Category Archives: Campus Activism

Challenging Scientific Dishonesty Across Italy

With the Pro-Test Italia rally only 2 weeks away, there is a growing movement against the widespread misrepresentation of science in Italy. To counter this, two members of Pro-Test Italia – Giulia and Federico – have set up “Italy United against Scientific Disinformation“. They will hold a set of public talks around Italy on June 8th 2013, one week after Pro-Test Italia hold a rally in defence of medical research using animals. Click on the image below to share it on Facebook.

Italia Unita Per La Corretta Informazione ScientificaThe new organisation intends to debunk scientific misinformation wherever it exists. This includes issues surrounding vaccinations (and the myth that it causes Autism), stem cell research and of course the use of animals in biomedical research.

The group provided Speaking of Research with the following message:

“Italy United against Scientific Disinformation” is a mega-project. A very ambitious grass-roots initiative, it is the brain child of two young members of Pro-Test Italia , who worked together to reach out to the community, and found that there are many good people who share their ideals and were willing to join them.

Starting with a budget of zero, and in record time, the project already involves events in several Italian cities and volunteers from all over Italy, with more joining every day.

At the heart of this movement are young science enthusiasts, who are fed up with the way that the Italian public are being manipulated.

Are you fed up with how science is condemned by ordinary people, who prefer to be carried away by phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, despite all the contrary evidence?

If the problem was limited to merely erroneous beliefs it would be tolerable, but in Italy legislative measures are often taken based on mistaken beliefs, so research also suffers many limitations (funding cuts, incorrect regulations and so on). As a result of this we witness daily the phenomenon of brain drain, which afflicts our country severely.

Science is our future. Everything starts with the correct scientific information, but in Italy this is sadly absent from public discourse.

Young people have thus decided to involve their universities and their teachers, to involve associations, to call on the experts, who together will expose the most common misconceptions in this country!

On June 8 we will all unite against misinformation, unite for science, and above all unite for the future of our country.

Giulia and Federico

Contacts: italiaxlascienza@live.com

Events are planned all over Italy

Events are planned all over Italy

So stand up and be counted in support of science. Such events will no doubt play an important part in the developing public dialogue about how Italian politics and media interact with important scientific issues.

Speaking of Research

4,000 People Stand Firm Behind Animal Research

The Basel Declaration has collected over 4,000 signatures in the week since its Call for Solidarity behind researchers at the University of Milan.

Sign Now

After the terrible break in at the University of Milan by animal rights extremists, the Basel Declaration sent out an email where they said:

In discussion with Prof. Francesco Clementi, a signatory of the Basel Declaration and renowned pharmacologist whose research was devastated by the attack,  we have decided to ask you to join us in an international call for solidarity to strongly condemn these violent and extremist acts against researchers and their animals.

Therefore, we now ask you to show your solidarity with the Italian colleagues, whose research has been so badly hurt at this time. What happened in Milan, can happen anywhere anytime if we do not stop it! In democratic societies, we can no longer accept extremist acts against researchers devoted to basic and medical research, which is key to finding cures and/or better treatments for the many still devastating and deadly diseases.  We need to send a very strong message to the extremists, but also to politicians, lawmakers and law enforcement officials that unfortunately do not always act forceful enough to prevent and/or interfere with such extremist acts.

So, we urge everyone to share this petition on Facebook and Twitter:

Facebook share: https://www.facebook.com/SpeakingofResearch/posts/527048730671317

Twitter retweet: https://twitter.com/SpeakofResearch/status/328835598737633280

This news comes as Pro-Test Italia announce that they will be holding a demonstration in support of medical research using animals, and against animal rights extremism, on Saturday 1st June 2013. It will start at 3pm by Via Mercanti in Milan (more details on Facebook).

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

They’re Pro-Test. Are you?

We urge all scientists and members of the public in and around Milan to join this rally. We hope it may mark a turning point in the way that animal research is explained in the Italian media after a string of bad publicity.

