Author Archives: Blue Sky Science

Can stem cells repair broken hearts? Thanks to animal research we may soon find out!

On Monday – and appropriately perhaps just in time for St. Valentine’s day – a team of scientists at the Cedars Sinai Heart Institute led by Dr. Eduardo Marbán announced that in a small clinical trial they had repaired damaged heart tissue using an infusion stem cells derived from the heart attack patient’s own heart. The stem cells used- known as Cardiosphere Derived Cells (CDCs) were obtained from a small population of cells isolated from biopsied heart tissue that spontaneously form clusters known as cardiospheres in culture, and have the potential to differentiate into a variety of cardiac cell types.

It’s important to note that the main purpose of this trial was to demonstrate that the technique is safe enough for larger clinical trials, so the significant reduction in scarring and increase in the muscle volume is an impressive result. As yet they have not been able to demonstrate that this improved healing is associated with improved heart function, a question that will need to be addressed in larger clinical trials with longer-term follow up of patients.

In the press release issued by the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute Dr. Marbán notes that “The effects are substantial, and surprisingly larger in humans than they were in animal tests.”, which is true, though in the pre-clinical research that led to this clinical trial Dr. Marbán and colleagues demonstrated that CDCs are able to promote tissue repair and improve cardiac function in several animal models.

Among several papers reporting on this work, two stand out as particularly important.  The first was published in 2007 (1) when Dr.  Marbán’s team reported that transplanted human CDCs reduced scarring, increased heart tissue volume and improved cardiac function compared to controls when injected into the damaged areas of mouse hearts following induction of a heart attack. They followed-up this study with another to determine the safety and effectiveness of this technique in a large animal model, as well as refining their infusion technique.  In this study, published in 2009 (2), they demonstrated that infusion of autologous CDCs – stem cells derived from the same individual later treated – could safely promote tissue repair and functional improvement in pigs following an  induced heart attack.  While the reduction in scarring and the amount of new tissue seen in these studies (and in several other studies by this and other research groups) was not quite as large as that seen in the human clinical trial earlier this week, it was certainly significant enough to convince them that this approach should be evaluated in a clinical trial.

It’s worth noting how quickly this field has progressed, as CDCs were first isolated by a team at La Sapienza University in Rome as recently as 2004. In a paper published in that year Professor Alessandro Giacomello and colleagues reported the isolation and characterization of CDCs from mice and humans, and demonstrated that they could survive when injected into mice and differentiate into a range of cardiac cell types, as well as providing the first evidence that CDCs could help repair tissue following a heart attack.

While we will have to wait for further clinical trials before we can know just how beneficial this therapy will be, there’s no denying that it is an exciting development, and one that has only got this far thanks to animal research.  And it’s worth remembering that this is only one of numerous innovative approaches being examined as medical researchers seek to mend broken hearts.

Paul Browne

1)      Smith RR, Barile L, Cho HC, Leppo MK, Hare JM, Messina E, Giacomello A, Abraham MR, Marbán E. “Regenerative potential of cardiosphere-derived cells expanded from percutaneous endomyocardial biopsy specimens.” Circulation. 2007 Feb 20;115(7):896-908. PubMed: 17283259

2)      Johnston PV, Sasano T, Mills K, Evers R, Lee ST, Smith RR, Lardo AC, Lai S, Steenbergen C, Gerstenblith G, Lange R, Marbán E. “Engraftment, differentiation, and functional benefits of autologous cardiosphere-derived cells in porcine ischemic cardiomyopathy.” Circulation. 2009 Sep 22;120(12):1075-83. PubMed:19738142

3)      Messina E, De Angelis L, Frati G, Morrone S, Chimenti S, Fiordaliso F, Salio M, Battaglia M, Latronico MV, Coletta M, Vivarelli E, Frati L, Cossu G, Giacomello A.”Isolation and expansion of adult cardiac stem cells from human and murine heart.” Circ Res. 2004 Oct 29;95(9):911-21. PubMed:15472116

How nerve cells reach their niche.

