Author Archives: Tom

Index of animal rights groups/activists

Ever needed more information about an animal rights groups or individual? Well we’ve produced a page specifically to index some of the more influential or extreme individuals and groups in the US and UK (hopefully we can expand this to other countries too).

Speaking of Research has written an awful lot of information about animal rights groups over the past 6 years, so this index should help you find some of the main posts we have about some of the main groups involved. For each group/individual we have strived to choose 2-3 SR posts which best describe some of their activities. See below for an extract.

animal rights groups

Click this image to go to see more

In order to help people navigate the hundreds and hundreds of posts on Speaking of Research, we will be creating more indexes like this to help people find older posts animal disease models and philosophical discussion.

Pro-Test Italia Marching for Science

On June 14, 2014, Pro-Test Italia will hold a second rally in Milan to support the use of animals in medical research. See our event on Facebook.

Everyday, Italy continues down a psuedoscientific path. Stamina method, vaccines-causing-autism and exotic diet cures against cancer, are all promoted by national media and TV programmes like “Le lene”. This anti-scientific agenda has resulted in stringent rules placed on animal research by the Government.

What is at stake is the safety of a country that allows people to use dangerous and non-scientific methods in our hospitals, with our money. What is at stake is the future of research because more and more young people, who specialise in biomedicine will be forced to emmigrate if they wish to further their career. What is at stake is also the economy of a country, because research produces patents and jobs.Italy has to decide if it wants to compete with Germany, United Kingdom and USA on the field of innovation, or to compete with less developed countries for low quality products, adapting itself to their work standard.

We risk losing an important parts of Italian economy like the biomedical and pharmaceutical sectors, that possess a high level of innovation, if politicians persist in writing a long term scientific strategy based on the whims of small groups of fanatics.

Pro-Test Italia rally success

Pro-Test Italia held a successful rally in Milan in June 2013

Pro-Test Italia organized this rally to demand that the Italian government listen to the scientific community when creating laws that will affect heir research. We demand they reconsider restrictions added by Italy to the EU legislation 2010/63; restrictions that the EU itself says are illegal and will result in massive fines. We demand the government increase funding for research, because only by investing in our future can we save Italy from its dire economic crisis. We demand better protection from the growing threat posed by animal rights extremism.

Students, researchers and veterinaries should being their white coat, there will be stands for fund raising and for distributing informative leaflets.
For more information, please contact by e-mail:
If you’re concerned about research in Italy, please join us on 14 June at 15.30 in via Mercanti, in Milan.

Animal Research saves millions of lifes every year, including of those who would see such scientific endeavours end.

Marco Delli Zotti

Speaking of Research Leaflet

When Speaking of Research first started we had a wonderful leaflet which was produced for us by Americans for Medical Progress. In the following six years, Speaking of Research has changed and evolved and as such we have been long overdue for a new leaflet, which we can now unveil.

Download PDF here, or click pictures below.

Speaking of Research is a voluntary organization which relies on your support. We are always looking for new people to get involved in explaining the role of animals in research, and it’s up to you to help us find those people.

Speaking of Research Leaflet Page 1

Speaking of Research Leaflet Page 2

Speaking of Research continues to grow, with website traffic likely to double this year, and the information on the website continually updated.

Check out our Speaking of Your Research campaign to get more people discussing their own research.

Speaking of Research

SYR: Animal Tales

Today’s post in the Speaking of Your Research series of posts is by Ardon Shorr, a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University. The post originally appeared on the Science Non Fiction blog and was reposted here with permission from the original author.

I want to share a personal perspective. I’ve lived my whole life caring for pets: cats, turtles, frogs, a praying mantis I found in the backyard. I wrote a rock opera about my sister’s hamster. In my professional life, I work with zebrafish for research. In short, I’m a vegetarian who believes strongly in the ethics of animal research. In this column I want to share stories of working with animals, its joys and frustrations, and pay some small tribute to the animal lives that make it possible for me to live so long, and in such extraordinary health. Working with animals can be emotionally hard. Sometimes it’s hard even to watch, the way surgery is hard to watch – a part of me knows the higher purpose, another part has a hard time ignoring a knife that cuts into a person’s chest. In the same way, in research, I see the kindred spark of life in every mouse I’ve ever held, and when they pass through that thin boundary between living and dead, I feel it. Here’s why I keep doing it:LotR Animal Models

