Category Archives: Animal Rights News

Students in Rome to rally for Prof Caminiti and future of science in Italy

Tomorrow students at the Sapienza University of Rome – Italy’s largest University – will join their Professors and members of the campaign group Pro-Test Italia outside the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology to show solidarity with Professor Roberto Caminiti, a leading neurophysiologist whose work is being attacked by animal rights extremists.

Tomorrow Pro-Test Italia will return to the streets of Rome, joining students and scientists in support of crucial research.

Tomorrow Pro-Test Italia will return to the streets of Rome, joining students and scientists in support of crucial research.

As with many recent instances of anti-scientific populism in Italy, the campaign against Prof. Caminiti began in earnest with a dishonest broadcast on the Italian tabloid TV news programme Striscia la Notizia which misrepresented the work being done by Pr0f. Caminiti and his colleagues. Prof. Caminiti responded to these false allegations in a video which you can watch here (in Italian with English subtitles)

Following the broadcast the European Animal rights Party (PAE) announced that they would be holding a demonstration Sapienza University of Rome, on February 5 2015, with the declared will to “free” the monkeys that are used by Pr0f. Caminiti and his colleagues. This has sparked concerns that the PAE – and the more extreme animal rights groups who will no doubt accompany them – will attempt to repeat the events of 20th April 2013, when five animal rights activists forced entry into the Pharmacology Department of the University of Milan, stealing hundreds of mice and destroying years of research.

There is, however, a major difference between 2013 and today; today scientists and students are ready to stand up and  defend their research. A group of neurobiology students at the Sapienza University of Rome have organized a counter-demonstration (see this Facebook event for details) tomorrow morning – February 5 – to show support for Prof Caminiti, defend their department, and speak up for the future of scientific research in Italy.

On Monday their stand received a boost when Professor Vincenzo Vullo, Head of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine at Sapienza University of Rome, circulated an email to all scientists, staff and students to express support for Prof. Caminiti, and called on them to join him in defense of the research being undertaken at the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology:

Dear colleagues, dear students,

I transmit an open letter by Prof. Roberto Caminiti in defense of the unacceptable smear campaign underway against the scientific activity of the Laboratory of Behavioral Neurophysiology, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology of our University.

In this regard, I wish to emphasize the scientific value of Prof. Caminiti, an internationally acclaimed researcher whose research has made a significant contribution to the knowledge of the central nervous mechanisms of motor control. I also want to remember especially his human qualities, demonstrated in the constant respect and care with which he always treated animals necessary for his studies.

In expressing my personal solidarity with Prof. Caminiti, I ask for the support of all members of the faculty in defense of the scientific research conducted at the Laboratory of Behavioral Neurophysiology of our university.

Vincenzo Vullo”

The email also included a letter addressed to all staff and students from Prof. Caminiti:

Dear Colleagues, dear Students,
On December 18 2014 the TV show “Striscia la Notizia”, using images illegally shot in our animal facilities, broadcast a report with the aim of stirring in the public opinion a campaign condemning the scientific activity of the Neurophysiology of Behaviour Laboratory, in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology of our Atenaeum, where other professors and I carry out our scientific activity, which started in the year1985.
To reply to the accusation of animal cruelty, as an act of absolute transparency of research towards the public, I posted online a reasoned reply, in which it is showed and commented on everything that is performed in our laboratories, thanks to several projects financed by MIUR (Italian Government research funder- Speaking of Research) and the EU, and according to experimental protocols regularly authorized by the Ministry of Health.
On January 23 2015, once again “Striscia la Notizia” returned to the topic, using the images we put online, to claim, with the help of a “flora and fauna” specialist (!) that our studies were useless and cruel, where it is unanimously recognized in the scientific community that our research, together with other work carried out in a select group of international laboratories, lead to the development of brain-computer interface in humans and to the cerebral control of artificial prostetics in patients with paralysis due to neurodegenerative or neurovascular diseases, just like similar researches lead to the development of deep brain stimulation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Exploiting the footage broadcasted by “Striscia la Notizia”, the European Animal rights Party (PAE) launched a national demonstration, set to take place on February 5 2015, in front of our Department, with the declared will to “free” the animals that we are working with, and together with the Antivivisection League (LAV) stated that they have submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office in Rome, to open an investigation aimed to the confiscation of the animals, and to open a criminal case against me for animal cruelty.
I call on you, confident that you believe in a country guided by reason, commitment and study, and not driven by obscurantism, just like the “Stamina” case, that you all well know (for more on the Stamina scandal see this recent report -Speaking of Research) . And I ask yo to defend, with the appropriate instruments, the scientific activity and the dignity of a Department of our Atenaeum.
On the morning of February 5, wearing a white lab coat and flower in the buttonhole, I will be in front of my Department to defend and reaffirm that ideal that drove us all to become MDs and researchers.
With best regards,
Roberto Caminiti

We congratulate both faculty and students at Sapienza University of Rome for taking this action in support of science, and wish them, Pro-Test Italia, and all friends of medical progress every success as they stand together in this noble cause.

Speaking of Research

Italian court finds beagle breeders guilty in politically motivated trial

Today, three members of management at Green Hill beagle breeding facility were found guilty of animal mistreatment and each sentenced to a 12-18 month prison sentence. This sentence is a farce, as we will explain. But first, let us return to the beginning.

In 2011, animal rights activists began a high profile campaign against the Green Hill beagle breeding facility in Italy. The facility, owned by Marshall Bioresources, was accused of mistreatment of the beagles . The campaign received enormous help from an Italian TV programme, Striscia la Notizia, that worked to turn public opinion against the breeding facility. In the course of the TV and newspaper reports many lies were told, for example that animal research was undertaken inside the breeding facility, that beagles were sold for cosmetic testing in France, and that dogs were debarked, even if the videos taken by the activists themselves showed dogs barking as normal (such debarking is not permitted in Italy), testing cosmetics on animals was banned at the time and the facility was neither licensed nor equipped to carry out research. Those of you who read Italian can find a summary of the top 10 lies about Green Hill that never made it to court.