Speaking of Research

Pro-Test Italia in Milan: A silver lining to a grey cloud

In December 2012 we reported that scientists in Italy had founded Pro-Test Italia to counter the rising tide of ignorance and intimidation that threatens the future of science in Italy. Last weekend we heard about a new animal rights outrage in Italy.  As reported in Nature News, activists broke into the Department of Pharmacology in the University of Milan on Saturday, where they wrecked valuable research projects before leaving with over a hundred mice, rats and rabbits. On previous occasions the response from the scientific community to such raids and theft in Italy has been lacklustre at best, but this time things would be different . Our colleagues in Pro-Test Italia take up the story.

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

On Saturday the 20th of April, a national rally against “vivisection” took place in Milan, with about 200 people participating. Just before the rally’s beginning, 5 animal rights activists posted on the “Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill” (Coordination to stop Green Hill) Facebook page announcing that they had forced entry inside the Pharmacology Department of Milan’s University. Those activists barricaded themselves inside the animal facilities, tying chains both around their necks and around the doors’ handles to prevent police from breaking in.

They demanded that every animal in the facilities should be released in their hands – about a thousand rats and seventeen rabbits; meanwhile they removed the animals’ tags, rendering them effectively useless and throwing away years of research about Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis, autism and such. In an effort to prevent injuries to the people involved, the director of the department started negotiations that ended with the release of the activists from the department. The activists got to take away with them about a hundred mice and rats and a rabbit, with the promise that even more animals released into their hands in the following days. Of course at that point the animals were already useless for research.

Meanwhile, the “anti-vivisection” rally reached the building, and started throwing names at the researchers, calling them “Killers” and “Monsters”.

CNR Researchers in an open letter speak of serious damages. “It’s hard to quantify the damage, but it will be in the order of hundreds of thousands of euros, and goes far beyond the removal of some animals because the activists removed tags from all of the cages: we cannot identify the animals any more, which means years of research have been thrown away, along with the funding.”

Bice Chini, researcher at the CNR Institute of Neuroscience, explained during an interview with La Repubblica why the damage isn’t only monetary.

Everyone expecting new remedies and cures for serious, deadly diseases, has been damaged. Years of studies have been lost, we are unable to determine the consequences this will have on research, namely how much it will be slowed down.”

Some of the animals that activists took away are genetically modified, and are precious models for some degenerative genetic diseases; researchers were hoping to observe these animals and understand the causes and workings of these pathologies, in order to create new treatments. “Sometimes years are needed to select the right animals to observe a specific disease’s development” says Francesco Scaglione, Pharmacology professor in Milan State University, during an interview with TV news La7 Cronache “When animals are studied, there is no useless suffering, and when they have to be euthanised, we always use anesthesia.”

This time the Italian scientific community raised its head. On Saturday afternoon our association, Pro-Test Italia, with help from the organization Federfauna - which supports the interests of people who work with animals - and the Facebook page “A Favore Della Sperimentazione Animale“, managed to get authority’s permission for a peaceful rally on Sunday morning in Milan. About 60 people, mostly students and young researchers, took part in the rally, wearing white coats and carrying banners in support of science and against bullying, ignorance and misinformation..

The first objective of the rally was information: participants were good mannered, never stooping down to insults, and explained to passers by why animal research is important and what makes this latest action by animal rights activists so despicable. A small group of said activists tried to disturb the peaceful rally, but with no success.

Our friends from OMG! Science, took part in the rally with us: they interviewed passers by many of whom did understand the gravity of Saturday’s actions by animal rights activists.

Our rally was reported both on a local (TG3 Regione) and national TV News (Tg1, La7 Cronache), and many leading Italian newspapers and press agencies also spoke of these events, including Corriere della SeraLa Repubblica, ANSA, La Stampa, Il Giornale and  Il Giorno. What has also been striking over the past few days is the volume of messages of support that we have received, and the many new likes on our FaceBook page, all of which shows how many Italians were waiting for somebody to stand up to animal rights extremism.

The biggest animal rights associations in Italy (such as LAV, ENPA, LeIDA) said nothing about Saturday’s activists crimes, and it’s not the first time they avoid condemning such acts. We can only wonder why.

Sunday was something of a milestone: for the first time members of the Italian scientific community took action against animal rights activists’ violence and criminal behavior, and we took part in our very first rally. We look at these brave young scientists and students with trust and expectation, hoping that things will now really start to change.