Developmental biology, the study of the processes through which organisms grow and develop, is an area of biomedical research where modal organisms – ranging from the slime mold Dictyostelium  discoideum to the chicken – play a crucial role, and one that has been honoured with several  Nobel Prizes in recent years.  For example, the 1995 prize for “discoveries concerning the genetic control of early embryonic development” was awarded for studies of the fruit fly  Drosophila melanogaster , and the  2002 prize for “discoveries concerning ‘genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death”, was awarded for research undertaken with the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, while the 2007 prize for  “discoveries of “principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells”” depended on studies of stem cells in the developing mouse embryo undertaken by Martin Evans.

Today on the Neurophilosophy blog Mo Costandi has another great example of how our knowledge of developmental biology is being advanced through animal research. In a post entitled “Astrocytes build blood vessel scaffolds for long distance neuron migrations” he discusses how a research team led by Dr Armen Saghatelyan  used  Green Fluorescent Protein labeling and genetic modification to track the processes that control the migration of nerve cells to their correct location in the developing mouse brain.

It’s fascinating work, and you can read about it on the Neurophilosophy blog here.

 

 

So what does this basic research in developmental biology mean to medicine?

Scientists have known for some time that the brain has a limited ability to repair itself following injury, for example after a stroke, and more recent studies have identified a critical role for adult neuronal precursor cells in this recovery.  But the process by these adult neuronal precursor cells migrate to the site of injury and integrate into the damaged brain circuitry is very inefficient, with only a small number of cells reaching the correct location, so scientists are working on a variety of approaches to boost the brain’s ability to repair itself.

One approach to doing this is the use of exogenous stem cells, such as the human embryonic stem cell derived neuronal precursor cells developed by the UK-based company ReNeuron that entered clinical trials for stroke in 2011.

Another avenue being pursued by several research groups around the world is to improve the efficiency with which the endogenous neuronal precursor cells migrate to and repair damaged regions of the brain. In order to develop therapies that improve endogenous brain repair scientists first need to understand the processes that drive – and limit – neuronal precursor production, migration and integration in the developing and adult brain, so that they can modify and enhance those processes to safely  optimize repair.  The work of Dr Saghatelyan and his colleagues has provided medical science with another important piece of a puzzle that when solved will benefit many thousands of stroke victims around the world.

Paul Browne

Merry Christmas for Patients with Hemophilia B

That was the headline of an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which discussed the very promising results of a small clinical trial of gene therapy to treat hemophilia B – also known as Christmas Disease*. Patients with haemophilia B suffer bleeding in the joints and muscles due to deficiency in a coagulation factor IX, which blocks the coagulation cascade that normally leads to blood clots forming and prevents bleeding. Hemophilia B can be successfully managed by intravenous infusion of factor IX several times a week, but this therapy is very expensive – it has to be isolated from donated human blood plasma – and causes allergic reactions at the injection site in some patients.

Studies in mice were key to developing gene therapy for hemophilia B

Clearly a more permanent solution to factor IX deficiency is highly desirable, and to develop one scientists at University College London and the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis turned to a technology that we have discussed on several occasions on this blog in recent years – gene therapy. The results of their clinical trial, published in NEJM, were impressive, all the patients were able to stop regular factor IX injections to maintain adequate factor IX levels, or to greatly reduce the frequency of injections.

As the NEJM editorial points out, this therapy has the potential to not only improve the lives of people with hemophilia B, but also to save millions of dollars over their lifetime.

In an excellent post discussing the clinical trial science blogger ERV notes that:

This treatment is not perfect yet– but its a huge step in a right direction, and only possible because of viruses.”

A very good point, in medicine we usually think of viruses as the enemy, but when it comes to gene therapy they are an ally.

But they are not always the easiest of allies to campaign alongside, and that is where another scientific technique without which this advance would not have been possible comes in – animal research!

A key choice when developing any virus-based gene therapy is the vector used to deliver the replacement gene to the cells of the body.  The vector must deliver enough copies of the gene to the target tissue to be effective, enable the gene to express in sufficient quantity to ameliorate the condition, and do so safely. Adenoviruses are often chosen for this task, with the serotype AAV 2 being the most widely studied in animals and humans. But there is a serious problem with AAV2, roughly half the population have been exposed to AAV2 naturally, and mount an immune response that clears the vector from the bloodstream before it can deliver its gene cargo to the target tissue.

