There is a rather interesting book, Animal Experimentation and Medical Progress by William Williams Keen, published in 1914, which describes some of the incidents in the animal research debate during the early 1900s. What is striking about this book is that it illustrates very clearly how little (if at all) the arguments and tactics of animal rights proponents have changed over the last 100 years.
Consider the kind of letters that scientists received because of their work with animals:
Sometimes, animal rights activists also felt it was also important in making their point to include other members of the scientist’s family in their missives.
The language is nearly identical to the anonymous emails or web-postings attacking scientists today.
A century ago those opposed to the use of animals in medical research were already using deceptive, calumnious imagery, suggesting animals underwent surgical procedures without anesthetic, which evoked the following, unanimous response from the English Royal Commission:
And a hundred years ago, the scientific community was already expressing disbelief and regret at the lack of understanding of the work, and the activists’ willful ignorance of those that denied its benefits –
Scientists were not alone in their outrage. One hundred years ago medical professionals from all over the world were prompted to issue a statement at the International Medical Congress supporting animal research:
Of course, Charles Darwin himself, had these famous words to offer some 30 years earlier:
Fortunately, some things have in fact changed over the last 100 years.
Back then we did not have antibiotics, nor vaccinations for terrible childhood diseases. We do today. Vaccines that save more than 3 millions people per year, and prevent millions of others from suffering from disease and permanent disabilities.
Back then X-rays machines were just being created, the machines were bulky and access was extremely difficult. Today X-rays, doppler ultrasound, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, are all widely available providing some of the most useful diagnostic tools.
Back then Heroin was used in children’s syrup to treat cough and bloodletting was still used to treat fever and inflammation. Today, effective pain relievers and anti-inflammatories are widely available in the pharmacy at the corner.
Back then premature babies almost invariably died. Today, the development of lung surfactants is saving the lives of babies across the world every day.
And the list of the benefits of animal research goes on and on…
Perhaps it can all be summarized by the fact that that back then life expectancy in the US was 52 years. Today, we are living an average of 80 years. In other words, in merely 3 generations, we increased our life expectancy by 60%. This is time we all now enjoy with our loved ones, children and grandchildren. Thanks to science. Thanks to scientists. Thanks to responsible, animal research.
That is why one cannot help but keep repeating Darwin’s famous words “…he who retards the progress of physiology is committing a crime against mankind.”
There is a new British animal rights group on the scene called “For Life on Earth” or FLOE for short. Founded by Louise Owen, who has worked with both Medical Research Modernisation Committee and Seriously Ill Against Vivisection (both now defunct), the website seems almost an advertising tool for the various writings of Ray Greek and Niall Shanks (There are no shortage of Amazon links on the site and recommendations that you “buy it now”), with typical pseudoscience about how animal research is no longer necessary.
A professionally finished video on the front page (above) informs us that since we don’t take ourselves down the vet, or our pets to a hospital, that “common sense” would suggest research cannot cross species lines. It is worth noting that veterinarians deal with a variety of different species (so much for not crossing species lines), furthermore, the One Health Initiative DOES aim to get greater collaboration between veterinary and human medicine due to their overwhelming similarity. The Zoobiquity website discusses many aspects of the similarity between human and animal treatments.
The video goes on to suggest that personalised medicine offers opportunities for “treatments [that] are tailor made for you and you alone, for your unique genetic makeup”. Again, they negate to note the huge influence and growing role of animals in personalized medicine (such as the creation of mouse avatars which are injected with a person’s tumour cells so as to find the specific treatments that will work for that person). I also recommend reading our earlier post “When Personalised Medicine and Animal Research Meet”.
This makes me wonder if the whole website is not simply a straight marketing tool by Greek and Shanks’ publishers.
Much of the website revolves around Ray Greek’s regular writings (often on “Opposing Views”) that assert that animal models are not predictive. In reply, you should read a great post by Dario Ringach, an excerpt of which can be found below:
Researchers create models of disease in animals by trying to replicate what they believe are the essential components at play. These animal models can then be used to generate predictions for therapeutic interventions, which can then be tested in human clinical trials. If a prediction is falsified, so is that specific animal model of the disease.