We need animals because they’re simpler than humans

Animals are much simpler than we are in certain ways, and that’s an incredible advantage for research. The human body is convoluted – it’s a problem that’s too hard to untangle without solving an easier one first. If you wanted to learn English, you wouldn’t start with the triple puns of Shakespeare. If you wanted to understand how a car engine works, you wouldn’t start with a hybrid electric Prius. But you can learn a lot from an old Toyota engine, and from there, understand how the hybrid engine builds on that idea with new layers of complexity. Animals are that gateway into understanding the human body.

Here’s my favorite summary of criticism against animal research. I found it on a bumper sticker:

If animals are like us, animal research is cruel;
If animals are unlike us, animal research is useless.

It’s incredibly pithy, but it falls into that logical fallacy of the “false dilemma:” it’s either one thing or the other. Our world is more complicated. Because animals are simpler, things that cure cancer in a mouse aren’t guaranteed to work on us. But it’s precisely this simplicity that allows us to get a foothold. I was surprised to find out that we can even learn about mental health from animals. One classic experiment for mental health involves letting a mouse swim around in a pool and see how long it takes to give up. It’s hard for me to say what goes on in the brain of a mouse when that happens, but the drugs that make the mouse try longer are antidepressants in humans.

Animal research is more carefully controlled than any other use of animals

Working with animals does not mean we can do whatever we want. Every experiment must be approved by a committee consisting of scientists, vets, and a member of the community. The ethical review process considers the potential benefits of the research and questions whether they’re justified. At every decision, research decisions are driven by “The Three R’s:”

  • Replace animals with non-animal alternatives. Don’t use “higher” more aware animals like mice when we can use fish, don’t use fish when we can use fruit flies, don’t use flies when we can use yeast.
  • Reduce the number of animals used in experiments – use just the minimum we need to convince us that we’re looking at a real effect.
  • Refine scientific procedures to minimize suffering. For example, animals are euthanized with anesthetics so they don’t feel pain.

These measures are far beyond the standards of humanity’s much larger intersection with the animal world: the meat industry. To give a sense of the current state of affairs, a California law scheduled to take effect in 2015 proposed increasing the size of chicken cages to 200 square inches. This would allow chickens to turn around, and increase egg prices by about half a cent. This move is considered contentious, and representative Steve King amended Iowa’s farm bill to prevent that increase. Research mice are housed with enough room to play, form social groups, and are given enrichment to build nests. Mice must be euthanized with minimal pain using anesthetics. Chickens are not covered by the humane slaughter act.

Animal research is more ethical than the alternative

I would argue that animal research is more ethical than not doing animal research. But I want to be clear about some assumptions that this argument is making: human life is worth more than animal life. It is worth sacrificing the lives of animals to obtain information that would save and improve the lives of future humans, as well as animals, provided that we can minimize animal discomfort, and there is no better way to obtain that information.

Zebrafish postIt may not always be this way. Scientists are working towards the goal of replacing animals with computer simulations, or even lab-grown clusters of cells, called organs-on-chips. I’m personally looking forward to that day when we can grow artificial meat and I won’t be a vegetarian any more. But right now those systems don’t work well enough, and animals are our best hope. I can wait for my hamburger, but not for a chance at treating Alzheimer’s.

It’s no exaggeration that I am alive today thanks to animal research – I would have likely died at age five from an athsma attack that put me in the hospital, where I was treated with medicine that was developed with animals. Animal research helped double human life expectancy over the last century, and continues to bring us life-saving breakthroughs like the insulin that kept my grandfather alive for decades. For that, all I can be is grateful to research, and to the animals who made that research possible.

How Can Charities Discuss Animal Research: A Guide

The Association of Medical Research Charities and Understanding Animal Research in the UK have recently jointly produced a booklet aimed at helping charities discuss the animal research they carry out or fund. So what is the guide about?

This guide is designed to help medical research charities answer the questions from the public about the use of animals in research.
People may have specific questions about research using animals: how and why the research is funded; what charities are doing to find alternatives; what conditions animals are kept in; how this research is regulated; what it helps us find out. This guide suggests some ways that charities can answer these questions and where they can direct people who want to find out more.

