Understanding the range of existing outreach activities, current venues for public access to information, and level of participation in these various activities is the foundation for an informed evaluation and reasonable discussion of progress in this area. Reviewing some of those efforts is the subject of this initial post.

Those who engage in scientific outreach and education efforts find that members of the community welcome opportunities to hear from us and to learn about other views of animal research. The great majority are interested in knowing more about why we believe animal research is essential, how we treat animals in our care, and how our studies may contribute to improvements in human and animal health.  There is no shortage of public interest in learning more about animal research.

What are the sources of information about animal research that are freely available to the public? Among them are:

• Websites of research institutions, scientists, scientific societies, government agencies, advocacy organizations, educational organizations, laboratory animal research associations, and medical charities.
• Scientific papers and books in which animal researchers write not only about their findings and methods, but also about the rationale for their studies and why the findings are important.
• Publicly-available databases listing federal grant funding for animal research projects
• Facility records and inspection reports available via the federal agency charged with oversight of animal research, the United States Department of Agriculture.

In addition to these, there are a large number of materials that are available to the public via federal Freedom of Information Act requests or open records requests at the state level.  In fact, it is via this well-known and often-used avenue that animal activists obtain a range of documents that can then be placed on their websites in order to share with the broad community.  Although there is variance across the states, it is also true that in some state universities, the meetings of the committee (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) that evaluates each proposal for an animal research project are also open to the public.

Beyond publicly-available information, there are also many efforts by individuals, institutions, and organizations to provide dynamic interactions and opportunities for dialogue. We’ve written previously about why public education and dialogue are important and about the many different paths to accomplish this goal.  Those include:

• Community and classroom programs
• Public discussion forums
• Televised debates
• Social media, including blogs
• Individual interactions

It is against this backdrop that the animal research community and research advocates reject the stock, broad criticism that there is little openness or engagement on this issue.  It is certainly the case that specific types of engagement, or specific forms of openness, that some animal rights activists desire are not supported, but that is a different complaint and discussion. Do all institutions exhibit adequate openness at all times? Probably not. But neither should sweeping complaints about researchers’ lack of engagement be accepted at face value.

There are a number of considerations that can influence differing perspectives on the need for, or the merit of, particular approaches to dialogue and information-sharing about animal research. Continuing to focus narrowly on specific requests, without acknowledging the many existing venues, efforts, and activities for exchange of information on animal research, works against the claim that activists are genuinely interested in dialogue. That narrow perspective also fails to consider that the goal of many of these efforts is to reach the larger audience and public that has broad interest in medical research in general, and is not just interested in the ethical debate over the use of animals in biomedical research.

On May 2nd 2012 the BiteBack extremist website reported that Riccó Alete, an Italian supplier of laboratory equipment, and SD Pellicceria, an Italian fur store, both had their websites defaced (apparently) by the notorious hacking group Anonymous.

Two days later, on May 4th 2012, Anonymous targeted  the website of Anlaids, an Italian non-profit organization which aims to tackle AIDS through information, research and funding.

However, this problem is not limited to Italy, or even Europe, on May 10th 2012 an American pet product company website was taken down by activists due to the activities of their sister-organization, Marshall BioResources, who supply equipment for laboratories.

Message left by hackers

Anonymous, for those who are unaware, is a loose collective of hackers from all over the world. Their effectiveness can be gauged from their high profile targets. They have (temporarily) crashed the websites of the Syrian Defence Ministry, the British Home Office, the US Department of Justice, Interpol and even the FBI.

Nonetheless, we should put this on perspective. As mentioned before, the number of anonymous members involved in the attacks on companies linked to animal research is very small – probably just one. The nature of anonymous is that anyone may carry out attacks in their name (it is a front group in this respect) and although they have a history of anti-establishment attacks, they do not have a history of targeting those linked with animal research.

Cheers

Tom

According to de Waal there are compelling ethical reasons to ban all invasive work on chimps, but he argues that one should “not throw out the baby with the bathwater by also curtailing non-harmful behavioral research” as well.  He defines ethically permissible research in chimps as “the sort of research I would not mind doing on human volunteers.”

While Prof. de Waal ought to be applauded for sharing his views on the use of chimps in scientific research, I think he moves too fast through weak and vague ethical reasoning to reach his main conclusion.

