Category Archives: Campus Activism

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Lessons From Monkeys

Posted on May 7, 2012 by | 1 Comment

The following guest post is from David Abbott, a scientist at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Professor Abbott recently spoke about the goals of his work and the use of monkeys in research in a public forum series hosted by the university.  The talk was followed by a panel discussion that included a clinician who treats girls with PCOS and Jon Levine,  director of the WNPRC.

David Abbott

I am a scientist leading a biomedical research program investigating the causes of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in women. I see a balanced consideration at the heart of the argument concerning our humane use of about 200 female rhesus monkeys in experimental procedures over the past 20 years in the service of reducing suffering in approximately 15 million American women who endure PCOS. Our systematic and responsible experimental investigation, which was approved after a thorough ethical evaluation by a University of Wisconsin Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), was the first to conclusively identify developmental origins for this women’s health disorder. It is also the first to provide epigenetic molecular insight into potential mechanisms underlying PCOS that can be targeted by future preventive therapies.

PCOS is one of the most common health disorders affecting women. The PCOS ovary makes too much testosterone and supports increased hair growth on the face and body. The enlarged ovary also grows too many egg-containing follicles, thus providing the enigmatic appearance of the polycystic ovary. PCOS follicles usually fail to mature and frequently fail to release an egg at ovulation, hence the lack of menstrual cycles and infertility associated with the disorder. In addition, PCOS overly contributes to obesity, new cases of type 2 diabetes among young women, gestational diabetes, sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. All of these increase a woman’s lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. In the words of leading clinical experts in the field:

It has become increasingly clear over the past several years that PCOS is a complex genetic disease resulting from the interaction of susceptibility genes and environmental factors. The insight that prenatal exposure to androgens can reproduce most of the features of the human syndrome in primates has led to a paradigm shift in concepts about the pathogenesis of the disorder.”1

Our PCOS-like monkeys provide insight into a potential origin for PCOS in women: exposure to too much testosterone during fetal life. This insight cannot be ethically gained from experimentation in humans. The inspiration to explore a fetal origin for PCOS, however, does come from humans. PCOS runs in families. Daughters born to women with PCOS are at increased risk for PCOS. So, I posed the question:  What if excess testosterone production, a hallmark of PCOS and its most heritable trait, is its cause? In other words, could too much testosterone produced by the fetal PCOS ovary reprogram multiple female organ systems as they develop, so that when mature, such widespread organ system dysfunction manifests the abnormalities we know as PCOS? Circumstantial evidence from genetic or tumor anomalies in humans indeed suggests that exposure of fetal girls to excess testosterone, alongside other abnormalities, results in PCOS. Humans, however, cannot ethically be used to test the hypothesis that fetal testosterone exposure, alone, causes PCOS.

A population of female rhesus monkeys housed at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, held the key to testing this possibility. Between about 1970 and 1985, these otherwise normal female monkeys were exposed to fetal male levels of testosterone during gestation when their mothers were given testosterone conjugate as part of other studies. Independent of this work, I collaborated with an Ob/Gyn specialist, as well as scientists from a variety of biological science disciplines, in a multidisciplinary research approach to examine whether testosterone-exposed female monkey offspring exhibit PCOS traits in adulthood. We proposed controlled and systematic experimental approaches in grant submissions to the National Institutes of Health, who funded this research.

Our work demonstrated that the ovaries of adult female monkeys exposed to testosterone during fetal life produce too much testosterone and, when enlarged, such ovaries grow too many follicles. The testosterone-exposed monkeys also ovulate infrequently, leading to intermittent or absent menstrual cycles. Eggs retrieved from the ovaries of testosterone-exposed monkeys, when fertilized in vitro, show impaired embryonic development. These results from monkey studies led to a human study that demonstrated eggs retrieved from the ovaries of PCOS women had altered gene expression. This was an unappreciated PCOS defect and provided an unexpected mechanism by which PCOS-related abnormalities could be passed from one human generation to the next.