Broadly, the guide covers three main areas. It does this by taking examples of best practice from UK medical research charities to illustrate its key points.

  • Being Prepared – what charities should do in advance to help them provide the public with the information they need. This includes writing a position statement on animal research, having case studies ready and establishing a process and protocol for responding to enquiries.
  • Answering Questions – how charities can best respond to individuals asking questions by email, phone and social media. It also covers responding to negative publicity in newspapers and how to deal with campaigns and protests.
  • Opportunities to tell people more – how charities can proactively provide more information about their work such as on their website and in press releases.

The case studies throughout include example letters and position statements from charities, and bits of advice from charities who have been effectively communicating their animal work. See such a case study below:

Cancer Research UK Case Study

So why is such as guide needed? While many charities have done good work explaining their animal research, many could benefit from the extra guidance.

US medical research charities (who the guide was not aimed at, but can still benefit from) are far behind their British counterparts in discussing their animal research. By going to five of the largest US and UK medical research charities’ websites and using the search bar to look for “animal testing” and “animal research”, there was a clear and stark difference between the two countries as to the existence of a clear statement on animal research.

Charities Statements

The links at the bottom are for the UK Charities’ statements on animal research

For any charity wanting to do more to explain the important research it does, I defiitely suggest downloading and reading the aforementioned AMRC-UAR guide to “Talking to the public about animal research“.



Keep Research Flying

The following guest post by Kirk Leech originally appeared in the Huffington Post, and is reprinted here with permission from the author. Kirk, is the Executive Director of the European Animal Research Association (EARA). EARA is a communications and advocacy organisation created to better inform the European public on the continued need for, and benefit of, the humane use of animals in biomedical research. Follow them on Twitter via @The_EARA.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently announced that Justin Bieber agrees that “Air France Sucks” for Sending Monkeys to Labs. That the singer is known to have kept monkeys as pets seems to have escaped the group’s opportunist propaganda eyes. Yet Bieber joins a growing number of celebrities, including UK comic Ricky Gervais and US actor James Cromwell, who have put their names to campaigns by PETA and the British Union Against Vivisection (BUAV) to stop Air France from transporting non-human primates (NHPs) for biomedical research into the EU and the USA. Air France is currently the only commercial airline prepared to do so.

The campaign to stop research involving NHPs has also become pretty nasty in Germany. The group Tierversuchsgegner Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Opponents of Animal Experiments Federal Republic of Germany) recently placed a belligerent full-page advertisement in two national and three regional newspapers. The advertisement directed much of its venom toward Professor Andreas Kreiter, a neurobiologist from the University of Bremen, whose research on NHPs includes working towards treatments of epilepsy and the control of prosthetic devices.

Andreas Kreiter Monkey

The advertisement shows a photograph of Kreiter placed next to that of a primate with a number tattooed onto its chest and its head held against movement during an experiment. An opening quote attributed to neurologist and animal protectionist Herbert Stiller reads, “Animal experimenters are a particular type of creature – one should not casually call them human”. This was a conscious attempt to link the work of Kreiter to that of National Socialism and the Holocaust. It is also worth remembering that the category of sub human was used by the Nazis to dehumanize Jews, gypsies and the handicapped as justification for their extermination.

In response, the German Alliance of Science Organisations (which includes some of the country’s most influential organisations such as the Max Planck Society, the Conference of University Rectors and the German National Academy of Sciences) released a statement condemning the article, and making the case as to why animal research is necessary.
Whilst this public support for animal research is to be welcomed, in many German cities daily protests against the transportation of NHPs take place outside the offices of Air France and at airports. These protests, which have involved criminal activity, pass with little comment from the German scientific community or from German patient groups who rely on research involving NHPs for their disease areas. PETA and the BUAV clearly think they have the winning hand in their campaign to halt NHP research and stop the last airline prepared to transport animals.
Let’s for one moment imagine that this campaign had taken place say 30 years ago; that it had been successful in the 1980’s in halting the transport of primates and research. What discoveries, what advances in scientific understanding involving NHP’s over the past 30 years would we not have today?

