Category Archives: Outreach News

Animal Research Statistics for Germany in 2013

Recent events at Max Planck Institute, where Professor Logothetis has publicly quit his primate research after a campaign of harassment by animal rights activists, have turned attention to animal experiments in Germany. In order to encourage accurate and factual discourse on Germany research we have decided to  provide the facts on the numbers of animals used in research in Germany.

These statistics were originally published in December 2014, and can be found here.

Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

87% of experiments in Germany were conducted on rodents, primarily mice (73%) and rats (13%). Other commonly used species were fish (7%) and rabbits (3%). Dogs, cats and primates together accounted for less than 0.2% of research animals.

Statistics Germany animal research 2000 - 2013. Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

Since 2000, the total number of animal tests rose by 64% to a total of 2,977,152 in 2013, though this is slightly lower than in 2012. This reflects similar pattern in many other countries with strong biomedical research sectors such as the UK.

Change in Species of Animals Used in Germany for Animal Research 2000 - 2013. Image Credit: www.speakingofresearch.com

Click to Enlarge

The rise in animal numbers is almost exclusively from a large rise in the number of mice being used in research in Germany. Part of this reflects the versatility of genetically modified mice which have become a mainstay of research over the last decade.

See animal research statistics from other countries here.

The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease

Jack Botting Animal ResearchDr Jack Botting (1932-2012) was a keen advocate of informing the public about the important role of animals in research. Following a successful career in pharmacology, Dr Botting became the Science Director for the Research Defence Society (RDS), an organisation which would later merge with the Coalition for Medical Progress to form Understanding Animal Research. During his five years at RDS, he wrote many essays for the newsletter on the contribution of animal studies to our understanding of diseases and treatments, as well as address many of the activists pseudoscientific claims denying the role of animals in modern medical developments.

Recently, his wife, Renia Botting, collated his essays and published them in a free-to-all online book. Across nineteen essays, Jack Botting explains the contribution of animal experiments to the treatment of infectious diseases, the development of life-saving procedures, and the creation of drugs for organic diseases. See the chapter overview below:

Animals and Medicine - The contribution of animal experiments to the control of disease

You can read the whole book by clicking here. Choose either “Read the pdf” or “Read the HMTL” to view the whole book for free in two different formats.

Renia Botting writes in the introduction to the book:

“One of the most damaging aspects of antivivisection campaigning was that they had started to hijack the scientific argument, claiming that animal experimentation was scientifically misleading, “a failed technology” etc., and that an examination of the research behind major medical advances showed that non-animal techniques were crucial and that the animal experiments had contributed nothing, or worse still, held up progress. Antivivisectionists were deliberately shifting the debate from the traditional “science vs animal welfare” argument to a “scientific” debate giving their arguments a cover of scientific respectability.

To respond to this style of campaigning, Jack was given the specific task of reviewing the research behind the major medical advances and writing non-technical reviews explaining the role played by animal experimentation. His work effectively put an end to this aspect of antivivisection campaigning. The articles which Jack wrote at that time have been collected in this book.”

It would seem that Jack faced the same challenges we do now in correcting misinformation put about by animal rights groups, as “scientific antivivisection” is sadly still up to its old tricks – if under new guises. His essays address many of the exact same myths that we have worked to debunk. For instance when discussing the development of penicillin, Botting directly answers the animal rights claims that it would never have been further developed if guinea pigs were used in initial tests; when discussing similarity in drug reactions he looks at claims that aspirin has teratogenic effects in rats. The book is well worth a read, especially for anyone who is new to this debate.

Animals and Medicine: The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of Disease by Jack Botting.

Guest Post: Animal models in research are necessary and ethical

The following post was originally published in The Daily of the University of Washington on April 26, 2015. It has been reproduced with permission from the newspaper and the original author. Benjamin Cordy is a neurobiology student at UW, he is also the Editor-in-Chief of Grey Matters Journal – an undergraduate neuroscience journal whose mission is to educate the public and develop effective science communicators.

Guest editorial: Animal models in research are necessary and ethical

On Saturday hundreds gathered in Red Square to voice their opposition to scientific research. At its core, this is the true message of the animal rights movement, which believes that research should never rely on animal models. The march on UW was about stopping science altogether. Is this really the best move for society?

Debates about animal models in research are emotional, contentious, and unfortunately, often fraught with demonstrably false “facts.” This is a serious problem. It is impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about the role of science and medical research in society if a position is based on misinformation and inaccurate beliefs.

Two of the most frequently repeated claims of the animal rights movement are that animal models are not actually useful in science and that there are more effective, humane ways to engage in research. While appealing, both statements are wrong.

The history of science provides countless examples of the utility of animal research. For example, until as recently as 1940 and the development of the “antibiotic age”, a knee scrape, if it became infected, could be a death sentence.

