Author Archives: Tom

A Conversation About Beagle Testing

I received an email one morning from James, a Grade 6 student who wanted to know more about beagles used in research and testing for a school project about his passion. He has a pet beagle named Bagel and had recently watched some videos from the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP written about here and here). James was very curious and quite concerned about the beagles that participated in studies in Canada. He requested some information and to visit the Central Animal Facility at the University Of Guelph. James was invited for a tour and the answers to his questions are as follows:

Job Related

  • What is your job and what do you teach at the University?

I am a research animal technician and my job is to advocate for the animals that are under my care. I instruct those who have not worked with animals how to do so in a compassionate, respectful and ethical manner.

  • Why did you become a technician?

I became a technician because I love animals and people. I also love science and love being a part of making discoveries that improve the lives of millions of people and animals

  • My project is on a passion and I am wondering what your passion is?

I’m passionate about a lot! I am passionate about animals that I have the privilege to care for with compassion and respect. I am passionate about the science that continually makes strides towards new therapeutic advancements. I am passionate about alleviating the suffering of our fellow animals and people who agonize with debilitating and painful diseases. I choose this profession in research because it is my passion.

  • What research do you do in your Lab?

The majority of the work that is done in the facility where I work is basic or fundamental science in a wide variety of areas including oncology, neuroscience, animal behaviour and welfare, molecular biology, physiology, immunology, among others.

Michael Brunt and James during the laboratory visit

Michael Brunt and James during the laboratory visit

Animal Research/Testing

  • Why is it important to use animals/ beagles?

Various non-animal research methods are used together with animal studies to reduce the number of animals needed. These methods include antibodies, stem cells, tissue cultures (all in-directly use animals) and computer models. Non-animal methods account for the majority of biomedical research. Nevertheless, there are important research questions that still require animals. For example, in drug development, a large initial group of chemical candidates may be screened using non-animal methods, and only the most promising ones are taken through animal testing and human clinical trials. Before animal studies can go forward, investigators must detail how they have considered non-animal methods, and why they are not appropriate for answering their research question.

  • What kinds of tests are done?

The Canadian Council on Animal Care has 5 classifications for the purposes of animal use (PAU):
PAU1 – Studies of a fundamental nature in science relating to essential structure or function
PAU2 – Studies for medical purposes, including veterinary medicine, that relate to human or animal disease or disorders
PAU3- Studies for regulatory testing of products for the protection of humans, animals, or the environment
PAU4 – Studies for the development of products or appliances for human or veterinary medicine
PAU5 – Education and training of individuals in post-secondary institutions or facilities

  • What happens with your research findings once you are finished a project?

The findings are published in scientific journals that are available on the internet for everybody to access. The knowledge gained could be used to answer other scientific questions or be applied in translational science to develop new therapies or cures for those that are suffering.

  • What do you do with the animals after you have used them for research/testing?

Ultimately, most of the animals involved in animal research are euthanized. This is because the researchers will often need to further study the body – taking tissue samples and other such tests to make sure they get as much data from any animal they use. To euthanize the animals, researchers use a variety of methods such as an overdose of anesthesia (pain killers) or using CO2 so that the animal slowly drifts into a sleep it never awakes from.

Beagle Research/Testing

  • What is your opinion about beagle research?

Animal research plays a vital role in the development of modern medical and veterinary treatments. Much of our understanding about the biological processes in the body, and the diseases that affect them, comes from studies in animals. I believe that animal research should be conducted with the utmost care, responsibility and respect towards the animals. All personnel involved in animal research should strictly follow the pertinent guidelines, regulations and laws.

  • When did beagle testing begin?

Hundreds of years ago to begin to understand blood movement and the interactions of organs.

  • Why are beagles used for testing?

Health Canada requires that all new drugs, medical devices, and procedures first be evaluated in animals for safety before clinical trials involving human volunteers can begin. The most common “product” that is tested using animal models is new medications. Animals are used to determine that the drug shows a reasonable likelihood of working as conceived and to determine unforeseen side effects. For instance, a researcher may find that a new drug to control high blood pressure does so, but there is a possibility of a side effect such as liver damage. That information needs to be known before it is used in clinical trials with humans.

  • How many beagles are used a year?

0.3% of the animals used in Canada in 2011 were dogs. Mice, rats and fish accounted for 78.5% of the animals.

  • Where do you get your dogs?