The researchers addressed this problem by turning to another adenovirus serotype AAV8, which was isolated from rhesus monkeys a decade ago.  They chose AAV8 for three reasons, firstly earlier studies in mice showed that AAV8 injected into a peripheral vein delivered genes to the liver – the natural site of factor IX production – much more efficiently than AAV2, secondly the mouse studies also showed that AAV8 uncoats and delivers its  gene payload to cells more swiftly that AAV2, helping to ensure that the gene is delivered before the body can mount an immune response, and thirdly prior immunity is far less common in the human population than immunity to AAV8.

The AAV8 vector wasn’t perfect though, it would still require a large number of virus particles to be injected – potentially enough to trigger liver damage or stimulate a larger and more rapid immune response – so they designed a modified AAV8 vector known as a self-complementary (SC) vector that delivers the gene to liver cells even more efficiently.  Injection of mice with an SC vector containing the factor IX gene was found to lead to a 20-fold increase in liver of factor IX expression compared to the same amount of standard AAV8 vector, with no increase in toxicity. Since the ability of vectors developed from different adenovirus serotypes to target gene expression to particular tissues can vary between mice and primates, they then evaluated this vector in rhesus monkeys, finding that the SC vector could drive safely therapeutic levels of factor IX production in the monkey liver, and that prior immunity to one adenovirus serotype did not diminish the efficiency of factor IX production by a vector based on another serotype.

These studies paved the way for the clinical trial that caused so much excitement in the scientific and popular press earlier this month. Hopefully further development and larger clinical trials in people with hemophilia B will confirm the potential of this exciting new therapy, a therapy that was developed thanks to viruses and to animal research!

* after a patient named Stephen Christmas from whom factor IX was first isolated.

Paul Browne

Best of Friends: University of Texas Professor helps to fund Extremism

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the activities of Dr. Steve Best, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso and long time supporter of animal rights extremism. Indeed, only last month we discussed his support for campaigns of harassment and intimidation against students and scientists, prompted by a recent post on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog which reported on the hate campaign being waged against students by the animal rights extremist Camille Marino.

While Best has been open in his enthusiasm for Marino’s campaigns of harassment and intimidation, and Marino has in turn peppered her “Negotiation is Over (NIO)”website with his videos and essays, he has appeared to limit his involvement to moral support.

Until now…

In a fine report on the online newspaper “Death and Taxes” entitled “Why Is a UT Professor Collecting Donations for an Animal Rights Group that Targets College Professors?” , journalist Carlton Purvis has uncovered evidence that Best’s support for Marino’s campaigns goes well beyond moral support, writing that:

The NIO membership section directs members to a small PayPal button on the right column of the page if they wish to donate. The group also sells annual memberships for $20 and lifetime memberships for $50.  Since that appeal for money, the site has been rapidly pushing out content.”

Why do they need money? Other than website upkeep let us remember that NIO has been offering $100 to anyone who can provide information on biomed undergraduates. See the poster below.

Nonetheless, the article continues:

Click on NIO’s donation button and it takes you to a donation page set up to send money to an account managed by someone using a Road Runner provided email address – the kind that you get for free when you sign up for Internet service.

A quick Google search of the email address reveals the owner of the address, none other than Steven Best, isn’t shy about putting his contact information on everything he touches.”

Oops…providing practical support for a campaign against fellow academics clearly isn’t a good career move for Best, and Marino’s next move proved that they realized this, as Carlton Purvis picks up the story:

Within hours of my email contact with Best on Friday night, the PayPal donation button had been removed from the Negotiation is Over website. Unfortunately, if someone was trying to cover Best’s tracks, they forgot to remove text on the membership page that says, “Please use the Paypal link in the right sidebar of this site or send your enrollment fees through PayPal to sbest1@elp.rr.com.””

DOH!!

The question is now what disciplinary action the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) will take against Best for actions, for although Universities are traditionally – and correctly – very keen to protect their staff’s freedom of expression, it is difficult to argue with the view that:

…despite the university’s policy to not get involved with what faculty do on their personal time, it seems like it would be problematic for a university to employ someone who is affiliated with a bounty program that funds harassment targeting university students and faculty.”

