Category Archives: Animal Rights News

Announcement About NIH Monkey Research Leaves Unanswered Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of Research

 

Dangerous and Irresponsible: PETA attempts to intimidate NIH Director Francis Collins

PETA campaigns are rarely benign, from misrepresenting science to glorifying violence against women and scientists. Their latest campaign, reported yesterday by Science Insider, is no different. PETA have sent hundreds of letters to the neighbors of both NIH Director, Francis Collins, and world renowned researcher, Dr. Stephen J. Suomi, as part of a long running campaign against Dr Suomi’s NIH-funded research into the behavioral and biological development of non-human primates.

PetaLetter_Collins

These letters, condemning Dr Suomi’s research, are full of inaccuracies. His work has been defended by several large scientific organisations. When PETA first launched their campaign against Dr Suomi earlier this year the American Psychological Association wrote:

We believe that the facts do not support PETA’s public statements about this research. Over the past three decades, Dr. Suomi and his collaborators have made significant contributions to the understanding of human and nonhuman animal health and behavior. Dr. Suomi’s work has been critical in understanding how the interactions between genes and the physical and social environments affect individual development, which in turn has enhanced our understanding of and treatments for mental illnesses such as depression, addiction, and autism.

The American Society of Primatologists statement noted:

The American Society of Primatologists supports research on non-human primates that is carefully designed and employs rigorous research protocols. Dr. Suomi’s research and consistent funding by the NIH attests to his adherence to prescribed protocols and regulations.

While the NIH’s own very robust statement, which it issued this January following a review of Dr Suomi’s research programme sparked by PETA’s complaint, concluded that it:

has achieved world class, enduring contributions to our understanding of the developmental, genetic, and environmental origins of risk and vulnerability in early life,” and “could be a truly remarkable point of departure for a unified theory describing the biological embedding of early social conditions and their developmental consequences.

Yet the letters are more than just another incident of misrepresented research. They are irresponsible and dangerous. By posting Dr Collins’ and Dr Suomi’s addresses, alongside a misleading picture of the NIH research, they have potentially given animal rights extremists the necessary information to carry out extremist actions. We have seen similar address releases in past result in terrifying home demonstrations as well as acts of vandalism and worse.

PETA have been involved in animal rights activism for decades and should be well aware of the potential risks – this whole strategy comes down to the harassment of scientists and their families to scare them from conducting important biomedical research. Indeed, a statement by PETA’s Alka Chandna to Science Insider that “If I had a neighbor who was doing this, I would want to know about it…It’s similar to having a sexual predator in your neighborhood.” suggests that harassment and intimidation is exactly what PETA have in mind. It becomes all the more sinister when you remember PETA’s record in glorifying and encouraging violence, and supporting violent animal rights extremists.

As Speaking of Research member Prof. David Jentsch noted in his comments to Science Insider:

PETA’s arguments about the value of the science fails on its merits, so they resort to these deeply personal attacks. We’re seeing more of these types of tactics across the animal rights movement. They’re essentially saying to scientists, ‘We know where you live.’

Is this what PETA want?

Is this what PETA want?

So will PETA’s approach succeed? The fact is that very few of the scientists targeted by PETA or other animal rights extremists have ever given up their research, and for some – and David Jentsch himself is a good example – being targeted has prompted them to become vocal advocates for animal research, which one suspects is not the result the animal rights groups intended.

It’s also worth noting that on previous occasions where animal rights extremists have targeted the neighbors of scientists on this way, they have responded with displays of support for the scientist and their family. We expect that this time will be no different (especially as PETA are hardly the most trusted of organizations).

It seems unlikely that Collins will be cowed by PETA’s tactics, after all as a researcher who has spoken up in favour of human embryonic stem cell research when it was under threat, and who as NIH Director frequently has to deal the demands of wilfully ignorant and frequently obnoxious politicians, he has probably developed quite a thick skin.

Indeed, during a discussion of the NIH’s flagship BRAIN Initiative at the Society for Neuroscience meeting last month Collins was asked directly about non-human primate research, and responded by acknowledging the need for non-human primate research in the BRAIN Initiative and the need for continued outreach to the public on the importance of animals in advancing biomedical research.

