Tag Archives: animal research

PR, ethics, and the science of head transplants

There has been a lot of media coverage on the recent claims by Dr. Sergio Canavero that he has successfully transplanted the head of a monkey on to a donor body of another monkey. This story, originally posted by the New Scientist, has since gone viral with some touting miracle cures for paralysis, while others have publicly expressed outrage and disgust. As pointed out by the New Scientist, this is not science, or at the least, not yet. Until the veil of secrecy concerning the conduct of this study is made transparent – no formal conclusions can be made and one can only speculate in regards to the quality of the experiment that was performed. Moreover, as this work still has to pass through the peer-review process, it remains unclear whether this is simply an attempt at publicity. As Arthur Caplan, a New York University bioethicist told New Scientist:

It’s science through public relations. When it gets published in a peer reviewed journal I’ll be interested. I think the rest of it is BS”

So far, the only evidence that Dr Canavero has produced is a picture of a monkey which appears to have had a head/body transplant, as well as a short video of a mouse moving around (despite significant impairments), which also appears to have a transplant (but how long did they live for? When Dr Canavero’s colleague Dr Xiaoping Ren of China’s Harbin Medical University carried out similar head transplants in mice in 2015 they all died within a few minutes of being revived after surgery). While the monkey “fully survived the procedure without any neurological injury of whatever kind”, according to Canavero, it was euthanized after 20 hours for “ethical reasons”. The media storm surrounding this story appears to play up to the researcher’s aims – to find financial backing to continue his research and then move it into humans.

Canavero at TEDx

Two pieces of information in the article by the New Scientist bear scrutiny. The first is that Canavero is quoted as saying “this experiment, which repeats the work of Robert White in the US in 1970, demonstrates that if the head is cooled to 15°C, a monkey can survive the procedure without suffering brain injury.” Second, Sam Wong, author of the article in the New Scientists stated “they connected up the blood supply between the head and the new body, but did not attempt to connect the spinal cord.” Careful reading highlights a simple fact, this study is not novel in any regard – this is a replication of the work by Robert White and is quite simply a “head transplant”. Thus, the same criticisms that were levied in regards to the original experiment by Robert White apply here. As Stephen Rose, director of brain and behavioural research at Open University can be quoted as saying in 2001:

This is medical technology run completely mad and out of all proportion to what’s needed. It’s entirely misleading to suggest that a head transplant or a brain transplant is actually really still connected in anything except in terms of blood stream to the body to which it has been transplanted. It’s not controlling or relating to that body in any other sort of way. It’s scientifically misleading, technically irrelevant and scientifically irrelevant, and apart from anything else a grotesque breach of any ethical consideration. It’s a mystification to call it either a head transplant or a brain transplant. All you’re doing is keeping a severed head alive in terms of the circulation from another animal. It’s not connected in any nervous sense.”

And so, it is worth reflecting at this juncture on the moral and ethical issues surrounding this controversial procedure. Let us assume for a moment that this procedure is in fact feasible. In the original studies by Robert White and Vladimir Demikov, it was made clear that these experiments were lethal for the animal. Simply put, while the head of the animal was capable of “seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling”; none of the other regulatory processes were intact (e.g. breathing) as there was no control over the donor body. Furthermore, like many tissue transplants, rejection of the donor body from the immune system is a large possibility, immunorejection was after all the cause of death in the monkey whose head Dr White transplanted in 2001. Indeed, Canavero has yet to demonstrate any kind of proof of principle with regeneration of nervous tissue with any meaningful metric of control of the donor body.

Perhaps the most interesting insight into Canavero’s thinking comes from a quotation in the New Scientist article where he says:

Gene therapy has failed. Stem cells, we’re still waiting. Even if they come now, for these patients there is no hope. Tetraplegia can only be cured with this. Long term, the body decays, organs decay. You have to give them a new body because even if you take care of the cord, you’re going nowhere.”

These remarks by Canavero are somewhat naive as both gene therapy and stem cell therapy have made substantial advances in recent years, with many therapies now in clinical trials. Furthermore, the claim that “Tetraplegia can only be cured with this [head transplant]” flies in the face of evidence from recent successful animal and clinical trials on a variety of innovative therapies for paralysis, including epidural stimulation, intraspinal microstimulation, neuroprosthesis, and stem cell therapy.