Perhaps the most translatable lessons from the testosterone-exposed monkeys came from examination of their metabolic abnormalities. We found many of the metabolic derangements accompanying PCOS in women, including insulin resistance, impaired insulin response to glucose, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hyperlipidemia and increased abdominal fat. As in PCOS women, monkey insulin and glucose impairments were reversed after six months of daily treatment with the insulin sensitizer pioglitazone. The insulin sensitizer approach was so successful that the Primate Center adopted it as the first treatment for all monkeys that developed T2DM naturally since this is known to accompany obesity and aging in monkeys, as well as in humans. Insulin sensitizer treatment of testosterone exposed monkeys also allowed us to normalize their menstrual cycles, demonstrating that insulin is involved in suppressing ovulatory cycles, which also occurs in PCOS women. Thus not only did fetal testosterone exposure create a remarkable mimic of PCOS in monkeys, it emulated a key part of the pathophysiological mechanism found in women with the disorder.

The close replication of PCOS in monkeys prompted examination of what occurs during fetal and infant development before adult PCOS traits emerge, which opens the way to earlier targeting of treatment in humans. We found that testosterone injections given to pregnant monkey mothers actually impaired their ability to regulate blood glucose. In addition, the fatter the monkeys were before they conceived, the more susceptible they were to testosterone diminishing insulin regulation of glucose during pregnancy. As in humans, maternal inability to regulate blood glucose results in increased fetal exposure to glucose and increased fetal and neonatal growth. The infant monkeys previously exposed to testosterone and high glucose as fetuses exhibit high insulin responses to glucose that will likely cause insulin-induced accumulation of fat and muscle and relatively fat offspring beyond their heavier infant weight. Since these infants also have elevated androstenedione levels, reproductive- and metabolic-related antecedents of PCOS in monkeys are pronounced from birth. These findings encourage clinical studies aimed at establishing childhood biomarkers for subsequent adult PCOS, especially since PCOS mothers taking the insulin sensitizer metformin before and during pregnancy give birth to daughters who do not go on to develop ovarian hormonal abnormalities at 2-3 months of age.

More recently, with mapping of the rhesus monkey genome and collection of intra-abdominal (visceral) fat samples from infant and adult monkeys exposed to testosterone as fetuses, we quantified how fetal programming changed the methylation patterns of gene promoter sites, and thus increased or decreased relevant genes expression in a fat depot intimately involved in controlling insulin regulation of glucose. Pathway and network analyses revealed commonalities in changed DNA methylation between infants and adults, implicating altered signaling of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) in determining PCOS-related traits. This is an exceptionally relevant molecular result because a gene variant determining a component of TGF-beta signaling, known as fibrillin 3, has been repeatedly associated with PCOS in women. Fibrillin 3 is also only prominently expressed in human ovaries at a gestational age equivalent to the age at which our monkeys were exposed to testosterone. One aspect of testosterone (and glucose) mediated changes in gene expression in monkeys may therefore provide a molecular mimic of the gene variant associated with PCOS in women. Such molecular mimicry establishes testosterone-exposed monkeys as unparalleled models for establishing preventative therapies targeted at PCOS.

Subsequent testosterone exposure studies on mice, rats and sheep by other scientific teams, undertaken because of the monkey results, emulate some or most of our original findings. While non-primate studies consolidated fetal testosterone exposure as an origin for PCOS traits in adulthood, they also caused fetal growth restriction, something that is not common in women with PCOS and is not found in testosterone exposed monkeys. Fetal growth restriction is caused by diminished placental supply of nutrients and leads to adult metabolic disease distinct from that of PCOS. Testosterone exposed monkeys are thus the most human-like animal model for PCOS and provide an established biological platform for therapy directed studies.