Here are four examples:

1) Parkinson’s disease: Research using non-human primates has been critical to developing life-changing treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Dopaminergic therapies, deep brain stimulation to reduce tremor, and constraint-induced movement therapy all resulted from research on NHPs
2) HIV/AIDS: The introduction of the antiretroviral therapy (ART), developed using NHP models, has dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality of those infected with HIV.
3) Macular Degeneration: Surgical treatment for macular degeneration has come through research involving primates.
4) Stroke: New techniques in stroke rehabilitation therapy have been developed through research involving primates.

And there are plenty more.

If all airlines had taken the decision in the 1980’s that PETA and the BUAV are trying to force Air France to do now, then our quest to understand and treat infections and diseases associated with human physiological processes such as ageing, reproduction, endocrine function, metabolism, and neurology would have been set back decades.

Monkeys are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Insights into human disease may be obtained from other animals but studies using primates are especially valuable. That said, research primates are used in relatively small numbers (currently 0.05% of all animal use in the EU) but they remain of essential use. A recent article in the American Journal of Primatology set out the issues surrounding research NHPs very well, “We are at a critical crossroads in our society and unless NHP research is given the philosophical, emotional, and financial support and infrastructure that is needed to sustain it and grow, we are in danger of losing irreplaceable unique models and thus, our ability to continue to explore and understand, and develop preventions and treatments for numerous conditions that inflict great suffering on humans.”

Air France primates

It is a credit to Air France that they continue to transport NHPs for biomedical research. If campaigners are successful in halting the transportation of NHPs they won’t think ‘job done’ and put their feet up. Emboldened by their victory they will move onto all other animal models. Global biomedical research is reliant on the air transport of research animals. Many significant advances in modern medicine have been based on research involving primates. If we want this to continue, we need to Keep Research Flying. The European Animal Research Association intends on making the European public and decision makers aware of this in the coming period.

Kirk Leech

The Concordat on Openness on Animal Research Arrives

Seventy-two organizations  have signed the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK, committing to improving their communication surrounding the animal research they (or their members) conduct or fund. Signatories undertaken to fulfil the Concordat’s four commitments:

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

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

  3. We will be proactive in providing opportunities for the public to find out about research using animals

  4. We will report on progress annually and share our experiences

Read the full Concordat.

The signatories include universities (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge), charities (e.g. Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation), Pharmaceuticals (e.g.. Pfizer and AstraZeneca), Learned societies (e.g. The Royal Society and The Physiological Society) and major funding bodies (e.g. The Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council).

Concordat on Openness Declaration on Openness

Signatories to the Concordat on Openness

It is important to realise that this openness is not new. Many of the signatories have been active in explaining the animal research they do. In January this year the University of Oxford invited the BBC to film inside its primate facility. Last year, Alzheimer’s Research UK produced both an informative animal research leaflet and a fantastic website showing its dementia lab, including discussion of animals used. These are just a few examples.

Dominic Wells. who studies neuromuscular diseases at the Royal Veterinary College (a signatory), told Nature that the Concordat probably makes the United Kingdom “the most open place in the world” regarding animal research. Adding, “I do feel we’re leading the way on this.”

The story of the Concordat started in 2012 when Ipsos-Mori polls showed that 40% of the British public would like more information about animal research. This led to the Declaration on Openness in Animal Research in which forty organizations agreed to develop a Concordat to set out how they should provide more information about their research programmes. This Concordat has now been realised, with many extra organizations signing their commitment to it.

Speaking about the Concordat, Wendy Jarrett, Chief Executive of Understanding Animal Research and Chair of the Working Group, said:

For many years, the only ‘information’ or images that the public could access about animal research were provided by organisations opposed to the use of animals in scientific progress. This is why many people still think that animal research means testing cosmetics and tobacco, despite the fact that these have been banned in the UK for more than 15 years. The Concordat is an excellent opportunity to dispel these myths and give the public a chance to see the ground-breaking research that is being done on its behalf.

The responses by animal rights groups in The Guardian have been fairly muted. The BUAV condemned the Concordat, saying: “Informed public debate is essential but it cannot happen without meaningful information being available. … What they should not do is tell the public that this is the same thing as genuine transparency. The concordat approach is simply transparency on their terms“. The hypocrisy of their statement is clear when you remember that in 2010 the BUAV called fora change in the law to allow people to find out what is happening to animals and why“.