There have recently been a series of major advances in treating paralysis, including epidural stimulation.

There have recently been a series of major advances in treating paralysis, including epidural stimulation.

While there is mounting evidence from studies in rodents that the polyethylene glycol (PEG) implantation approach favored by Canavero may be able to promote repair of injured spinal cord and recovery of motor function in paralyzed limbs, his casual dismissal of the work of other scientists – while often simultaneously citing their work in support of his own approach – exemplifies his arrogance. He would be better off lending his expertise to the work of others who are exploring the potential for PEG in spinal cord repair, work that has the potential to benefit millions of people, but instead appears set on a self-aggrandizing PR campaign in support of an approach that if successful – which seems highly unlikely even if the surgery is a technical success – can only benefit a tiny number of people…potentially at the cost of depriving many other transplant patients of much needed organs.

The reality, however, remains that the procedure exposes the patient (be it mouse, monkey or human) to far greater risks compared to the potential benefits. Indeed, these experiments would never be approved in countries which have strict review criteria, with a clear harm/benefit analysis needing to be performed before such a study is given approval. In these circumstances, the news that leading experts in animal research in China are currently undertaking a major revision to the country’s national regulation on the management of laboratory animals is timely.

But these issues are not unknown to Dr. Canavero. Indeed, as can be seen here (scroll to see response), and in what can only be described as derision and a willful skirting of the law, Dr. Canavero remains set to push forward with his ideas regardless of the consequences. For these reasons we have the gravest of reservations about the course being followed by Dr. Canavero and his colleagues, and call on them to halt this research until a full independent review of the scientific evidence and impact on potential patients can be undertaken.

Jeremy Bailoo and Justin Varholick

The opinions expressed here are our own and do not necessarily reflect the interests of the the University of Bern or the Division of Animal Welfare at the University of Bern.

Where should US chimpanzees live?

Understanding what research is, what it means, and how chimpanzees are cared for in captive settings matters to decisions, the animals, public interests, and preventing unintended consequences.

Photo credit: Kathy West

Photo credit: Kathy West

Ongoing decisions and news coverage about US chimpanzee research have provoked continuing debate and raised questions about the best course of action for the animals, science, and public interests. Like many complex, emotional, topics the arguments and language that have surrounded the discussion have been polarized and have left many with impressions that are less than accurate. In turn, thoughtful and serious consideration has often been stymied.

One of the primary areas of confusion surrounds what exactly is meant by the term “research.” Another is what standards of care best provide for chimpanzees’ welfare. Here we cover some common questions about chimpanzee research in the US and the implications and consequences of decisions about chimpanzees living in dedicated research facilities. We also highlight and compare standards for care, external oversight, and public transparency for chimpanzees living in different settings in the US. We share two documents that provide details about the many scientific discoveries published over the past several years from scientists working in dedicated chimpanzee research facilities. One is a list of over 175 representative publications from recent years. The great majority of these scientific publications report discoveries from behavioral, cognitive, and neurobehavioral research. The second document highlights media coverage that demonstrates public interest in these discoveries and studies.

Pdfs here:  Chimpanzee Research Representative Publications (2007-2015)  and Chimpanzee Media List

CC-BY-NC-SA

1) Isn’t chimpanzee research in the US finished?

On November 18, 2015, the US National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins issued a public statement that NIH will no longer support biomedical research on chimpanzees. While the statement (and ensuing media coverage – here, here, here) clearly references biomedical research, what is unclear is the impact of this decision on non-invasive behavioral and cognitive research with chimpanzees. Much, if not all, of the media coverage on the issue of chimpanzee retirement has focused on research with chimpanzees for developing vaccines for Ebola and studying infectious disease. At present, it does appear that NIH’s decisions will truncate infectious disease research with chimpanzees.