Opponents of animal research, for example, are likely to point out his definition of ethically permissible research should read instead “the sort of research [one] would not mind doing on human volunteers who also agree to live in captivity in the same conditions as the chimps.” 

They will also point out that human subjects that volunteer in scientific research, whether invasive or behavioral, provide their informed consent.  Moreover, human subjects retain a right to withdraw their participation at any point in time, and they are never deprived from their liberties and freedom.  Opponents of research will further argue harm comes to these animals by the mere fact they are forced to live in captivity.

It is unclear how de Waal would defend his work from the stated position in his perspective. Perhaps the “special moral status” de Waal wants to grant to chimps and other great apes is not meant to be interpreted as including the same basic rights to liberty and freedom as those enjoyed by humans.  If so, he should state this clearly.  His position is vague and confusing because in the same perspective he seems to approve some countries granting great apes legal rights.

There are other problems that emerge from de Waal ill-articulated ethical position.  He states the basis for awarding great apes special moral status is based on their high cognitive skills, as well as their capacity to display empathy and pro-social behavior. At the same time he believes the same intrinsic properties are present in varying degrees in other species – “there are many differences between chimps and monkeys in cognitive capacities, but we consider them mostly gradual differences.” Given such graded abilities it is not clear how de Waal would draw a line between those species that deserve such “special moral status” and those that do not.  Or if there are other morally relevant properties that he did not mention.

Finally, I think de Waal correctly points out that humans should not be allowed to blame nature to explain our history of violence, warfare, and male dominance.  The reason is that only humans are capable of reflecting on the question of how is that we should treat others, including non-human living beings.  Yes, we have a moral obligation to consider the interest of other living beings in our actions.  But, as Carl Cohen explained, we should not confuse our moral obligations to other living beings with them having basic rights. Rights entail obligations, but the reverse is not always true.

There is wide agreement (and I concur) that the interests of great apes deserve high moral consideration, more so than those of a mouse or a worm. But it is worth noting that such principle of graded moral status is already implicitly acknowledged in the NIH guidelines which require scientists to use the “lowest” possible species that can yield the information they seek.  In this regard, the IoM panel finding that there is only a minimal need to use chimps in scientific research is not a truly reflection of their inadequacy to model disease (chimps could certainly be used in many studies to answer good scientific questions), but of our existing recognition that they deserve high moral status and that they can only be used under the most  extreme circumstances.

Then I noticed that Kat Arney at the Cancer Research Science Blog had beaten me to it, with an excellent overview of the study and its implications. I recommend that you go straight over and read her blog post.

The Nature paper describing this study can be read here.

A fascinating aspect of this work is that human genetic studies had failed to reveal the role of the Usp9x gene in pancreatic cancer, and it was only when the GM mice studies were undertaken that its importance became clear.  Does this mean that the human genetic studies were misleading? Does it mean that they were useless? Well, that would be thinking like an anti-vivisectionist.  While it’s true that the human genetic studies were initially misleading about Usp9x in pancreatic cancer, it was by combining the information from human genetic studies with that from the GM mouse studies, and the additional information from in vitro studies, that the mechanism through which Usp9x suppression contributes to the development of pancreatic cancer was revealed.

This is yet another example of the important role played by animal studies alongside  many other approaches in medical research, and I hope that it soon leads to much -needed improvments in therapy for pancreatic cancer.

There’s another aspect to this story that is almost as interesting as the science itself.  Many animal rights activists like to claim that leading medical research charities conceal their funding of animal research, indeed just the other week the animal rights activist Peter Tatchell wrote a truly execrable article in the Huffingdon Post which included the claim that:

A disturbing desire for secrecy about animal experiments is shared by a number of respected, high-profile medical charities, including the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society. “

Several comments quickly pointed out that this (along with most other aspects of the article) was factually incorrect, indeed it is difficult to see how the British Heart Foundation could be more open about their animal research. So far as Cancer Research UK is concerned, perhaps somebody should ask Peter Tatchell how issuing a press release, and then discussing their animal research with the BBC and in more detail on their science blog is compatible with “desire for secrecy about animal experiments “.  I guess that Peter Tatchell isn’t one to let the facts ruin a good spin!

Paul Browne

What’s “ridiculous,” to borrow the press release’s language, is that we fall for it, over and over, egged on by politicians eager to score easy points. And what’s “wasteful” is the time and energy that could be so much better spent on something other than a cheap shot.”