Some local and national politicians, spotting a populist cause, joined the campaign. The campaign made headline news when, in April 2012, activists broke into the facility and stole dozens of beagles as the police watched on idly.

Beagles were "liberated" from Green Hill in Italy in full view of police

Beagles were “liberated” from Green Hill in Italy in full view of police

On 18th July 2012, public and political pressure led an Italian court to issue a temporary closure order so that allegations by the Anti-Vivisection League (LAV) and Legambiente could be further investigated. The court also gave the animal rights group responsibility for the 2,500 beagles at Green Hill. Of around 70 inspections that the Italian authorities have made of the facility over the three years prior to the seizure, only one reported any mistreatment; this inspection was requested by the assistant prosecutor and carried out by a veterinarian who had been on the protests against Green Hill (so not biased at all then!).

For example, in January 2012 three experts from the prestigious veterinary institute” l’Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna” conducted a surprise visit during which they thoroughly inspected the documents, facilities and dogs. Their report concluded that there were no problems with the way in which Green Hill was run:

“From surveys carried out and documentation examined there emerge no situations of abuse or situations where there is a risk of mistreatment of animals”

During the recent trial, the four defendants (one was acquitted), were accused of mistreatment because they “forced the animals under unbearable conditions for their characteristics”. The prosecutors alleged that cages contained too many dogs – using data of the number of animals in the facility – yet the regulations are based not on the number of dogs per cage, but the combined weight of those dogs (i.e. three small dogs could not go into the same space as three larger ones). Similarly confused data was used for many other aspects of the trial. Allegations regarding night-day cycle inside the breeding facility, the nutrition of the animals, and the number of pregnancies were used to suggest mistreatment, but the defence demonstrated that these claims were unfounded and that the treatment of the animals was in accordance with the regulations.

The prosecution also accused the facility of high mortality rates of the dogs, though they failed to note that these were comparable with other breeding facilities. The prosecution claimed that 6,000 dogs were killed in a 5 year period before the facility was seized, without saying that to this number included deaths occured at or ssoon after birth and the deaths caused by infectious disease such as parvovirus infections (for example, the parvovirus is a particularly dangerous common disease that affects dogs and there were outbreaks of a new strain that had to be controlled). The average mortality of 1.2 puppies every 6 puppies, is normal when compared to other breeding facilities.

In particular it was alleged by the prosecution that about 54 dogs were killed without reasonable explanations, basing this statement not on the autopsies of the dogs but on the technical data collected by Green Hill in the so-called “dog” sheet, that contains most important data about a dog. However, when a dog has to receive medical treatment this was noted on another sheet called “treatment” sheet that contains more and deeper details about the medical situation of the animal and the clinical development. These treatment sheets were ignored by the prosecuting magistrate. It must be noted that the role of the prosecuting magistrate (PM) in the Italian legal system is quite different to that of the prosecutor in the US or British legal systems; in Italy the PM has not only the duty of presenting the prosecution case, but also that of ensuring that justice is done. The PM is prohibited from withholding evidence that might clear the accused, and must request the judge to acquit them if, during the trial, they become convinced of a defendant’s innocence, or agree that there is no evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, of their guilt. That  this doesn’t appear to have happened here casts serious doubt on the verdict.

Nonetheless, despite the lack of evidence, the judge found three of the management guilty and sentenced them to 12 to 18 months each. It will take a further 60 days before the motivations behind the sentences are provided by the presiding judge. It should be noted that this decision is the opinion of one judge, whereas the Appellate Court where the appeal will be held consists of three judges who must agree on the verdict, which is why the appellate court often overturns the first court decision.

The judge delivers his verdict (Image from TGCOM24)

The judge delivers his verdict (Image from TGCOM24)

This trial is part of a wider political movement against animal research which has seen extensive limits placed on animal studies. As Science reports:

“The Italian law goes far beyond the restrictions imposed by the directive, already seen by many researchers as quite restrictive. Among other things, the law bans breeding dogs, cats, and nonhuman primates for research purposes, or using them for any other purpose than health research; studies without pain killers or anesthesia, if the animal may experience pain (unless these are themselves the subject of the study); and using animals in studies of addiction, xenotransplantation, and for training purposes (except in higher education for veterinarians and physicians).”

The new laws force research institutions to import all dogs from abroad, increasing the cost of the research and damaging animal welfare by forcing the animals onto long flights. Surely Italian activists would prefer to have the animals bred inside their own country where their own inspectors can monitor animal welfare conditions?

This is not the first time science has been in the docks in Italy. In 2012, six seismologists were sentenced to six years for failing to predict the L’Aquila earthquake in another farcical legal trial. Thankfully they were cleared of these charges in November 2014 after an appeal (at the Appellate court). Appeals are very much a standard part of an Italian trial, and it is almost certain that the Marshall case will be put in front of a judge again. It will be important for animal research advocates to make the case for research clearly in the meantime, as public opinion has appeared to play a large part in the legal outcomes of this trial. Scientists and breeders clearly have a lot to do if they are to prevent a looming disaster for biomedical research in Italy

Marco Delli Zotti
Speaking of Research and Pro-Test Italia

The BUAV is misinforming UK policy makers

If you are a PPC who has arrived on this page via a link sent by a colleague or voter, it is because they wish you to have the facts on animal research before making any decisions on the BUAV’s 6 PPC pledges.

Introduction

The BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) has been contacting Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) in the UK’s upcoming 2015 General Election, urging them to back their six pledges against animal research. They are also urging their supporters to send similar emails and tweets to their local PPCs.