Some commentators have suggested a connection between the PETA campaign and yesterday’s announcement by the NIH that it has decided to retire all its remaining research chimpanzees. While some may be tempted to think this, it seems unlikely to be the case. As several researchers noted in the Nature News article reporting the NIH decision, there are still some question marks over the NIH’s decision. In particular how the NIH will ensure that the conditions in which the chimps are retired to meet the high welfare standards of current NIH facilities, and how it will affect valuable non-invasive neurocognitive, genomic, and behavioural research that most sanctuaries do not have the facilities to support, is still far from clear.

However, it is also readily apparent that this decision was driven by the fast decreasing use of chimps in biomedical research over the past 5 years, and in particular the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent decision to give research chimps endangered species protection, which prevents any invasive biomedical research that doesn’t benefit wild chimpanzee populations, a ruling that arguably made supporting even a small research chimp colony unviable for the NIH. PETA’s most recent harassment campaign is unlikely to have had much – if any – affect on the NIH’s decision making.

Francis Collins

The situation is very different for other non-human primate species, which continue to play a crucial role in many areas of NIH-funded research. Francis Collins himself noted this  in the official statement on the decision to no longer support chimpanzee research, when he concluded by writing:

These decisions are specific to chimpanzees. Research with other non-human primates will continue to be valued, supported, and conducted by the NIH.

Speaking of Research applauds Francis Collins’ continued support for non-human primate research, and his refusal to concede to PETA’s attempts to bully him into a decision that would do serious damage to the NIH’s status a world leader in biomedical research, and indeed to progress against a wide range of devastating diseases.

Speaking of Research condemns the efforts of PETA to stand in the way of medical research that can change lives. Almost 20% of the US suffered from mental health illnesses in the past year. The research community is morally obligated to do what it can to help understand and treat these devastating conditions. We also condemn a PETA tactic that risks exposing researchers to acts of violent extremism that PETA claim not to support.

We hope Francis Collins and the NIH will not bow to pressure, but will continue to stand up in defense of the research community and the importance of biomedical research.

Speaking of Research

UK Government Minister says animal research is ‘vital tool’ for developing new treatments

Patrick Grady, the shadow Scottish National Party spokesman on International Development, recently asked the Government in parliamentary question, on 26th October 2015, if they would “issue a response to EDM 373, Applying Results of Experiments on Animals to Humans.”

Early Day Motion’s (EDMs) are regularly used by lobbyists to push their agenda, however their actual impact is minimal. EDM373 is the product of campaigning group, For Life on Earth which runs under a multitude of names including Patients Campaigning for Cures, NO to Animal Experiments, Oppose B&K Universal, Speaking of human based research and more. The group is inspired by the writing of Dr Ray Greek, and his Trans-Species Modeling Theory (a theory that few have heard of and even fewer subscribe to).

The EDM is the third time the motion has been made in three years (in 2014/15 it was EDM22, in 2013/14 it was EDM263) – with essentially the same message:

That this House notes the science-based campaign, For Life On Earth, which is critical of avoidable experiments on animals; further notes the new initiative, Patients Campaigning For Cures, which opposes animal models on medical grounds; is alarmed that scientific studies reveal that the widespread claimed ability of animals to predict human responses to drugs and disease is demonstrably false; acknowledges that over 90 per cent of drugs which test well in animals harm or otherwise fail humans, and that ignoring this has delayed cures including penicillin; notes that using animals to model humans contradicts currently accepted science, including evolutionary biology and genetics, which supports personalised medical care; further acknowledges the proclamation of the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research to develop communications with the media and public; and calls for thorough, properly moderated public scientific debate on the misleading and costly practice of trying to apply results from animal experiments to human patients.

So we have the usual myths about 90% failure rates, penicillin, and delays in other treatments. There is also typical Ray Greek-inspired fluff about “currently accepted science”. Their demands for a debate might be reasonable (though debating and science are very different kettles of fish), though the conditions being set on the terms for this debate are not (see the last response from Understanding Animal Research on this subject).

Thankfully, the UK Government wasn’t falling for it. Jo Johnson MP, British Minister of State for Universities and Science, gave a strong response to the parliamentary question.