Back in 1976 the House Committee on Appropriations asked the National Science Foundation “Why does the Foundation persist in supporting research whose results have no apparent value to the American people?“  The NSF responded in part that:

Basic research seeks an understanding  of the laws of nature  without  initial  regard  for specific  utilitarian  value. Ultimately, however, it  is of the  most important  practical significance, because in a broad sense it is the foundation upon  which rests  all technological development.  Applied research builds on the results of basic research, seeking detailed  information  about  a specific situation  whose general laws have  been  discovered by  basic  research.  The  final step  toward  utilization  of research-development is  the systematic  application  of knowledge to  the  design  of  end products. [...]

As we  increase  our  knowledge  of nature  and  mankind,  in order  to adjust  nature  to our survival, safety,  comfort and convenience, we must  depend  upon  scientific research  to clarify the  relationships  of many, many things.  Thus,  we study  atoms,  even  though  they  will never  be seen  by an  unaided  human  eye.  We study  stars  too  faint  to  be  seen without  a  telescope  and  with  wavelengths  which  can  only be  detected  with  radio  receivers  or  photographic  plates. To  understand  geology, we must  look  at  geologic formations  and processes in many  parts  of the world where different  conditions have existed.  To understand  more about the  phenomena  of life, we must  study  the  behavior  of viruses,  single  cells,  plants,  and  animals  of  many  species.

A book was compiled covering various areas of research with Isaac Asimov writing an essay defending the value of basic research.

Thus, it was with some surprise and delight that we read in the news about Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) understanding the value of basic research.  The Washington Post reports that:

On Wednesday afternoon, Cooper rose to the defense of taxpayer-funded research into dog urine, guinea pig eardrums and, yes, the reproductive habits of the parasitic flies known as screwworms–all federally supported studies that have inspired major scientific breakthroughs.

Together with two colleagues he created the Annual Golden Goose Awards to honor federally funded research  “whose work may once have been viewed as unusual, odd, or obscure, but has produced important discoveries benefiting society in significant ways.”

Studying dog urine, among other stuff deem crazy by animal rights cranks, led to major medical discoveries

The article goes on to describe how research on dog urine led to an understanding of the effects of hormones on the human kidney, how studies in the guinea pig led to a treatment for hearing loss in infants, and how studies on the screwworm led to the effective control of the a deadly parasite that targets cattle.  All these provide additional examples refuting the notion that learning about life processes from animals cannot yield knowledge applicable to human health.

The Golden Goose Award has the backing of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Association of American Universities (who in 2011 published a series of “Scientific Inquirer” articles skewering dubious politically-motivated attacks on basic science) and the Progressive Policy Institute, who are to be congratulated for this excellent initiative to highlight the importance of basic research.

At the press conference to launch the award Rep. Robert Dold told reporters that “When we invest in science, we also invest in jobs. Research and development is a key part to any healthy economy,” while  Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.) added “It’s critical, and the federal government has an important role to play,” who went on to describe how injecting horses with snake venom might “seem peculiar” but led to the discovery of the first anti-venom.

Taking us, once again, to the concluding words of Asimov’s essay:

Unless we continue with science and gather knowledge, whether or not it seems useful on the spot, we will be buried under our problems and find no way out.  Today’s science is tomorrow’s solution — and tomorrow’s problems , too — and, most of all, it is mankind’s greatest adventure, now and forever.

We are asked to spell out the criteria that make our experiments justifiable in animals but not in humans with comparable abilities and therefore comparable interests. These criteria, we are told, must be evaluated for each individual separately (so-called moral individualism). The resulting argument against animal research consists in pointing out that no matter what criteria are selected, it is always possible to find some humans (e.g., the senile, the cognitively impaired or the comatose patient) who should also be candidates for invasive research. According to this line of reasoning, logically consistency demands that we conduct experiments with these human patients along or instead of using animals.  If we are unwilling to do so, then we must be guilty of speciesism.

Same moral status?

Let me bring up a few objections to this argument.

First, it seems clear (to me at least) that the intrinsic properties of an individual cannot possibly be all that matters in assessing moral status of living beings.  If such properties were all that mattered, then we should feel comfortable granting a rock, a dead cat, and human remains the same moral consideration since they can all be classified as inanimate objects with no interests of their own.  And yet, while nobody will object to a child playfully kicking a rock, most will not feel comfortable with him kicking a dead cat for his or her amusement or using human remains in an art project for school.  The suffering such acts will inflict on others must count as well.  Thus, we must reject moral individualism. Once that premise is gone, the entire marginal case scenario falls apart.