We will be watching this developing story with interest, and welcome Carlton Purvis’ tweet that “Rogue animal rights group stops selling memberships after I uncover a #UTEP professor behind the curtain w/this story”.  While we have our doubts about the popularity of NIO memberships, it is always good to see an extremist funding stream closed down.

UTEP President Diana Natalicio will need to think hard about whether her administration can afford to turn a blind eye to behavior directed against other students and staff at other universities that they would never tolerate if it was targeting their own staff and students.

We were also pleased to learn over the weekend that a federal judge has upheld an ordinance that has been critical to UCLA’s efforts to protect its researchers, their families, and their neighbors from harassment by anti–animal research extremists. This ruling makes it clear that there is a difference between legitimate protest and harassment, and shows that society will not stand by and allow citizens to be intimidated and threatened by those who disagree with their work.

All in all a bad week for those who favor harassment and intimidation over dialog and democracy!

Speaking of Research

What Cost Savings? A Closer Look at the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011

The status and future of chimpanzee research in the US are at the heart of much discussion lately in both scientific and public (also here and here) spheres.  A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to consider the issue held a number of meetings and is expected to report its findings to the NIH by the end of this year. Legislation to end great ape research, also introduced in 2007 and 2009 (H.R. 1513: Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011;  S. 810: Great Ape  Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011; GAPA), was again introduced last Spring. This is the fourth of a series of posts aimed at encouraging thoughtful and fact-based consideration of the full range of complex issues associated with chimpanzee research and both short- and long-term responsibility for their welfare, care and housing. Posts include:

08/12/11: Facts must inform discussion of future of chimpanzee research.

10/13/11: Joseph M. Erwin, PhD Efforts to ban chimpanzee research are misguided.

11/21/11: A closer look at the Great Ape Protection Act.

Previous posts and other discussions of chimpanzee research have focused on ethical questions, animal welfare, and ongoing evaluation of the role chimpanzees do play, or should play, in scientific research.  These are the most important issues to address in discussion of the future of great apes in the U.S. At the same time, this year’s version of the Great Ape Protection Act has included a new focus, with addition of the phrase “and Cost Savings.”  The new language and the calculations given as basis for its assertions have received relatively little careful broad discussion or evaluation.

According to cost analysis for the legislation compiled by the Humane Society of the United States, the majority of cost-savings from GAPA – 76% – would result from ending federal grants for projects involving chimpanzees.  Of the “nearly $30 million saved annually” over $22 million reflects funds committed to support research projects that involve chimpanzees and are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

HSUS GAPA Cost Analysis

It appears that this number was arrived at by summing the cost of all NIH grants that involve chimpanzees, regardless of their topic or the types of activities in which the animals are engaged. Whether this number could reflect the total funds invested in what is commonly considered invasive research is not readily apparent. Some of these grants may involve noninvasive studies, others may be dedicated to studies that require as little as samples of DNA—something commonly done in human studies. It does appear that the underlying assumption for the cost analysis is a complete block on any NIH research grants that involve chimpanzees. (We welcome correction if this is not an assumption of the HSUS analysis or any cost analysis used to support the claims associated with GAPA.)

The remaining savings are projected from reduction in care costs if the animals were moved to sanctuaries.  Whether sanctuaries provide lower-cost care than research facilities is subject to some debate, in part because care costs vary across facilities. This is illustrated in the most recent data published by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) October 31, 2011 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees:”

Based on the most recent awards and payments, NIH is spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67.00 per day per chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and $47 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. The average for research facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at APF is included. See Table 1 for detailed figures.”

The reasons for variance in costs are complex. Among other things, they do not reflect differences in housing, clinical care, or health status of the animals (e.g., older animals or animals with chronic health problems may require more expensive treatment and care). But overall, the numbers reported by NCRR show a rough equivalence in care costs at the federal sanctuary and many research facilities.