When this happens, scientists seek to understand how the data depart from the prediction, what factors were ignored that might play a role, and use prior knowledge and intuition to develop a better, improved model. In the course of developing and refining such a model, scientists will go through many such cycles. A model is expected to be valid if and only if it captures all the key ingredients of the human condition.
The fact that one can postulate inaccurate animal models of human disease does not invalidate the whole methodology of animal research, it merely shows the work is difficult. But animal models can in fact be successful.
So what are the aims of FLOE?
“For Life on Earth is committed to making this level of science debate happen. Our objective is to ensure that such debates are broadcast live on television, via a platform such as BBC’s Newsnight or Question Time, both being suitable for the seriousness of such an important topic, and able to incorporate audience participation.“
It is a common claim among animal rights groups that there is no debate. In Britain, over the last 11 years, there have been four independent enquiries about animal research: House of Lords Select Committee (2002), Animal Procedures Committee (2003), Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) and the Weatherall Report (2006). On television there has been one Newsnight debate (below) on the scientific merits of animal research between Michelle Thew (BUAV) and Professor Tipu Aziz. Perhaps Ray Greek is simply frustrated that his fellow anti-viv organisation chose not to put up a scientist, but rather their own CEO. Question Time would not fit FLOE’s vision of a scientific debate; as it is a current issues discussion programme dominated by the 3 partisan political panellists (of 5 total) that rarely discusses scientific issues. An animal research debate would be held in short sound bites, with political panellists trying to get the biggest applause. In terms of other opportunities for debate, Dr Greek himself has debated against scientists like Dr Michael Conn on CNN (contrary to the website’s assertion that such debates have never happened).
“For Life on Earth will focus on the most efficient routes by which to advertise the fact that veterinary principles must not be applied to ill, or critically ill humans. An effective pressure campaign, coordinated with the help of the international community, can then help to ensure that legislative decisions made by governments implement current scientific knowledge.”
This straw man argument suggests that current biomedical methods are based on veterinary principles. While there are some similarities between veterinary and clinical medicine (they both try to make ‘animals’ better), there are also clear differences. Given the overwhelming majority of scientists are in support of animal-based research, perhaps FLOE should not be so confident about explaining what “current scientific knowledge” entails. Modern animal research remains at the cutting edge of scientific discovery.
Wait, who are FLOE again?
Well this is where things get interesting. FLOE is registered to a virtual London address through the company British Monomarks. This is not remarkable in itself, until you discover the host of other animal rights organisations that also use this same company for a virtual mailing address.
FLOE are in the company of the Animal Liberation Front Press Office and Supporters Group (offering support to jailed animal rights extremists). They also share their address with the Gateway to Hell campaigns and SHAC – who have a long history of animal rights extremists in their ranks. One wonders what individual connections draw these same organisations to use the same virtual address company.
Overall, For Life on Earth shows all the signs of being another antivivisection, pseudoscientific organisation. I guess it’s another excuse to get out the Animal Rights Bingo.
Speaking of Research
Addenum 13th May 2013
FLOE have removed the address from their website since this article was posted. Click the image below to see a cached version of the website for evidence.
There has been a rise in animal rights extremism across much of Europe for some time. Movements have increasingly focused on the breeding and transporting of Beagles used in animal experiments, however some seem to be broadening to all research.
While the UK has locked up the worst extremists (and those who have since been released have been under strict control orders (ASBOs) to prevent them from causing further trouble), the rest of Europe has not been as effective at tackling these problems. Furthermore, scientists in the UK have worked hard to explain the importance of the research they do to the British public, resulting in regular mentions of animal research within science-based stories (e.g. on potential medical breakthroughs). The Pro-Test movement in Oxford, UK, also did much to push the important contribution of biomedical research into the media spotlight.
In February activists began to campaign against AstraZeneca to release dogs being moved from a Swedish facility to a British one. The pharmaceutical agreed to rehome 80 dogs after approval from the veterinarian, however the remainder were considered important to continued medical research efforts. If AZ were to release the remaining animals, it would only require them to breed more later, negating any possible welfare benefit. Nonetheless activists tracked the shipment, protesting at both the departing flight and arrival hours later. This shows signs of increasing international cooperation between animal rights groups.
Elsewhere, five activists broke into a breeding facility in the Netherlands and stole six of their dogs. The activists promptly turned themselves into the police, but we must be concerned by this new found confidence in breaking the law by European activists.