Pro-Test Italia

Update 13.55 BST, 23 April 2013- The Rector of the University of Milan has stated that there is no agreement between the University and the animal rights extremists, and that no more animals will be handed over to them by the depatement. This is welcome but not entirely surprising as to do so would violate animal welfare regulations – especially those governing the care of genetically modified animals.

Addendum: Pro-Test Italia have informed us that they will be holding another rally in Milan on Saturday June 1st, you can find the details on FaceBook!

Reduction: A Measure You Can’t Measure

The 3Rs – Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of animal research – can we measure the impact? Seems easy enough, but there are challenges.

How many experiments have been replaced by non-animal alternatives? Do we count every time a cell culture is used in an experiment that might once have been done in vivo? No. While some critics point to the relatively small sums of money that organisations like the Dr Hadwen Trust or NC3Rs spend on research in replacement, few note the huge sums spent by industry on researching and using alternatives.

Refinement is even harder to quantify. Do we look at the money spent on refinement? Do we include bigger, better enclosures? What about the smaller enclosure before that were still better than the ones that preceded it? How do you put a measure of social housing of animals? Once again measurement becomes nigh on impossible.

So, we arrive at the third R – Reduction. Surely this is the easiest to measure, we simply look at the total number of animals used in research and see how the numbers have changed?

The US has seen a 50% decline in the use of AWA-covered animals since 1992, despite a slight rise in 2010. However, it is unknown whether this fall has correlated with a similar fall in the use of mice, or whether researchers have been choosing to use mice instead of “higher” animals.

In the UK, where all vertebrates are counted, there has been a steady rise since 2001, from 2.6 million procedures (slightly fewer animals) to 3.8 million (2011).

Number of Animals used in research UK Home Office

Does this mean the UK is failing to implement the principle of Reduction? The British Union for the Abolition for Vivisection certainly think so. In their new “Broken Promises” campaign they say:

The Government is failing on its pledge to work to reduce the use of animals in research. This is an issue where there is strong public concern yet the latest statistics show that animal experiments in the UK are at an all-time high since 1986 (the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in Great Britain).

When the Coalition Government took office in 2010 it’s Programme for Government included the pledge to “work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.” This was included after strong lobbying from the BUAV, and we have been leading the way in holding the Government to account ever since.

However, the latest statistics from the Home Office show that despite this pledge the number of animals being used in experiments is now more than 3.7 million, the highest figure for 25 years.

It is true that the number of animals used in research has risen since 2001. One of the main reasons for this is the huge rise in funding for animal research. Since 1995 (remember that funding has a lagged effect on the number of animals used), the expenditure on bioscience and medicine R&D in the UK has gone up by 150%, while the number of animals has risen by only 30% – that means that animal use is shrinking as a percentage of funds (though this effect will be slightly mitigated by the fact that animal use has become more expensive over the period).

Rises in funding in Biomedical research in the UK

We must realise that Reduction is not about using less total animals, but like the other Rs, is about the conduct of individual experiments. Russell and Burch, who first described the 3Rs in 1959, described Reduction as:

Reduction means reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision.

It is about using fewer animals to obtain given pieces of information, i.e. individual experiments (not the total in a country). Scientists have been effective at reducing the number of animals they use in experiments thanks to better models and improved scanning devices. Whereas at one time a cancer study might have involved 10 rats being euthanised one a fortnight to study the progress of a tumour, modern scanning techniques can allow the tumour of one rat to be studied non-invasively over the whole period – reducing the number of animals used. Counting these reductions is difficult. The NC3Rs provide a similar example:

There are many examples, including in the research we fund on cancer drug screening, where new methods allow animal studies to be avoided. These are not one to one replacements for the animal studies. Instead new in vitro tools are used to screen drugs so that only those that are likely to be suitable for further development are taken into animal studies. This avoids wasting animals on drugs destined to fail in preclinical development – animals which would,

if used, have been recorded in the statistics. It is difficult to envisage how collecting information centrally on efforts to avoid unnecessary animal use could be done in practice (without an unnecessary burden on scientists and institutions) but it does illustrate the complexity of measuring the 3Rs.