The Government considers that the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving the understanding of how biological systems work and in the development of safe new medicines, treatments and technologies.

At the same time, the Government believes that animals should only be used when there is no practicable alternative and it actively supports and funds the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs), in particular through funding for the National Centre for the 3Rs, and also through ongoing UK-led efforts to encourage greater global uptake of the 3Rs.

Advances in biomedical science and technologies – including stem cell research, in vitro systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling techniques – are all providing new opportunities to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. As part of this, Innovate UK is awarding £4m this year to fund collaborative projects with industry to support the development and application of new non-animal technologies.

EU and UK law requires safety testing on animals before human trials for new medicines can begin and animal research still plays an important role in providing vital safety information for potential new medicines.

The Early Day Motion (EDM 373) rightly draws attention to the UK life science sector’s Concordat on openness in animal research which was launched last year, and provides new opportunities for transparency and debate in this area. www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/communications-media/concordat-annual-report-2015/.

Jo Johnson MP tours Cardiff University

Jo Johnson MP tours Cardiff University

Importance of animal research, use and development of alternatives and strict regulations are all mentioned in the response.

This question comes days after the UK Government released the annual statistics on animal research showing a slight dip in the number of procedures carried out.

Speaking of Research

OLAW investigates Primate Products, Inc. and praises staff who care for animals!

This one comes with a helping of déjà vu! On Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), published the results of an investigation into Primate Products, Inc. a facility in Hendry County, South Florida that breeds monkeys for medical research, including NIH funded research. The OLAW is the federal body responsible for monitoring compliance with the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals that regulates animal research funded by US Government Offices and Agencies – including the NIH – and the breeders that supply animals for the research they conduct. The OLAW report (which you can download here) detailed the results on an investigation which was prompted by complaints submitted by the animal rights group PETA after one of their employees infiltrated Primate Products.

In a statement accompanying the publication of OLAW’s findings, as reported by News-Press.com, the federal agency commended Primate Products administration and its:

“dedicated and caring staff for promptly and thoroughly addressing all of the noncompliant items,” wrote the office’s Axel Wolff in an email. “We now find that your program is operating appropriately under monitored self-regulation … We appreciate your forthright communications and prompt responses to all questions and hereby close this investigation.”

The report cleared Primate Products of many allegations made by PeTA.  The report also noted the efforts of Primate Products to address some breaches of regulations and to ensure that care provided to the animals meets the highest standards. Most of these were small technical changes to update training, reporting, or animal handling procedures, but also included the erection of an electric fence to prevent further intrusions following an unprecedented  incident when a wild bear broke into the facility and killed several monkeys.

Cynomolgus monkey, one of several monkey species supplied for scientific research by Primate Products. Image: André Ueberbach

Cynomolgus monkey, one of several monkey species supplied for scientific research by Primate Products. Image: André Ueberbach

PETA’s allegations were reminiscent of the case a couple of years ago during PETA’s campaign against hearing research that involved cats at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, where after a thorough investigation the OLAW cleared the researchers and University of the allegations made by PETA. They also remind us of the incident 5 years ago when another animal rights group (Stop Animal Exploitation Now) used leaked photos of monkeys undergoing appropriate veterinary care following fighting among group housed macaque monkeys (a normal, if infrequent, behaviour for the species) to make lurid allegations against Primate Products. On that occasion the USDA investigated the allegations, and cleared Primate Products of any wrongdoing, with USDA spokesperson Dave Sacks commenting:

It was a clean inspection report…there was nothing found that was against animal welfare regulations…Group housing of primates is allowed in the animal welfare regulations…with the mindset that’s more closely adapted to how they live in the wild. These animals do various fighting among themselves for hierarchy…so that will carry through to how they are housed…But if in those housing situations, if there is a monkey that gets injured, we require the facility to provide adequate care.”

As we’ve noted before, there’s a pattern in this. Animal rights groups have become adept in using infiltrations and Freedom of Information (FOI) record requests as the basis for (often spurious)  complaints to the USDA or OLAW that they then use to gain publicity and organize campaigns against individual researchers, and raise funds for future “investigations.” It’s a tactic that isn’t limited to animal rights activists of course. Not far away from Hendry County, Dr. Kevin Folta, a University of Florida professor who studies plant genetics and who is a dedicated science communicator, has been targeted by a vicious FOI-driven campaign by opponents of genetic modification of crops. It’s a campaign that is clearly aimed at silencing someone who was a strong voice for science, and an illustration of how Freedom of Information can be used to attempt to suppress the Freedom of Speech of scientists at government funded Universities.