In 1928 Alexander Fleming discovered that when grown in proximity to one another, the mold Penicillim notatum killed the colonies of the often-fatal bacteria Staphylococcus aureus. Unfortunately, Fleming’s test-tube studies failed to show the antimicrobial properties he expected from Penicillin. These results, and the difficulty of isolating Penicillin, ultimately led Fleming to believe that it might only be useful as a topical antiseptic.

Although Fleming’s work showed some promise, Penicillin was not a high priority for antimicrobial researchers. In addition to being very difficult to isolate, its therapeutic properties seemed to be inactivated in blood — making it a poor candidate for treating systemic infections. But by 1940 enough Penicillin was isolated for testing. In a landmark study Ernst Chain and Howard Florey infected eight mice with a deadly dose of Streptococcus pyogenes. One hour later, four of the mice were injected with Penicillin. These mice survived the infection and changed modern medicine forever.

sss

(Left to Right) Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain – Shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1945

The amount of Penicillin required to treat a human infection is 3,000 times greater than for a mouse. If animal models were unavailable to Chain and Florey, they would have had to undergo the perfectly unreasonable task of isolating huge quantities of a substance that, as far as they could understand, had no therapeutic value. Simply put, without animal models Penicillin would not have been developed.

Fortunately, the story of Penicillin is not unique. There are literally thousands of medical interventions, drugs, and procedures whose discovery and development required the use of research animals. Modern therapies that require animal models include: vaccines, organ transplants, cancer treatments, HIV/AIDS drug development, and thousands more. The claim that animal models are “bad science” and fail to provide important insights into biological understanding and therapeutic development is dishonest and wrong.

The second position of the animal rights movement is that there are alternatives that are simultaneously more effective and humane. The three most often suggested alternatives are human cell cultures, computer models, and experimentation on human subjects.

Tissue and cell culture experiments are extremely powerful research techniques. Their use provides important insights into the function of individual cells and helps identify potential targets for future therapeutics. However, these studies, by their very nature, can only reveal a fraction of the whole picture. For example, a few cells could never describe the complexity of an entire organ — much less the entire organism. Though important for reducing the number of animals used, these techniques could never replace them.

Computational techniques are another tremendously valuable tool. With mathematical models and data analysis, computers allow researchers to better understand the systems they study. But again, computation is a supplement to animal research, not a replacement. Every computer model has to be validated against data collected from animal research. There is no other way to ensure that a modeling program is accurate.

Furthermore, animal rights activists overestimate the power of computer models. In 2007 researchers were able to simulate a virtual brain of 8,000,000 neurons, roughly the complexity of half a mouse brain. While impressive, this is less than 1/10,000th the number of neurons in a human brain and likely much less complex. The simulation ran on the fastest supercomputer and could only do so for 10 seconds at 1/10th the speed of a real brain. In all, this program required the world’s most powerful supercomputer to model one second of one half a mouse brain. How could a desktop PC possibly predict the behavior of the human brain?

The most troubling alternative proposed by animal rights activists is the use of human volunteers for basic science. In practice, such policies would effectively halt biomedical research. For one, the cost of recruiting and paying human subjects would bankrupt already sparse science funding within months. This of course, assumes that enough people volunteer to participate. Considering that clinical researchers already have difficulty in recruiting people for fairly benign studies, it is highly improbable that eight people would volunteer to receive a deadly dose of Streptococcus pyogenes, for example.

Beyond the practical limitations of using only human subjects, there are serious questions about the morality of doing so. Which population is likely to accept payment for becoming test subjects: the socioeconomically disadvantaged or the wealthy? The argument that humans ought to replace research animals raises real concerns about the exploitation of disadvantaged communities.

It was not long ago that I was sympathetic to some of the positions of the animal rights activists. But, as I learned the science behind biomedical therapeutics, it became clear that because animal models save millions and millions of lives, they are necessary. A powerful research program, which includes the use of animal models, is the responsibility of an ethical society.

Benjamin Cordy, UW neurobiology student

Animal research openness in action – from Cambridge to Florida

Last week we published an article calling on all involved in animal research to speak up for science as animal rights activists held their annual World Week for Animals in Laboratories (WWAIL), writing:

This year, if your university or facility is among those that attract attention during WWAIL, we ask that you join in the conversation by providing protestors, public, and media your own voice.  Whether it is via banners, websites, or talking with reporters– speak up for science and for public interests in advancing scientific understanding and medical progress. Although it may not matter to those committed to an absolutist agenda, it can matter to those who are interested in building a dialogue based in fact and serious consideration of the complex issues that surround public interests in the future of science, health, and medicine.”

The past few days have seen several great examples of just the sort of engagement with the public that we had in mind, including videos form two top universities in the UK that take viewers inside their animal research facilities.