Our beagles are provided by companies who breed dogs for research, teaching or testing purposes.

  • How are the dogs treated?

With love, compassion and respect.

  • Why don’t some companies let beagles see sunlight play or even touch grass during their testing time?

At our institution our animals go outside for walks every day with their dedicated paid dog walker and our volunteer dog walkers.

  • How many beagles die each year from testing?

I don’t have an answer to that question. In Canada in 2011, 10,199 dogs were utilized in science. However, that isn’t how many were humanely euthanized at the end of the projects. Our institution has adopted 100s of beagles into our community.

James and Bagel

James and Bagel (Photos reproduced with permissions from copyright owner)

Feedback

James and his parents met a number of our animals, including our beagles, during their tour and I asked him to provide some feedback on his experience.

At first I thought beagle research and testing was inhumane, unbeneficial and cruel. But when I went to the University of Guelph my perspective changed and I learned that research and testing is very important and it helps 1000s of humans and animals because of the research on animals. The people treat all the animals to a good life like every other animal in the world. They play with all the animals mice/rats/dogs and turkeys. One of the reasons that they euthanize the animals is to further discover the effects of a drug to make it safer for humans and other animals. All the animals there are well cared for, like the animals are their family. If we didn’t have research and testing we would never have a treatment to help the people suffering with cancer. 1000s of products have helped humans and other animals because of the work done with beagles. How many people would have died without animal research and testing on the drugs to know if they are safe. What I thought about beagle testing at first was nothing compared to what it is now. I now know that it very helpful. Most of the websites that say all the bad things are not aware of all the things the beagles and animals have done for advancing medicines. Another part of my visit included seeing Dr Woods and he told me about the research he did on mice for prostate cancer. They use mice cells because they react to the cancer like the humans cells do. Dogs are closer to humans than mice in DNA and they need to see how much of the drug they can give without it being toxic. All chemotherapy has been tested through rats, mice and beagles before humans. In my opinion all the beagles and animals who are involved in research are Heroes.”

My interview and tour with James demonstrates that everyone must seize opportunities to engage with members of the public. It is a chance to present accurate information about the ethical use of animals in science and allow people to make informed opinions. These instances foster a culture of understanding, acceptance, value and recognition for the contributions animal research plays in improving the lives of millions of animals and people every day. They are opportunities that should not be squandered.

Michael Brunt

Animal Research Statistics for Germany in 2013

Recent events at Max Planck Institute, where Professor Logothetis has publicly quit his primate research after a campaign of harassment by animal rights activists, have turned attention to animal experiments in Germany. In order to encourage accurate and factual discourse on Germany research we have decided to  provide the facts on the numbers of animals used in research in Germany.

These statistics were originally published in December 2014, and can be found here.

Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

87% of experiments in Germany were conducted on rodents, primarily mice (73%) and rats (13%). Other commonly used species were fish (7%) and rabbits (3%). Dogs, cats and primates together accounted for less than 0.2% of research animals.

Statistics Germany animal research 2000 - 2013. Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

Since 2000, the total number of animal tests rose by 64% to a total of 2,977,152 in 2013, though this is slightly lower than in 2012. This reflects similar pattern in many other countries with strong biomedical research sectors such as the UK.

Change in Species of Animals Used in Germany for Animal Research 2000 - 2013. Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

The rise in animal numbers is almost exclusively from a large rise in the number of mice being used in research in Germany. Part of this reflects the versatility of genetically modified mice which have become a mainstay of research over the last decade.

See animal research statistics from other countries here.

The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease

Jack Botting Animal ResearchDr Jack Botting (1932-2012) was a keen advocate of informing the public about the important role of animals in research. Following a successful career in pharmacology, Dr Botting became the Science Director for the Research Defence Society (RDS), an organisation which would later merge with the Coalition for Medical Progress to form Understanding Animal Research. During his five years at RDS, he wrote many essays for the newsletter on the contribution of animal studies to our understanding of diseases and treatments, as well as address many of the activists pseudoscientific claims denying the role of animals in modern medical developments.

Recently, his wife, Renia Botting, collated his essays and published them in a free-to-all online book. Across nineteen essays, Jack Botting explains the contribution of animal experiments to the treatment of infectious diseases, the development of life-saving procedures, and the creation of drugs for organic diseases. See the chapter overview below:

Animals and Medicine - The contribution of animal experiments to the control of disease

You can read the whole book by clicking here. Choose either “Read the pdf” or “Read the HMTL” to view the whole book for free in two different formats.