Given the risk that those targeted by campaigns such as PETA’s against Primate Products might decide to stay quiet, it’s reassuring to note that Dr. Jeff Rowell, a veterinarian and President of Primate Products, has a great record of explaining the work done by Primate Products and how it supports important research in Universities and other biomedical research institutions across the USA. An interview he gave to a local journalist earlier this year is a good example of this willingness to engage with the public.

Primate products

These latest  PETA allegations are unlikely to be the last made by animal rights groups against Primate Products, but it is heartening that the regulators are willing to take an honest and objective look at the evidence. In the meantime we hope that Jeff Rowell and his colleagues at Primate Products will continue to be vocal advocates for science, just as their work supports crucial medical research across the nation.

Speaking of Research

Animal models are essential to biological research: issues and perspectives

The following article by Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Xavier Montagutelli was published on 31 July 2015 in the journal Future Science OA, and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi leads the Regulation of Retroviral Infections Division at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for her role in the discovery of HIV, and Xavier Montagutelli is head of the Central Animal Facility of the Institut Pasteur. This article follows the recent decision by the European Commission to reject the Stop Vivisection Initiative that sought to repeal European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and ban animal research in the EU.

Animal models are essential to biological research: issues and perspectives

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi (1) & Xavier Montagutelli*,(2)

The use of animals for scientific purposes is both a longstanding practice in biological research and medicine, and a frequent matter of debate in our societies. The remarkable anatomical and physiological similarities between humans and animals, particularly mammals, have prompted researchers to investigate a large range of mechanisms and assess novel therapies in animal models before applying their discoveries to humans. However, not all results obtained on animals can be directly translated to humans, and this observation is emphasized by those who refute any value to animal research. At the same time, the place of the animals in our modern societies is often debated, particularly the right to use animals to benefit human purposes, with the possibility that animals are harmed. These two aspects are often mixed in confusing arguments, which does not help citizens and politicians to get a clear picture of the issues. This has been the case in particular during the evaluation of the European Citizen Initiative (ECI) ‘Stop Vivisection’ recently presented to the European Commission [1].

European-Parliament

Humans and other mammals are very complex organisms in which organs achieve distinct physiological functions in a highly integrated and regulated fashion. Relationships involve a complex network of hormones, circulating factors and cells and cross-talk between cells in all the compartments. Biologists interrogate organisms at multiple levels: molecules, cells, organs and physiological functions, in healthy or diseased conditions. All levels of investigations are required to get a full description and understanding of the mechanisms. The first two, and in some instances three, levels of organization can be studied using in vitro approaches (e.g., cell culture). These techniques have become very sophisticated to mimic the 3D and complex structures of tissues. They represent major scientific advances and they have replaced the use of animals. On the other hand, the exploration of physiological functions and systemic interactions between organs requires a whole organism. It is, for example, the case for most hormonal regulations, for the dissemination of microorganisms during infectious diseases or for the influence of the intestinal microorganisms on immune defense or on the development of brain functions. In these many cases, no in vitro model is currently available to fully recapitulate these interactions, and investigations on humans and animals are still necessary. Hypotheses and models can emerge from in vitro studies but they must be tested and validated in a whole organism, otherwise they remain speculative. Scientists are very far from being able to predict the functioning of a complex organism from the study of separate cells, tissues and organs. Therefore, despite arguments put forward by the promotors of the ECI, studies on animals cannot be fully replaced by in vitro methods, and it is still a long way before they can.