The first comes from the University of Cambridge, who have published a video entitled “Fighting cancer: Animal research at Cambridge”, which focuses on how animals used in research are cared for and how the University implements the principles of the 3Rs. It includes interviews with Professor Gerard Evans of the Department of Biochemistry, who uses mice in studies of lung and pancreatic cancers, and Dr Meritxell Hutch of the Gurdon Institute, who has developed 3D liver cell culture models that she uses to reduce the number of mice required for her studies of tissue repair and regeneration, as well as with members of staff as they care for the animals.

The second example is another video, this time from Imperial College London, which also show how research staff care for the animals used in research, and features an interview with Professor of Rheumatology Matthew Pickering, who studies the role of complement proteins in liver damage in mice.

For the third example we cross the Atlantic to South Florida, where animal rights activists are trying to close down several facilities in Hendry County  that are breeding monkeys for medical research, a service that is hugely important to biomedical research. One of the companies being targeted by the animal rights campaigns is Primate Products, so we were delighted to see Dr. Jeff Rowell, a veterinarian and President of Primate Products, speak up about the vital work they do in an interview with journalist Amy Williams of local news outlet News-Press.com.

Primate products

During the interview Dr. Rowell discusses how the work of Primate Products is misrepresented by dishonest animal rights campaigns, including the inaccurate and malicious allegations made by the group Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) in 2010. As we discussed in a post at the time, these allegations were based on the deliberate misrepresentation of photos taken during veterinary care of injuries several macaques received in fighting with other macaques when housed in social groups (a normal though infrequent behaviour in the species in the wild and in captivity).

The News-Press.com article also shows that there is still a lot of work to be done to improve openness in animal research, as the three other companies that are breeding monkeys for research in Hendry County refused to speak with the Amy Williams, a shame considering that it was their decision to base themselves in the county that triggered the current animal rights campaign. While they are justifiably nervous of speaking with the press (some journalists and publications are arguably beyond redemption) the truth is that the “No comment” approach works for no-one apart from those who oppose animal research. In speaking at length with Amy Williams, Jeff Rowell has provided an excellent example that his colleagues in Hendry County would do well to follow.

The initiatives we have seen from the University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, and Primate Products over the past few days are extremely welcome, and we applaud them for their efforts. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the future of medical science will never really be secure until they are the norm rather than the exception.

Before we conclude, it’s worth noting that it’s not just in the US and UK that researchers are beginning to realise the importance of openness in animal research to counter misleading antivivisectionist propaganda. In Italy Prof. Roberto Caminiti, a leading neurophysiologist at the University La Sapienza in Rome whose work is currently being targeted by animal rights activists, was interviewed recently for an excellent video produced by Pro-Test Italia, in which he discusses his primate research and how it is regulated.

Speaking of Research

Interview with a Primate Researcher

In the last few months, Italian animal rights activists have conducted a campaign against animal research, in particular against primate research. This is despite the important role that primates have played in breakthroughs in stem cell research and neuroprosthetics, among other things. Nonetheless, activists continue to try to claim such research is useless. In particular, they targeted Prof. Roberto Caminiti, a leading neurophysiologist at the University La Sapienza in Rome, and his research team, accusing them of animal mistreatment. Earlier this year students and scientists at the University rallied round Prof. Roberto Caminiti, his team, and his important research.
To answer some of the activists accusations, Pro-Test Italia has produced a video with Prof. Caminiti to illustrate why primate research is so important in the field of neurophysiology and brain-computer interface, and why animal models remain essential for this kind of research. Pro-Test Italia have also made an English version of the video:

It’s important to spread this video outside of Italy to both explain to the public what is going on, and to encourage other primate researchers not to remain hidden but to be clear about the important research that they do. Researchers should be proud of the important work they do in contributing to medical developments for everyone.

Marco

UK Charities Explaining Animal Research

Following from our previous post on US charities explaining their animal research, we will now take a look at UK charities using the same criteria. Of the UK top 200 charities (by income in 2012), only seven conduct animal research.

The first thing to note is that all seven organisations are members of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) – an umbrella organisation which demands that its members endorse a statement on the role of animals in research, a portion of which can be read below:

The public supports medical research charities to find new treatments and cures for debilitating and life threatening conditions. All AMRC charities have strategies for how they will fund high quality research to better understand disease and so improve health and wellbeing.
[…]
Whilst not all our members are currently funding research using animals as part of their strategy, they all support the principle of using animals in research when it is necessary to advance understanding of serious health conditions to develop better treatments and there is no alternative that can be used to find out the same information without using animals.

Secondly, six of the seven organisations have signed the Concordat on Openness on Animals in Research in the UK which, among other things, demands signatories will:

Commitment 1: We will be clear about when, how and why we use animals in research

Commitment 2: We will enhance our communications with the media and the public about our research using animals

Ratings Criteria:

The ratings criteria are the same as that used to look at the US charities. To me, the most important thing is that information exists if people need it. Preferably people need to be able to find this information online rather than have to call up for it. Each of the following five criteria will give a charity one star.

