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

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 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

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 31^st, 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

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

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.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/jul/14/animal-testing-research

No need to sign up to vote, however you will need to if you intend to leave a comment as well (the more pro-voices heard, the better).

This poll comes on the back of a report which says animal testing in the UK rose by 1% in 2010 – reflecting an increase in previous funding in medical development (in many areas, some of which has been used for research on animals). There were some interesting comments left as well:

yes….and I say this as a vegan

I was completely opposed to animal testing until I visited one of thee facilities and actually dabbled in it myself. The benefits to mankind are massive and without it many drugs and treatments could never have been developed – if we want to advance medical science it is, for now, a necessary evil.

and

At first, these results may seem positive – twice as many people believe that animal research is necessary as do not. It should be  noted that the question asks for a belief about the efficacy of animal research rather than a moral position on it, but it is likely that the results would be close either way. Nonetheless, these seemingly positive results hide a downward trend over the past decade.

The first point of interest is that in 2008, when Research!America stopped providing a “don’t know” option, those who would otherwise claim ignorance have sided against animal research. However, even with the “don’t knows” added to the “no” vote, there has still been a definite rise in those who do not believe that animals are necessary to medical research. With support now dipping below 70% it would seem that it is now more important than ever to ensure that the public is aware about the links between animal research and the medical benefits that they help to develop It is up to scientists, universities and other research institutions to ensure that the media is provided with the information to allow them to include animal research in their stories.

Cheers

Tom Holder

The naked mole rat has an inbuilt resistance to tumours and can live for 30 years, compared with the four-year lifespan of similar sized mice. …Early studies suggest the rat’s cells have a tumour resistant capacity absent in other rodents or in humans.

The blunt reporting on this new rodent model for cancer helps to explain why 90% of the British public support animal research. Scientists were also not afraid to put their name to their work. Dr Joao Pedro Magalhaes said:

‘We aim to use the naked mole-rat genome to understand the level of resistance it has to disease, particularly cancer … This might give us more clues as to why some animals and humans are more prone to disease than others… With this work, we want to establish the naked mole-rat as the first model of resistance to chronic diseases of ageing.’

Could molerats hold the key to preventing cancer?

The lack of reporting in US media about animal research cannot be blamed solely on the news agencies. Rather that press releases released by universities and research institutions are not taking the time to make the clear link between the medical benefits being developed, and the animal research making it possible.

Cheers

Tom

Our colleagues at Americans for Medical Progress are taking applications for the Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach. In 2008 I became the Inaugural Fellow, using the opportunity advance public understanding of medical research through Speaking of Research (which was joinly supported by AMP and Pro-Test). I would recommend anyone interested in defending lifesaving medical research has a look at this Fellowship. Here are some more details:

We need your help finding the next generation of research advocates: young leaders with new ideas and energy for public outreach.  Please help us get the word out about our Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach.

The AMP/Hayre Fellowship supports college students and young adults in creating innovative peer education projects focused on the importance of animal research to medical progress.  Fellows receive a $5,000 stipend and project support.

Named in memory of AMP’s late chairman, Michael D. Hayre, DVM, ACLAM, the Fellowship program began in 2008.  Tom Holder, a founding member of the U.K. student group Pro-Test, was the Inaugural Fellow.  This year we were fortunate to have three Fellows: Gillian Branden-Weiss and Brenna Caltagarone, both veterinary students at the University of Pennsylvania, and Megan Wyeth, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Neurobiology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.  You may read more about the Fellows and learn about some of their lasting contributions to advocacy.

Here are a few ways ways that you can help us find the next Hayre Fellows:

Post the Fellowship announcement on your website.

Print out and distribute the Fellowship flyer to potential candidates.

Share the news with your friends and colleagues.

Ask others to pass the information along.

If you have additional ideas on how to get the word out about the Fellowship, or if you would like more information, or can offer other support for the AMP/Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach, please let me know.

Thank you.  We appreciate all that you do on behalf of medical research!

So even if you’re not interested yourself, passing it on to your friends and colleagues.

Cheers

Tom