The information provided in their email contains many examples of misinformation regarding animal research. We urge our readers (especially any PPCs) to share it with their colleagues and PPCs to ensure future UK parliamentarians make their decisions based on solid scientific evidence and not the misinformation of an antivivisection activist group. UK residents should make sure their candidates are kept informed – you can use the BUAV’s candidate finder search bar to find contact details for your local PPCs (remember to delete the BUAV’s preset email or tweet). You can find a suggested letter to your local candidates encouraging them to read this post at the bottom of the page (or click here).

Speaking of Research has criticized the BUAV before for dishonesty in their claims:

The BUAV Email

Click on any of the claims in the BUAV email below to be taken to the section of this post debunking it.

Dear <Candidate>

I am writing to announce the launch of our Vote Cruelty Free website, a new platform publicising the views of candidates, to encourage compassionate people across the UK to use their vote for animals in laboratories in the 2015 General Election.

Did you know that over 4 million animals are used for experiments in the UK each year?

The 2010 Coalition Agreement included a pledge to work to reduce the number of animals used in ‘scientific procedures’, but since then the number of animals licenced to suffer in experiments has increased by more than 11%.

Yet according to a 2014 Government survey, only 37% of people agree that it is acceptable to use animals for research.  And 95% of new drugs tested on animals fail in human trials.

The BUAV and Cruelty Free International, which work to end animal experiments, have set out six simple steps to reduce animal experiments in the next Parliament:

  1. Ban experiments on cats and dogs
  2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments
  3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories
  4. End non-medical experiments
  5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review
  6. Stop suffering in the most extreme experiments

Please can you let us know which of the above steps you support? Please send your response to [us] by 5th January. Candidates’ views are being publicised on the Vote Cruelty Free website, which we will be promoting from January, so that compassionate people in your constituency can use their votes for animals in May.

The BUAV Claims: DEBUNKED

“Did you know that over 4 million animals are used for experiments in the UK each year?”

It is true that over 4 million animals were used in 2013 (4.12 million procedures on 4.02 million animals), but let us add some context. The numbers have been generally rising from around 2.5 million in 2000, however, it is far below the historical high of 5.5 million in in the mid-1970s. Furthermore, to put the numbers into context of other animal use, we eat around 900 million chickens per year, and an estimated 220 million animals are killed by pet cats per year.

Animal testing Perspective in ResearchRead more about the numbers of animals used in the UK.

“The 2010 Coalition Agreement included a pledge to work to reduce the number of animals used in ‘scientific procedures’, but since then the number of animals licenced [sic] to suffer in experiments has increased by more than 11%.”

We have written about the BUAV’s misguided criticism of the “Broken Promises” on reduction before. Ultimately the problem comes from the word “reduce”. While many people understand “reduce” to mean using less animals overall, reduction (one of the 3Rs) is about using fewer animals in any given experiment to achieve the same standard of results.

Realising this confusion on “reduction”, the Government clarified its position in 2014, in a paper called “Working to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”. It said:
[In] 2010, the Government made a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. This commitment is not focused on baseline numbers which are influenced by a range of extraneous factors. Instead, it encompasses replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) more broadly, putting them at the heart of a science-led approach.

The reality is that animal research numbers are based on many factors including current research techniques (so while the growth of GM mice research increased animal numbers, the CRISPR GM technique could help reduce it.), funding for animal research, research environments in other countries etc.

Yet according to a 2014 Government survey, only 37% of people agree that it is acceptable to use animals for research”

The BUAV has shown incredible bias in its reporting of the 2014 Government survey. Here is the first paragraph of the key findings, which include the 37% statistic:

“Overall the public (British adults aged 15+) is supportive of the use of animals in scientific research (68% agree it is acceptable ‘so long as it is for medical research purposes and there is no alternative’), but there is also widespread agreement (76%) that more work should be done to find alternatives to using animals in such research. Fewer than four in ten (37%) endorse the use of animals for all types of research – even where there is no alternative. Ensuring animal welfare is an important proviso; almost seven in ten (69%) can accept such research ‘as long as there is no unnecessary suffering to the animals and there is no alternative’.”

To take quotes from the survey (remember that legally animal research can only be done where there is no viable alternative).

  • “68% agree that they can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as it is for medical research purposes and there is no alternative, with 17% who disagree”
  • “69% agree that they can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as there is no unnecessary suffering to animals and there is no alternative, with 14% who disagree”

The survey found 37% believed “It is acceptable to use animals for all types of research where there is no alternative“. The reality is that most of us can think of some type of research we would disagree with (perhaps cosmetic testing, which has been banned across the EU) even if there were no alternative, so it is no surprise that only 37% agreed (and 41% disagreed) to all types of animal research. However the polls clearly show a majority of people do agree with animal research for medical or scientific purposes.

“And 95% of new drugs tested on animals fail in human trials.”

The BUAV seems to have caught up very late on this statistic. It was publicised by Speaking of Research in January 2013 in a guest post from Professor Robin Lovell-Badge. Unfortunately, they seem not to have read Prof Lovell-Badge’s post, which explains how this type of statistic has been misused exactly as the BUAV has done:

Reading Lovell-Badge’s original post is the best way to get your head around the statistic (which should be 94% unless you count registration of a drug as a human trial), but the basics of note are:

  • All the drugs which pass animal tests and fail at some point in human trials, have all passed pre-clinical tests using non-animal methods (e.g. in vitro, computer screening etc). In that context, if we were to use the same form of words, it would be much more than 95% of new drugs tested using non-animal methods which failing in human trials.
  • Of all the drugs which pass Phase 1 clinical trials in humans, 86% will fail in later stage human trials. Yet, we do not hear activists suggesting that humans are an entirely inappropriate model for drug development” – Prof Lovell-Badge
  • In over 30 years there has not been a single death in a Phase 1 clinical trial in the UK … animal testing has been exceptionally effective at keeping dangerous drugs away from people.” – Prof Lovell-Badge

The BUAV’s Six Pledges: DEBUNKED

So we move onto the BUAV’s six pledges that they wish PPCs to defend:

“1. Ban experiments on cats and dogs”

Firstly, it should be noted that cats and dogs, together account for just 0.12% of all animal experiments in the UK (mice, rats, fish and birds together account for 97% of all procedures). Both species (and monkeys and horses) have special protections to ensure that they are only used where no other species would be viable.