Table 1 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees, October 31, 2011

Research

Facility

# of Chimpanzees,
as of 10/31/11
(total)

NCRR cost*,
$M/year
(total)

NCRR cost,
$/animal/day,
(avg)

NIRC

117

1.23

28.8

K-CCMR

154

2.56

45.5

SNPRC (P51)

125

1.02

22.4

SNPRC (U42)

25

.047

56.3

Total

(421)

(5.3)

(34.5)

Research Reserve

Facility

# of Chimpanzees,
as of 10/31/11
(total)

NCRR cost*,
$M/year
(total)

NCRR cost,
$/animal/day,
(avg)

APF

173

4.25

67.4

Federal Sanctuary

Facility

# of Chimpanzees,
as of 10/31/11
(total)

NCRR cost*,
$M/year
(total)

NCRR cost,
$/animal/day,
(avg)

Chimp
Haven

119

2.03

46.7

What is not shown by these numbers or by most of the discussion of GAPA are the number of other issues that should accompany thoughtful consideration of the long-term care and housing of chimpanzees.  Dr. Joseph Erwin provided commentary on many of these in a previous guest post, among them concerns about ensuring the highest quality of care for the animals:

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.”

One of the biggest unanswered (and virtually unmentioned in public spheres) questions surrounding the effects of this legislation is where it is that these chimpanzees would go? Is the intent that they would stay in current facilities? That new facilities would be constructed? While some animal rights groups have advocated for moving chimpanzees from their current research facilities to Chimp Haven, there is little information that would indicate that is a feasible option. Nor do the discussions of cost-savings and future plans include information about projected costs to build sufficient sanctuary space that could accommodate the number of animals currently housed in research facilities.

This is a non-trivial issue. For example, the publicly-available NCRR cost information informs us that the cost to construct the only federally-funded chimpanzee sanctuary, Chimp Haven, was $11.8 million. Chimp Haven houses 130 animals.  In other words, the initial construction cost was just over $90,000 per chimpanzee.

There are an additional 594 NIH-supported chimpanzees currently housed in research facilities. There are also hundreds of privately-owned chimpanzees. Thus, on even rough calculation based on the construction cost of Chimp Haven, it would appear that at least many millions of dollars would be required to extend the capacity for sanctuary housing to these animals. 

 

The cost, feasibility, and plan for constructing additional facilities that could provide care for these chimpanzees does not seem apparent in the cost calculations for the current legislation. Nor is it an issue raised much in public discussion.  It is a relatively easy thing to call for an end to chimpanzee research and to encourage public support by appealing to fiscal conservatism. What is far more challenging is to include consideration of real factors that significantly influence the outcomes for the animals, including an accurate assessment of where they can be housed, how best practices for care can be supported, real costs and dedicated sources of funding for long-term maintenance and facilities. Those details matter and deserve far more attention than they currently receive by those claiming to have chimpanzees’ welfare as the utmost priority.

Allyson J. Bennett

Remembering a hero of the struggle against HIV/AIDS

December 1st is World AIDS Day, dedicated to raising awareness of the worldwide AIDS pandemic, to support people living with HIV/AIDS and to commemorate those who died.

The disease has claimed over 25 million lives.  Worldwide, over 33 million people are now living with HIV/AIDS.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the first report of the disease, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of June 5, 1981. By 1984 scientists had isolated the virus that caused the disease – human immunodeficiency virus, HIV.

It was a terrifying and frustrating time.  A diagnosis was considered a death sentence.  There were few treatments and little hope.   “All our patients died – 100 percent,” said one clinician about the era.

In 1985 the first diagnostic test was licensed and in 1987 AZT, the first anti-HIV drug, was approved. Over the past two decades, scientific progress in developing new treatments has been steady as dozens of new drugs were developed and several new methods of prevention were proven to be effective.

Jeff Getty - a hero of the fight against HIV/AIDS

In a bold experiment in 1995, Jeff Getty, a prominent HIV/AIDS activist and research advocate, received the first bone marrow transplant from a baboon.  The hope was that the animal’s natural resistance to HIV-1 would develop in his system.

I’m going to die anyway,” Jeff told a reporter. “Let’s get on with finding some answers about the disease.  If this saves me, then I got lucky.”