  • There is a statement available
  • It provides a good overall explanation of why they fund animal research
  • It is available on their website
  • It provides an explanation on how they determine when to fund animal research
  • Does the website make any mention of the use of animals, for example, in the summaries of research they fund

Cancer Research UK

Five out of Five stars 5/5The main policy page on “The use of animals in cancer research” is disappointing, with only a short statement:

A great deal of cancer research is carried out without using animals. In certain areas, however, animal research remains essential if we are to understand, prevent and cure cancer. Cancer Research UK only uses animals when there is no alternative.

Cancer patients and their families are at the heart of everything we do. We believe that all our research is vital if we are to save the lives of more patients in the future.

However, CRUK also have an easily googleable blog post on the issue which they often provide to those wanting more information. This blog post is fantastic, it begins:

More people are surviving cancer than ever before.

Thanks to decades of research, survival from cancer has doubled in the last 40 years, giving thousands of people more time with their loved ones. In fact, more than half of all patients will now survive for at least ten years.

But this progress simply wouldn’t have been possible without animal research.

At Cancer Research UK, research using animals is part of our efforts to beat cancer. This includes discovering the faulty genes and molecules that cause cancer, investigating how the disease grows and spreads, developing and testing new treatment and tests, and exploring how our immune system can help fight tumours.

The 2,500+ word post, written by the Director of Science Funding, explains why animal research is important, its past contributions, and the reasons and conditions under which animal research projects may be funded. The main pity is that this blog post isn’t linked to from the policy statement, or better yet the information from the blog post put onto the policy statement page.

CRUK also mention animals (usually mice) in research news stories, such as a recent piece that found the activity levels of particular genes in breast tumours could identify more aggressive forms of the disease. This story was mainly about clinical studies, but mentioned early findings in mice that led them there.

Cancer Research UK – 5/5 stars

The Wellcome Trust

Five out of Five stars 5/5
The Wellcome Trust provides an easy-to-find, lengthy statement regarding why they both conduct and fund animal research. Here is a portion.

The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice. Some of the best-known examples include:

  • antibiotics such as penicillin and streptomycin
  • vaccines for polio, meningitis, distemper, foot and mouth
  • treatments for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and asthma
  • drugs to treat mental diseases like depression
  • organ transplants and blood transfusions
  • the use of insulin for diabetes
  • and contraception for use by people and in controlling animal breeding.

The Wellcome Trust is therefore convinced that the use of animals in research remains valid where the potential benefits to be gained by humans and other animals from such research outweighs the use of animals in that research.

The subheadings in the statement show the breadth of the statement:

  • Why animals are used in medical research
  • How many animals are used?
  • Research involving animals is licenced by the Home Office
  • Research must be approved as ethical
  • Wellcome Trust-funded research involving animals
  • The 3Rs – replacement, reduction and refinement
  • Alternatives to animals in medical research

Wellcome news articles and other communications regularly mention the use of animals. For example their recent letter to the UK House of Lords regarding mitochondrial donation mentions the role of mice and monkeys in the development and testing of this new method.

The Wellcome Trust – 5/5 stars

British Heart Foundation

Five out of Five stars 5/5BHF finish the list of British charities in equal form. They provide an extensive statement about their use of animals providing links to other organisations and to their fantastic leaflet on the issue. Here is a portion of the statement:

BHF's leaflet on animal research

BHF’s leaflet on animal research

By studying new medicines and techniques in human cells in the lab first, and carefully trialling the best ones in animals, we’ve done all we can to make sure they’re going to be effective and safe for treating patients.

Researchers are studying how the heart develops in mice and fish to better understand what can go wrong to cause babies to be born with heart defect

Potential new heart medicines that work on human cells in the dish must be assessed in a living system before trials in patients can be carried out

Animal studies can reveal potential problems with new treatments allowing dangerous side effects to be spotted before clinical trials

The research community is constantly developing new techniques to help reduce the number of animals needed or non-animal models. Scientists we fund carry out as much of their research as possible on human volunteers, cells, or computer models for example.

However, completely replacing all animals in research is not yet possible. There is no alternative method that can reproduce the complicated working of our hearts and circulatory systems.

Similarly their news article and other pages on the website will frequently mention the use of animals like rats, mice and zebrafish. British Heart Foundation should also be congratulated for going front and centre with their animal research when they put out a TV advert mentioning their research on zebrafish.

British Heart Foundation – 5/5 stars

Alzheimer’s Society

Five out of Five stars 5/5The Alzheimer’s Society provides a full page of information on its “use of animals in research”. It outlines some of the medical benefits brought about by animal studies, the ethical challenges they face, how and when they do animal research. It suggests around one third of their research funds are spent on animal studies:

Drugs and new treatments that many of us take for granted, from antibiotics to blood transfusions and the current drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, would have been impossible to develop without research involving animals.

Many people are concerned about the well-being of animals used in medical research.  Alzheimer’s Society shares those concerns and strives to ensure that alternatives are used wherever possible.