The reality is that banning experiments on cats and dogs would end the development of veterinary medicine for those species. Examples of research that might have been lost by such a ban include the use of dogs use to study spinal injuries, which has allowed both pet dogs, and people, to walk again thanks to a nasal cell transplant

The use of cats and dogs in research has fallen dramatically in the UK in the last two decades, nonetheless, an arbitrary ban would be bad for science and medicine

“2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments”

The BUAV has been focusing on this issue for a while despite the fact that nearly everyone – including industry and government – want to reform the Section 24 “secrecy” clause. The Government is well on its way to finalising these reforms. Read this article from Chris Magee, Understanding Animal Research Head of Media and Policy, explaining Section 24 reforms.

“3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories”

Most primates used in research in the UK are imported from abroad. All these animals are F1 or beyond, meaning both they were bred in captivity – there are no wild primates in UK labs (most UK primates are F2 or beyond meaning both they, and their parents, were captive-bred).

Primate breeding centres tend to be in hotter countries with large outdoor corrals which allow large amounts of monkeys to play together – this is good for animal welfare. UK climate is not conducive to this.

Primates account for less than 0.08% of all animal experiments in the UK, they have special protections to ensure they are only used where no other species would be viable.

Nonetheless, primates are essential to work in understanding neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Deep Brain Stimulation – a treatment to stop tremors of Parkinson’s patients – was developed through the use of monkeys in research.

“4. End non-medical experiments”

The statistics which the Government publishes each year tries to distinguish different areas of research including “Fundamental biological research” (28%), “Applied Studies – human medicine or dentistry” (13%), “Applied studies – veterinary medicine” (4%) and “Breeding of GM or HM animals” (51%). This BUAV pledge wants to limit research to the “Applied Studies – Human Medicine or Dentistry” (insinuating this is the only research important for human health). The reality is that without the fundamental research (often called “basic research”), and the breeding of GM animals, the Applied research could not happen.

This is not to mention that the BUAV seems happy to ban veterinary research – which is important for animal welfare.

“5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review”

GM animals offer a way of “humanising” animals, increasingly their physiological similarity to humans. We can give an immunocompromised mouse a human cancer and then work out the best combination of treatments to destroy the cancer, we can splice in GFP gene (fluorescence gene from jellyfish) to allow us to measure cell death, and GM animals have many other uses. Watch this little video from Understanding Animal Research for more information on the importance of GM animals.

“6. Stop suffering in most extreme experiments”

When researchers apply for a licence to conduct animal experiments they have to estimate the level of suffering of the animal (from next year they will have to record actual suffering and submit this information back to the Home Office). This can be Mild, Moderate, Severe or Unclassified (where the animal is never woken from anaesthesia). In 2012, 2% of licences were “Severe”, though this does not necessarily mean 2% of experiments are severe. See more on licences here.

The Government states on its website that: “We have legislated so experimentation is only permitted when there is no alternative research technique and the expected benefits outweigh any possible adverse effects.” Essentially, if any severe licence will be approved, it is on the basis that this higher level of suffering is justified by the potential benefits to human and animal health.

Overall what we see is more misinformation from the BUAV. We urge parliamentary candidates from all parties to reject the BUAV’s approaches, and stand up for the important role of animals in research.

If you wish to discuss these points further, please contact us by email or phone.

Addendum

Here is a template email you can send to your local candidates, though we encourage you to personalise it as much as possible:

Dear <Candidate Name>,

I am aware that many PPCs have received emails from the Vote Cruelty Free campaign (run by the BUAV) asking candidates to support their six pledges on animal research. I am concerned that some of the information sent in these emails may not be entirely accurate.

Before making any pledges I encourage you to read an article by Speaking of Research, who have taken the time to address the claims made in the Vote Cruelty Free email. This post can be found here: http://speakingofresearch.com/2014/12/23/the-buav-is-misinforming-uk-policy-makers/

Speaking of Research also provide a general briefing on animal research in the UK which covers the key issues in a factual and scientific manner. https://speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/background-briefing-on-animal-research-in-the-uk.pdf

Yours sincerely,

<Your name>

Beagle Freedom Project Uses Former Research Dogs to Spotlight its Anti-Research Campaign

Today’s guest post  is by Dr. Cindy Buckmaster, chair of Americans for Medical Progress.

Activists at the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP) continue to gather support for their agenda to end animal-based research – and some in the research community are unknowingly helping them.

Many of you have seen recent TV news items or read news articles that feature beagles said to have been saved from laboratories where they never had a toy, played with other dogs, or experienced kindness and love from people in research settings. The Beagle Freedom Project uses the limitations of the news media to create this one-sided and false impression of the lives of research dogs.

Individuals at research institutions interested in rehoming post-study animals are approached by adopters representing themselves as private citizens, eager to adopt dogs retired from research. These applicants don’t indicate that they are working with the Beagle Freedom Project. We know of several institutions that have fallen prey to this misrepresentation by the BFP: within days of adoption, their freely released animals are listed as ‘rescued’ by BFP, along with the activists’ usual anti-research propaganda.