The insight thus gained into developmental programming of PCOS in approximately 15 million women in the US from over 20 years of humane, controlled and systematic use of about 200 rhesus monkeys is substantial and unique. Monkeys are such close human relatives that they best enable translation of research findings into human application. In our case, they permit exploration of insulin regulating therapies during pregnancy, such as metformin, as potential preventative therapies and they permit evaluation of consequences for offspring development, as monkey gestation and infant and juvenile development closely emulate the human. The quality of the scientific findings yielded by our studies was made possible by the highest standards of veterinary care, animal husbandry, nutrition, social housing and environmental enrichment that permit our monkeys healthy and well-cared for lives. Our research program is a humane and considered use of monkeys in the service of reduced suffering in women.

David Abbott, Ph.D.

Department of Ob/Gyn and Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

1 Dunaif A, Chang RJ, Franks S, Legro RS. 2008. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Current controversies, from the Ovary to the Pancreas. Pp. vii. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Benefits of Animal Research, Right Down to the Letter

Posted on April 16, 2012 by | 8 Comments

It’s always exciting, in this day and age, to get a letter that isn’t spam. Even more exciting when the letter is from another continent. And even more when it’s a letter as supportive and insightful as this one (full text below).

Dear Tom Holder:

I am a freshman studying at Orange County High School of the Arts. In my literature class, I recently gave a political speech addressing the benefits of animal research. I understand that your organization strongly encourages animal research. Allow me to thank you for actively supporting the use of animals in biomedical research by inspiring students and scientists to speak out in favor of animal research.

With animal testing, the world’s life expectancy is remarkably high. From the eradication of polio and small pox to breast cancer treatments, animal research has proved to be fundamental to the well being of this species. Viruses, diseases, and illnesses should never get in the way of our country’s success. By means of animal research, we have several vaccines and prescriptions available to the country to prevent these. Conventional wisdom states that animal testing implies animal abuse. But in reality, most scientists build up strong attachments to the animals they use in their experiments. Public misconceptions about alternatives to animal testing remain high, In vitro testing, MRI scanning, computer modeling and micro dosing are al vital, but these aspects of medicine simply compliment animal testing. One cannot purely find a replacement to animal research. Animal research should therefore not only be allowed, it must be strongly encouraged.

Animal research is irreplaceable and crucial to medical progress. Thus, thank you for standing up for science by founding several organizations similar to Speaking of Research. Please continue inspiring others and encouraging students, like me, to speak out for the benefits of animal research.

Sincerely

Momachi Pabrai
(reprinted with permission of author)

I congratulate Momachi for standing up among her colleagues to tell them of the benefits of animal research. Her letter shows that she has clearly thought through this controversial issue. Momachi hits upon the key ideas of why animal research is done. Namely:

  1. It is crucial to medical development; and
  2. It is currently irreplaceable

She includes examples such as the polio vaccine and breast cancer treatments (e.g. Herceptin) to back up her arguments. This is an example of how anyone, no matter what their scientific background, can make the case for animal research.

On behalf of Speaking of Research I wish Momachi all the best in the rest of her freshman year.

Cheers

Tom Holder

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Campus Activism, News, Outreach News, SR News

Tagged , , , ,

Do your Share – Animal Research Education

Posted on January 27, 2012 by | 5 Comments

School visits about animal research have usually been the domain of animal rights groups like HSUS and PETA, however a new program is set to challenge that. Scott Dobrin and Elizabeth Burnett, with the support of Americans for Medical Progress’ Michael D. Hayre Fellowship, have built a program for schools which aims to address the misinformation put about by animal rights organisations. Welcome to SHARE – Speaking Honestly – Animal Research Education. When I asked them about their program they had this to say.

SHARE helps students form their own opinions on the use of animals in research though a simulated classroom discussion.  It is a teacher-led experience that can be easily carried out in any educational setting with the tools and resources we provide. SHARE is designed for young adults who are still in the process of forming their own morals and values, many of which will stay with them the rest of their lives. Initially developed for both science majors and other college students, SHARE is readily adapted for secondary school audiences.