Animal models have been used to address a variety of scientific questions, from basic science to the development and assessment of novel vaccines, or therapies. The use of animals is not only based on the vast commonalities in the biology of most mammals, but also on the fact that human diseases often affect other animal species. It is particularly the case for most infectious diseases but also for very common conditions such as Type I diabetes, hypertension, allergies, cancer, epilepsy, myopathies and so on. Not only are these diseases shared but the mechanisms are often also so similar that 90% of the veterinary drugs used to treat animals are identical or very similar to those used to treat humans. A number of major breakthroughs in basic science and medical research have been possible because of observations and testing on animal models. Most vaccines, which save millions of human and animal lives every year, have been successfully developed using animal models. The treatment of Type I diabetes by insulin was first established in the dog by Banting and McLeod who received the Nobel Prize in 1921 [2]. Cellular therapies for tissue regeneration using stem cells have been engineered and tested in animals [3]. Many surgical techniques have been designed and improved in various animal species before being applied to humans. The discoveries in which animal models played a critical role are indeed numerous and led to many Nobel Prizes.

It is, however, noticeable that the results obtained on animals are not necessarily confirmed in further human studies. Various reasons can be evoked. First, despite large similarities, there are differences between a given animal species and humans. For example, over 95% of the genes are homologous between mice and humans but there are also differences for example in the members of genes families, in gene redundancies and in the fine regulation of gene-expression level. These genetic differences translate into physiological differences which are increasingly better described and understood. While some people like the ECI promotors use these differences to refute the value of animal models, many including ourselves strongly advocate for further improving our knowledge and understanding of these differences and for taking them into account in experimental designs and interpretation of observations [4]. Moreover, these differences may provide opportunities to unravel novel mechanisms and imagine innovative therapies.

Research in mice has led to many medical advances - most recently the development of PD-1 inhibitors for treating cancers http://speakingofresearch.com/2015/05/30/immunotherapy-lung-cancer-pd-1-knockout-mice/

Research in mice has led to many medical advances – most recently the development of PD-1 inhibitors for treating cancers http://speakingofresearch.com/2015/05/30/immunotherapy-lung-cancer-pd-1-knockout-mice/

The second reason is due to genetic and physiological variations within each species or between closely related species. Laboratory mice have been developed as inbred strains which have highly homogeneous genetic composition to increase the reproducibility of results and the statistical power of experiments. Reports on animal models of human conditions often speak of ‘the mouse model of…’, referring in fact to observations made in a given genetic background. However, the clinical presentation often varies if another mouse strain is considered. A striking example is provided by a study published in November 2014 in Science by a team who reported that some mouse strains are fully resistant to Ebola virus, others die without specific symptoms and others develop fatal hemorrhagic fever [5]. Another example is the difference of responses to SIV, the monkey homolog to human HIV, between Rhesus macaques which develop simian AIDS and sooty mangabeys which do not develop symptoms despite high levels of circulating virus [6]. This range of responses reflects in fact the variety of clinical observations among human patients. These examples illustrate how animal models must be considered: no single animal model is able to mimic a given human disease which is itself polymorphic between patients, but the differences between strains or species provide unmatched opportunity to understand disease development and differential host response, and to eventually find new cures.

The second issue regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes is animal protection and welfare. This is the scope of the European Directive 2010/63/EU, which has set the regulatory framework for all animal research. Scientists have recognized for decades the importance of giving full consideration to three fundamental principles [7], which have become the backbone of the European Directive. First, animals must not be used whenever other, non-animal-based, experimental approaches are available, with similar relevance and reliability. Second, the number of animals used must be adjusted to the minimum needed to reach a conclusion. Third, all provisions must be taken throughout the procedures to minimize any harm inflicted to the animals. These principles, known as ‘the three Rs rules’, for replacement, reduction and refinement, have become the standard to which every project involving the use of animals is evaluated.

Animal research is conducted in compliance with regulatory provisions which cover the inspection and licensing of animal premises, the training and competence of all personal designing projects, performing animal procedures and taking care of animals and the mandatory authorization of every project by a competent authority upon ethical evaluation by an Animal Ethics Committee. The criteria for evaluation are based on the 3Rs rules and a cost–benefit analysis to evaluate if the potential harm to the animals, which must be reduced to the lowest possible level, is outweighed by significant progress in terms of knowledge on human or animal health. Regulation imposes that ethics committees include members concerned by animal protection and not involved in animal research. In response to the ECI, the European Commission has underlined, in a statement issued on 3 June 2015 [8], that animal experimentation remains important for improving human and animal health. At the same time, it is committed to promoting the development and validation of non-animal-based approaches, and to enforcing the application of the 3Rs rules by all players, including the research community. Europe has therefore implemented one of the strictest regulatory frameworks for the protection of animals used in research.