Despite approval by the FDA after extensive deliberation, many researchers had concerns about the procedure.  The physician who carried out the marrow transplant, Steven Deeks, an HIV/AIDS researcher at UCSF acknowledged, “We have been accused of being desperate, and to some extent we are,” he said. “We’re seeing people die every day and the therapies that are currently available and those that are predicted to be available over the next several years aren’t going to substantially slow that down.”

Ultimately, the baboon cells did not engraft, but Jeff’s health improved greatly.  His doctors thought some treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, that he received in preparation for the transplant, were likely responsible for his upswing. Jeff felt the procedure ‘bought some time’ – and indeed, he lived long enough to benefit from another novel treatment he was receiving at the time: combination antiviral therapy.

The development from the mid-1990’s of the first generations of antiviral drug combinations known as Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) was a breakthrough  that was to have a profound effect on the prognosis for HIV positive people, and was spurred by the arrival of HIV protease inhibitors, whose development depended in part on animal studies.

Jeff lived with HIV/AIDS for a total of 26 years, until October, 2006 when he died of heart failure.

While he was recovering in San Francisco General Hospital in December 1995 after the transplant, Jeff received a number of death threats from animal rights activists.  Jeff perceived PETA and other animal rights groups that opposed the use of laboratory animals as a direct threat to AIDS research.  He was not wrong: at the time PeTA had allied itself with ACT UP San Francisco* a malevolent organization that embraced HIV/AIDS denialism and attacked both HIV/AIDS researchers and other AIDS activists, including Jeff.

The following June, Jeff travelled to Washington DC  to work with Americans for Medical Progress in effectively speaking out against PETA’s anti-research stance, and the hypocrisy of Hollywood celebrities who supported PETA while wearing red ribbons in support of HIV/AIDS research.

He wrote the following commentary for the Wall Street Journal during that visit, and we reprint it in his honor on this World AIDS Day.

Sadly, while the options for successfully treating HIV/AIDS have improved dramatically since 1995 thanks to the efforts of scientists and of activists like Jeff, the animal rights anti-research agenda remains unchanged.

THE TRAGIC HYPOCRISY OF ‘ANIMAL RIGHTS’

by Jeff Getty
The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 1996

Without animal research there will be no cure for AIDS. My life and the lives of millions of people with HIV/AIDS depend on scientists working with animals to develop new therapies.

Every single drug we are taking right now to stay alive until a cure is found has come about only because of animal research. Yet the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals (PETA) says it would oppose any cure for AIDS that involved research with animals.

Such extremists do not simply make animal research a matter of polite debate. One need not look far to find people with HIV or AIDS who have been targeted by the animal rights zealots. When I was fighting for my life in the hospital this winter, I received death wishes from so-called animal lovers. Cleve Jones, founder of the Names Project, received death threats after being a grand marshal for a gay rodeo. Peter Stahley of Treatment Action Group recently said that PETA is a direct threat to his life. He is right.

Using tactics of distortion, intimidation, harassment and in some cases even violence, animal rights extremists have effectively delayed significant AIDS research. Here are some examples:

  • AIDS researchers at Stanford University in California were forced to build labs and complexes underground following attacks on university property carried out in the name of animal rights. According to one researcher there, the violent tactics of the animal rights fanatics’ violent tactics have added great costs to AIDS research, slowed certain projects and blocked other AIDS experiments from happening altogether due to high costs.
  • Recently, a prominent immunologist in the Northeast who is researching important immune restoration therapies for people with AIDS said that the biggest obstacle to his research was over-restrictive animal rights laws. In his research, this AIDS scientist is transplanting thymus tissue from infants to adults. After transplants are performed on animals, researchers are prohibited from conductnig further biopsies on any of these animals. On the other hand, human study subjects can and will receive biopsies over and over, as needed.
  • An animal rights group’s complaint to the National Institute of Health (NIH) about the appropriateness of the xenotransplant I received in December led to an expensive, time consuming paper chase for researchers. The NIH responded that there was no wrongdoing and that the experiment was approved to move forward. This bogus complaint caused people with AIDS needless waste of time and money.
  • The Progressive Animal Welfare Society, an animal rights group, targeted a Washington State researcher and successfully shut down, for a time, research involving mother-to-child transmission of simian immunodeficiency virus among macaque monkeys. This work later turned out to be the foundation for treatment of human newborns with AZT to block HIV. How many children are now needlessly dying of AIDS because information that could have prevented their disease was obstructed by animal rights extremists?