Through SHARE, students are introduced to animal rights, animal welfare, and animal exploitist points of view. First in small groups, and later as a whole class, students discuss the issues surrounding the use of animals in research by evaluating a sample research proposal. They are asked for their own opinions as well as the concerns they believe a scientist, a veterinarian, and a member of the public would hold, all the while unknowingly acting much like an IACUC. While creating a list of approved guidelines, students see their diverse attitudes revealed in their choices of acceptable animal research rules and regulations. They then are introduced to the concept of an IACUC and come to understand the value that the research community places on animal welfare.

On our website, http://sharehappens.org , you can find all the information you need to facilitate SHARE in the classroom. In addition to logistical tips for organizing the class and teaching tips useful for engaging students, you will find an interactive and detailed lesson plan complete with keys to success, talking points, time checkpoints, and references to the appropriate slides of the included powerpoint presentation. If you need more information on the topic of animals in research, the links page has a listing of several resources, both in support of and opposed to animal research, to read more. It is a one stop shop for facilitating SHARE in the classroom.

We, at Speaking of Research, wish Scott and Elizabeth all the continued success with their program.

Cheers

Tom

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , ,

An Open Letter to the Laboratory Animal Veterinary Community and Research Institution Administration

Posted on January 24, 2012 by | Leave a comment

The decades following passage of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act in the 1960s are marked with wide-ranging and significant changes to the administration, oversight, and responsibility for daily operations of institutions engaged in laboratory animal research. The intent of the legislation, and the central purpose of the accompanying and continuing changes, is to best ensure the welfare of animals in research.

This goal encompasses all aspects of laboratory animal care— their participation in ethical scientific studies, their humane treatment during daily care and maintenance, and their receipt of the highest standard of clinical care. Do scientists engaged in animal research perform all of these duties?  No. In fact, by law, it is not scientists who have the ultimate responsibility for oversight of all issues involved in animal welfare, but the attending veterinarian and institutional officials.

In practice, there are a range of individuals who share in the responsibility to provide for animal welfare. Many different types of expertise are needed to provide the best management of a laboratory animal research facility. Scientists working with animals have expertise in the topic their research addresses, in the activities that research requires, and in use of animals in research. Depending on their research area, background, and training they may have tremendous depth and breadth of knowledge about the animals’ behavior, psychology, physiology, and other systems. But it takes more than this to accomplish all that is needed to maintain an animal research program.

Animal research programs always include veterinary staff to provide the animals with clinical care. They typically also include animal care staff to provide daily husbandry; behavioral management staff to provide environmental enrichment and animal training; and facility management staff who work with engineers and others to maintain clean and safe environments for the animals. In addition to facility management, clinical care, and daily husbandry there are also divisions of personnel charged with evaluation and oversight of the research, including the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, associated staff, and compliance officers. Oversight for the entirety of the animal research program typically rests at the level of university administration.

In sum, the number of individuals and divisions now involved in ensuring laboratory animals’ welfare and humane treatment in ethical scientific studies extends far beyond the scientists most identified with animal research.  What does this mean? It means that there is a great deal of shared responsibility for both successes and the occasional failures in the conduct of laboratory animal science.  It also means that any discussion of continued improvements in the daily activities that affect animal welfare, as well as changes in policies that govern the conduct of animal research, should benefit from teamwork among these different stakeholders.

A Veterinary Technician works with rodents

A huge number of people are involved in animal welfare in laboratories

Finally, it should mean that in public dialogue the voices of scientists and research advocates are routinely joined by laboratory animal veterinarians, university officials, and others who play important roles in laboratory animal research.  This is true even when that research is controversial and has the potential to elicit attention from animal rights activists. All too often, however, few of these voices are raised when the public eye is turned to issues of concern in animal facilities. Rather, in place of thoughtful answers to questions raised by a range of parties—by the press, by animal rights activists, by other scientists, by USDA reports— what is often offered are generic statements that contribute little to understanding of the events and the context in which they occurred. For example, in response to virtually any type of incident, an institution’s response might be along the lines of:  “We follow all regulations and hold animal welfare in highest regard and priority…”

It is long past the time that our community should have abandoned this approach and required more from each of its members and divisions.  To accept anything less is a mistake.  Absence of accurate information, accompanied by the failure of institutions and their representatives to engage in public dialogue, only further erodes public trust.