Renia Botting writes in the introduction to the book:

“One of the most damaging aspects of antivivisection campaigning was that they had started to hijack the scientific argument, claiming that animal experimentation was scientifically misleading, “a failed technology” etc., and that an examination of the research behind major medical advances showed that non-animal techniques were crucial and that the animal experiments had contributed nothing, or worse still, held up progress. Antivivisectionists were deliberately shifting the debate from the traditional “science vs animal welfare” argument to a “scientific” debate giving their arguments a cover of scientific respectability.

To respond to this style of campaigning, Jack was given the specific task of reviewing the research behind the major medical advances and writing non-technical reviews explaining the role played by animal experimentation. His work effectively put an end to this aspect of antivivisection campaigning. The articles which Jack wrote at that time have been collected in this book.”

It would seem that Jack faced the same challenges we do now in correcting misinformation put about by animal rights groups, as “scientific antivivisection” is sadly still up to its old tricks – if under new guises. His essays address many of the exact same myths that we have worked to debunk. For instance when discussing the development of penicillin, Botting directly answers the animal rights claims that it would never have been further developed if guinea pigs were used in initial tests; when discussing similarity in drug reactions he looks at claims that aspirin has teratogenic effects in rats. The book is well worth a read, especially for anyone who is new to this debate.

Animals and Medicine: The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease by Jack Botting.

Guest Post: Animal models in research are necessary and ethical

The following post was originally published in The Daily of the University of Washington on April 26, 2015. It has been reproduced with permission from the newspaper and the original author. Benjamin Cordy is a neurobiology student at UW, he is also the Editor-in-Chief of Grey Matters Journal – an undergraduate neuroscience journal whose mission is to educate the public and develop effective science communicators.

Guest editorial: Animal models in research are necessary and ethical

On Saturday hundreds gathered in Red Square to voice their opposition to scientific research. At its core, this is the true message of the animal rights movement, which believes that research should never rely on animal models. The march on UW was about stopping science altogether. Is this really the best move for society?

Debates about animal models in research are emotional, contentious, and unfortunately, often fraught with demonstrably false “facts.” This is a serious problem. It is impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about the role of science and medical research in society if a position is based on misinformation and inaccurate beliefs.

Two of the most frequently repeated claims of the animal rights movement are that animal models are not actually useful in science and that there are more effective, humane ways to engage in research. While appealing, both statements are wrong.

The history of science provides countless examples of the utility of animal research. For example, until as recently as 1940 and the development of the “antibiotic age”, a knee scrape, if it became infected, could be a death sentence.

In 1928 Alexander Fleming discovered that when grown in proximity to one another, the mold Penicillim notatum killed the colonies of the often-fatal bacteria Staphylococcus aureus. Unfortunately, Fleming’s test-tube studies failed to show the antimicrobial properties he expected from Penicillin. These results, and the difficulty of isolating Penicillin, ultimately led Fleming to believe that it might only be useful as a topical antiseptic.

Although Fleming’s work showed some promise, Penicillin was not a high priority for antimicrobial researchers. In addition to being very difficult to isolate, its therapeutic properties seemed to be inactivated in blood — making it a poor candidate for treating systemic infections. But by 1940 enough Penicillin was isolated for testing. In a landmark study Ernst Chain and Howard Florey infected eight mice with a deadly dose of Streptococcus pyogenes. One hour later, four of the mice were injected with Penicillin. These mice survived the infection and changed modern medicine forever.

sss

(Left to Right) Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain – Shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1945

The amount of Penicillin required to treat a human infection is 3,000 times greater than for a mouse. If animal models were unavailable to Chain and Florey, they would have had to undergo the perfectly unreasonable task of isolating huge quantities of a substance that, as far as they could understand, had no therapeutic value. Simply put, without animal models Penicillin would not have been developed.

Fortunately, the story of Penicillin is not unique. There are literally thousands of medical interventions, drugs, and procedures whose discovery and development required the use of research animals. Modern therapies that require animal models include: vaccines, organ transplants, cancer treatments, HIV/AIDS drug development, and thousands more. The claim that animal models are “bad science” and fail to provide important insights into biological understanding and therapeutic development is dishonest and wrong.