Infectious disease research is not, however, the entirety of chimpanzee research. It is important, but also a relatively small part. Thus, conclusions about the need, value, or future of infectious disease research should not be mistaken for conclusions about chimpanzee research itself. In fact, in the public discussions and headlines about NIH’s decisions, very little attention has been paid to the enormous amount of non-invasive and minimally-invasive research that has contributed to new discoveries and knowledge about behavior, cognition, genetics, social, emotional, and neural processes in chimpanzees. Such research is vibrant, ongoing, and makes substantial contributions, as is evidenced by the many cognitive and behavioral studies that dominate this representative list of over 175 scientific publications over the past several years (Chimpanzee Research Representative Publications (2007-2015)

The work also has broad support. Public fascination and support of research that helps us better understand these animals is illustrated by the plethora of news stories in just the last several years, since the initial NIH decision on retiring chimpanzees from research (Chimpanzee Media List).  Furthermore, NIH—as well as NSF and other agencies and foundations—continue to fund this type of chimpanzee research. Last, but certainly not least, much—if not all—of the behavioral and cognitive research with chimpanzees meets the principles and criteria elucidated by the Institute of Medicine panel that reviewed the need and value of chimpanzee research. The panel’s conclusions were accepted by NIH, and their recommendations are reflected in ongoing behavioral and cognitive studies with chimpanzees.

CC-BY-NC-SA

2) Why does chimpanzee behavioral and psychological research matter?

A psychologist who works with chimpanzees was once approached at a conference by an animal-rights activist who heatedly accused the researcher of being a terrible person for confining chimpanzees and doing research with them.  The activist argued that chimpanzees were too smart to be kept in captivity.  He argued that they could learn language, mathematics, had theory of mind, and showed sophisticated cognitive skills and social skills.  The researcher asked this activist how he knew these things, and whether he had worked with chimpanzees or had ever been around them.  No, was the response, but the activist had seen all of these things demonstrated in videos and documentaries, and he countered that everyone knew how smart chimps are.  The researcher then asked him exactly where he thought those documentaries were filmed, and explained that nearly all of those amazing capacities were discovered and documented with chimpanzees studied, and in many cases nurtured through decades of excellent care, in research facilities in the US.

This discussion highlights the point that it is exactly the behavioral research that is becoming difficult, or impossible, to do in this country that originally led to the public’s recognition and support as they came to see chimpanzees as being worthy of protection.  If such behavioral research ceases to exist with captive chimpanzee groups, or only occurs in settings in which longitudinal cognitive and behavioral science is secondary to other management aims, we will lose the chance to learn more about the mental lives of our primate cousins.  Imagine that 50 years ago all chimpanzee behavioral research stopped in laboratories.  If it had, chimpanzees likely would have been zoo curiosities and little more.  Ape language, numerical cognition, metacognition, bartering, reciprocity, episodic memory, and other similar capacities would never have been demonstrated. Considering that makes one wonder whether, in that reality and in absence hallmark demonstrations of chimpanzees’ human-like intelligence, present-day activists would even care about chimpanzees in captivity.

The success of behavioral research in highlighting the social and cognitive sophistication of chimpanzees (and, more recently, the complementary neuroimaging data that show even more similarities between ape and human cognition) has become its own worst nightmare rather than a natural justification for asking new questions of these animals.  What we have learned has changed the way that the public and scientists view and treat animals. And it demonstrably has changed perspectives, policies, decisions, and care practices. But it should not result in a blanket prohibition against research with animals. Nor should it be used to support a default conclusion that research captivity is inherently bad, and sanctuary housing is inherently good. Both restrict the apes for their protection and the public’s, and both provide environments that support the animals’ physical and psychological well-being. But it would seem that the best place to ensure that chimpanzees are optimally cared for would be a place that is dedicated to studying chimpanzee behavior and mental health—a dedicated research facility.

If—on the hand—the ultimate result of new discoveries is to truncate research, the costs will be severe not only to our knowledge about these animals’ mental lives, but also to the perceived value of the animals to future generations of humans who will be faced with the imminent extinction of wild great apes and will have to address that threat.

CC-BY-NC-SA3) Can’t behavioral, cognitive, genomic, and other minimally-invasive research be done in zoos and sanctuaries?