Second, even if for the sake of argument one accepts moral individualism, the resulting moral theory is impractical. Are we prepared to evaluate every single individual we encounter in life to decide on his or her moral status?  Should we assess the cognitive abilities of the child now crossing the street? The dog walking with her? The squirrel that just rushed in front of our moving car?  On one hand, consistency demands that we do so, but applicability demands that we come up with a more practical approach. Indeed, our ability to function in daily life is aided by organizing the world into different categories (or kinds) of living beings and making broad assessments of their interests and moral status. Our brain’s ability to quickly recognize species membership facilitates this. It enables us to determine that the squirrel running in front of our car is a living creature and to swerve to avoid running it over—unless doing so would endanger the child crossing the street. In most situations, we can assess the interests of living beings based on the normal life of the members of that species. We have no need to assess the specific interests and moral status of this particular squirrel and this particular child.

Third, the marginal case scenario is nearly always posed by using an impaired human and a non-human animal, rather than a normal human and a non-human animal with super-natural abilities. Why? Because there is a clear difference between these two situations.  On one hand, should an ape appear in front of us, such as in Kafka’s “Report to the Academy”, speaking in fluent English, asking to be treated as a peer, it seems difficult to think we could refuse on any grounds, even if it represents an extraordinary case.  On the other hand, when human patients are impaired from their normal state, in most cases, we have no absolute certainty the condition is permanent.  A cure for Alzheimer’s or autism may possibly be developed in the future and their mental capacities restored.  Moreover establishing the lack of cognitive function with confidence may be more difficult than we have anticipated, with new studies showing that patients in vegetative state may retain some cognitive function. And, as I mentioned earlier, even in cases were science tell us there is no hope for recovery on the horizon, harming these patients would cause suffering in others that must also be taken into consideration.

Finally, there is also a scientific objection: Even if one were to accept on principle the suggestion by animal philosophers and activists that if we experiment on animals we ought to be experimenting on impaired human patients, that population would not be best suited for scientific studies. Patients with pre-existing conditions have a wide range of abnormalities and individual differences that would make it extremely difficult to conduct properly controlled scientific studies.  Thus, in addition to moral considerations, there are valid scientific reasons to reject the proposal of using impaired humans rather than animal subjects in most studies.

Normally we would not pay attention to such goings on, the sartorial debacles of minor celebrities are amusing but of little importance, and we are well aware of the ethical distinctions that exist between the use of animals in biomedical research and other uses such as food or for their fur.  However, it was later revealed that the attacker, Christina Cho, is a longtime PeTA activist. Moreover, PeTA offered to pay for her legal defense should Ms. Kardashian file any complaints against her.

On learning about these events Khloe Kardashian, Kim’s sister and longtime PeTA supporter, decided to quit the organization, writing in her blog:

I’ve been a vocal supporter of PETA for a long time [..] but I have also been very vocal about anti-bullying, so this was a huge disappointment for me. As you all know, I don’t condone violence and bullying and what happened last Thursday was just that. I am absolutely disgusted by their behavior.”

But is flour bombing the only thing that PeTA supports?  What are their limits?  Would they also pay the legal fees of someone bombing a factory farm?  What about offering legal assistance to someone that set someone’s family on fire because they are not vegetarians?  Might they also consider offering legal help to someone who teaches students how to build incendiary devices and previously bombed a university laboratory?  Oh, yes, we forgot, PeTA has already done that.

Thus, independently of the issue being debated the problem with PeTA is simple.  Frustrated by their inability to get nude celebrities – and indeed non-celebrities – to explain their moral views to the public, and being intellectually incapable of putting reasoned arguments in the court of public debate, they decide that bullying and intimidation are acceptable forms of activism. Indeed, it could even be argued that the Kardashian incident serves to distract from the more distasteful and sinister reality of what kind of organization PeTA is.

Celebrities that support PeTA should be aware that when they offer their names (and naked bodies) are also actively supporting this type of behavior. Khloe Kardashian has made a sensible decision to stay away from such organization and, perhaps, other celebrities will see the light and reconsider their support of PeTA as well.