The second position of the animal rights movement is that there are alternatives that are simultaneously more effective and humane. The three most often suggested alternatives are human cell cultures, computer models, and experimentation on human subjects.

Tissue and cell culture experiments are extremely powerful research techniques. Their use provides important insights into the function of individual cells and helps identify potential targets for future therapeutics. However, these studies, by their very nature, can only reveal a fraction of the whole picture. For example, a few cells could never describe the complexity of an entire organ — much less the entire organism. Though important for reducing the number of animals used, these techniques could never replace them.

Computational techniques are another tremendously valuable tool. With mathematical models and data analysis, computers allow researchers to better understand the systems they study. But again, computation is a supplement to animal research, not a replacement. Every computer model has to be validated against data collected from animal research. There is no other way to ensure that a modeling program is accurate.

Furthermore, animal rights activists overestimate the power of computer models. In 2007 researchers were able to simulate a virtual brain of 8,000,000 neurons, roughly the complexity of half a mouse brain. While impressive, this is less than 1/10,000th the number of neurons in a human brain and likely much less complex. The simulation ran on the fastest supercomputer and could only do so for 10 seconds at 1/10th the speed of a real brain. In all, this program required the world’s most powerful supercomputer to model one second of one half a mouse brain. How could a desktop PC possibly predict the behavior of the human brain?

The most troubling alternative proposed by animal rights activists is the use of human volunteers for basic science. In practice, such policies would effectively halt biomedical research. For one, the cost of recruiting and paying human subjects would bankrupt already sparse science funding within months. This of course, assumes that enough people volunteer to participate. Considering that clinical researchers already have difficulty in recruiting people for fairly benign studies, it is highly improbable that eight people would volunteer to receive a deadly dose of Streptococcus pyogenes, for example.

Beyond the practical limitations of using only human subjects, there are serious questions about the morality of doing so. Which population is likely to accept payment for becoming test subjects: the socioeconomically disadvantaged or the wealthy? The argument that humans ought to replace research animals raises real concerns about the exploitation of disadvantaged communities.

It was not long ago that I was sympathetic to some of the positions of the animal rights activists. But, as I learned the science behind biomedical therapeutics, it became clear that because animal models save millions and millions of lives, they are necessary. A powerful research program, which includes the use of animal models, is the responsibility of an ethical society.

Benjamin Cordy, UW neurobiology student

Interview with a Primate Researcher

In the last few months, Italian animal rights activists have conducted a campaign against animal research, in particular against primate research. This is despite the important role that primates have played in breakthroughs in stem cell research and neuroprosthetics, among other things. Nonetheless, activists continue to try to claim such research is useless. In particular, they targeted Prof. Roberto Caminiti, a leading neurophysiologist at the University La Sapienza in Rome, and his research team, accusing them of animal mistreatment. Earlier this year students and scientists at the University rallied round Prof. Roberto Caminiti, his team, and his important research.
To answer some of the activists accusations, Pro-Test Italia has produced a video with Prof. Caminiti to illustrate why primate research is so important in the field of neurophysiology and brain-computer interface, and why animal models remain essential for this kind of research. Pro-Test Italia have also made an English version of the video:

It’s important to spread this video outside of Italy to both explain to the public what is going on, and to encourage other primate researchers not to remain hidden but to be clear about the important research that they do. Researchers should be proud of the important work they do in contributing to medical developments for everyone.

Marco

Animal Justice Project: Same nonsense, different name

When I first took up my job explaining animal science to the public, I thought I would spend much of my time talking about ethics.

I was looking forward to it – my academic specialisms within were rights and ethics and I was more than ready to talk about animal rights and the ethics of using animals in science. As a noted animal lover and adopter of the unadoptable of course I’d thought about and researched the area very carefully indeed. I also want to be on the right side of history, not pick a view and set out in search of cherry-picked corroborating evidence.

Except I didn’t end up spending much time talking about ethics and it’s mainly due to the tactics of the animal rights lobby.

There’s a pretty well worn template for animal rights groups, and in recent years, as the tactics of smaller groups have moved away from violence towards pseudoscience, I find myself saying to new members of staff when a new animal rights claim hits the headlines ‘They’re probably lying, and it’s our first  job to find out how.’

It is little surprise, then, that new animal rights group the Animal Justice Project (AJP) is conforming to the familiar template of smaller organisations such as For Life On Earth and the seemingly defunct Anti-Vivisection Coalition.