The intent of the AWA, subsequent legislation and policies, accreditation programs, revisions of guidelines, and continued increases in regulatory oversight is to ensure the best animal welfare and humane treatment possible.  In the rare cases where the apparatuses put in place to achieve this goal fail, sometimes from accident or human error, two things must happen.  First, it is contingent upon all of those involved to immediately work together to identify the reason for the failure and ways to minimize the possibility that it occurs again.  Second, those ultimately responsible for oversight should provide the public with accurate information, explanation, and opportunity for discussion.  At the very least, they should be able to articulate the rationale and their support for the research programs and their contribution to scientific and medical progress.

Are we suggesting that attending veterinarians and institutional officials open their doors for daily chats with animal rights activists?  No, but we do believe that addressing legitimate public concerns and questions about their animal research programs are among the key obligations of those charged with oversight and conduct of those programs.

While scientists can address questions about the scientific side of animal research, we need the laboratory animal care and veterinary staff to provide their expertise in service of addressing public questions about clinical care and husbandry.  If they do not, it will be no surprise if the public view of animal research is disproportionately colored by the relatively rare adverse events and the misrepresentations of animal rights activists. Many believe that it is possible—and perhaps acceptable—to ignore this part of reality in order to focus on more immediate demands for time, energy, and resources. Consider, however, that a fundamental part of the AWA, accreditation, regulation, and professional obligation is actually to ensure communication with the public that supports animal research.  Thus, it is our entire community who share a primary obligation to engage in the dialogue that surrounds us.

Speaking of Research Committee

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News, Science News

Tagged , , , ,

The Freedom of Speech Paradox

Posted on January 16, 2012 by | 9 Comments

The world is a complex mix of competing views. Politicians and pressure groups have fought long and hard to find a balance between the desire for free speech, and the need to limit the voices of extremism and irresponsibility within our communities. Few would condemn the arrest of someone who shouts “fire” in a crowded, confined space; however most respect our right to peaceful protest.

Incitement to violence, harassment or intimidation against those of different creeds, lifestyles or  beliefs should not be regarded as acceptable in a modern liberal democracy. The challenge comes in deciding what should be regarded as incitement, and what should not. I believe that a tiny minority of animal rights extremists have crossed the lines of acceptability and to this end I provide two examples – one recent, and one from some years back.

Case 1: Incitement to murder

Jerry Vlasak is an influential player within the extreme end of the animal liberation movement. As press officer of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office he has become one of the mouthpieces of the Animal Liberation Front and the Animal Rights Militia. His position as a role model has not appeared to bring upon any sense of responsibility for his words.

I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable, I think that there are places where it could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint.

For instance, if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work — and if these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination … — and I wouldn’t pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a trickle-down effect [...]

And I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. (Source)

Now I have little doubt that Vlasak does not intend to murder anyone himself. However it would take only one young, idealistic activist trying to build his reputation and strike a blow for animal liberation to follow Vlasak’s twisted logic into the unthinkable.

Vlasak is not the only person to call for violence against animal researchers (and their families). If the unthinkable was to happen, there would be many animal rights extremists whose words will have played a part in its creation. Nonetheless, surely, there is a moral line in the sand which few if any would be willing to cross, after all the animal rights movement is fundamentally in the business of saving lives (albeit not human ones)? Surely….?

May 31st, 2009, a doctor is shot dead at a church service. It is not the first time he has been shot for his beliefs and line of work, individuals have already called for the death of doctor’s in the same line of work.

The above is not the actions of animal rights activists, but that of anti-abortion extremists. In 2009 Scott Roeder crossed the lines of acceptability and morality and murdered Doctor George Tiller. Such actions were roundly deplored, but little time is spent considering the impact of those that had called for Tiller’s death, and the death of other abortionists. Sadly, many similarities can be found between the tactics of the animal rights extremist movement, and those of the anti-abortion extremists.