Speaking of Research

Some of the questions centered on moral issues, other on scientific ones. At the beginning of the discussion Prof. John Stein of Oxford University explained his use of monkeys in studying Parkinson’s disease, after which he was asked if he would experiment on great apes.  He replied he would not, unless there was some extreme circumstance that required them.

“Where would you draw the line?” — countered the host.

Let us pause for a second here. This is an important question that is worth asking. But first let us consider – and reject all the theories that do not involve drawing any lines at all.  What theories are these?

One is the Cartesian view, which posits animals do not truly suffer, do not really have emotions, and do not really have interests of their own. Consequently, the Cartesian view is that humans can use animals as we please. We do not know any living scientist or philosopher that would seriously defend this view.

The other theory that does not draw any lines is the animal rights view, in which all living beings have the same basic rights to freedom and life as a normal human. Although most members of the public reject this view as making no sense at all, nobody in the panel cared to explain, nor did the host bother to ask, what justifies this stance.

What Prof. Stein articulated as a justification was a version of something called the sliding scale model.  Here, the moral weight of a living being’s interests depends on the individual’s degree of cognitive, affective and social complexity. Where we draw the line for different types of experiments in animals is a valid and important question, but we can only ask it that if we all agree with the notion of graded moral status.

Opponents of research reject such a theory.  Alistair Currie, from PeTA, stated:

Suffering is suffering.  We have a moral obligation not to impose it on anybody.”

We generally agree that unnecessary suffering should not be imposed on other living beings, and as Prof. Stein stressed, scientists work hard to ensure that suffering is eliminated or reduced to an absolute minimum in laboratory animals. We do not think there are absolute moral principles.  Even “thou shall not kill” permits exceptions, such as in the case of self defense. Another example is the infliction of harm to other human beings that was, for most of us, morally justified and necessary when it came to liberating the concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

If we truly had an absolute moral obligation to never impose suffering on anybody, as PeTA representative Currie suggests, liberating concentrations camps would be morally wrong. We might accept such a declaration from someone who is a declared pacifist, but we have plenty of evidence to suggest that PeTA is a far from being such an organization.  PeTA remains morally confused.

Invariably, when opponents of animal research fail to make an ethical case for their position, they attack the science. In this case, it was Kailah Eglington, representing the Dr Hadwen Trust, who was in charge of this strategy.

“Scientifically looking at the facts, the animal model is flawed.” — she declared without even blinking.

Wait a second. Where was she when Prof. Stein explained how he found an area of the brain that when inactivated could relieve the symptoms of Parkinson’s? How does she explain his success?  Or does she deny the benefits of the work?

Ms. Eglington also suggested that Prof. Stein could have used non-invasive methods in humans, such as MEG, suggesting the same information could be obtained by this techniques. As Prof. Stein pointed out in his response this is flatly wrong. Prof. Stein not only uses a range of such techniques, including MEG and fMRI alongside his studies in macaques, but with his colleagues at Oxford University pioneered the use of MEG as a research method in patients undergoing deep brain stimulation. However, none of the non-invasive methods can yield the same data that one obtains using micro-electrode recordings from the brain, as we discussed in an earlier post on the limitations of fMRI.

A quick visit to the Dr. Hawden Trust web-site reveals that they state with absolute certainty that:

Alternatives to animal experimentation are available in virtually every field of medical research.”

Wow…   Let’s be clear: this is complete utter nonsense that deserves to be filed here. Should we be surprised at the lack of sensible science by someone who, on the side, founded an organization which claims that “the power of positive thinking” can treat physically debilitating conditions.

Kailah Eglington furthered her pseudo-scientific nonsense by claiming that: “9 out of 10 drugs that are tested on animals successfully fail in humans“. The problem here is the mistaken blame on the animal model – these same drugs have already passed pre-clinical non-animal tests such as cell cultures and computer models; moreover, about 90% of drugs fail at every stage of development – meaning that 90% of those that pass early clinical trials in humans still fail to make it to market – this is not something we can blame the animal model for. We have previously written a full and clear rebuttal of the 90% claim – however it continues to be used by the animal rights community.

Such examples go to show a common problem for advocates of science – that it takes a lot longer to debunk junk science, than it does to make it up. While Tom Holder and Prof. Stein argued science’s case very well the debate highlighted some of the limitations of this format, though perhaps this is all we can expect from a format that tries to address Big Questions in 15 min of television programming.  It seems the goal here is more to get opposing sides to have a screaming contest rather than to provide an opportunity for thoughtful exploration of the questions at hand.