The pressure on airlines also continues, with Vietnam Airlines joining the large number of airlines that publicly refuse to transport animals for research. This pressure has tended to be a mix of “mass communication” (emails, tweets, FB messages, letters) and office protests – activists were at the London office of Vietnam airlines only days before they caved.
However, it is in Italy where there is most concern.
In April 2012, activists stormed the Marshall Green Hill beagle breeding facility and “liberated” dozens of beagles – handing them over the fence as the police did little more than watch.
In March 2013, activists blockaded the transport of 8 beagles to an Italian pharmaceutical, Menarini. Menarini caved and decided to give away the eight beagles in hope of placating the activists. Clearly all this does is show the activists that if they keep pushing the boundaries of legal activism, they will get what they want.
In April 2013, during World Week for Animals in Laboratories, activists broke into the University of Milan’s animal labs (hundreds more protested outside). They purposely mixed up the records of the animals, effectively destroying much of the research being done on psychiatric diseases. Activists chained themselves to emergency exit doors, and demanded the release of the animals, occupying the facility for 12 hours. Incredibly, the University caved – they agreed to give almost 100 of the animals over (mice and rabbits) then and there, and promised to negotiate the release of hundreds more (though the Rector of the University has since released a public statement saying that there is no agreement with the extremists, that no more animals will be handed over, and that the University will be taking the extremists to court and seeking damages).
There are glimmers of hope. Our previous post mentioned the scientists and researchers who are standing up against extremism in Italy. Around 60 people rallied under the banner of Pro-Test Italia, the third such movement to appear around the world (after the original Pro-Test in Oxford, and Pro-Test for Science in California. Pro-Test Italia stood in defence of important research using animals. As Italian researchers say enough is enough, there is a real chance that the balance of the animal research debate can be redressed. Hopefully more people will now begin to speak up about why animals are used – without this, there is little hope of changing the mind of the Italian public.
In December 2012 we reported that scientists in Italy had founded Pro-Test Italia to counter the rising tide of ignorance and intimidation that threatens the future of science in Italy. Last weekend we heard about a new animal rights outrage in Italy. As reported in Nature News, activists broke into the Department of Pharmacology in the University of Milan on Saturday, where they wrecked valuable research projects before leaving with over a hundred mice, rats and rabbits. On previous occasions the response from the scientific community to such raids and theft in Italy has been lacklustre at best, but this time things would be different . Our colleagues in Pro-Test Italia take up the story.
Scientists take to the streets of Milan!
On Saturday the 20th of April, a national rally against “vivisection” took place in Milan, with about 200 people participating. Just before the rally’s beginning, 5 animal rights activists posted on the “Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill” (Coordination to stop Green Hill) Facebook page announcing that they had forced entry inside the Pharmacology Department of Milan’s University. Those activists barricaded themselves inside the animal facilities, tying chains both around their necks and around the doors’ handles to prevent police from breaking in.
They demanded that every animal in the facilities should be released in their hands – about a thousand rats and seventeen rabbits; meanwhile they removed the animals’ tags, rendering them effectively useless and throwing away years of research about Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis, autism and such. In an effort to prevent injuries to the people involved, the director of the department started negotiations that ended with the release of the activists from the department. The activists got to take away with them about a hundred mice and rats and a rabbit, with the promise that even more animals released into their hands in the following days. Of course at that point the animals were already useless for research.
Meanwhile, the “anti-vivisection” rally reached the building, and started throwing names at the researchers, calling them “Killers” and “Monsters”.
CNR Researchers in an open letter speak of serious damages. “It’s hard to quantify the damage, but it will be in the order of hundreds of thousands of euros, and goes far beyond the removal of some animals because the activists removed tags from all of the cages: we cannot identify the animals any more, which means years of research have been thrown away, along with the funding.”
Bice Chini, researcher at the CNR Institute of Neuroscience, explained during an interview with La Repubblica why the damage isn’t only monetary.
Everyone expecting new remedies and cures for serious, deadly diseases, has been damaged. Years of studies have been lost, we are unable to determine the consequences this will have on research, namely how much it will be slowed down.”