As Chair of the Board of Directors of Americans for Medical Progress, as well as an animal lover and someone who directs an animal care program for a major research center in the US, I would like to tell you the real story.

dog, animal testing, animal experiment

Beagle in research

These dogs are NOT ‘rescued’ from research facilities. They’re voluntarily released by the lab animal caregivers who love and cherish them. Research institutions have been rehoming dogs for years, over forty in some cases, without ‘help’ from the Beagle Freedom Project.  That’s how BFP acquired these dogs to begin with: they adopted them from research animal caregivers who were fooled into believing that the adopters’ only intention was to provide research dogs with a good home. The truth is that these dogs were adopted for use as props to support an animal rights agenda that is harmful to public health and safety.

Readers should be aware that BFP is led by animal rights activists, including Kevin Chase (formerly Kevin Kjonaas) who was convicted and served several years in prison for violating the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Kevin Kjonaas is the Director of Operations of BFP. The Founder and President of BFP is Shannon Keith. Ms. Keith was one of Kevin’s defense attorneys during his domestic terrorism trial. She also produced and directed “Behind the Mask”, a film released in 2006 that glorifies the Animal Liberation Front, a group known for illegal animal rights activity.

The bottom line is this: BFP personnel and associates misrepresent their intentions to the research institutions they target and then deceive the public about the condition and treatment of dogs in research. Why? To demonize the scientific quest for cures that you and I demand.

The welfare and well-being of research animals and our animal care programs are inspected and evaluated by local and federal authorities multiple times per year. Moreover, most of us VOLUNTEER for an intense accreditation review by international experts every three years to ensure that we are providing our animals with the best quality of life possible. A review of the photos and video BFP itself offers of recently released dogs reveals the truth behind BPF’s deception. The dogs’ body condition and coats are gorgeous because they receive top notch nutrition and veterinary care while they are with us. They’re friendly because they have enjoyed socialization and playtime with other dogs and with our caretakers who adore them. The public fails to see this with their own eyes because they have been brainwashed by animal rights extremists for decades…and they seem to prefer drama over the truth.

Tell me something: Why would people who allegedly care so little about these dogs, as BPF claims, offer them for adoption? It’s not a trivial process. Records of animal health and release have to be generated, and adopters have to be located and screened. If our institutions really wanted to hide their ‘dirty little research secrets’, why wouldn’t they just euthanize all of these dogs, rather than risk ‘exposure’ by offering them to the public, as has been suggested by BFP?

Our dogs are offered for adoption because we love them and are grateful for their contributions to human and animal well-being. We want these heroes to live long, healthy, fun lives with loving adopters who have the patience and information needed to help them adjust to their new families. What is heartbreaking is that some of our institutions have closed their adoption programs because they were either exploited directly by BFP, or they don’t know who to trust anymore.

When are you and I going to hold the Beagle Freedom Project accountable for caring more about its agenda than our precious heroes?!

We all love these dogs and we all wish that they weren’t still necessary for the development of treatments and cures for conditions like cancer, Hepatitis C and Ebola. For now, they are still needed. Until we find a better way – and we are working on it – this research will continue to improve the lives of our friends, families and pets. The public is grossly misinformed about the care of animals in biomedical research and thus, unwittingly, people are supporting agendas that will harm them and their loved ones. Our faith is with our fellow citizens – but they must hear both sides of this issue, presented fairly. The media has an especially critical role in getting this right and they have, in most cases, fallen short of the mark. I am hopeful that they will do better by our citizens in the future.

Cindy Buckmaster, PhD, CMAR, RLATG; Chair, Americans for Medical Progress

See also:

http://speakingofresearch.com/2013/11/26/jerry-the-beagle-and-the-liberation-that-wasnt/

University of Wisconsin responds to dishonest petition attacking psychiatric research

What do you do if your university is the target of an aggressive publicity campaign that distorts and misrepresents the work of one of your most highly respected scientists? What do you do if hundreds of thousands of people sign a petition calling for a research project to be cancelled, even though the petition contains numerous errors of fact? What do you do if a media campaign, backed by several of the world’s largest animal rights groups threatens to undermine academic freedom and the research evaluation process at your University?

Do you ignore it? Do you give in? What do you do?

Infant rhesus monkeys playing in nursery. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. @2014 University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

Infant rhesus monkeys playing in nursery. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. @2014 University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

These are questions that the University of Wisconsin -Madison has faced in recent weeks as a change.org petition that seeks to end a research project led by Professor Ned Kalin, chair of the University’s Department of Psychiatry. The petition, backed by many animal rights groups across the world, including PeTA and HSUS, has gathered more than 300,000 signatures

So did UW-Madison give in? Did they simply ignore the petition?

No, they did something much better.

UW-Madison issued the response below rejecting the erroneous claims made by the author of the petition, Dr Ruth Decker, and defending Professor Kalin’s right to undertake important research. Just as importantly they defend the right of the scientific and medical experts at UW-Madison and the NIH – and not the misinformed mob – to decide which projects should be approved and funded.

We commend UW-Madison on taking this strong position in support of science.

Responding to Ruth Decker’s change.org petition

Since September, many people have taken interest in a University of Wisconsin–Madison study on the impact of early life stress on young rhesus monkeys. Thousands have added their names to a petition on the website change.org, calling for an end to the work, and we appreciate and share their concern for animals.

But we don’t appreciate the way petition’s author, Dr. Ruth Decker, misrepresents the research. By piling up mistakes, myths and exaggerations, and omitting important information, she asks well-meaning people to speak out with little understanding of the real science and the long, deliberative process through which it was approved.

This isn’t fair to the people who signed the petition, or to UW–Madison psychiatry professor Ned Kalin and the scientists involved in the work, or to the millions of people who suffer from mental illness for whom available treatment methods offer little relief.

The truth is of little concern to activists who wish to end animal research, no matter the benefit to humans and animals. We don’t share that sentiment. We prefer people make their judgments on animal research with a fuller understanding of the research — of both its costs and potential benefits.