The statement is good, providing a positive explanation as to why animal research is necessary. It is also easy to find through the website or Google. The research news section of the website makes casual mentions of the different animals used, from fruit flies, to mice.

Alzheimer’s Society – 5/5

Arthritis Research UK

Four out of five stars 4/5Arthritis Research UK are signed up to the AMRC statement, and link to it, but also provide their own perspective. Here is an extract:

Medical research using animals has made a vital contribution to advances in medicine and surgery which have brought major improvements to the health of people. Research using animals will continue to be essential to tackle many of the unsolved problems in understanding and treating musculoskeletal conditions.

The UK has one of the most rigorous systems in the world for regulating animal research. The UK requires permissions from both central Government and local ethical reviews to conduct research involving animals. As part of this approval process, each medical research project using animals must be examined and ways to improve adoption of the 3Rs are considered

The whole statement covers regulation and the 3Rs, to explain when animal research can happen, but I’m not convinced they made the strongest case for why animal research is necessary. An example treatment made possible by animal studies would have really strengthened the statement.

Arthritis Research UK regularly mention animal research in their news posts, such as a recent cell-based approach to regenerate bone and cartilage developed in mice.

Arthritis Research UK – 4/5 stars

Parkinson’s UK

Five out of Five stars 5/5Parkinson’s UK provides a long statement online which includes a strong explanation of why animal research is necessary, past medical breakthroughs made possible thanks to animal studies, quote from a patient, examples of grants, an explanation of the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research and more. Here is an extract:

We believe there is an urgent need for ongoing research to advance our understanding of Parkinson’s, improve treatments and ultimately find a cure. We believe theuse of animals, such as fruit flies and fish, is currently an essential tool in this research, but we are committed to the minimum possible use of animals and to ensuring that highest regulatory standards are maintained.
[…]
Since the 1970s, the lives of millions of people with Parkinson’s around the world has been transformed by the drug levodopa, This acts to partially replace the dopamine that is no longer produced in the brain due the eh death of nerve cells. Research involving animals has formed an essential step in the understanding of the effect of this vital drug.

Parkinson’s UK provide a quarterly publication, which is littered with examples and mentions of animal studies. The most recent issue’s first news story mentions rats, as well as having a letter about the use of animals in research. Parkinson’s are also willing to engage in the news, we have in the past mentioned Parkinson’s UK’s strong letter to a local newspaper responding to activist claims

Parkinson’s UK – 5/5 stars

Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research

Five out of Five stars 5/5Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research have a strong statement and an FAQ on the issue of animal research. Both are easily googleable, and includes details of what animal species are used and what proportion of research projects involve animals (29%).

Some of the biggest achievements in treating blood cancer that are now in routine clinical practice, such as stem cell transplantation, have only been made possible through the use of animals in research.

The achievements of understanding blood cancer progression, understanding the basis for chemotherapy, and identifying the principles of bone marrow transplantation are just some of the revolutionary and lifesaving developments in blood cancer treatment that would not have been possible without using animals.

Whilst there is a considerable amount of research that we support that does not require the use of animals, we believe that animal research is still necessary.  Understanding how disease affects systems within the body, as well as possible treatments, requires investigation in whole body systems. Our animal research mostly uses mice, but we also use other animals like fruit flies and zebra fish.

While the LLR website doesn’t put a lot of news in its research section, when it does it includes mention of the animals. A story about studying genes of patients with blood disorders mentions that cells from mice are also used to study how misfiring enzymes can lead to histone changes.

Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research – 5/5 stars

Summary of Results:

UK Charities doing Animal Research and Animal Testing

Fantastic results from the seven biggest UK medical research charities, though they are far from being the only British charities who talk about their funding of animals. You can see some of these and other charities’ statements below:

When comparing the UK and US charities we see some stark differences. All the UK charities we looked at have a statement available on their website (and googleable). All make an effort to explain how and why animals are used in research. In contrast, most of the US charities do not have a statement available online, though many do mention the use of animals in news articles on the website.

So what can the US charities learn from the British cousins? Well many US charities have prepared statements on the use of animals in research; they just need to get them online. If every charity which had a statement put them online they would raise the average score of American charities from 2.4 out of 5, to 3 out of 5. Many of the American charities could also work to improve their statements – there is good practice both sides of the Atlantic, and they could either take examples from other US charities like the American Cancer Society (see previous post) and Alzheimer’s Association, or they could look to their British equivalents.

But why is it important that charities be open about their animal research? As we discussed in more detail in the previous post there are three main reasons:

They are taking public donations, and the public have a right to know how this money is spent. If charities think funding animal research is important they should be able to explain why frankly and openly.

Charities cannot hide their animal research – animal rights groups can find out even if it is not on their website. However, by putting information openly on their website the charity defends itself against activist attempts to “out” them. The public cannot be “shocked” by the “dirty little secret” that a charity funds animal studies if they have that fact stated openly and clearly on their website (with an explanation as to why). It is better for a charity to state it does animal research and explain the reasons why, than it is to let an activist or journalist put their own spin on it.

