relieving drugs unless there was scientific justification to withhold them. (9 C.F.R. 2.31 (d) (1) (ii)) Alleged failures of the SCBT IACUC to do so were noted in the July 24, 2007 inspection (2012 complaint, paragraphs II. B.-C); the February 8, 2011 inspection (2012 complaint, paragraphs IV.A.-B); and the March 6, 2012 inspection (2012 complaint, paragraph VI. B. 2);
  • The AWA requires the IACUC to review and approve significant changes to an ongoing activity. (9 C.F.R. 2.31 (c) (7)) On March 6, 2012, the USDA inspector cited SCBT for an alleged failure of its IACUC to review significant changes. (2012 complaint, paragraph VI.B.1);
  • The AWA requires the IACUC to determine that animals are housed in conditions appropriate for their species. (9 C.F.R. 2.31 (d) (1)) On March 6, 2012, the USDA inspector cited SCBT for an alleged failure of its IACUC to ensure appropriate housing for animals at the facility. (2012 complaint, paragraph VI. B. 3)
Photo credit: Dan Coyro -- Santa Cruz Sentinel

Photo credit: Dan Coyro — Santa Cruz Sentinel

2014 hearing delayed

The 2012 complaint was to have been adjudicated in 2014, but the hearing was called off two weeks before it was scheduled to take place. According to a July 1, 2014 notice issued by Administrative Law Judge Jill S. Clifton, the hearing was cancelled to give SCBT and USDA “ample time to meet to further their attempts to settle the case.” However, no resolution to the allegations in the complaint was announced, and during subsequent visits, USDA inspectors identified more alleged AWA violations at SCBT.

On November 4, 2014, USDA filed a second formal complaint listing alleged violations found during 7 inspections between September 26, 2012 and April 22, 2014. The second complaint charged SCBT with having “failed to allow APHIS officials to inspect” a barn known as Lake Ranch/H7 “from at least March 6, 2012, through October 30, 2012.” (2014 complaint, paragraph III). This complaint also listed additional instances of failures to provide adequate veterinary care based upon findings from inspections of October 31, 2012 (2014 complaint, paragraph IV. B), December 18, 2012 inspection (paragraph V); and February 20, 2013 (paragraph VI).

The 2014 complaint also included these allegations:

  • The AWA requires the IACUC to ensure that the proposed activities or significant changes in ongoing activities “will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals.” (9 C.F.R. 2.31 (d) (i)) On September 26, 2012, the USDA alleged that SCBT’s had failed to execute this requirement. (2014 complaint, paragraph II. A);
  • The AWA requires the IACUC to “review and approve, require modifications in (to secure approval) or withhold approval of proposed significant changes regarding the care and use of animals in ongoing activities.” (9 C.F.R. 2.31 (c) (7)) Alleged failures of the SCBT IACUC to do so were noted during the inspections of October 31, 2012 (2014 complaint, paragraph IV.A); May 14, 2013 (paragraph VII); and April 22, 2014 (paragraph IX.A.-B);

The 2014 complaint further listed problems with the housing, food, and water provided to animals. These problems were noted in the September 26, 2012 inspection (cited in paragraph II. C. 1-4 of the 2014 complaint as alleged violations of 9 C.F.R. Sections 3.125 (a), 3.129 (a), 3.131 (a) and (d)); in the October 31, 2012 inspection (cited in paragraph IV.C. as alleged violations of 9 C.F.R. Sections 2.26, 2.100 (a), and 3.131 (c)); in the September 10, 2013 inspection (cited in paragraph VIII.1 as alleged violations of 9 C.F.R. Section 3.127 (a)); and in the April 22, 2014 inspection (cited in paragraph IX. C.1-3 as alleged violations of 9 C.F.R. Sections 3.56 (a), 3.54 (a), and 3.129 (a)).

USDA’s latest complaint

The third USDA complaint was filed August 7, 2015 and reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel under the headline: “Santa Cruz Biotech faces third USDA complaint alleging animal mistreatment.” As noted above, this complaint asserted that the company had “demonstrated bad faith by misleading APHIS personnel about the existence of an undisclosed location where respondent housed regulated animals.” (2015 complaint, paragraph 6) It also alleged that SCBT had “repeated[ly] failure[d] to provide minimally-adequate and expeditious veterinary care and treatment to animals.” (paragraph 5) In support of this allegation, subparagraphs 8. a.-n. of the complaint describe 14 instances between 2011 and 2015 where USDA inspectors observed individual goats that appeared to be in poor health and lacking appropriate veterinary care. Several of these goats were thin, appeared anemic or seemed to be suffering from infections (subparagraphs 8 a., b., c., d., g., j., k., l., and m.), while others had wounds or other injuries (subparagraphs 8.e., f., and i.).