Certain Hollywood celebrities like to wear red AIDS ribbons while also supporting groups like PETA. It is time for the hypocrisy to end. You can’t be for AIDS, breast cancer and diabetes research and also support militant animal rights groups.

The only productive research approach is intensive, well-funded biomedical experimentation performed by scientists free to use animals in their work. Contrary to PETA’s rhetoric, computers have not replaced animals for drug safety testing and research. It will be many years before such a computer is ever programmed, simply because we now only dimly understand how the immune system works.

Meanwhile, animal rights groups continue to take donors’ money, promising to fight “for the animals.” In fact, their agenda is to stop all animal research forever, no matter what the human cost. Dan Mathews, an openly gay employee of PETA, has said publicly that he agrees with the group’s opposition to a cure for AIDS if it came through animal research. When asked about the fate of those currently dying of the disease, he said “Don’t get the disease in the first place, schmo.” Dan does not have AIDS, but he has shown that he has contempt for the men, women and children who do.

Many of the cures for diseases that are now long gone and out of the way came from animal research. If PETA had it way 50 years ago, we’d be talking today about hundreds of thousands of people dying from polio, as well as AIDS.

*ACT UP San Francisco should not be confused with the other groups within the ACT UP network who did much and more to raise awareness of the HIV/AIDS crisis, drive forward research on new therapies, and improve access to effective treatment.

Speaking of Research

Animal research unleashes the power of human embryonic stem cells

For more than a decade now embryonic stem cell research has been one of the most high profile – and indeed controversial – areas of medical science, and it is an emerging field that owes a lot to animal studies performed by pioneers like Gail Martin of UCSF.

Recently the field has begun to live up to its promise with the announcement last year that the first patient had been enrolled in the first ever clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), a trial that seeks to evaluate the safety of the hESC-derived oligodentrocyte progenitor cells in patients with spinal cord injury.  We discussed the role of animal research in the development of this therapy by Geron Corp in a post on this blog back in 2009.

In September of this year embryonic stem cells were in the news again with the announcement that clinical trials of retinal pigment epithelial cells (RPEs) derived from hESCs for the treatment of an inherited form of blindness known as Stargart’s Macular Dystrophy, are taking place at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London and the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA. The development of this therapy was led by Professor Robert Lanza, Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, and rests on animal studies which showed that RPE cells derived from hESCs were safe and could restore vision in rodent models of Stargart’s Macular Dystrophy, as a study publishes in the Journal Stem Cells in 2009 makes clear:

Assessments of safety and efficacy are crucial before human ESC (hESC) therapies can move into the clinic. Two important early potential hESC applications are the use of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt disease, an untreatable form of macular dystrophy that leads to early-onset blindness. Here we show long-term functional rescue using hESC-derived RPE in both the RCS rat and Elov14 mouse, which are animal models of retinal degeneration and Stargardt, respectively. Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant hESC-RPE survived subretinal transplantation in RCS rats for prolonged periods (>220 days). The cells sustained visual function and photoreceptor integrity in a dose-dependent fashion without teratoma formation or untoward pathological reactions. Near-normal functional measurements were recorded at >60 days survival in RCS rats. To further address safety concerns, a Good Laboratory Practice-compliant study was carried out in the NIH III immune-deficient mouse model. Long-term data (spanning the life of the animals) showed no gross or microscopic evidence of teratoma/tumor formation after subretinal hESC-RPE transplantation. These results suggest that hESCs could serve as a potentially safe and inexhaustible source of RPE for the efficacious treatment of a range of retinal degenerative diseases.”