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which works to implement and fund the 3Rs, warned against drawing conclusions from the “total” number of animals released by the Home Office, saying:

The annual statistics published by the Home Office on procedures performed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 contain a large amount of information on animal use – numbers, species and purpose. At first sight it would be expected that they would be a good benchmark on 3Rs activities in the UK and indeed they are routinely used in this way by some campaign organisations. The statistics were, however, never intended to be a gauge of progress in the 3Rs, and in any case their utility for such a purpose is limited for a number of reasons.

They went on to provide possible reasons for a rise in the number of animals used (now or in the future):

  • Strategic investments in particular research areas or geographic locations:
    This includes when Pharmaceutical companies relocate between countries, changing the numbers of animals used in old and new locations.
  • Availability of new technologies:
    The introduction of GM animals resulted in most of the UK’s increase over the past decade
  • Regulatory Requirements:
    The EU’s REACH legislation could potentially increase the number of animals tests in Europe by 9 to 64 million additional animals.

The BUAV are disingenuous when they describe the Government as failing to meet their pledge on reduction. There has been in the past, and continues to be, great strides in managing the reduction of animal research in individual experiments. It would be wrong for the Government to call on a general reduction in the total number of animals as they cannot predict the course of medical development in the coming years.

Speaking of Research

Addendum:

It is also worth remembering that an arbitrary reduction in the number of animal experiments in the UK (or another country) would simply push that research to countries with lower animal welfare standards. In the words of Mark Harper MP, the UK Government minister on this issue:

Of course, the quickest way to reduce the number of animals would be to drive the work overseas, which would not be good for the United Kingdom, for jobs or for animal welfare. We must be thoughtful about the numbers. We should consider the size of the industry and the work that is being carried out, and whether we are driving down the proportion of animals being used in that work.

Medical Research Needs Your Signatures

The difficulties surrounding the transport of laboratory animals, particularly primates, have been growing over the past 12 months. Efforts by PETA and the “Gateway to Hell” campaign have successfully coerced a number of airlines to stop transporting primates destined for labs, including Air Canada and United Airlines (both of which capitulated to animal rights demands in the last 2 months).

The Canadian Association for Neuroscience and the Society for Neuroscience have both called upon their members to contact these airlines and urge them to rethink their current policy.  The Canadian organisation has suggested the following letter to the directors of Air Canada:

To: Mr. Calin Rovinescu, President and CEO of Air Canada
calin.rovinescu@aircanada.ca

Dear Mr. Rovinescu,

I was troubled to learn that Air Canada has recently decided to halt transport of non-human primates for use in biomedical research. I urge you to reconsider this position, as animal models, including non-human primates, are essential to advancing our understanding of diseases and disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis that could lead to treatments and cures of these devastating conditions. Misinformation, spread by “animal rights” extremists, threatens to hinder research efforts, and must not be allowed to affect policy making in important Canadian companies such as yours.

The significant role that animal models play in lifesaving research is undeniable. Almost every major medical advance in the last century was made possible by carefully regulated, humane animal research. In Canada, the Canadian Council on Animal Care is responsible for setting and maintaining standards for the ethical use and care of animals in science in Canada, and institutions review all animal research to ensure the protection of the welfare of animals used for research purposes. Studies using animal models follows strict ethical guidelines. Airline transportation, provided by companies such as yours, ensures that laboratory animals are available for lifesaving biomedical research in universities, hospitals and research centers.

Highly vocal animal rights extremists are attempting to halt all research which involves animal models, and to sway public opinion in their direction. These people represent a very small number of individuals, much less than the millions who are dependent on the discoveries brought about by humane, well-regulated animal research – not to mention the tens of thousands of scientists who rely on air travel to attend scientific conferences and to conduct their research.

I hope that your personal commitment to advancing science, exemplified by your recent membership in the McGill University Health Research Center Board of Directors, will be reflected in policies at Air Canada that will allow important scientific research to move forward.

Sincerely,

Name (First and Last)
Contact information: Email, Full mailing address.

Society for Neuroscience have set up a system where you can use their website to send emails to both Air Canada and United Airlines – and we, at Speaking of Research, urge you to do this.