Animal Justice Project

Typically, it’s a handful of people who (a) register a company and a website, (b) sign up for one of those virtual addresses which people claim are their business address, (c) rent-a-quote veterinarian, Andre Menache, to be their ‘scientific’ advisor and get to work cherry-picking ‘evidence’, misrepresenting research methods and generally making hair-raising claims which collapse upon further scrutiny. I don’t know how they fund the startup – maybe bigger groups help with the costs. Who knows and who cares – what matters is that they conjure enough faux respectability that journalists will listen to them so it’s their claims which become the focus.

In this case, the AJP appears to be Brit-in-LA Julia Orr, her friend Clare in the UK. And Andre Menache (who is also ‘scientific advisor’ for at least five other animal rights groups). On their website, they have a selection of Freedom of Information requests and papers harvested from PubMed which have been chosen for their methodology and applicability to defence operations. Menache rather hubristically critiques some of the experiments despite not be qualified or knowledgeable in the areas under scrutiny. The template remains intact.

They make a lot of claims, but for the sake of space let’s look at a typical example and see if it stands up.

“55 mice were subjected to laser burns to their eyes to simulate battlefield injuries and, as if this wasn’t bad enough, then had liquid injected into their eyes. The mice then had their necks broken up to six weeks after the experiment.

  • No mention of pain relief following this barbaric experiment.
  • Breaking of animals necks, especially without anaesthetic, is brutal and often animals suffer.
  • The researchers admit that making a link between these experiments in rodents and humans is “difficult”. Added to which, at best mice’s normal eyesight is the human equivalent of being registered blind.
  • Laser treatment for humans has existed since the 1980s and, therefore, so has damage to eyes by lasers. Enough human data means these experiments are no more than curiosity driven.
  • There is no conclusion as to whether the injections into the eyes of mice can help or harm either humans or mice.”

The claims concern this paper . Let’s see how the claims stack up.

The first sentence is true, if hyperbolic – the researchers were looking for a triage technique for the battlefield, or in the event of a terrorist attack, which could save the eyesight of people who’d been affected by a retinal laser injury, so the first sentence is true. Then it all falls apart.

It wasn’t part of the experiment to see how living mice fared with broken neck. Cervical dislocation, which is considered the most humane ways to euthanise small rodents since it is quick and painless, is used to separate the brain stem from the brain resulting in an instant, painless death. This would allow researchers to dissect the now-dead animal to see what physical effects could be observed.

No pain relief was mentioned, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. In such a situation, a general anaesthetic would have been employed for ethical, legal and practical reasons. It would be much harder to do it while the animal was awake.

So far, one could chalk this up to a lack of knowledge, but what comes next is a deliberate deception. Researchers mentioned that it can be difficult to extrapolate some result s of animal experiments to humans, but not their experiment. The original paper reads:

“Given the interspecies differences in anatomy, genomes, and response to injury, in certain disease processes it may be difficult to make a direct correlation between the results observed in rodents and humans. However, as we have discussed, in both the rodent and human eye, photoreceptor cell death following laser injury has been shown in previous work, as has the protective effect on photoreceptors with the use of CNTF. Therefore, our study combines the use of these established facts and thus allows the extrapolation of results specific to cone injury.”

There can be no honest reason for leaving out the second part of the last sentence (my emphasis).

Our score for the first three claims is 1. Technically accurate but misleading, 2. Misleading if not outright wrong and 3. Active cherry-picking giving the exact opposite assertion of the researchers.

Next of their claims: “we have relevant treatments for laser eye injuries.”

The simple answer is no we don’t. Not ones which could be stowed in a medic’s triage kit or easily deployed in a crisis. As the paper notes “Retinal laser injury, for which there is currently no satisfactory treatment, represents an infrequent but potentially devastating cause of irreversible sight loss”.

Finally, they claim that no relevant conclusions were drawn. Really? The paper states “By using a multimodal approach consisting of both in vivo imaging and in vitro histological and molecular techniques, we were able to confirm the protective effect of CNTF in our model of laser injury” and “although our research has a military focus with regard to developing a potential treatment for offensive laser weapons on the battlefield, the model we have developed might be relevant to assessing any treatment relevant to cone neuroprotection and diseases of the human fovea“. Right. So, not only did it present a potential treatment, but it indicated it might be useful in treating other eye conditions to the one being studied.