So, if you have read the change.org petition, please also consider these corrections and additional information:

  • This is not a repeat of experiments UW–Madison psychology professor Harry Harlow conducted as many as five decades ago, some of which subjected animals to extreme stress and isolation. The methods for the modern work were selected specifically because they can reliably create mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety in the monkeys. They were chosen to minimize discomfort for the animals, and to minimize the number of animals required to provide researchers with answers to their questions.
  • There is no “solitary confinement.” The animals live in cages with other monkeys of their own age, a method of care called peer rearing. This method is often used when mothers reject their infant monkeys, which happens regularly in situations from nature to zoos to clinical nurseries with first-time mothers or following caesarean-section births. In a group setting, even veterinarians would have difficulty distinguishing the peer-reared animals from those that that were maternally reared.

The purpose of peer rearing is not to demonstrate that removing a monkey from its mother causes anxiety, a common misconception we have heard from people who have signed the petition.

Again: peer rearing was chosen because it is known to produce mild to moderate anxiety symptoms. With a group of animals predisposed to anxiety raised in a controlled setting, researchers can use state-of-the-art techniques to observe and measure even very subtle differences in brain chemistry and structure. Those chemical and anatomical differences may suggest new treatments — via nutrition, exercise, meditation, drugs or another approach — for people suffering from mental illness.

  • The animals in the study are not “terrorized,” and do not experience “relentless torture.” Most of their time is spent as a house pet would spend its days — grooming, sleeping, eating and playing with toys, puzzles and other animals.

On occasion, to assess the monkeys’ level of anxious temperament, they are observed under two anxiety-provoking conditions. The first involves the presence of an unknown person who briefly enters the room, but does not make eye contact with the monkey. The second involves the monkey being able to see a snake, which is enclosed in a covered Plexiglas container in the same room, but outside the monkey’s cage.

After each event, the animal’s brain activity is monitored by a non-invasive functional magnetic resonance scan, and blood samples are taken. The stress the monkeys experience is comparable to what an anxious human might feel when encountering a stranger or a snake or a nurse with a needle.

  • No one was “left out” of the review by UW–Madison oversight committees. Several university committees spent a great deal of time assessing Dr. Kalin’s anxiety research, and each committee found it to be acceptable and ethical. These were groups of researchers, veterinarians and public representatives tasked with considering animal research on ethical grounds, and with ensuring potentially beneficial research will subject the fewest animals to the least invasive measures.

As the petition notes, an animal rights group took allegations about the committee process to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. What the petition does not mention is that USDA conducted an investigation in August in response to that complaint. Inspectors found the complaint lacking merit, and the process to be entirely within compliance with federal regulations.

And, as with all animal research on campus, specially trained veterinarians will care for the monkeys involved and ensure that all the work is done in accordance with federal regulations enforced by the National Institutes of Health and the USDA.

The decision to study animal models to understand human psychiatric disorders is not made lightly. Roughly a quarter of the people in the United States, including children, suffer from mental illness. Their conditions subject them to immeasurable disability and dysfunction. And the worst outcome, suicide, is increasing and already among the leading causes of death in adolescents. To develop effective treatments that may alleviate the suffering of millions, it is necessary to understand the root cause of psychiatric illnesses.

In this case, the human suffering is so great that Kalin, the National Institutes of Health and UW–Madison’s review committees believe the potential benefit of the knowledge gained from this research justifies the use of an animal model.

More information on the anxiety and depression research is available at animalresearch.wisc.edu.

Related posts:

Child health benefits from studies of infant monkeys – Part 1

Harlow Dead, Bioethicists Outraged

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.

BUAV – Spies, Lies and Inspection Reports

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has campaigned against the use of animals in research since 1898. If they had got their way when they started we would likely not have insulin (dogs), blood transfusions (guinea pigs and dogs), penicillin (mice) or asthma inhalers (guinea pigs), among a very long list.

The BUAV has conducted a number of high profile infiltrations into British animal research facilities in the last few years. At least one of these, Imperial College London, triggered investigations by the Home Office’s Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). Despite hundreds of allegations of mistreatment, the inspection reports have now been published and clears the institution of nearly all of the BUAV’s allegations, save five minor infringements (Category A or B), none of which involved “significant avoidable or unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm” (which would make them Category C or D infringements; more information on these classifications can be found on pages 35-36 of the ASRU annual report).

In a previous post, BUAV – Spies, Lies and Videotapes, we looked at the BUAV’s infiltrations of Cambridge University and MSD and explained that neither showed any “unnecessary suffering” of animals. While an ASRU report is not yet available for the Cambridge infiltration (though the video produced to the BUAV fails to corroborate any of their claims, which have also been comprehensively refuted by the University), the ASRU report for Imperial College London (a third infiltration) shows how baseless the BUAV’s allegations really are.

Sheep at Cambridge

Just one of the “shocking” pictures by the BUAV of research at Cambridge.

Imperial College London Infiltration by the BUAV

In April 2013, The Sunday Times covered a BUAV infiltration at Imperial College London (Ranked 2nd in QS World University Ranking 2014). They claimed “staff breached welfare standards by mistreating laboratory animals”, that “[Their] investigation [had] shown the terrible suffering of animals in a supposedly leading UK university”, and that the “reality is … that standards are often poor with numerous breaches of the law“.

The University instantly ordered its own investigation to run concurrently with a Home Office investigation. The Brown Report did not aim to investigate the BUAV allegations (which was the Home Office’s remit), but to “undertake broad and detailed examination of all aspects of animal experimentation at the College facilities,” aimed at improving best practice at the University. The University accepted all 33 recommendations made by the report. In a recent release, Imperial announced:

The College has taken action to improve its culture of care. It has revised its governance structure, improved its ethical review process, strengthened support for operational management and put in place better systems for training and sharing good practice through stronger communications.