21st century medical research is highly interdisciplinary, a fact that is reflected in the design of new research institutions such as the Francis Crick Institute in London

21st century medical research is highly interdisciplinary, a fact that is reflected in the design of new research institutions such as the Francis Crick Institute in London

The greatest challenges faced by modern biomedical research concern complex, multifactorial, diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, pathological consequences of aging among others, for which all experimental approaches are indispensable because of their complementarity: biochemistry, genomics, cell culture, computer modeling, animal model and clinical studies. Research on relevant, carefully designed, well-characterized and controlled animal models will remain for a long time an essential step for fundamental discoveries, for testing hypotheses at the organism level and for the validation of human data. Animal models must be constantly improved to be more reliable and informative. Likewise, animal protection requires permanent consideration. These two objectives, far from being antagonistic, must be anchored in high-quality science.

References:

1. The European Citizens ‘Initiative – Stop vivisection. http://ec.europa.eu
2. Nobelprize.Org – The discovery of insulin. www.nobelprize.org
3. Klug MG, Soonpaa MH, Koh GY, Field LJ. Genetically selected cardiomyocytes from differentiating embronic stem cells form stable intracardiac grafts. J. Clin. Invest. 98(1), 216–224 (1996). [CrossRef] [Medline] [CAS]
4. Ergorul C, Levin LA. An example on glaucoma research: solving the lost in translation problem: improving the effectiveness of translational research. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 13(1), 108–114 (2013). [CrossRef] [Medline] [CAS]
5. Rasmussen AL, Okumura A, Ferris MT et al. Host genetic diversity enables ebola hemorrhagic fever pathogenesis and resistance. Science 346(6212), 987–991 (2014). [CrossRef] [Medline] [CAS]
6. Liovat AS, Jacquelin B, Ploquin MJ, Barre-Sinoussi F, Muller-Trutwin MC. African non human primates infected by SIV – why don’t they get sick? Lessons from studies on the early phase of non-pathogenic siv infection. Curr. HIV Res. 7(1), 39–50 (2009). [CrossRef] [Medline] [CAS]
7. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Human Experimental Technique. Methuen, London, UK (1959).
8. European Commission – Annex to the communication from the commission on the European Citizen’s Initiative, ‘Stop Vivisection’. http://ec.europa.eu

Affiliations:

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
1. INSERM & Unité de Régulation des Infections Rétrovirales, Institut Pasteur, 75724 Paris, France
Xavier Montagutelli
2. Animalerie Centrale, Institut Pasteur, 75724 Paris, France

Why People Are Wrong to Oppose the New UK Beagle Breeding Facility

This post was originally posted on Huffington Post UK’s website. It is reprinted with permission from both the author and the Huffington Post. The original hyperlinks which were stripped out of the HP article have been returned.

Where do medicines come from?

It’s not a question most of us bother with when we take advantage of the huge array of medical treatments available to us.

All modern medicine is built on the ‘basic research’ which allows us to understand our physiology, and the diseases we suffer. Much of this research has been done, and continues to be done, in animals. Had Mering and Minkowski not shown the causal link between the pancreas and diabetes in dogs, we might never have discovered insulin (much more work was conducted in dogs by Banting and Best who later won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin). Had Pasteur not shown how dogs could be vaccinated using weakened samples of the virus (made from rabbits), we would not have both the veterinary and human rabies vaccines.

Animals are also used to develop and refine medical techniques. Dogs played a key role in perfecting artery to vein blood transfusions, as well as showing that citrated blood could be safely transplanted (thus preventing the blood from clotting). More recently, 23 pet dogs with paralysing spinal injuries were able to regain some use of their rear legs thanks to a novel stem cell transplant treatment. This research had originally been done in rats, and last year was used to successfully treat a paralysed man in what could prove to be one of the biggest medical advances of the decade.