Some of the animals that activists took away are genetically modified, and are precious models for some degenerative genetic diseases; researchers were hoping to observe these animals and understand the causes and workings of these pathologies, in order to create new treatments. “Sometimes years are needed to select the right animals to observe a specific disease’s development” says Francesco Scaglione, Pharmacology professor in Milan State University, during an interview with TV news La7 Cronache“When animals are studied, there is no useless suffering, and when they have to be euthanised, we always use anesthesia.”
This time the Italian scientific community raised its head. On Saturday afternoon our association, Pro-Test Italia, with help from the organization Federfauna - which supports the interests of people who work with animals - and the Facebook page “A Favore Della Sperimentazione Animale“, managed to get authority’s permission for a peaceful rally on Sunday morning in Milan. About 60 people, mostly students and young researchers, took part in the rally, wearing white coats and carrying banners in support of science and against bullying, ignorance and misinformation..
The first objective of the rally was information: participants were good mannered, never stooping down to insults, and explained to passers by why animal research is important and what makes this latest action by animal rights activists so despicable. A small group of said activists tried to disturb the peaceful rally, but with no success.
Our friends from OMG! Science, took part in the rally with us: they interviewed passers by many of whom did understand the gravity of Saturday’s actions by animal rights activists.
Our rally was reported both on a local (TG3 Regione) and national TV News (Tg1, La7 Cronache), and many leading Italian newspapers and press agencies also spoke of these events, including Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, ANSA, La Stampa, Il Giornale and Il Giorno. What has also been striking over the past few days is the volume of messages of support that we have received, and the many new likes on our FaceBook page, all of which shows how many Italians were waiting for somebody to stand up to animal rights extremism.
The biggest animal rights associations in Italy (such as LAV, ENPA, LeIDA) said nothing about Saturday’s activists crimes, and it’s not the first time they avoid condemning such acts. We can only wonder why.
Sunday was something of a milestone: for the first time members of the Italian scientific community took action against animal rights activists’ violence and criminal behavior, and we took part in our very first rally. We look at these brave young scientists and students with trust and expectation, hoping that things will now really start to change.
Pro-Test Italia
Update 13.55 BST, 23 April 2013- The Rector of the University of Milan has stated that there is no agreement between the University and the animal rights extremists, and that no more animals will be handed over to them by the depatement. This is welcome but not entirely surprising as to do so would violate animal welfare regulations – especially those governing the care of genetically modified animals.
Addendum: Pro-Test Italia have informed us that they will be holding another rally in Milan on Saturday June 1st, you can find the details on FaceBook!
PETA have been making the news a lot lately and for once they probably don’t want to be there. The story that PETA euthanises almost 90% of the animals taken in by its shelters had been covered before by us, but was further covered by the immensely popular Mail online website (the most visited newspaper website in the world) in March this year.
However the bad news keeps on rolling for PETA, when Nathan Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, wrote a Huffington Post article alleging that PETA was killing adoptable animals.
A mother cat and her two kittens, all perfectly healthy and adoptable and none in danger of being killed until they were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told by PETA employees that they would have no problem adopting them out. After PETA lied to him and the mother and her kittens were entrusted to their care, they reportedly killed them, within minutes, in the back of a van.
Winograd further accuses PETA of vocally defending a shelter (not one of theirs) that:
A puppy dying of parvovirus in the Houston shelter is not given anything soft to lie on as she urinates all over herself. Here she sits, unable to keep her head up, alone in a cold, barren stainless steel cage without receiving necessary veterinary care. Other shelters have a better than 90% rate of saving dogs with parvovirus. In a letter to the editor of the Houston paper, PETA publicly defended this shelter, urging Houstonians to reject my advice on the need for reform and how to do so.
This would be particularly hypocritical for an organisation which accuses researchers of cruelty for caging animals, despite the fact that lab animals have enrichment (toys) to stimulate the animals, the animals are normally group housed, and veterinary attention is provided for animals that need it – perhaps PETA should be promoting animal welfare conditions in shelters to be more like it is in labs?
With pressure piling from its own ranks, and other new websites jumping onto the story (including the Mail Online again), PETA have released several statements. After the initial accusations PETA posted on their blog with pictures of severely injured animals noting that:
PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn’t have enough heart or homes with room for them.
We can understand that euthanizing an animal may be consistent with animal welfare, however if Winograd’s claims are true, and PETA are euthanizing healthy and adoptable animals, then PETA still has much to answer for.
