Category Archives: Campus Activism

Animal Testing Poll – Let Your Voice Be Heard

The British broadsheet newspaper, The Guardian, has a poll on its website about views on animal testing – please go and show your approval for this important tool in the development of modern medicine:

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

Animal testing is absolutely crucial for drug discovery – every drug on the market today has been tested on animals – it’s both crucial and a legal requirement. Animal testing saves human lives.

All potential new drugs are thoroughly tested on enzymes and cells before they go into an animal, so only compounds which seriously look like they could become a drug go into an animal. Unfortunately, even with all of our present-day knowledge, in vitro testing, and computer simulation, there is still no way of knowing how a drug will behave in a human, so animal models are the best we have, by a long way.

Animal testing in the UK is highly regulated and has some of the highest standards in the World. A home office licence is required for all proceedures.

People who say no to animal testing know nothing about the drug discovery process. Millions of humans lives have been saved as a direct result of animal testing. Anyone who has ever benefited from taking a drug or pharmaceutical product in this country has benefited from animal testing, so is a hypocrite if they object to animal testing.

So show your support, and include your vote.

Cheers
Tom

Putting Public Polls in Perspective

Research!America, a not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance, has been polling the public on their views on animal research for the last decade. In 2011, when asking whether people “believe the use of animals in medical research is necessary for progress in human health”, found:

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

PR: Progressive Response

The Metro, a free UK newspaper read by around 3.5 million British commuters each day, today showed why the British public do not find animal research a particularly contentious issue. In less than 200 words,The Metro reported on the use of naked mole rats in the fight against cancer.

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

Help Defend Research: Apply for the Michael D Hayre Fellowship

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

Now is the Time to “Speak of Research”

Over the past decades we have heard many warnings about the need for scientists to engage with the public.  Unfortunately, the bulk of the scientific community has largely ignored such calls.

Fourteen years ago, in their book, “World apart: how the distance between science and journalism threatens america’s future”, Hartz and Chappell explained that  “at the heart of the matter is the value we [society] place on science itself.”    This is indeed what’s at stake.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Scientists must talk to the public because social policies need to be decided on the basis of rational grounds and facts, including issues ranging from climate change, to the goals of the space program, to the protection of endangered species, the use of embryonic stem cells, and the use of animals in research.

Many have warned that if the public and policymakers do not hear the voice of scientists, if they are not presented with the facts, it may only be a matter of time before a large segment of the public will be asking why are we doing (and why they are paying for) such work.   A recent poll by the Pew Research suggests that this might already be happening.

Society needs from the help and engagement of scientists to understand our work and its importance for future progress and advances.  The american public is, in general, ill equipped to grasp the nuance and significance of scientific developments on their own.  For example, only 25% of americans consider themselves sufficiently informed as to the “nature of scientific inquiry” to make judgements about reports they see in the media.

Our representatives have also repeatedly asked for scientists to participate more in public life.  Addressing a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Congressman Sherwood Boehlert told his audience that:

“Scientists should participate actively, even avidly, in policy debates. Indeed, both as educated citizens and as professionals with relevant knowledge, scientists ought to feel obligated to contribute to policy making in their communities, in the nation and even in the wider world”. 

At another meeting of AAAS, his congressional colleague John Porter offered the view that:

“Scientists are by every measure the most respected people in America. They are listened to. But if the public and policymakers never hear your voices, never see… science, never understand its methods, the chance of its being high on the list of national priorities will be very low. [...] You can sit on your fingers or you can go outside your comfort zone and get into the game and make a difference for science. Neither we, nor AAAS, nor any other group can do it all for you. Science needs you. Your country needs you. America needs you… fighting for science!”.

Indeed, it is time to go out of our comfort zone.   Granted — not all scientists are good public communicators, but they surely can learn to communicate effectively and, besides, the alternative is totally unacceptable.  A recent Editorial by Christopher Reddy in Science agrees:

“Communicating is risky, but not doing so is riskier. If scientists and journalists don’t try harder and make continual efforts to learn each other’s languages and gain confidence, knowledge will remain locked in laboratories, misunderstood, unused, or even worse, misused. When this happens, those who thirst for information are shortchanged, and the work of scientists becomes more of an interesting hobby than a critical endeavor of fundamental value to society.”   

Reddy goes on to suggests very specific ways in which universities can help scientists engage with journalists that deserve the attention from our institutions and press offices.

Much of the criticism of animal research is generated by a failure to understand the value of science in general, what the work actually entails, and how progress in some areas of medicine and basic science are critically dependent on animal research.

It is a scientists’ obligation to society to explain the importance of our work and our commitment to ethical standards.

Now is the time to “Speak of Research”.

Embracing the 3Rs

Guest post from Jayne Mackta, President of the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research, and CEO of Global Research Education & Training, LLC

At NJABR’s recent Strategy Summit entitled Animal Research: Risks & Reality, keynote speaker Jerrold Tannenbaum cautioned the audience to be aware of shifts in language that have tremendous power to affect public perceptions and ultimately public policy. His focus on enrichment took me by surprise and got me thinking. He pointed out that when Russell and Burch introduced their now famous 3Rs in 1959, the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement were strategies for minimizing pain and/or distress in laboratory animals.