Where do we draw the line between Freedom of Speech and Incitement to Violence? This fire at the house of a Pharmaceutical Executive was started by animal rights extremists

Case 2: Naming the targets

The second situation further strains the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom from harassment. What if a known extremist movement does not directly call for the death of its enemies, but instead provides the information necessary to target them. They may not have put the gun in anybody’s hand, but they are certainly showing them where to point it.

Negotiation is Over, a fringe animal rights extremist group has provided such information on a number of occasions. Providing names and contact information for a variety of researchers. NIO’s words are reminiscent of our earlier discussion.

Every time a vivisector’s car or home — and, eventually, the abuser him/herself — blows up, flames of liberation light up the sky [...]

The only effective approaches to veteran abusers appear to be through incendiaries, intimidation, and violence.

Bear such words in mind when you consider that on January 8th 2012 NIO decided to publish floor plans for research facilities at the University of Florida. No threats were published alongside it, but then with a website full of calls to harass and intimidate researchers, they hardly needed to put them in the same post.

Is free speech a sufficient barrier to hide behind when distributing such potentially risky materials. When does one person’s freedom of speech justify infringing on another’s right to live free from harassment?

Before I decided to write this post I received an email from a colleague of a researcher who was under threat. One paragraph particularly stuck with me:

I actually cannot believe a court of law would allow documents of this nature containing names of people who work at an institution to be given to a group of people sworn to kill, torture and terrify them. Their site is already filled with people licking their lips about harassing families and even people discussing murder. I have counted a fair number of people who made implications of going to schools where their kids studies. These clearly are a lot of idle threats but it takes just one person to turn an idle threat into a tragedy.

Just one person.

The comments made by Vlasak and others, the documents and finger pointing of groups like Negotiation is Over, are permitted under the guise of free speech. The effect is a generation of researchers who do not dare to speak up for what they do lest they become the next target. Even though many researchers are not aware of characters like Vlasak, or the particulars of the threats made to fellow colleagues in science, these extremists contribute to a general awareness of a dangerous animal rights movement whom many scientists would prefer not to cross. Furthermore, fear may cause some aspiring scientists to choose different career paths at a time when science plays such a crucial role in the economic prosperity and health of a nation.

The Freedom of Speech Paradox is thus – when people misuse this right, as provided by the First Amendment, in order to intimidate others away from being able to use their same right to defend and justify their work.

Tom Holder

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Putting Animal Rights Extremists on the Hate Map

Posted on November 4, 2011 by | 47 Comments

Those who believe themselves to be morally righteous have a virtue — they are usually candid in their public statements.  With an absolute conviction in their world views, it is not surprising they also have a rather loose tongue.  The hate and violence that lives within animal rights extremists is always near the surface.  This was evidenced in a recent interview by Camille Marino of the extremist site “Negotiation is Over” with Leah Nelson, a journalist with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-known and respected nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry in our society.

The SPLC blog is worth a read as it will raise the eyebrows of anyone that has a minimal respect for our democratic institutions, highlighting the hateful speech that comes from the fringe of the animal rights movement.  Apparently, Ms. Marino had second thoughts about the views she offered to the journalist and attempted to backtrack.  The SPLC Editor refused, noting that:

Marino was fully aware during the interview that she was talking with a blogger from the Southern Poverty Law Center, even volunteering that she is familiar with the SPLC’s history of denouncing radical animal rights activists like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She approved a transcript of her interview, writing in an E-mail, “I think you captured everything I said perfectly.” Hours later, Marino contacted the blogger and said she wanted to withdraw her consent to be quoted, saying that she did not want to be quoted on “a blog filled with the most contemptible groups of racists, bigots, madmen, and hatemongers … groups that I despise.

It was too late for that…  the SPLC editor further explained:

Following widely accepted journalistic practice that once an on-the-record interview is conducted, permission cannot be withdrawn, Hatewatch decided to publish quotes from the interview.”