Finally, we must foster an environment where both the public, and policy makers, understand the importance of animal research. The former demands the laws and regulations, and the latter put them in place. If the scientific community want to make sure their research environment is secure then they must encourage openness on the issue.

For those charities wanting to improve the way they discuss animal research with the public, there is a fantastic booklet jointly produced by the Association of Medical Research Charities and Understanding Animal Research which provides guidance and support. It covers how a charity can be prepared for questions about its animal research, how to answer those questions (be them by phone, social media, or in person), and finally looks into ways in which charities can find opportunities to be more proactive in their explanation of why they fund or conduct animal studies. The introduction states:

This guide is designed to help medical research charities answer questions from the public about the use of animals in research. Charities have contact with their supporters and the public in many different ways. They need to be able to explain how they are investing donations effectively and be equipped to answer any questions

Hopefully next time we conduct this analysis we will see even higher scores for charities across the world.

Speaking of Research

US Charities Explaining Animal Research

In June 2012 we reviewed five large American health charities which conducted animal research to see how well they communicated this use. The results were not encouraging: three charities got 0/4 stars for their animal research statements, and two charities for 1/4. So has anything changed?

In this post I will look at those charities conducting or funding animal experiments in the US who are on Forbes’ list of top 50 charities (2014). There were nine charities I found that fit the bill:

Ratings Criteria:

I believe the most important thing is that information exists if people need it. It is one reason why we created a searchable list of organisations with a statement on why they conduct or fund animal research. Preferably people need to be able to find this information online rather than have to call up for it. Each of the following five criteria will give a charity one star.

  • There is a statement available
  • It provides a good overall explanation of why they fund animal research
  • It is available on their website
  • It provides an explanation on how they determine when to fund animal research
  • Does the website make any mention of the use of animals, for example, in the summaries of research they fund

American Cancer Society

Four out of five stars 4/5There is no information available on the website but by using their webchat I was given the following statement:

The American Cancer Society advocates the use of non-animal systems in research whenever possible; however, there are times when scientific research using animals remains essential for developing treatments and cures for people with cancer.  When that is the case, the American Cancer Society insists that such research complies with the highest ethical standards to protect the health and welfare of animal subjects.

After talking a little longer I was also provided with the following:

The American Cancer Society supports animal research when:

  • The use of animals is appropriate, and no non-animal alternatives exist.
  • Animals are only used when the answers to scientific questions cannot be obtained in any other way.
  • Computer models do not adequately present how individual molecules, cells, or tissues of the body work when healthy or when disease strikes.
  • The researchers guarantee the highest ethical and compassionate standards to protect the health and welfare of animal subjects and comply with federal and institutional guidelines.

Animal research is important to the American Cancer Society because:

  • New cancer drugs must be tested on living systems.
  • Proper doses and possible side effects in human bodies must be identified and evaluated.
  • Research with animals has led to significant advances in medicine, including the discovery of insulin injections for treating diabetes.
  • Research with animal models has produced successful cancer treatments for childhood leukemia.
  • Animal research is crucial for understanding many causes of cancer.

For future research, the American Cancer Society believes:

  • Test tube experiments are often effective in early phases of research.
  • The continued use of stem cell and organ tissue cultures offer hope for non-animal research.
  • The continued use of computer models offers hope for future studies.
  • It shall serve both humans and animals in diseases and prevention.
  • The Society will show continued support of stringent guidelines and regulations for the well-being of all animal subjects.

In all truth this is a fairly good response – it explains when and why they conduct animal experiments. If only they put this up on their website *sigh*.  The research news section of the website does mention the animal models used, for example a recent ACS-funded researcher used mice to assess the best timing for taking anti-cancer drugs – which it turns out is immediately after traditional chemotherapy.

American Cancer Society – 4/5 stars

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

Three out of five stars 3/5St Jude does not have any position or policy statement on their website. When I phoned them up the operator wasn’t sure if they conducted research on animals. They passed me to someone else who also didn’t know, and then passed to someone who wasn’t there. After emailing them I did receive a reply:

As a research institution, St. Jude has a unique mission to generate the knowledge that will save the lives of children stricken with cancer and other catastrophic diseases. In the course of our research to find cures for these deadly diseases, we do use laboratory animal models, mostly rats and mice bred specifically for that purpose.

There is no substitute for animal testing when evaluating the effects of diseases and proposed treatments to fight those diseases. Most biological systems do not behave in a predictable manner and cannot be replicated by computer simulations. St. Jude is usually legally required, and always ethically obligated, to test treatments on laboratory models to ensure safety and efficacy before those treatments are studied in children. Without this research, St. Jude would not be able to provide hope for cures to our patients and their families.