PETA claims to be an animal rights organisation, though their webpage on it points to the utilitarian (rather than rights-based) arguments of Peter Singer. Nonetheless, they are against “speciesism” – a term popularised by singer which means to treat animals of different species differently for no other reason than their belonging to a different species (as opposed to the characteristics of those species). If PETA is to be consistent in this view then should we assume they would support euthanizing humans who were ill rather than doing all we can to save them? Given that PETA claim to be euthanizing animals which don’t have homes, should we be doing the same to homeless people, who might have to suffer living on the streets? Most of us are sure to say no, but PETA’s philosophy will find it harder to argue.
How many experiments have been replaced by non-animal alternatives? Do we count every time a cell culture is used in an experiment that might once have been done in vivo? No. While some critics point to the relatively small sums of money that organisations like the Dr Hadwen Trust or NC3Rs spend on research in replacement, few note the huge sums spent by industry on researching and using alternatives.
Refinement is even harder to quantify. Do we look at the money spent on refinement? Do we include bigger, better enclosures? What about the smaller enclosure before that were still better than the ones that preceded it? How do you put a measure of social housing of animals? Once again measurement becomes nigh on impossible.
So, we arrive at the third R – Reduction. Surely this is the easiest to measure, we simply look at the total number of animals used in research and see how the numbers have changed?
The US has seen a 50% decline in the use of AWA-covered animals since 1992, despite a slight rise in 2010. However, it is unknown whether this fall has correlated with a similar fall in the use of mice, or whether researchers have been choosing to use mice instead of “higher” animals.
In the UK, where all vertebrates are counted, there has been a steady rise since 2001, from 2.6 million procedures (slightly fewer animals) to 3.8 million (2011).
Does this mean the UK is failing to implement the principle of Reduction? The British Union for the Abolition for Vivisection certainly think so. In their new “Broken Promises” campaign they say:
The Government is failing on its pledge to work to reduce the use of animals in research. This is an issue where there is strong public concern yet the latest statistics show that animal experiments in the UK are at an all-time high since 1986 (the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in Great Britain).
…
When the Coalition Government took office in 2010 it’s Programme for Government included the pledge to “work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.” This was included after strong lobbying from the BUAV, and we have been leading the way in holding the Government to account ever since.
However, the latest statistics from the Home Office show that despite this pledge the number of animals being used in experiments is now more than 3.7 million, the highest figure for 25 years.
It is true that the number of animals used in research has risen since 2001. One of the main reasons for this is the huge rise in funding for animal research. Since 1995 (remember that funding has a lagged effect on the number of animals used), the expenditure on bioscience and medicine R&D in the UK has gone up by 150%, while the number of animals has risen by only 30% – that means that animal use is shrinking as a percentage of funds (though this effect will be slightly mitigated by the fact that animal use has become more expensive over the period).
We must realise that Reduction is not about using less total animals, but like the other Rs, is about the conduct of individual experiments. Russell and Burch, who first described the 3Rs in 1959, described Reduction as:
Reduction means reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision.
It is about using fewer animals to obtain given pieces of information, i.e. individual experiments (not the total in a country). Scientists have been effective at reducing the number of animals they use in experiments thanks to better models and improved scanning devices. Whereas at one time a cancer study might have involved 10 rats being euthanised one a fortnight to study the progress of a tumour, modern scanning techniques can allow the tumour of one rat to be studied non-invasively over the whole period – reducing the number of animals used. Counting these reductions is difficult. The NC3Rs provide a similar example:
There are many examples, including in the research we fund on cancer drug screening, where new methods allow animal studies to be avoided. These are not one to one replacements for the animal studies. Instead new in vitro tools are used to screen drugs so that only those that are likely to be suitable for further development are taken into animal studies. This avoids wasting animals on drugs destined to fail in preclinical development – animals which would,
if used, have been recorded in the statistics. It is difficult to envisage how collecting information centrally on efforts to avoid unnecessary animal use could be done in practice (without an unnecessary burden on scientists and institutions) but it does illustrate the complexity of measuring the 3Rs.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which works to implement and fund the 3Rs, warned against drawing conclusions from the “total” number of animals released by the Home Office, saying:
The annual statistics published by the Home Office on procedures performed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 contain a large amount of information on animal use – numbers, species and purpose. At first sight it would be expected that they would be a good benchmark on 3Rs activities in the UK and indeed they are routinely used in this way by some campaign organisations. The statistics were, however, never intended to be a gauge of progress in the 3Rs, and in any case their utility for such a purpose is limited for a number of reasons.