Meanwhile, the BUAV had provided ASRU with a 71 page document and accompanying video footage containing over 180 allegations against Imperial relating to the use of animals under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA). The allegations included (p12) “very large scale appalling animal suffering; unlawful regulations by the Home Office; inadequate care of animals by establishment staff; [and] inadequate enforcement by the Inspectorate“. The ASRU report was damning in its conclusions:

Over 180 individual allegations, made by the animal rights organisation, of non-compliance were investigated. Of these, all were found to be unsubstantiated apart from five formal non-compliance cases which have been completed – one category A and four Category B.

Category B means that while there may have been “some animal welfare implications“, it “[did] not involve significant, avoidable or unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm“, there was “no evidence of intent to subvert the controls of ASPA“. Typically a category B non-compliance results in a written reprimand and individuals involved may require additional training.

Furthermore, over 97% of the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated upon investigation by ASRU. The BUAV will have to console itself with being less than 3% honest. However, the BUAV appear to be encouraging unethical behaviour in its infiltrations. The Report noted:

No concerns about animal welfare were recorded as raised by the investigator with the agency.
Similarly, the investigator from the animal rights organisation did not raise concerns through the recognised whistle blowing policy in place at the Establishment

Essentially, the infiltrator saw what she believed was animal cruelty and then refused to mention it when asked by her agency and neglected to mention it to anyone else. Her inaction could have caused animal suffering. Why did she refuse to mention it? Presumably because the BUAV, who she was working for, did not want her to.

The ASRU report found “animal care staff knowledgeable and vigilant”

A similar issue was noted at Cambridge University in their response to the BUAV’s infiltration of their sheep research facility (into Batten’s disease):

The University has robust mechanisms in place for whistleblowing; however, no animal welfare concerns had been raised by any staff during the times noted in the reports,

And the unethical behaviour appeared to go a step further. Cambridge’s response mentioned a section of the BUAV video where a lone sheep appears agitated:

We are careful to avoid causing stress to the Batten’s disease sheep. As their disease develops, they become confused and can become agitated, particularly when approached by unfamiliar people or surroundings. Thus the animal care team is careful not to isolate any sheep from its flock-mates, allow interaction with strangers, or make sudden or unnecessary changes to their routines. It appears that the BUAV infiltrator not only disrupted their routines in the making of the undercover videos, but also isolated the animals. This will have made the sheep appear more agitated than they are when under routine care.

Given the BUAV’s goals of ending all animal research, perhaps we should not be surprised at their tactics – indeed their levels of donations are heavily influenced by how much press coverage they get; itself determined by the shock-factor of the story.

ASRU Strike Again

A second ASRU report also came out, investigating a BUAV infiltration at a pharmaceutical company. The allegations by the BUAV were based on “material and video material covertly gathered by an investigator working as a junior animal technician”.

The Report of the ASRU Investigation into compliance found that:

No non-compliance with authorised programmes of work was detected apart from two minor issues with no welfare implications.

The two minor issues (both Category A infringements; least concern) were both described as “technical non-compliance” and were essentially paperwork issues.

When considering the allegations levelled at the pharmaceutical by the BUAV, the report is even clearer:

Our detailed investigations and review of available records and other evidence, does not support the allegations in the investigation report.
Our findings confirm that the site is well managed with staff at all levels committed to the provision of appropriate standards of welfare and care, within the constraints of the scientific requirements of the research.

The BUAV

Of the £1.3 million that BUAV spent in 2013 (and almost £2 million in 2012), around £200,000 was spent on “Investigations”. Any curious journalist should be asking the BUAV whether they were paying these infiltrators, how much these payments were, and what they expected (video wise) from their employees.

Infiltration BudgetTo remind people of what we have said before. These are not casual whistle blowers, but people who are working at animal research facilities with the express intention of creating horrifying videotapes. There are few endeavours in the world that you could not create a shocking videotape about by filming staff and premises for hundreds of hours and cleverly editing it down to a 5 minute video.

One has to wonder how many BUAV infiltrators are in labs around the UK. Moreover, one wonders, how many BUAV infiltration videos were never publicised due to the lack of shocking footage (even after clever editing)? Be it a school, a hospital, a factory or a restaurant, there are few businesses for which you could not create a cleverly edited 5 minute shock video having secretly filmed for hundreds of hours. So we challenge the BUAV:

To the BUAV we ask you for the openness and transparency you accuse the research community of lacking. Show us the rest of the footage. Show us the hours and hours of footage that never made it onto your final mix tapes.

Will we find hours of shocking footage? Or will we find hours and hours of individuals working hard, caring for animals, and conducting research in a manner which provided high standards of animal welfare. It’s for you to prove.

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.

Insidious tactics of animal rights groups in Portugal

Since 2000 there has been a rise in the opposition to animal research across much of Europe. The tactics of animal rights groups in Europe have been very similar to those in the US, including rallies, hate campaigns, vandalism and targeted-violence. These activists have targeted both companies (such as Novartis, in Spain, Switzerland and Italy) and universities (Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, UK) and they have even targeted individuals (such as Andreas Kreiter, in Germany, who was targeted with newspaper ads). There are exceptions to this increased opposition, for example the UK, where scientists are better organized to counter animal rights claims, support for animal research remains high, and in Italy, where support for animal research has increased recently as the scientific community there has started to speak out.

Though quite predominant in the northern Europe, this movement has been mostly absent from southern countries, with the notable exception of Italy, and almost non-existent in Portugal. However, in recent years, there has been increasing interest on this matter amongst the general public, as well as the appearance of new AR movements that are against all forms of animal experimentation. Moreover, more and more groups and individuals are bringing up the discussions about animal rights.