Petition support animal research

Click the image above to sign the petition

The Advancing Animal Research blog has also got a petition running to support the transport of animal research (follow it on Twitter via @ERaemdonck). Keep an eye on this blog as it produces regular stories on the importance of animals to biomedical research, with a Canadian twist. The petition reads:

Support Medical Progress through Science and Animal Research

Most medical advancement is achieved through the tools provided by Science. Animal based research is a tool that benefits Humanity and animals alike. If you or a relative of yours is affected by a disease, a disability or a disorder, you’d like for cures, drugs or treatments to be available to you. Sign this petition to show your support!

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Finally, for all those living in the UK, it is really important to sign and share the Government e-petition to “Protect transport of animals for medical research“. In the UK, animal rights activists have not only managed to shut down most air transport, but have also successfully pressured the ferry companies to shut down their own transportation of laboratory animals.

PETA and BUAV have operated a systematic campaign of lobbying against hauliers. The government must support and protect the medical research industry by ensuring animals are transported for vital medical research.

Ferry companies and airlines (inc. BA) are refusing to carry animals due to this pressure.

http://www.nature.com/news/activists-ground-primate-flights-1.10255
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/stena-lines-wont-ferry-animals.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/14/laboratories-animals-anti-vivisection-campaign

Life sciences = £50bn year to UK economy
UK biotech = 31% EU market
UK is responsible for 15% of world’s academic output.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economics-and-statistics/docs/10-541-bis-economics-paper-02.pdf

The spurious claims of an (albeit vocal) minority of extremists are compromising the healthcare of future generations and damaging the economy.

So make sure you sign this petition now. Furthermore, support them on Twitter via @KEEPRSRCHAFLOAT and visit their website.

So take 5 minutes to do the following:
- email Air Canada and United Airlines with the email from Society for Neuroscience
- Sign the Change.org petition in support of animal research
- Sign the Government e-petition urging the government to protect the transport of animals (UK only)
- Share these petitions and this post with as many people as possible on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google+ and any other outlet – see the social media buttons below.

Please Act Now!

Speaking of Research

This House Does Not Believe Animal Research is a Moral Hazard

A lively debate at the Trinity College Dublin Philosophical Society on Thursday rejected the motion that “This House Believes that Animal Testing is a Moral Hazard”.

Speaking of Research founder, Tom Holder, joined three students in explaining both the moral and scientific case for the continued use of animals in medical research. In opposition was the Director of Antidote Europe, Andre Menache, the Campaign Director of the Animal Rights Action Network, John Carmody, and two student speakers.

ddfg

Speakers (L->R by row): Rachel Graham (s), Liam Hunt (s), Andre Menache, Tom Holder, John Carmody, Cormac Henehan (s), Ben Butler (s) and Claire Kelly (s) and Lorcan Clarke (President of The Philosophical Society). (s) denotes TCD student.

The debate was lively, with most students choosing to focus on the philosophical angle, developing and destroying arguments for and against animal rights, human contractualism and utilitarianism. Dr. Menache chose to focus on scientific issues, including TGN1412 and looking at recent developments in replacement heart valves. John Carmody expressed the view that students were a victim of society if they supported animal research, and suggested that animal rights was an inevitability. Tom Holder gave a well received speech that pointed to the past successes of animal research and explained the many levels of protection that animals in labs are afforded. He noted that Stage I clinical trial disasters such as TGN1412 were so rare because of animal safety tests, as well as supporting the advances in synthetic heart valves – pointing out that for many years there was no non-animal replacement  available. Holder wrapped by concluding that animal research was “not a moral hazard but a moral imperative“.

When the time to vote came, the nays took two-thirds of the chamber, out voting the ayes two to one. This house did not believe that animal research was a moral hazard.

Speaking of Research return to Trinity College Dublin

In 2009, Speaking of Research founder, Tom Holder, spoke at a debate on animal research at the College Historical Society at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) – a student debating union that lays claim to be the oldest student society in the world. On that occasion, the motion against animal research was roundly defeated – with those watching backing the careful use of animals for medical advancement.

Now, almost four years later, Holder returns to TCD, to speak at a debate at the University Philosophical Society, Trinity’s other prodigious debating chamber that also claims to be the oldest student society in the world. It is great to see the question of animal research continues to be discussed in a reasoned and academic environment. Or will it?