Why is a group that purports to want greater openness criticising a commitment by research institutions to do just that? Could it be that as the research community puts out more and more information about when, how and why they do animal research, the less space there is for groups like the BUAV to fill the shrinking void with their misinformation and pseudoscience.

Speaking of Research support the aims of greater openness in animal research and so applaud the efforts being made in the UK to improve communication between the research community and the public. We look forward to seeing how institutions will be moving forward with their commitments.

Speaking of Research

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

The Structure and Motivations of Antivivisection Organizations and Activists

I recently published a paper in EMBO reports (available free online for a few more weeks) which (among other things) looked at the factors influencing the animal rights movement, causing it to wax and wane over time.

Firstly I separated animal rights groups into two general types using the term “antivivisection” to separate the “anti-research” movement from other animal rights issues). The two types are:

  • Antivivisection Organizations (AVOs) are large, established groups who generally pay their staff, like PETA, HSUS or the BUAV.
  • Antivivisection Groups (AVGs) are smaller, more informal groupings of like-minded activists, who might be compensated for time put in, but are unlikely to be salaried. Examples would be Negotiation is Ov er (NIO), For Life on Earth or SHAC.

I used Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT; McCarthy & Zald, 1977), as an approach to understanding the antivivisection social movement. Essentially it suggests that success of a new social movement is determined by the resources available to it – these include knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity and legitimacy.

It is people that provide resources to antivivisection groups and organizations – for example by offering their time, providing a donation, or lending a group legitimacy by speaking favorably of it to friends. These people are the central pillar of RMT and are split into three separate types:

  • Non-Supporters – People do not actively support the antivivisection movement because they either disagree with it, are unaware of it, or have other priorities competing their time and money.
  • Supporters – People who might donate to an AVG/AVO, attend one of their demos, or otherwise support the movement, but are not employed or core activists within the movement.
  • Activists – People who are either paid by an AVO, or spending a great deal of time working with an AVO.

The diagram below (from the EMBO article), outlines the resources which move between supporters/activists and AVO/AVGs, and some of the influencing factors which cause individuals to move into and out of the antivivisection movement.

Image Credit Tom Holder, Originally Published in EMBO Reports DOI: 10.1002/embr.201438837

Image Credit Tom Holder, Originally Published in EMBO Reports DOI: 10.1002/embr.201438837

Figure 1. A model of the antivivisection movement

The blue dashed arrows indicate the movement of people within the antivivisection movement: a person might read the website of an AVG and decide to change from non‐supporter (either someone who disagrees with the AV views or has not formed an opinion either way) to a supporter, donating money or spending their time and effort signing petitions. The green arrows denote the movement of resources (e.g. time and money), though it should be noted that these are not exhaustive lists of resources. In return for their time and effort, that person might get a “feel‐good buzz” about helping animals, or from the acceptance of their peers. Later, they might decide to get more involved. This change is the movement from supporter to activist (though the divisions are not clear‐cut). The activist still feels good about what he or she is doing—possibly with a greater social acceptance from their newfound colleagues—and might also find himself or herself remunerated. Note that by giving time or money to any one AVG/AVO, they are choosing not to give those resources to another, so there is a natural competition between these AVGs/AVOs. Years later, the person might find they have less time and will drop back to supporter status, or might find that the massive publicity surrounding an associated movement draws their time and effort (turquoise dashed arrows), such that they stop their involvement with the original AV movement. Such associated movements need not have any relation to animal rights, but the more similar they are to the AV movement, the more competition there will be. Legitimacy is an important resource that both supporters and activists provide. An animal rights group that can only muster 20 supporters at important demonstrations will eventually find its supporters moving to competing AVG/AVOs. When the entire antivivisection movement comes under negative media spotlight, or as laws or police activities make certain activities more difficult, many supporters may move to other associated movements, and many activists may choose to put their expertise into other areas.