Out of 5 claims, one was true, and that was the one establishing that the experiment had taken place.

In some ways, ignorance and confirmation bias can be viewed as innocent human foibles, although not ones which have any place informing national debates about science policy. But the deliberate cherry-picking of a scientific paper, presenting unrepresentative parts of papers and misrepresenting papers is the preserve of the scoundrel, whether it’s used in climate change denial, arguing for Creationism or indulging the fallacy that animal models do not have relevance to human physiology.

The tactics employed by the AJP are the same as marketers devising a poster for a new movie, compressing a bad review stating “It’s incredible this movie was even made!” to just “…Incredible…!”

It’s lying to the public, and if any of the activists would like me to comment on their right to do so, or its ethics, I am more than ready to oblige.

Chris

UK Charities Explaining Animal Research

Following from our previous post on US charities explaining their animal research, we will now take a look at UK charities using the same criteria. Of the UK top 200 charities (by income in 2012), only seven conduct animal research.

The first thing to note is that all seven organisations are members of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) – an umbrella organisation which demands that its members endorse a statement on the role of animals in research, a portion of which can be read below:

The public supports medical research charities to find new treatments and cures for debilitating and life threatening conditions. All AMRC charities have strategies for how they will fund high quality research to better understand disease and so improve health and wellbeing.
[…]
Whilst not all our members are currently funding research using animals as part of their strategy, they all support the principle of using animals in research when it is necessary to advance understanding of serious health conditions to develop better treatments and there is no alternative that can be used to find out the same information without using animals.

Secondly, six of the seven organisations have signed the Concordat on Openness on Animals in Research in the UK which, among other things, demands signatories will:

Commitment 1: We will be clear about when, how and why we use animals in research

Commitment 2: We will enhance our communications with the media and the public about our research using animals

Ratings Criteria:

The ratings criteria are the same as that used to look at the US charities. To me, the most important thing is that information exists if people need it. Preferably people need to be able to find this information online rather than have to call up for it. Each of the following five criteria will give a charity one star.

  • There is a statement available
  • It provides a good overall explanation of why they fund animal research
  • It is available on their website
  • It provides an explanation on how they determine when to fund animal research
  • Does the website make any mention of the use of animals, for example, in the summaries of research they fund

Cancer Research UK

Five out of Five stars 5/5The main policy page on “The use of animals in cancer research” is disappointing, with only a short statement:

A great deal of cancer research is carried out without using animals. In certain areas, however, animal research remains essential if we are to understand, prevent and cure cancer. Cancer Research UK only uses animals when there is no alternative.

Cancer patients and their families are at the heart of everything we do. We believe that all our research is vital if we are to save the lives of more patients in the future.

However, CRUK also have an easily googleable blog post on the issue which they often provide to those wanting more information. This blog post is fantastic, it begins:

More people are surviving cancer than ever before.

Thanks to decades of research, survival from cancer has doubled in the last 40 years, giving thousands of people more time with their loved ones. In fact, more than half of all patients will now survive for at least ten years.

But this progress simply wouldn’t have been possible without animal research.

At Cancer Research UK, research using animals is part of our efforts to beat cancer. This includes discovering the faulty genes and molecules that cause cancer, investigating how the disease grows and spreads, developing and testing new treatment and tests, and exploring how our immune system can help fight tumours.

The 2,500+ word post, written by the Director of Science Funding, explains why animal research is important, its past contributions, and the reasons and conditions under which animal research projects may be funded. The main pity is that this blog post isn’t linked to from the policy statement, or better yet the information from the blog post put onto the policy statement page.

CRUK also mention animals (usually mice) in research news stories, such as a recent piece that found the activity levels of particular genes in breast tumours could identify more aggressive forms of the disease. This story was mainly about clinical studies, but mentioned early findings in mice that led them there.

Cancer Research UK – 5/5 stars

The Wellcome Trust

Five out of Five stars 5/5
The Wellcome Trust provides an easy-to-find, lengthy statement regarding why they both conduct and fund animal research. Here is a portion.

The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice. Some of the best-known examples include:

  • antibiotics such as penicillin and streptomycin
  • vaccines for polio, meningitis, distemper, foot and mouth
  • treatments for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and asthma
  • drugs to treat mental diseases like depression
  • organ transplants and blood transfusions
  • the use of insulin for diabetes
  • and contraception for use by people and in controlling animal breeding.