Please be assured that St. Jude does not conduct useless laboratory research. We are very careful to abide by the laws, statutes, and ethical guidelines for animal research. Our procedures comply with the government’s Animal Welfare Act, and we are accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International to ensure the best care for the animals used in our research. Our labs are inspected regularly by the Department of Agriculture.

So there is a statement that attempts to explain when animals are used. Get it up on the website and relate it to many neonatal and pediatric treatments than exist thanks to animal studies. There are already many mentions of animals used by St. Jude researchers in the medicine and science news section of the website, such as using specially bred mice to identify a potential target for drugs to combat leishmaniasis.

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital – 3/5 stars

American Heart Association

Two out of five stars 2/5Despite searching their website I was unable to find a position statement (through the menus or the search bar) on their animal research, however after phoning them up I was guided to a page with position statements on animal research, cloning, gene therapy and stem cell research. The statement is good, but could certainly be expanded to provide more information on animal research.

The American Heart Association supports using animals in biomedical research — because it helps us improve heart health and save lives. In fact, the decline in U.S. death rates from heart disease and stroke since the 1960s is due in part to discoveries from research using animals.

So, when animals are needed for experiments we fund, researchers must handle them responsibly and humanely.

  • Before receiving our funding, we require researchers to show that:
  • They have considered alternative methods to using animals.
  • Their research can’t be successfully done without using animals.
  • Their experiments are designed to produce needed results and information.

So there is a statement, thought its explanation for animal research is a little week. It is online, though not that easy to find.

While a search for “mice” does come up with some search results, most link to the names of scientific papers or presentations rather than explaining the use of animal models in research.

American Heart Association – 2/5 stars

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

One out of five stars 1/5There was no information available on their website – something which was confirmed over the phone. The operator seemed very nervous about giving me information, asking repeatedly what I wanted the information for.

A second phone call to the public affairs department didn’t get me any closer. Despite repeatedly being put on hold no one seemed to have any idea about their position on animal research. No statement at all!

This is made more frustrating when you know that there are many mentions of animal research in their Recent Discoveries & Advances section, such as developing a rat model to “study the neurological side effects of radiation to the brain”.

Memorial Sloan Ketering Cancer Center – 1/5 stars

Mayo Clinic

One out of five stars 1/5Nothing on the website. After a phone call I received the following by email:

Mayo Clinic believes in the vital role that animals have in advancing medical knowledge and developing new treatment options. Researchers would not have discovered new ways to treat heart disease, found cures for childhood cancers or advanced knowledge in many neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s without animals as part of the research process. Animals used to help advance science are treated with the utmost respect and care and in accordance with Mayo’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Mayo Clinic adheres to or exceeds all federal and state laws and regulations regarding animal use in research and makes every effort to ensure the safety and well being of animals. Mayo uses animals in research only when necessary and always with the goal of providing improved treatment or therapies for patients.

A short statement that didn’t quite say enough to gain stars for why and when its research is done. Better than nothing though.

While searches for “mice”, “rat” and “dog” on the Mayo Clinic website did bring up search results, few of them appeared to give pages meant for public consumption.

Mayo Clinic – 1/5 stars

Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

Three out of five stars 3/5Unfortunately the Leukemia and Lymphoma society does not have a statement on their website. After chatting with someone in their communications department I was sent the following statement:

Our work depends on broad and open-ended scientific inquiry. In this context, LLS supports the appropriate use of animals in conducting research to find potential cures for blood cancer patients.

Much of what we know about the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that afflict humans, including cancers and specifically the blood cancers, is the result of scientific studies conducted in animals. Moreover, lymphoma and leukemia are major killers of domestic and companion animals, and so there are potential benefits not only for humans but also for animals when research yields successful new cancer therapies and vaccines.

LLS requires that research using animals must adhere to federal and state laws, and follow the guidelines put forth by the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Research supported at foreign institutions must also abide by NIH’s policy on animal use. All researchers receiving LLS funding work with their institutional animal care and use committee to review and approve any protocol related to animal use. The purpose of these committees is to ensure that research strictly adheres to all federal and state guidelines regarding the care and use of animals.

We recognize the importance of the development and use of non-animal alternatives such as cell lines and cell cultures, computer simulations and mathematical modeling, and encourage their use when scientifically sound; i.e. accurately representing cancers in patients. However, in many instances the humane and appropriate use of living animals is both critical and ethically valid.

The absence of a suitable non-animal alternative and the explicit justification to use a given species and number of animals are required to qualify an applicant for any research support from LLS, as is the explicit documentation of steps taken to eliminate or minimize any potentially painful procedure. These humane considerations must be developed with the assistance and under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian and fully approved by an applicant’s research institution.

This is a strong statement and it is a pity, like many other charities, that they do not choose to put this up on their website for the public or media to find. It explains why they use animals and the conditions under which animal research is done. It also discusses why alternatives cannot replace all animal studies. Good statement, but they need to get it on their website.

There appeared to be no mentions of animal models in the news releases (or anywhere else) on the website.