By law, animals must also be used to test the toxicity and safety of new drug compounds before they can be given to human volunteers. A pharmaceutical company will have used the findings of basic research studies to identify types of drugs which might be effective against certain diseases. They will then use a variety of non-animal tests – computer modelling, cell cultures and more – to identify the most promising drug candidates. Those compounds will then be tested in animals. If they are deemed safe enough, they may then be moved forward to human trials. It is testament to the effectiveness of animal safety tests that nobody has died in Phase I clinical trials in the UK for over 30 years (with only one badly conducted clinical trial causing severe harm in recent times).

Given public misconceptions on the issue, it is worth being clear and saying that in the UK, and across the rest of the EU, it is illegal to use animals to test cosmetic products or their ingredients. The UK ban came into force in 1998, one year after a ban on tobacco research using animals. The Government has also announced a ban on using animals for testing household products.

Graph - Milestones in Animal Research

So what about dogs?

Laboratory DogsDespite the examples used in this article, dogs are not used that much in research in the UK. They account for less than 0.1% of all animals used in the UK each year. This compares to the 98% of procedures which are conducted on mice, rats, fish or birds. In 2013 there were 3,554 dogs used in 4,779 procedures (down 30% from a decade ago). Due to special protections that exist for dogs, cats, primates and horses, researchers must justify to the Home Office why another species, such as a mouse, fish or sheep, cannot be used instead of a dog. The research must be approved by an ethical review board, who will work to ensure the implementation of the 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of animals in research). The researcher, the institution and the individual procedure must each be licensed by the Home Office. The video below, produced by Understanding Animal Research, shows dogs in a typical pharmaceutical laboratory in the UK.

So why a breeding facility?

Currently, around 20% of the dogs used in research in the UK are imported from abroad (those involved in 956 of the 4,779 procedures in 2013). This is because the UK breeding facilities cannot provide all the dogs used in the UK. These dogs have to endure long and potentially stressful flights from other countries. Surely it is better to breed them here in the UK, where we have some of the highest standards of laboratory animal welfare in the world and where our facilities can be easily monitored by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit inspectors? The new breeding facility offers animal welfare standards above and beyond those demanded by the Government. Dogs will be kept in socially housed groups in multi-level pens which can be joined together to create larger runs for the animals. All the animals will have toys and enrichment in their enclosures, and will interact with trained laboratory technicians every day. It is this sort of investment in animal welfare we, as an animal-loving nation, should embrace.

Petitioning the Government to reverse their decision on approving the beagle facility in Hull is misguided. It will not reverse our need to use animals in research, or even change the number of dogs used in the UK. What it will do is force another generation of puppies to take long flights from other countries, having been bred in older breeding facilities away from the UK inspectorate.

Animal research may not be something we want to think about when we take our medicines – but it is something necessary for those medicines to exist. Instead of trying to ban animal research, let’s instead make sure that if we do it, we do it to world-class standards.

Tom Holder

Director of Speaking of Research

ALF Claims Responsibility for Arson in Mississauga, Canada

In an anonymous communique the ALF claimed responsibility (ALF site) for the destruction of two trucks owned by Harlan Laboratories. In the early morning of June 7, 2015, incendiary devices were ignited and the trucks were destroyed. Thankfully no one was injured and the fire was quickly contained by first responders. Harlan was targeted because of its corporate focus to provide laboratory customers with animals, products and services that optimize the discovery and safety of new medicines and compounds. Harlan significantly contributes to research endeavours in Canada and was recently acquired by Huntingdon Life Sciences, who has been the target of several animal rights campaigns. Ultimately this type of illegal activity is counterproductive as is evident with the ending of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign and the convictions of numerous perpetrators of violence and harassment in the US and UK.

Fire Canada

It is unclear if those involved in this incident are the same as the people who released 1600 mink in St. Mary’s Ontario on May 30, 2015, or vandalized the CALAS national office in July 2014. What is clear is that this type of illegal activity is unacceptable and undermines informed discussions surround this important issue. The majority of Canadians support the ethical use of animals in science. Canadian scientists, laboratory animal professionals, institutions and companies need to resist the temptation to “circle the wagons” and shut the public out. That strategy is also counterproductive in the long term. We can use this as an opportunity to expand public outreach programs. Once presented with accurate and transparent information the public can make informed opinions. Knowledge is power and sharing that knowledge empowers the public to understand animal research.

Michael Brunt