The debate motion is rather curiously titled: “This House Believes Animal Testing is a Moral Hazard”. Though more disturbing is the Facebook Event Page’s description:

Look into your pet dog’s sad puppy eyes and turn back to your computer screen to click ‘attending’ on Facebook to this week’s debate, which will thrash out this perennial moral dilemma. Do we care enough about man’s best companion to read the labels on our shampoo bottles? Is animal testing a disgusting reflection of modern society or a necessary evil to further medical research?

Perhaps the first point that will need to be spelled out at this debate is that Ireland, like the rest of the EU, has outlawed the use of animals for testing cosmetics. Holder noted in the report of the previous debate at TCD that many students were unaware that cosmetic testing was not carried out at the university.

University Trinity College Dublin Animal Testing

Tom will speak alongside another guest speaker (to be confirmed) against the motion. Opposing him (in support of the motion) will be: Andre Menache – Director of ‘Antidote Europe,’ and veterinary surgeon; and John Carmody – Campaigns Director for ‘ARAN,’ the Animal Rights Action Network. There will also be two student speakers on each side.

The debate takes places at 7:30pm at the Graduates Memorial Building on the Trinity College Dublin campus.

Speaking of Research

“Why I am a Laboratory Animal Veterinarian”

Today’s guest post is by Kelly Walton DVM, a third year student of comparative medicine at Colorado State University. Kelly explains why her love of animals led her to a career in laboratory animal welfare.
The views expressed below are that of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer or institution.

Most of us can probably look back on our childhood and remember “that kid” in school who was hopelessly obsessed with all things cute and furry. The kid who preferred spending their time with four-legged friends over the human variety, and who decorated their class notes with drawings of animals. The strange, socially awkward type who would hold impromptu funerals in their backyard for a tragically deceased bird or mouse. I was that child growing up in a small town in northern Ohio. There wasn’t a single species of animal I didn’t love (or try to bring into my parents’ house), and at an early age I had accepted that this would probably be my identity for life.

It has come as no surprise to residents of my home town that I left high school and pursued a degree in veterinary medicine. Probably unimaginable was the thought that I could have done anything with my life that did not directly involve working with animals. My chosen focus, however, has drawn countless quizzical looks from many of my acquaintances, old and new, and has at times proven to be a very effective conversation killer. I am currently in the final months of my post-doctoral training in laboratory animal, or comparative, medicine. My patients are not pets or production animals, but living models of human and animal disease. I receive many questions when I discuss my job with the people I meet – “Isn’t animal-based research cruel and unnecessary?” “Why do laboratory animals even need a veterinarian – aren’t they just killed in the name of science?” “How can someone who loves animals as much as you say you do work in an environment in which they’re used for scientific experiments?”

"I believe I have chosen the speciality in which I can have the single most important impact on animal welfare"

“I believe I have chosen the speciality in which I can have the single most important impact on animal welfare”

These are all questions that I’m sure the high school version of myself would ask if I were to have a conversation with her today. And they are valid questions, because until the scientific community can fully embrace the concept of transparency without fear of widespread misrepresentation, we can’t expect the general public to truly understand what we do.

On June 12, 2010, I stood with my veterinary class at The Ohio State University and recited an oath that I have taken to heart and applied to my professional life every day since. Similar in content to the physician’s Hippocratic Oath, one may wonder if the practice of laboratory animal medicine is in direct contradiction to the principles therein. I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I believe the Veterinarian’s Oath could have been written specifically with my colleagues in mind. It is my sincere hope that the points below will clarify the vital role of veterinarians in this deeply rewarding profession I call my own.

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare…

Laboratory animals are no different than their counterparts living in homes or on farms around the world. They can become sick. They are susceptible to infections that may require medical intervention. They can injure themselves. They require preventive health plans and vaccinations. Just as your pets have a veterinarian to address all of their medical needs, the laboratory animals at my institution have me, as well as many other talented veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and husbandry personnel that are dedicated to their wellbeing. We work diligently to ensure that our animals are healthy and well-cared for – not only because ethically it’s the right thing to do, but because the integrity of the science produced by these animals depends on it.