Animal rights activism is often seen as some sort of fringe movement for young, impressionable idealists, yet in reality it bears a closer resemblance to the professional not-for-profit and charity sectors. As a cause comes under the media spotlight a charity sector can find new resources and expand, with smaller offshoots being formed around the issue, when the media spotlight disappears many of those supporting the cause also move to pastures new. The same is true for the animal rights movement.

Animal rights activism is a profession for many involved – selling outrage to a public who lack many of the pertinent facts. Activists move between AVO or AVGs just like charity campaigners move between organisations. Wendy Higgins, Communications Director at Humane Society International has had similar roles at the Dr Hadwen Trust and the British Union for the Abolition for Vivisection. Luke Steele has both founded and joined a multitude of AVGs, most recently the Anti-Vivisection Coalition. The Animal Liberation Press Office has had a whole host of different spokespeople as activists rise and fall.

These activists provide the AVOs and AVGs with a variety of resources including:

  • Manpower – Both to run the campaigns and hold out the collection tin at the end
  • Legitimacy – Large numbers of activists give organisations legitimacy in the eyes of both the public and the media, and respected activists provide legitimacy within the movement
  • Experience – Established activists know the activists, the media contacts and the techniques necessary to run effective campaigns.

In return they may receive financial remuneration or a salary, they also gain from the community to which they now belong, and respect among many of their peers.

However, just as activists may flow into a movement, so may they flow out. In the UK, while animal rights activism and extremism was at a high, the UK government founded the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) to tackle animal rights extremism. The following year the Serious Organised Crime and Prevention Act (SOCPA, 2005) was approved by parliament, which introduced longer sentences for those conspiring to blackmail research institutions, or interfering with contracts relating to animal research. Injunctions were brought by research facilities against animal rights groups. In 2007, Operation Achilles made 32 arrests across Europe of key animal rights extremists. The result was that many leaders of the antivivisection movement were locked up, depriving a generation of activists of the role models who might persuade them to join the movement. It also made the antivivisection movement a more risky one to join, with fewer opportunities for “successes” (e.g. shutting a lab down).

Join a movement

For our young impressionable potential-activist, deciding which cause to throw his time and effort behind, he or she may consider the following questions to themselves about each one. While it may be argued that the AV movement had a high profile in the early-mid 2000s, it was for the wrong reason, with people likely to bring up images of graverobbing and arson attacks. The increasing resilience of the animal research community was also making victories harder to come by (reducing the chance of success), and the police spotlight was also making it less attractive to new potential recruits. Instead our young activist may consider their time better spent challenging rising inequality (e.g. Occupy movements) or fighting against government badger culls (indeed many former antivivisection activists have recently moved to this issue). Diagrammatically (see first image) this can be seen as the teal arrows from supporters and activists to the supporting movements.

The professionalism of the AV movement means that competition is rife. AVOs compete to make the biggest stories or infiltrations. This means there is a pressure to make stories more dramatic (and exaggerated) than the previous one. The competition also causes successful tactics to be quickly imitated between organisations. A recent tactic by the Anti-Vivisection Coalition in the UK has been to send a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to universities asking for the number of animals they use in research, and then turning the answer into a press release for local news outlets (e.g. Brighton and Durham). This success quickly caused other animal rights groups to copy, with Animal Aid(vs University of Surrey) and the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) (vs University of Birmingham) to copy this strategy.

The money they are competing for is not small. A quick look at the BUAV’s accounts showed they spent around £200,000 in both 2012 and 2013 on “Investigations” as they attempt to create the biggest stories. The money involved is not small, the three largest AV organsiations in the UK had combined incomes exceeding £5 million and extremist AVG, SHAC, collected over £1 million from street collection tins. Much of the SHAC money ended up supporting full-time activist leaders who were not being salaried by tax-registered official organisations. As such, competition for this cash may be the reason behind some extremism as the pressure to become a leader – willing to risk all for the cause – was the difference between eating well or not at all.

This Resource Mobilisation Theory model of animal rights activism only touches the surface of the complexity of this movement. But hopefully helps to explain some of the activities of those within it. To discover more, please read the original article in EMBO Reports (DOI: 10.1002/embr.201438837).

Tom Holder

To learn more about the role of animal research in advancing human and veterinary medicine, and the threat posed to this progress by the animal rights lobby, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.