The Wellcome Trust is therefore convinced that the use of animals in research remains valid where the potential benefits to be gained by humans and other animals from such research outweighs the use of animals in that research.

The subheadings in the statement show the breadth of the statement:

  • Why animals are used in medical research
  • How many animals are used?
  • Research involving animals is licenced by the Home Office
  • Research must be approved as ethical
  • Wellcome Trust-funded research involving animals
  • The 3Rs – replacement, reduction and refinement
  • Alternatives to animals in medical research

Wellcome news articles and other communications regularly mention the use of animals. For example their recent letter to the UK House of Lords regarding mitochondrial donation mentions the role of mice and monkeys in the development and testing of this new method.

The Wellcome Trust – 5/5 stars

British Heart Foundation

Five out of Five stars 5/5BHF finish the list of British charities in equal form. They provide an extensive statement about their use of animals providing links to other organisations and to their fantastic leaflet on the issue. Here is a portion of the statement:

BHF's leaflet on animal research

BHF’s leaflet on animal research

By studying new medicines and techniques in human cells in the lab first, and carefully trialling the best ones in animals, we’ve done all we can to make sure they’re going to be effective and safe for treating patients.

Researchers are studying how the heart develops in mice and fish to better understand what can go wrong to cause babies to be born with heart defect

Potential new heart medicines that work on human cells in the dish must be assessed in a living system before trials in patients can be carried out

Animal studies can reveal potential problems with new treatments allowing dangerous side effects to be spotted before clinical trials

The research community is constantly developing new techniques to help reduce the number of animals needed or non-animal models. Scientists we fund carry out as much of their research as possible on human volunteers, cells, or computer models for example.

However, completely replacing all animals in research is not yet possible. There is no alternative method that can reproduce the complicated working of our hearts and circulatory systems.

Similarly their news article and other pages on the website will frequently mention the use of animals like rats, mice and zebrafish. British Heart Foundation should also be congratulated for going front and centre with their animal research when they put out a TV advert mentioning their research on zebrafish.

British Heart Foundation – 5/5 stars

Alzheimer’s Society

Five out of Five stars 5/5The Alzheimer’s Society provides a full page of information on its “use of animals in research”. It outlines some of the medical benefits brought about by animal studies, the ethical challenges they face, how and when they do animal research. It suggests around one third of their research funds are spent on animal studies:

Drugs and new treatments that many of us take for granted, from antibiotics to blood transfusions and the current drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, would have been impossible to develop without research involving animals.

Many people are concerned about the well-being of animals used in medical research.  Alzheimer’s Society shares those concerns and strives to ensure that alternatives are used wherever possible.

The statement is good, providing a positive explanation as to why animal research is necessary. It is also easy to find through the website or Google. The research news section of the website makes casual mentions of the different animals used, from fruit flies, to mice.

Alzheimer’s Society – 5/5

Arthritis Research UK

Four out of five stars 4/5Arthritis Research UK are signed up to the AMRC statement, and link to it, but also provide their own perspective. Here is an extract:

Medical research using animals has made a vital contribution to advances in medicine and surgery which have brought major improvements to the health of people. Research using animals will continue to be essential to tackle many of the unsolved problems in understanding and treating musculoskeletal conditions.

The UK has one of the most rigorous systems in the world for regulating animal research. The UK requires permissions from both central Government and local ethical reviews to conduct research involving animals. As part of this approval process, each medical research project using animals must be examined and ways to improve adoption of the 3Rs are considered

The whole statement covers regulation and the 3Rs, to explain when animal research can happen, but I’m not convinced they made the strongest case for why animal research is necessary. An example treatment made possible by animal studies would have really strengthened the statement.

Arthritis Research UK regularly mention animal research in their news posts, such as a recent cell-based approach to regenerate bone and cartilage developed in mice.

Arthritis Research UK – 4/5 stars

Parkinson’s UK

Five out of Five stars 5/5Parkinson’s UK provides a long statement online which includes a strong explanation of why animal research is necessary, past medical breakthroughs made possible thanks to animal studies, quote from a patient, examples of grants, an explanation of the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research and more. Here is an extract:

We believe there is an urgent need for ongoing research to advance our understanding of Parkinson’s, improve treatments and ultimately find a cure. We believe theuse of animals, such as fruit flies and fish, is currently an essential tool in this research, but we are committed to the minimum possible use of animals and to ensuring that highest regulatory standards are maintained.
[…]
Since the 1970s, the lives of millions of people with Parkinson’s around the world has been transformed by the drug levodopa, This acts to partially replace the dopamine that is no longer produced in the brain due the eh death of nerve cells. Research involving animals has formed an essential step in the understanding of the effect of this vital drug.