They went on to provide possible reasons for a rise in the number of animals used (now or in the future):
Strategic investments in particular research areas or geographic locations:
This includes when Pharmaceutical companies relocate between countries, changing the numbers of animals used in old and new locations.
Availability of new technologies:
The introduction of GM animals resulted in most of the UK’s increase over the past decade
Regulatory Requirements:
The EU’s REACH legislation could potentially increase the number of animals tests in Europe by 9 to 64 million additional animals.
The BUAV are disingenuous when they describe the Government as failing to meet their pledge on reduction. There has been in the past, and continues to be, great strides in managing the reduction of animal research in individual experiments. It would be wrong for the Government to call on a general reduction in the total number of animals as they cannot predict the course of medical development in the coming years.
Speaking of Research
Addendum:
It is also worth remembering that an arbitrary reduction in the number of animal experiments in the UK (or another country) would simply push that research to countries with lower animal welfare standards. In the words of Mark Harper MP, the UK Government minister on this issue:
Of course, the quickest way to reduce the number of animals would be to drive the work overseas, which would not be good for the United Kingdom, for jobs or for animal welfare. We must be thoughtful about the numbers. We should consider the size of the industry and the work that is being carried out, and whether we are driving down the proportion of animals being used in that work.
You may have missed it, but Thursday was a big press day for PETA. A recap:
First, PETA recruited a well- intentioned, yet surprisingly uninformed actor as a participant. Then, for the cost of a couple of plane tickets, the country’s most outlandish ad agency animal rights group appeared at a University of Wisconsin Board of Regents meeting to create a media moment. We would give you the play by play…but we don’t have to. PETA filmed the whole thing so they could simultaneously stage an event and cover it themselves. (Now that’s news!)
We’re certain there were plenty of high fives in the halls of PETA on Thursday. But what’s wrong with this picture?
Aside from the fact that creating a public disturbance and filming yourself isn’t really news…. a lot of problems.
First, the alleged abuse that these two activists so loudly protested (but very quickly…the entire event occurred in less than 90 seconds)…has already been examined at great length and was found to NOT be abusive. As we reported last fall, the United States Department of Agriculture, which enforces the country’s animal abuse laws, found no wrongdoing after conducting a thorough investigation.
Another big problem with this story is the lack of interest from almost every news outlet in explaining why this research is done in the first place. Read the coverage. In many stories, there is little to no summary of the research. In rare cases where the goal of the research is addressed, it’s briefly mentioned in the final paragraph. That’s a huge failure by the press.
For those who don’t know, the studies center on efforts to combat hearing loss and develop new and better methods to assist those who are born deaf or become deaf during their lifetimes. Check out our previous post about why the research is critical and why cats play such an important role in helping us combat the problem.
However, by far, the biggest problem with this story is the amazing level of hypocrisy demonstrated by PETA. For months, PETA has filled Wisconsin (and now national) newspapers and airwaves protesting the death of a single cat. However, do you know how many cats PETA killed in the past year alone? We do: 1,045.
But that’s not all – it gets much worse. In addition to all those cats, PETA also killed 602 dogs placed in their care.
How do we know all this? Hidden cameras? Stolen documents?
No, nothing that exotic. We simply looked at the Virginia Department of Agriculture’s 2012 report on what PETA did with the hundreds of animals placed in their care last year. In 2012, PETA accepted a total of 1877 animals. Then PETA killed 1675. That’s an 89 percent kill rate. Let’s put it in an easy graph.
The same organization that screams “cruelty” when asked about research involving a handful of animals…kills many more and more often. However, unlike at the University of Wisconsin, animals aren’t humanely euthanized for the greater good…PETA kills animals because it would rather spend its millions creating media moments than saving animal lives.
So what have we learned from this episode? First, it’s time for the media to be forced to do their job. They can certainly cover PETA’s highly staged stunts, but viewers must demand to know what’s being protested and what we all risk losing if they blindly accept the opinions of PETA and other such organizations.