Over the years, the research community has embraced the 3Rs, which are intrinsic to good science methodology. We are always seeking better, faster, more efficient ways to move the process forward, including seeking ways to replace animals, reduce the number of animals used, and refine techniques.

Enrichment is a form of Refinement, which is described in the New Guide as “modifications of husbandry or experimental procedures to enhance animal well-being and minimize or eliminate pain and distress.” Note the expansion of the concept to animal well-being.

Enrichment itself has more to do with the animal’s environment where the emphasis is on promoting species-specific behaviors, which does affect well-being and implies minimizing or eliminating pain and distress. However, the focus on “providing animals with sensory and motor stimulation” and promoting “psychological well-being” represents quite a shift from the original meaning of the 3Rs and certainly ramps up the role of enrichment in the humane care of laboratory animals. As a community, we need to think about what we say we are doing and carefully watch our words. We struggle to equate the 3Rs with the term “alternatives” that is commonly understood to stand for efforts to replace animals. For some, replacement has become an end in itself. I think we must be careful not to let enrichment become just another weapon in the war of words to end animal research.

Regards

Jayne Mackta, Publisher
President & CEO, Global Research Education & Training, LLC (GR8
)

Would you like to make a guest post? Contact us.

Pro-Test’s Pycroft still Speaking Up

Five years ago, a sixteen year old led scientists, students and members of the public in the first ever rally to support biomedical research. Laurie Pycroft shot into the media limelight as the boy who dared to stand up to animal rights activists. The Pro-Test movement he begun has helped to shape the public attitudes towards animal research in Britain – bringing them firmly behind lifesaving research.

So where is Laurie now? The Independent recently caught up with the 21-year old Pycroft, who has become an undergraduate at Oxford with an aim to study neuroscience.  He notes that, in addition to an early natural inclination in that direction, his interaction with scientists for Pro-Test drew him to research over clinical practice.

Modest about his exceptional accomplishments as founder of Pro-Test, he has been influential across the pond in the US as well. Pro-Test has acted as a model to both Speaking of Research, and the Pro-Test for Science movement (which has done more to effectively replicate Pro-Test’s tactics). His sense of justice and courage to speak out in the face of external malice and internal depression serves as a role model to us all. Below, we can see Pycroft and SR founder, Tom Holder, speaking about why they felt animal research was such an important issue while helping to inform the public on Pro-Test’s five year anniversary.

A number of scientists and organizations here in the US have stepped up to speak the truth in answer to the misleading propaganda from animal rights groups.  And now, as has been widely reported, AR activists have explicitly set students in their sights, targeting them for their supposed vulnerability to manipulation.

Laurie Pycroft is Exhibit A for the error of this assertion.  He is one of a kind, but what we do need is for individuals of the academic community in their departments, at their universities, and with their societies to band together in order to support one another, and to get the word out to the public about the truth of the methods and importance of animals in responsible biomedical research.  This engagement is part of the responsibility of being a scientist.

Like Laurie, no doubt most researchers at least understand where many opponents are coming from:

“Some of them have an internally consistent intellectual argument,” he says. “There is a popular misconception that animal rights activists are all firebomb-throwing nuts, but a lot are very reasonable people. There is a very small minority, but a very vocal one, which is not. A lot of them are in jail and so that part of the debate has been closed down.”

Here in the US, we still have our work cut out for us to allay the ravages of extremism.

Other young adults moved to take action have received support from the Hayre Fellowship and the considerable expertise of the dedicated individuals at AMP.  There is still time to meet this year’s application deadline on May 20th 2011. Any student or young person with a desire to educate and an innovative idea for outreach is encouraged to apply.

Medical progress and researchers personally, owe a debt of gratitude to Laurie and others who have shown the way by their leadership.  His studies will bring many new challenges that all graduate students past and present can sympathize with (and that we often hold up as an excuse to neglect our outreach duties).  He will no doubt excel, and we welcome him into the field.

Regards,

Megan

Fish for Science

Back in February I wrote about the prominent  role of Zebrafish in the British Heart Foundation’s Mending Broken Hearts campaign, an initiative that not only highlighted fascinating developments in regenerative medicine but also the degree to which the public attitude towards animal research has shifted in the past decade.

One reason for the change in attitudes towards animal research in the UK has been an increasing willingness on the part of scientists to discuss their work with the public. Today I learned from our friends Understanding Animal Research (UAR) of a great example of  what public engagement is all about, and once again zebrafish are the stars of the show. UAR have awarded their very first Wednesday Winner award to the The MRC Centre for Developmental and Biomedical Genetics at the University of Sheffield for their new Fish for Science website.

The Fish for Scence website provides an excellent introduction to the role of zebrafish in biomedical research, including – amongst many topics discussed - why they’re used , what diseases are studied, and the techniques used to study them. They also have links to resources where more detailed information about the role of model organisms, and in particular zebrafish, in biomedical research.

It’s a website that should serve as an inspiration to any research laboratory that is considering how to develop its program of outreach activities and improve the public understanding of science, and a worthy Wednesday Winner!

Paul Browne