Unlike my colleagues in general veterinary practice, I have a right to make healthcare decisions for my patients that do not depend on the opinions, level of compassion, or financial status of their owners. This is a responsibility that is given to me by the numerous laws and regulations that govern the use of animals in research. It is ultimately the obligation of the attending veterinarian or their designee to determine when a medical concern requires intervention and to provide the necessary treatment, and as impartial players in the research process, our number one priority is to advocate for the animals’ welfare.

…the prevention and relief of animal suffering…

Veterinarians are instrumental in the direction of laboratory animal care programs, and are responsible for developing practices to meet all of our animals’ environmental, nutritional, and social needs. We implement policies and provide training and oversight to ensure that these policies are followed, and establish systems for the timely reporting and management of animal-related concerns. In addition, laboratory animal veterinarians often conduct their own studies investigating novel methods for improving animal welfare in the research setting. The wellbeing of laboratory animals depends heavily on the existence of veterinarians who are solely dedicated to the continual improvement of their quality of life.

Surprisingly to some, most research procedures cause little or no pain or distress to animals (for example, routine injections, blood collections, or observations). However, some studies may require procedures that are more invasive and create the potential for discomfort. It is for this reason that a veterinarian must be consulted in all stages of planning an animal use protocol.  During this process, we advise investigators on the best way to accomplish their experimental goals while maintaining sound animal welfare practices. This can mean ensuring that appropriate anesthetics and analgesics are provided as necessary; that physical restraint is minimized and appropriate for the species involved; that post-procedural monitoring is adequate; that personnel are adequately trained to perform the proposed procedures; and most importantly, that alternatives to potentially painful procedures are considered and used whenever possible.  Veterinarians are uniquely qualified to make these determinations due to their extensive training in both basic science and medicine, and the ability to oversee animal research empowers us to prevent unnecessary suffering.

 …the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.

The importance of animals in research cannot be overstated. Animals have been vital in the development of every major medical discovery, and an effective alternative system to completely eliminate the need for animals in research has not yet been established. As laboratory animal veterinarians, we understand that animal use is necessary to improve our understanding of disease, however we also believe that it is a privilege that must be carried out humanely. Animal research has given us insulin, antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplantation, chemotherapy, and a host of other lifesaving technologies that would otherwise not have been possible. My position allows me to support these breakthroughs while also ensuring the ethical care and use of research animals.

For the animal lovers among us, it is important to note that these discoveries not only benefit humans, but other animals as well. Joint replacements, cancer treatments, neurodegenerative disease therapies, and numerous emergency procedures are now possible in animals because the concepts were initially studied in animals for use in people. As a veterinarian in laboratory animal medicine, I have the privilege of contributing to the “One Health” initiative that has been adopted by both the AMA and the AVMA in the United States. In this environment, physicians and veterinarians collaborate and share new information that can translate between human and veterinary medicine, resulting in longer, healthier lives for all of our patients.

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

The concept of animal welfare does not mean that animals share the same rights to life and liberty as human beings. Advocates of animal welfare, unlike animal rights activists, believe in the responsible use of animals for human purposes such as food, clothing, entertainment, or research. They also believe that humans have a moral obligation to treat all animals with respect, dignity, and compassion, to provide all basic needs for a comfortable life, and to minimize pain and suffering. The practice of laboratory animal medicine is not only consistent with the principles of animal welfare, but I believe it is truly a model for them. In no other facet of this profession can I imagine having the opportunity to promote veterinary ethics while also contributing to the advancement of human and animal medicine, public health, and scientific knowledge.

My career in laboratory animal medicine, still in its infancy, has asked a lot of things of me. It has required that I learn to love and appreciate all animals, including the very small and sometimes not-so-cute. I’ve had to broaden my clinical skills to become proficient in the medical care of species I previously did not know existed. I have learned that I must be prepared to tackle many challenges that I was not prepared for in veterinary school. The daily tests are one of the things I love most about my job. This career does not mean that I turn my back on any part of the oath that I took on the day that I graduated. To the contrary, I believe that I have chosen the speciality in which I can have the single most important impact on animal welfare. And I couldn’t be prouder to be a part of such a wonderful and compassionate profession.

Kelly Walton DVM
Comparative Medicine
Colorado State University