Secondly, it’s time to turn the tables and address the hypocrisy. Groups like PETA have no right to protest the reasonable use of animals in research while senselessly killing so many themselves. PETA might put “ethical” in their name, but they certainly leave it out of their actions.
The difficulties surrounding the transport of laboratory animals, particularly primates, have been growing over the past 12 months. Efforts by PETA and the “Gateway to Hell” campaign have successfully coerced a number of airlines to stop transporting primates destined for labs, including Air Canada and United Airlines (both of which capitulated to animal rights demands in the last 2 months).
The Canadian Association for Neuroscience and the Society for Neuroscience have both called upon their members to contact these airlines and urge them to rethink their current policy. The Canadian organisation has suggested the following letter to the directors of Air Canada:
To: Mr. Calin Rovinescu, President and CEO of Air Canada
calin.rovinescu@aircanada.ca
Dear Mr. Rovinescu,
I was troubled to learn that Air Canada has recently decided to halt transport of non-human primates for use in biomedical research. I urge you to reconsider this position, as animal models, including non-human primates, are essential to advancing our understanding of diseases and disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis that could lead to treatments and cures of these devastating conditions. Misinformation, spread by “animal rights” extremists, threatens to hinder research efforts, and must not be allowed to affect policy making in important Canadian companies such as yours.
The significant role that animal models play in lifesaving research is undeniable. Almost every major medical advance in the last century was made possible by carefully regulated, humane animal research. In Canada, the Canadian Council on Animal Care is responsible for setting and maintaining standards for the ethical use and care of animals in science in Canada, and institutions review all animal research to ensure the protection of the welfare of animals used for research purposes. Studies using animal models follows strict ethical guidelines. Airline transportation, provided by companies such as yours, ensures that laboratory animals are available for lifesaving biomedical research in universities, hospitals and research centers.
Highly vocal animal rights extremists are attempting to halt all research which involves animal models, and to sway public opinion in their direction. These people represent a very small number of individuals, much less than the millions who are dependent on the discoveries brought about by humane, well-regulated animal research – not to mention the tens of thousands of scientists who rely on air travel to attend scientific conferences and to conduct their research.
I hope that your personal commitment to advancing science, exemplified by your recent membership in the McGill University Health Research Center Board of Directors, will be reflected in policies at Air Canada that will allow important scientific research to move forward.
Sincerely,
Name (First and Last)
Contact information: Email, Full mailing address.
Society for Neuroscience have set up a system where you can use their website to send emails to both Air Canada and United Airlines – and we, at Speaking of Research, urge you to do this.
Click the image above to sign the petition
The Advancing Animal Research blog has also got a petition running to support the transport of animal research (follow it on Twitter via @ERaemdonck). Keep an eye on this blog as it produces regular stories on the importance of animals to biomedical research, with a Canadian twist. The petition reads:
Support Medical Progress through Science and Animal Research
Most medical advancement is achieved through the tools provided by Science. Animal based research is a tool that benefits Humanity and animals alike. If you or a relative of yours is affected by a disease, a disability or a disorder, you’d like for cures, drugs or treatments to be available to you. Sign this petition to show your support!
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Finally, for all those living in the UK, it is really important to sign and share the Government e-petition to “Protect transport of animals for medical research“. In the UK, animal rights activists have not only managed to shut down most air transport, but have also successfully pressured the ferry companies to shut down their own transportation of laboratory animals.
PETA and BUAV have operated a systematic campaign of lobbying against hauliers. The government must support and protect the medical research industry by ensuring animals are transported for vital medical research.
Ferry companies and airlines (inc. BA) are refusing to carry animals due to this pressure.
So take 5 minutes to do the following:
- email Air Canada and United Airlines with the email from Society for Neuroscience
- Sign the Change.org petition in support of animal research
- Sign the Government e-petition urging the government to protect the transport of animals (UK only)
- Share these petitions and this post with as many people as possible on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google+ and any other outlet – see the social media buttons below.
RT @tomholder: @peta You have designed a video game where the object is to assault researchers. Yes, you are promoting violence. http://t.c…22 hours ago
The language is nearly identical to the anonymous emails or web-postings attacking scientists today.
Scientists were not alone in their outrage. One hundred years ago medical professionals from all over the world were prompted to issue a statement at the International Medical Congress supporting animal research:
/1881_Vivisection_F1352_001.jpg)