Spinal Injury and Stargart’s Macular Dystrophy are only two of many diseases where hESC based treatments are offering hope of improvement, for more than a decade scientists have been investigating in animal models the use of embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative disorder caused by the loss of nerve cells in the brain that produce the neurotransmitter dopamine and results in severe movement impairment. Now, a report in the Guardian newspaper describes how, after years of dedicated research, scientists have overcome a major of technical hurdle and paved the way for the evaluation of hESC therapy for Parkinson’s disease in human clinical trials. The Guardian report stresses the importance of studies in mice, rats and monkeys to evaluating the efficacy and safety of hESC-derived dopamine producing cells:

In a series of experiments, the team gave animals six injections of more than a million cells each, to parts of the brain affected by Parkinson’s. The neurons survived, formed new connections and restored lost movement in mouse, rat and monkey models of the disease, with no sign of tumour development. The improvement in monkeys was crucial, as the rodent brains required fewer working neurons to overcome their symptoms”

The study, which those with a subscription to Nature can read here, is very promising, and hopefully it won’t be very long until we are reading about the start of another clinical trial of hESC derived cells.

It is worth noting that despite fierce opposition from its opponents, public support for human embryonic stem cell research remains very high, a level of support that owes much to the willingness of scientists and research charities such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research to speak out in support of this important work.  While polls indicate that a clear majority of Americans support animal research, that majority could be larger, and the lesson from the stem cell debate is that the public are willing to listen to the arguments put forward by scientist. It is up to all of us who value animal research to do our bit to ensure that the majority in favor of animal research grows; after all, it can’t be right that more Americans support hESC medicine than support the animal research on which it depends!

Paul Browne

Putting Animal Rights Extremists on the Hate Map

Those who believe themselves to be morally righteous have a virtue — they are usually candid in their public statements.  With an absolute conviction in their world views, it is not surprising they also have a rather loose tongue.  The hate and violence that lives within animal rights extremists is always near the surface.  This was evidenced in a recent interview by Camille Marino of the extremist site “Negotiation is Over” with Leah Nelson, a journalist with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-known and respected nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry in our society.

The SPLC blog is worth a read as it will raise the eyebrows of anyone that has a minimal respect for our democratic institutions, highlighting the hateful speech that comes from the fringe of the animal rights movement.  Apparently, Ms. Marino had second thoughts about the views she offered to the journalist and attempted to backtrack.  The SPLC Editor refused, noting that:

Marino was fully aware during the interview that she was talking with a blogger from the Southern Poverty Law Center, even volunteering that she is familiar with the SPLC’s history of denouncing radical animal rights activists like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She approved a transcript of her interview, writing in an E-mail, “I think you captured everything I said perfectly.” Hours later, Marino contacted the blogger and said she wanted to withdraw her consent to be quoted, saying that she did not want to be quoted on “a blog filled with the most contemptible groups of racists, bigots, madmen, and hatemongers … groups that I despise.

It was too late for that…  the SPLC editor further explained:

Following widely accepted journalistic practice that once an on-the-record interview is conducted, permission cannot be withdrawn, Hatewatch decided to publish quotes from the interview.”

Of course, Ms. Marino is accompanied in her crusade against the use of animals in biomedical research by Dr. Steve Best (Caution: extremist website), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, an active contributor and participant in the NIO web-site and vocal defender of Marino’s words and actions.  Dr. Best has previously been banned from entering the UK.  He was deemed a threat to the “public good” and “public order” and joined a list that also includes Islamic extremists and neo-nazis.   Here is an example of the kind of speech that probably prompted the Home Office to keep such individual away from British soil:


Hopefully, and given the available evidence, SPLC will take the logical step of declaring animal rights extremist groups like NIO hate groups.  This is, after all, what these groups are and, hopefully, they will formally be recognized as such in the SPLC hate map where they belong.

Of course there are many who do not need to be told that animal rights extremist groups like Negotiation is Over and the Animal Liberation Front are hate groups.  The University of Florida students newspaper “The Independent Florida Alligator” recently published an editorial strongly condemning the harassment of students and scientists by extremists, indicating that any students who may be targeted by extremists will find a lot of support among their fellow students, and in California the neighbors of scientists target by extremists have made their support for their harassed neighbors very clear. We’ve also seen the success of the Pro-Test movement in Oxford a few years ago, when students, scientists and members of the public joined to express their support for animal research, and delivered a decisive blow to the campaigns of harassment, intimidation and violence then being waged by animal rights hate groups in the UK.

Extremism and hate can be defeated, and the first step in doing so is to recognize it for what it is, and we applaud the SPLC for once again doing so.

Speaking of Research