Parkinson’s UK provide a quarterly publication, which is littered with examples and mentions of animal studies. The most recent issue’s first news story mentions rats, as well as having a letter about the use of animals in research. Parkinson’s are also willing to engage in the news, we have in the past mentioned Parkinson’s UK’s strong letter to a local newspaper responding to activist claims

Parkinson’s UK – 5/5 stars

Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research

Five out of Five stars 5/5Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research have a strong statement and an FAQ on the issue of animal research. Both are easily googleable, and includes details of what animal species are used and what proportion of research projects involve animals (29%).

Some of the biggest achievements in treating blood cancer that are now in routine clinical practice, such as stem cell transplantation, have only been made possible through the use of animals in research.

The achievements of understanding blood cancer progression, understanding the basis for chemotherapy, and identifying the principles of bone marrow transplantation are just some of the revolutionary and lifesaving developments in blood cancer treatment that would not have been possible without using animals.

Whilst there is a considerable amount of research that we support that does not require the use of animals, we believe that animal research is still necessary.  Understanding how disease affects systems within the body, as well as possible treatments, requires investigation in whole body systems. Our animal research mostly uses mice, but we also use other animals like fruit flies and zebra fish.

While the LLR website doesn’t put a lot of news in its research section, when it does it includes mention of the animals. A story about studying genes of patients with blood disorders mentions that cells from mice are also used to study how misfiring enzymes can lead to histone changes.

Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research – 5/5 stars

Summary of Results:

UK Charities doing Animal Research and Animal Testing

Fantastic results from the seven biggest UK medical research charities, though they are far from being the only British charities who talk about their funding of animals. You can see some of these and other charities’ statements below:

When comparing the UK and US charities we see some stark differences. All the UK charities we looked at have a statement available on their website (and googleable). All make an effort to explain how and why animals are used in research. In contrast, most of the US charities do not have a statement available online, though many do mention the use of animals in news articles on the website.

So what can the US charities learn from the British cousins? Well many US charities have prepared statements on the use of animals in research; they just need to get them online. If every charity which had a statement put them online they would raise the average score of American charities from 2.4 out of 5, to 3 out of 5. Many of the American charities could also work to improve their statements – there is good practice both sides of the Atlantic, and they could either take examples from other US charities like the American Cancer Society (see previous post) and Alzheimer’s Association, or they could look to their British equivalents.

But why is it important that charities be open about their animal research? As we discussed in more detail in the previous post there are three main reasons:

They are taking public donations, and the public have a right to know how this money is spent. If charities think funding animal research is important they should be able to explain why frankly and openly.

Charities cannot hide their animal research – animal rights groups can find out even if it is not on their website. However, by putting information openly on their website the charity defends itself against activist attempts to “out” them. The public cannot be “shocked” by the “dirty little secret” that a charity funds animal studies if they have that fact stated openly and clearly on their website (with an explanation as to why). It is better for a charity to state it does animal research and explain the reasons why, than it is to let an activist or journalist put their own spin on it.

Finally, we must foster an environment where both the public, and policy makers, understand the importance of animal research. The former demands the laws and regulations, and the latter put them in place. If the scientific community want to make sure their research environment is secure then they must encourage openness on the issue.

For those charities wanting to improve the way they discuss animal research with the public, there is a fantastic booklet jointly produced by the Association of Medical Research Charities and Understanding Animal Research which provides guidance and support. It covers how a charity can be prepared for questions about its animal research, how to answer those questions (be them by phone, social media, or in person), and finally looks into ways in which charities can find opportunities to be more proactive in their explanation of why they fund or conduct animal studies. The introduction states:

This guide is designed to help medical research charities answer questions from the public about the use of animals in research. Charities have contact with their supporters and the public in many different ways. They need to be able to explain how they are investing donations effectively and be equipped to answer any questions

Hopefully next time we conduct this analysis we will see even higher scores for charities across the world.

Speaking of Research