Of course, Ms. Marino is accompanied in her crusade against the use of animals in biomedical research by Dr. Steve Best (Caution: extremist website), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, an active contributor and participant in the NIO web-site and vocal defender of Marino’s words and actions.  Dr. Best has previously been banned from entering the UK.  He was deemed a threat to the “public good” and “public order” and joined a list that also includes Islamic extremists and neo-nazis.   Here is an example of the kind of speech that probably prompted the Home Office to keep such individual away from British soil:


Hopefully, and given the available evidence, SPLC will take the logical step of declaring animal rights extremist groups like NIO hate groups.  This is, after all, what these groups are and, hopefully, they will formally be recognized as such in the SPLC hate map where they belong.

Of course there are many who do not need to be told that animal rights extremist groups like Negotiation is Over and the Animal Liberation Front are hate groups.  The University of Florida students newspaper “The Independent Florida Alligator” recently published an editorial strongly condemning the harassment of students and scientists by extremists, indicating that any students who may be targeted by extremists will find a lot of support among their fellow students, and in California the neighbors of scientists target by extremists have made their support for their harassed neighbors very clear. We’ve also seen the success of the Pro-Test movement in Oxford a few years ago, when students, scientists and members of the public joined to express their support for animal research, and delivered a decisive blow to the campaigns of harassment, intimidation and violence then being waged by animal rights hate groups in the UK.

Extremism and hate can be defeated, and the first step in doing so is to recognize it for what it is, and we applaud the SPLC for once again doing so.

Speaking of Research

→ 47 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Confronting AR Accusations at a Local and National Level

Posted on September 29, 2011 by | 2 Comments

Charities are regularly targeted by animal rights groups. Currently Animal Aid have been targeting some of the UKs biggest medical research charities including the British Heart Foundation (strong proponents of animal-based research), Cancer Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society and Parkinson’s UK. It was refreshing to see these charities responding to this national press by providing comments about the importance of animal research to their work (see also previous post on this):

Cancer Research UK – “We have strict ethical policies in relation to animals and follow rigorous government guidelines to ensure that animals are only used where there’s no alternative. Millions of people are alive thanks to life-saving treatments for cancer.”
British Heart Foundation – “Research funded by the BHF advances our understanding of the heart and circulatory system in order to improve our ability to prevent, diagnose, monitor and treat cardiovascular disease – saving and improving the lives of those people affected.”
Alzheimer’s Society – “Our research aims to move us closer to a cure and improve the quality of life of people with dementia. We strive to ensure that alternatives are used where possible, that the minimum number of animals are used and that researchers keep to the highest welfare standards.”
Parkinson’s UK – “Experiments involving accurate animal models of Parkinson’s are the key to improved drug screening and swifter movement into clinical trials involving humans for the best drugs that will allow people with Parkinson’s to lead a normal life, free from its symptoms.”

Nonetheless, many charities shy away from dealing with local press accusations, worrying that they may attract more attention, or simply that ignoring them will make the problem go away. So when Animal Aid made a verbal attack on Parkinson’s UK in a local Derby newspaper, it was a nice change to see the organisation respond with an equal measure of vigour.

IN her letter “Campaign seeks an end to research on animals” (Derby Telegraph, September 9) Dawn Spencer, of Animal Aid, makes a number of claims that cannot pass unchallenged.

Ms Spencer claimed that Parkinson’s UK does not wish people to find out how much we spend on research involving animals. I am happy to be open about this. Some 40% of the £4.6m we spend on research each year is on projects involving animals.

Our research work is governed by some of the toughest restrictions in the world, enforced by the Home Office. Details of our UK-funded research are on our website and the research strategy which specifies the development of new models is publicly available. Our policy is also on our website.

Ms Spencer said that “people wanted… alternative research using tissue cells”. We fund the Parkinson’s UK Brain Bank, which supplies donated human brain tissue for Parkinson’s research. However, the use of human tissue is not appropriate in every case.

She comments that “animal experiments can be unreliable and… misleading”. We know that research involving animals has been demonstrated to help to identify improved treatments, help us gain a greater understanding of the causes of the Parkinson’s and ultimately lead to the development of a cure.