Zoos and sanctuaries have always played an important role in studying the cognition of great apes, and other species.  And, that will continue.  But, it would be patently false to argue that many of the discoveries of sophisticated chimpanzee cognitive abilities would have been possible in those settings.  To give just one example, the ape-language studies with chimpanzees all were undertaken in traditional “laboratories” and often under the support of federal grants to universities.  Those projects showed that rearing conditions were critical to demonstrating (and instantiating) the highest degrees of language and communication skills in apes. This research was done in laboratories, not zoos, sanctuaries, or field sites.

Most critically, the research could only have been done in laboratories—in settings where researchers could control the animals’ experiences and maximize the chimpanzees’ opportunities to learn; where the apes’ lifelong health and participation could be ensured, and where researchers could make use of the chimpanzees’ natural curiosity and motivation; and where the chimpanzees’ full-time job could be learning and partnering with researchers in the science. Those facilities, some of which still exist, are research laboratories, and so those who advocate against laboratory chimpanzee research are advocating against the very places that have defined the (current) upper limits of ape cognitive abilities.  To cease research with chimpanzees in laboratories would cease those research programs and others that are currently funded to push even further our knowledge of chimpanzee cognition.

4) What is the difference between standards of care for chimpanzees in dedicated research facilities, in zoos, and in sanctuaries in the US?

The picture below shows chimpanzees in four settings. Where are they?  Two are current research facilities, one is an NIH-funded sanctuary, and one is a publicly-funded zoo. The settings look remarkably similar because they are in many ways. And to the chimpanzees, the sign over the door – research, zoo, sanctuary—doesn’t matter, as long as it doesn’t affect the animals’ care, housing, and welfare.

chimp housing [Autosaved]

Clockwise: Top – Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA (Note: Yerkes’ chimpanzees are not NIH-owned or supported); Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL; MD Anderson Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine, Bastrop, TX; Chimp Haven, Keithsville, LA.

The question then, is what kind of housing and care matters to the animals’ well-being. In fact, the majority of research chimpanzees in the US live in settings that are similar. The facilities provide outdoor housing, including natural ground and sunlight. They also provide extensive and complex climbing structures, opportunities for foraging and tool-use, toys, fresh produce and treats, bedding, interaction with expert and compassionate caregivers, and state-of-the-art medical care and facilities.

The standards that govern housing and care of chimpanzees vary, as does the level of external oversight and public transparency. The figure below shows aspects of that variation in terms of federal, public, non-voluntary requirements. Dedicated research facilities that receive NIH or other federal funding are required, by federal law, to provide care and housing exceeds the standards specified by the Animal Welfare Act. By contrast, zoos and other facilities licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) must only meet the AWA standards. Any facility registered or licensed by the USDA is subject to oversight by the federal agency. Furthermore, records of registration, inspection, or investigation of complaints are available to the general public via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. For NIH-funded research facilities, additional oversight and public transparency is provided via the NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).

Private sanctuaries are neither required to be licensed by the USDA, nor required to meet AWA standards. It is important to note, however, that some sanctuaries voluntarily elect to be licensed by the USDA as exhibitors. Private sanctuaries do not fall under the type or extent of public oversight or transparency as do dedicated publicly-funded research facilities. That does not mean that the care provided in private sanctuary facilities is insufficient; but it does mean that the public has little venue to ensure the animals are well cared for and virtually no means to evaluate evidence of that care, request investigation, or receive information.

One of the primary points often offered in response to observation of this regulatory unevenness is that there are also accreditation agencies and programs. It is true that each type of facility has voluntary, private accreditation agencies. For many dedicated research facilities, this is AAALAC accreditation. For many zoos, it is the American Zoological Association (AZA) accreditation. For many sanctuaries, it is accreditation via the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA) or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS).

The question for the public, however, is the extent to which standards of care, external oversight, and maintenance of records and information should be left to private, rather than public, agencies. For animals and facilities that are privately owned and administered, this may be entirely appropriate. But for animals and facilities that are public – as are NIH’s chimpanzees and chimpanzee research – it is the public standards, oversight, and transparency that ensure the animals’ care and the public interests. Indeed, when those facilities also support research, additional levels of public oversight exist in the form of peer review (which formally includes review of ethical treatment of animals) when this research is published or submitted for grant support.