These were two of the most serious cases:

  • “Respondent failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a goat (#12267) that sustained a rattlesnake bite on April 28, 2012, and following initial treatment, the goat’s condition did not improve, and the goat was not given any further treatment until its death. Specifically, the goat developed a visibly swollen jaw and chest and draining lesion and experienced a 23% weight loss (24 pounds) between April 28 and May 9, 2012. By APHIS’s inspection on May 24, 2012, the goat was observed to be unable or unwilling to close its mouth, which, in conjunction with the goat’s other visible conditions, indicated that the goat was unable to eat normally. On June 10, 2012, the goat was observed to have labored breathing, but was not euthanized June 11, 2012.” (2015 complaint, sub paragraph 8.f.);
  • “Respondent failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a goat (#21135) that had been diagnosed with urinary calculi [kidney stones] and treated with ace promazine. On July 7, 2015, at approximately 10:30 a.m., APHIS inspectors found the goat in a depressed posture, unwilling to walk, and breathing heavily. Respondent had no veterinarian available to attend to this animal: the respondent’s ‘on-site’ veterinarian was on vacation, and respondent’s staff could not contact respondent’s attending veterinarian, or any other veterinarian who could provide emergency care. By 3:30 p.m., the goat was agonal [gasping for breath], suffering and in distress. Respondent failed to follow its own ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ for emergency goat euthanasia, which requires veterinary approval for euthanasia. As no veterinarian was available, respondent’s staff used a captive bolt gun alone (without a sedative or secondary euthanasia injection,) to effect euthanasia of the goat at approximately 4:15 p.m.” (2015 complaint, subparagraph 8.n.).

As of this writing, there has been no judicial resolution of the alleged AWA violations by SCBT. That is to say, neither a settlement between USDA and SCBT nor a continuation of the administrative hearing has been announced.

Animal welfare matters

On February 14, 2014, Cat Ferguson wrote in The New Yorker about alleged animal welfare problems at SCBT, “Valuable Antibodies at a High Cost”. On September 25, 2015, science writer Meredith Wadman published an opinion article in the San Jose Mercury News about the 4-day hearing the previous month. In “No excuse for cruelty to goats raised for medical research,” Wadman opined that researchers were “the only constituency that Santa Cruz cares about,” and urged them to “weigh in” using their purchasing power. According to Wadman, Matt Scott of the Carnegie Institution for Science and Pamela Björkman of the California Institute of Technology have stopped buying antibodies from SCBT. Wadman concluded by asking, “Is it too much to ask other scientists to follow suit?”

Testimony from USDA Veterinary Medical Officer Marcy Rosendale was reported in an account of the August 18-20, 2015 hearing posted by the Animal Welfare Institute. According to this report, Rosendale said she had not observed the same number of animal welfare problems she found at SCBT at other antibody production facilities she had visited.

There is growing recognition that to ensure the rigor of their work, scientists need more information about the antibodies they use actually, i.e., technical specifications such as the what part of the target protein the antibody binds to. Perhaps it is also time to pay more attention to how those antibodies are produced.

USDA inspections are a matter of public record, but meeting the requirements of the AWA should only be the beginning. Antibody producers should be encouraged to take additional steps to affirm their commitment to animal welfare, such as by seeking independent accreditation of their production facilities through AAALAC. The point is that researchers and antibody producers alike must find tangible ways to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of animal care.

Alice Ra’anan and Bill Yates

Previous posts about SCBT and antibodies:

http://speakingofresearch.com/2014/03/28/santa-cruz-biotechnology-bad-behavior/

http://speakingofresearch.com/2014/08/08/responsible-antibody-production/

USDA documents:

USDA – 1st SCBT complaint 19 July 2012

USDA – 2nd SCBT complaint 4 Nov 2014

USDA – 3rd SCBT complaint 7 Aug 2015