Since the 1970s, the lives of millions of people with Parkinson’s have been transformed by taking the drug levodopa, which would not have been developed without the insights gained from research involving animals.

People who give money to Parkinson’s UK can choose to support other areas as we also fund campaigning and support to improve life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s. We’ll keep doing that until we find a cure.

Dr Kieran Breen
Director of research and innovation
Parkinson’s UK

Well done Dr. Breen for this clear and concise reply to Animal Aid.

For those charities considering speaking up in defence of life-saving medical research using animals, I recommend the follwing resources:

1. Understanding Animal Research – A Researchers’ Guide to Communication
2. Association of Medical Research Charities – Medical Research Charities and Animal Studies
3. Understanding Animal Research – Funding Animal Research: Communications Guidelines for Charities

There is no excuse for standing on the sidelines – it is time everyone stood up and spoke of the importance of animal testing.

Cheers

Tom

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Whatever happened to dialogue?

Posted on July 20, 2011 by | 10 Comments

One of the goals of Speaking of Research and Pro-Test for Science is to communicate facts and information about the responsible use of animals in biomedical research.  A second, equally important goal, is to try to understand the impediments to dialogue and establish a two-way conversation with animal activists and members of the public that are truly interested in an honest and open discussion.

What have we done in this regard?

In 2010 Drs. David Jentsch and Dario Ringach, along the student group Bruins for Animals, organized a discussion panel at UCLA that was considered a good first step at establishing some sort of meaningful dialogue with opponents of animal research.   The event was marred by multiple attempts from animal extremists to derail these first efforts to open a conversation.  They were unsuccessful.

It is clear that despite much calls for open debate on the use of animals in scientific experimentation some animal extremists do not want such conversation to takes place.  As an example, after the panel discussion a local group of animal activists led by Pamelyn Ferdin (wife of Jerry Vlasak, press officer for the Animal Liberation Front) continued their outrageous home demonstrations targeting the very same UCLA faculty that organized the event.  This outrageous behavior resulted in a decreased willingness from many among the UCLA community to continue planning additional meetings.

Despite such state of affairs, in Feb 2011 Dr. Ringach and Robert C. Jones (an animal rights philosopher from California State University at Chico and a participant in the our 2010 discussion panel), organized a one-day symposium on the similarities and dissimilarities of human and non-human primate cognition.  This was done with the agreement that any ethical debate on animal experimentation must start with clear scientific understanding of what is known about animal minds.  The symposium featured a very interesting set of presentations and discussions.  Video of this event is available online.

In the last two years Dr. Ringach participated in two debates on the use of animals in research.  The first one at the Institute for Human Values in Health Care at the Medical University of South Carolina, where he debated animal rights philosopher Dr. Nathan Nobis.  Manuscripts resulting from this symposium will be published by the American Journal of the Medical Sciences shortly.   A second debate took place at Rutgers Law School, where he debated animal rights scholar Prof. Gary Francione. A video of this event will also be made available online by Rutgers University in the near future.

We are often asked by colleagues and institutional officials if these efforts have been worthwhile.  The results have been mixed.  One one hand, despite all the associated problems, these activities have served to establish personal lines of communications with animal activists that are truly willing to listen to the other side, and the public get the message that all those involved in the responsible use of animal research are ready explain their side of the story. On the other hand, these activities have certainly drawn  increased threats and violence from animal rights activists that disapprove of civilized engagement. True, such behavior from a minority of animal rights extremists was anticipated.  What was not anticipated was the nearly absolute silence from the rest of the animal rights community on this issue.

As the scientific community reflects as a whole on the value of holding such events we cannot help but wonder — where are the animal rights activists and organizations that deplore violence and are interested in an honest and open dialogue?  Please step forward and tell us — what have you done to foster dialogue?

Regards

Speaking of Research

→ 10 Comments

Posted in Campus Activism, News

Tagged , , , , ,