Groups such as Liga dos Direitos dos Animais (Animal Rights League), Associação Animal (Animal Association), União Zoófila (Zoophile Union), among others, were founded by the late 80’s, early 90’s, but are increasingly active. It must be said, however, that most of these groups are non-profit public utility associations, mostly involved with the protection of domestic and wild animals, bringing together volunteers working at municipal kennels, catteries or programs for the conservation of endangered species. They try to promote awareness to issues pertaining animal rights and they also help to raise money for important Conservation Programs (such as the Grupo Lobo that focuses on the conservation of the endangered Iberian Wolf, or the Lynx Program, organized by the LPN). They do some important work in a country where bullfighting and pet abandonment are unfortunately still relevant issues. For some of these groups, however, this is not the case and, though their tactics remain relatively peaceful, their goals are closer to those of other international AR groups, such as PETA.

One of these, Associação Animal, is arguably the most active AR group in Portugal. Just like their international counterparts, it stands for the “ethical treatment of animals” and opposes animal experimentation, including for scientific research. Also similarly to what happens for other groups, their website is filled with the most basic arguments against animal research, and the most glaring lies.

In the section explaining their view on Animal Experimentation (no English version for the website), they start their article with a photo of a monkey and the sensationalist title “Animal Experimentation: Violence in the name of Science”; this, despite the fact that there is no animal experimentation on monkeys in Portugal. The article goes on explaining to the readers that “in the UK alone, almost 3 million animals are killed annually in laboratories. In Portugal, the use of animals in experimentation is currently an unregulated field”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to surveillance and there is a need for better record-keeping. Nevertheless, the very same laws applied in the rest of the EU pertaining animal experimentation, are also being applied in Portugal.

animal research statistics portugal

Most animal research, in Portugal, is done on rodents and fish. Animal experimentation follows EU guidelines and all projects involving animal research have to be evaluated by an Ethical Committee, before being approved. (Full statistics can be found here)

Another interesting “fact” that we can learn from their website is that “at least 65% of the [animal experimentation] procedures are done without anaesthesia” and that “in the remaining 35% of experiments regularly done, it’s certain that these imply the infliction of pain and suffering”. It is unclear where these statistics come from, nonetheless their use is misleading. Anaesthesia should only be used when its administration doesn’t cause more pain or distress to the animal than the procedure one needs to perform, without anaesthesia. So, in fact, this number may only show us that the majority of the procedures performed don’t require anaesthesia – they tell us nothing regarding their necessity. As for those “remaining 35%”, if they correspond to experiments done under anaesthesia, and if they are done properly, then their whole point is to alleviate any “pain and suffering” for the animal.

The next topic, “Animal Experimentation in Portugal”, seems, at last, to bring us some actual facts: “In Portugal, there is also animal experimentation, specifically in the National Lab for Veterinary Research, in the zootechnical stations of the Ministry for Agriculture, in the Faculties of Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Sciences, Pharmacy and Psychology, in some scientific research facilities and in some private labs”. But, alas, they end the topic showing a tremendous taste for misinformation, mentioning experimentation in cats and primates, which are not used for experimentation in Portugal at all (see graph above). All their other arguments are so commonly used and so basic that they are barely worthy of attention. But for information sake I’ll just leave a synopsis of their two big arguments against animal research: 1) animal testing leads to “dead-ends” that block scientific progress, and 2) while researchers are still resorting to animals as “cheap and easy to get and to use research resources”, there’s no true stimulus to find non-animal alternatives for research. I will not take my time rebuking these, for they have been extensively addressed by SR before (1 2, 3, 4, and our FAQ).

Associação Animal has been rapidly gaining momentum and their arguments are designed to convince people who have no other sources of information than the one they provide. As for demonstrations, they have been relying on the general anti-bullfighting movement, by organizing anti-bullfighting demonstrations, but then introducing “anti-vivisection” signs in the middle of the crowds.

Interestingly, both a review from 2012 and the 2010 Eurobarometer conclude that the majority of the Portuguese population is favourable to animal experimentation for Biomedical Research purposes, most of them regardless of the animal species used.

Interestingly, both a review from 2012 and the 2010 Eurobarometer conclude that the majority of the Portuguese population is favourable to animal experimentation for Biomedical Research purposes, most of them regardless of the animal species used.

Their increasing notoriety seems to coincide with the legal creation, in 2011, of PAN (Party for Animals and Nature), a Portuguese party that managed to gather 1.72% of all votes in the last European Elections (though voter turnout was only 33.67%), thanks to the most basic and sensationalist arguments.

Banners from PAN that can be found on their Facebook page. They all read “You are responsible for the torture, dismemberment and the slow and painful death of thousands of dogs, rats and monkeys every year. And you don’t even know it.”

Banners from PAN that can be found on their Facebook page. They all read “You are responsible for the torture, dismemberment and the slow and painful death of thousands of dogs, rats and monkeys every year. And you don’t even know it.”

Among other things, PAN has started a petition to “substitute animal experimentation for alternatives that – to paraphrase Animal Welfare Specialist Nuno Henrique Franco – makes me wonder how much of what it implies is the result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

All the ideals of PAN and Associação Animal are making their way into the media, their demonstrations having more and more supporters and their media attention increasing. Also, the impact of such groups in Portugal is becoming very clear, though their tactics seem very peaceful. Recently, the Bioterium of Azambuja (a central breeding centre for animal research purposes) was dropped by the Portuguese Government after pressure from the Plataforma de Objecção ao Biotério.

On the other side, on the scientists’ side – who should be the first to speak up – there seems to be only silence, either for lack of concern, for lack of organization, or for fear, I can’t say. What I know is that, if nothing is done, we very well may find us in a country where these kind of arguments, fallacious and false, might just be the only ones who actually reach people. And if people and politicians make their judgement (and vote accordingly) based solely on that information, we can’t condemn them in the end – only ourselves.

Inês S. Albuquerque, PhD student
Lisboa