Speaking of Research

According to today’s report in the Vancouver Sun, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) carried out a detailed review of the research undertaken by Prof. Doudet’s team, and found:

no evidence to support allegations of animal cruelty against a University of British Columbia research team related to the deaths of four macaque monkeys.”

An earlier report on CTV news adds that the CCAC investigation:

found no evidence to support allegations that UBC was subjecting monkeys to cruel research experiments that were not overseen by the UBC Animal Care Committee.”

The letter from the CCAC to STOP detailing the conclusions of their investigation can be read here.

We asked Prof Doudet her views about this week’s developments, welcoming the news she said:

It is distressing to be wrongly accused, but the truth prevailed and we are all grateful for it.  MPTP always had unexpected effects, not only in monkeys but in the humans who unknowingly injected themselves with it: Out of the more than 100 people who were exposed to the drug in the early 80s, only a handful developed severe parkinsonism and there is no way to predict who will have such a severe negative response. But the MPTP primate model and the knowledge gained from it have played an important part in the basic understanding of physiological mechanisms involved in the disease, and this has been key to the development of many therapies for Parkinson’s disease, including DBS and the current testing of many gene therapies.”

We too welcome this news, though we wonder whether a formal investigation was really required to confirm what had been patently obvious right from the start.

Speaking of Research

The Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Foundation has awarded its 2^nd €1-million Brain Prize to Professor Karen Steel of Cambridge University, founder of the Mouse Genetics Programme at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, and Professor Christine Petit of the College de France, head of the Genetics and Physiology of Hearing laboratory at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, for:

their unique, world-leading contributions to our understanding of the genetic regulation of the development and functioning of the ear, and for elucidating the causes of many of the hundreds of inherited forms of deafness”

When announcing the award Nils Axelsen, chair of the board of directors of the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Foundation, noted:

The work of these two European Scientists also illustrates the value and importance of interdisciplinary approaches in neuroscience and highlights the need for fundamental cutting-edge research to help us understand complex clinical problems and to expedite benefits for patients”

Karen Steel

A video of the award announcement – including a review of the contributions to neuroscience made by the two winners -  is available to view here.

Christine Petit

Both Professor Steel and Professor Petit have gained important insights from studies of genetically modified mice into how genetic defects lead to deafness, taking different but complementary approaches. Professor Petit started by identifying genetic mutations in hereditary deafness – particularly Usher Syndrome – and then studying the effects of those mutations on hearing in GM mice. Professor Steel – who has discussed her work in an excellent interview available here -has taken a different approach, discovering new genes involved in deafness by looking for this phenotype in newly-generated mutant mice.  While the knowledge that these two scientists have obtained is too new to have resulted in novel therapies yet – though gene therapy and stem cell approaches are now being actively researched – the work of Professor Petit in particular has already had an impact in the clinic, as screening for genetic defects aids diagnosis, informs genetic counselling, and helps doctors and patients by indicating the potential benefit of cochlear implants and hearing aids.

In a debate where proponents of animal rights frequently claim that animal research impedes clinical research, this award is further evidence that the truth could not be more different.

On a final note the Brain Prize biography of Professor Steel notes the international dimension to her work, as she:

Karen Steel is internationally recognized for her generous and altruistic approach to science. Working with a consortium of European researchers, she has established, catalogued and made freely available to other researchers several hundred mouse mutant lines, which have facilitated research in several areas of neuroscience around the world.”

Such pooling of resources by scientists based in different institutions and different countries, facilitated by organizations such as the European Mutant Mouse Archive, not only aids scientific discovery but is also an example of the 3Rs in action, as scientists would need to use far more animals if they had to create the required mutant mouse at their own institute.

It is a shame that in the same week that the Brain Prize was announced we learned that due to the threats from animal-rights extremists several transport companies have recently stopped transporting animals for research into and out of the UK, threatening the important work of Professor Steel and other scientists like her in the UK and elsewhere. We urge the UK government to take all necessary measures to ensure that these transport companies recognize their wider responsibilities – and the views of the 87% of UK citizens who support the use on animals in medical research – and resume carrying animals used in biomedical research.

Paul Browne