Leukemia and Lymphoma Society – 3/5 stars

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

One out of five stars 1/5The DFCI did not have any information on their website. When I phoned up they confirmed that they conducted such research but had no statement available on their website. When I asked where I could get more information they replied that they “try to stay away from making any public statements on the matter”. Concerning.

This “no comment” approach seemed to contradict a more open attitude to mentioning the use of animal models in their research news. When I checked, one of the top stories in their “Featured Research” was an article entitled “Mouse Models Play Pivotal Role in Testing Combination Therapies” – excellent!

Dana-Farb Cancer institute – 1/5 stars

Alzheimer’s Association

Four out of five stars 4/5The Alzheimer’s Association do have a two page document on their website on the “Use of Animals in Research”. It starts by clearly explaining why they feel animal research is necessary:

Currently, the complexity and intricacy of the human brain is beyond the capacity of even the most sophisticated science to simulate in man-made models (for example, with computers) or through the use of cells grown in the laboratory or lower organisms.

The Alzheimer’s Association believes that the use of animals in research is essential to the success of research into the causes, treatment, prevention and cure of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders.

It is too long to reproduce in full, but it then goes on to explain the conditions under which they will fund animal research and provides information about knowledge gained through animal research.

A quick search of “mice” on the website brought up just shy of 600 results, though most were abstracts from research grants rather than information oriented for public consumption. The most recent blog entry mentioning mice was in 2013, suggesting that mentioning animal research was not common.

Nonetheless, well done to Alzheimer’s Association – this is probably the best statement. I found it without too much issue and it was fairly comprehensive for a policy statement (certainly compared to other charities). Four stars.

Alzheimer’s Association – 4/5 stars

National Multiple Sclerosis Society

Three out of five stars 3/5Having asked the question by email, I received a link to an obscure policy document. A policy statement on “Research involving human subjects or animals” could be found on Page 6.

For research involving animals, written approval from the grantee’s Institutional Animal Use and Care Committee (IACUC) must be received by the Society prior to the release of any funds. This approval must be signed by the Chairperson of the Committee, and a copy of the letter must be received by the Society on an annual basis during the funding term of the research award.

All biomedical research which involves the use of animals must adhere to the following principles:

  1. Animals shall be used in biomedical research only when no other means of obtaining scientifically sound, valid and useful results are available.
  2. The minimum number of appropriate animals required to obtain and validate results shall be used.
  3. The acquisition, care and use of animals must be in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
  4. Certifications must be received from research facilities prior to being approved for a research grant that the facility(ies), its researchers and employees adhere to the Animal Welfare Act, National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and any appropriate U.S. Department of Agriculture or National Institutes of Health regulations and standards.
  5. In cases requiring the death of an animal, only the most appropriate and humane form of euthanasia shall be used consistent with the purpose of the research

The statement is sound, but doesn’t seem to be written with the public in mind. It would benefit from a simple and open explanation of when and why animal models can play a key role in developing an understanding of MS.

Despite the relatively weak statement, the NMSS was much stronger in mentioning and explaining the use of animal models in their research news. For example, stories like, “Researchers Funded by National MS Society Report Early Success Testing a Novel Strategy for Protecting the Nervous System in Mice with MS-like Disease“.

National Multiple Sclerosis Society – 3/5 stars

Summary of the Scores:
US Charities doing Animal Research and Animal Testing

Well done to the American Cancer Society and the Alzheimer’s Association for coming top of the list of organisations being open and honest about their animal research. The Alzheimer’s Association is particularly strong in its animal research statement.

On the other end of the scale, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute need to look at ways of being more open on this issue. Most of the cancer treatments we have today have come about thanks to a huge number of studies on animals. Herceptin, a recent drug for breast cancer, is a humanised mouse antibody which could not have been created except for the use of mice in its development and testing.

So why should charities bother to be open about their animal research? I believe there are three reasons.

Firstly, they are taking public donations, and the public have a right to know how this money is spent. If they believe animal research is an important part of what they fund, then they should be prepared to explain this frankly and openly.

Secondly, regardless of whether they put a statement up on their website, animal rights groups will find out. It took me a few days to ascertain which US charities did, or did not, conduct or fund animal research – others could follow the same process. Putting information openly on the website helps create resilience on the issue – members of the public can no longer be “shocked to discover” that a charity they support funds animal experiments, and animal rights groups cannot go to the paper announcing a charity’s “dirty secret they try desperately to hide”. Any member of the public of journalist can be told straight away by the charity that “Yes, we conduct and fund animal research. We say so openly on our website, and you can find out more information on the reasons why there – we have nothing to hide”.

Lastly, it is important that we foster an environment where both the public, and policy makers, understand the importance of animal research. The former demands the laws and regulations, and the latter put them in place. If the scientific community want to make sure their research environment is secure then they must encourage openness on the issue.

In a second post, we will have a look at British charities which conduct animal research

Speaking of Research