CC-BY-NC-SA

Photo credit:  Kathy West

Summary

In summary, regardless of headlines about the end of US chimpanzee research, there is clearly ongoing work that is humanely-conducted, ethical, of value, and consistent with public interests. The critical questions that remain are about how to best protect the animals and to balance scientific discovery that benefits chimpanzees, other animals, humans, and the environment.

Allyson J. Bennett, Michael J. Beran, Sarah F. Brosnan, William D. Hopkins, Charles R. Menzel, and David A. Washburn

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions. The authors are psychological scientists whose research includes studies of chimpanzees and other primates.

 

 

Animal Research stats for Finland in 2014

Speaking of Research prides itself on providing the best coverage of worldwide  animal research statistics. Today we add a new country to our list – Finland. Check out our comparison of countries.

Finland’s statistical release complies with the new EU reporting methods on animal research statistics (see the recent UK release). As a result the statistics are split between experimental procedures, and procedures involved in the creation of maintenance of GM animals. We have provided a totals column as well.

Animals research procedures in Finland 2014

Mice accounted for the majority (58%) of animals used, then fish (23%), rats (10%) and birds (3.5%). Together these four types of animals accounted for over 94% of all animal research species – this is similar to other European countries.

Animal research procedures in 2014. Click to Enlarge

Animal research procedures in 2014. Click to Enlarge

The statistics also revealed that most of the experimental procedures were for basic research, with only 2.5% of experimental procedures for regulatory animal testing (mostly on rats and sheep).

The new EU rules also require countries to retrospectively report on severity. Of the experimental procedures (so not including the 50% of breeding procedures), 61.5% were sub-threshold or mild, 30% were moderate, 5% were severe and 3.5% were non-recovery (the animal is never awakened from anaesthetic). If the recent UK statistics are anything to go by, then severe procedures are likely to be a small proportion of the total procedures (as breeding procedures are, on average, less severe).

We congratulate the Finnish authorities for providing easy-to-read information about the numbers of types of animals used in research in 2014. The next few weeks may also see the publication of the statistics of many more EU countries.

Speaking of Research

Please help Speaking of Research to continue. We need your help to make $150/yr to pay our web costs, please consider donating $10. To donate, read more, click here.

One step closer to a vaccine for cytomegalovirus: Monkeys transmit CMV the same way as humans

Today’s guest post is by Jordana Lenon, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center and Kathy West, California National Primate Research Center.

PregnantWomanResearchers at Duke and Tulane take the lead, the National Primate Research Centers provide critical resources and expertise in this first-ever proof of CMV placental transmission in nonhuman primates.

Researchers now have a powerful new model for working on a vaccine for cytomegalovirus, or CMV, which is the leading infectious cause of birth defects worldwide.

Now, for the first time, a nonhuman primate CMV has been demonstrated to be congenitally transmitted similar to congenital HCMV infection. The discovery was published this week in the high impact journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and reported in The New York Times and Science Daily, among other news outlets.

Rhesus macaque mothers can transmit CMV across their placentas to their unborn infants, discovered the teams of co-senior study authors Sallie R. Permar, M.D., Ph.D., Duke University, and Amitinder Kaur, M.D., Tulane University. The lead author was Kristy Bialas, a post-doctoral fellow at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute.

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

The finding establishes the first nonhuman primate research model for CMV transmission via the placenta. The macaque reproductive, developmental, and immunological systems are highly analogous to those of humans. Thus, scientists can now utilize the biologically relevant RhCMV system in a controlled scientific setting to try to find new pathways towards an HCMV vaccine.

“A huge impediment to CMV vaccine development has been our lack of ability to determine what immune responses would be needed to protect against mother-to-fetus transmission,” said Permar, of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute in a Duke Medicine news release Oct. 19.

“It means that we can now use this model to ask questions about protective immunity against congenital CMV and actually study this disease for which a vaccine is urgently needed,” said co-senior author Kaur, of the Tulane National Primate Research Center in a Tulane University release Oct. 19.

The rhesus monkey model for HCMV persistence and pathogenesis has been developed over the past 30 years by co-author Peter Barry, Ph.D., California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) core scientist, and co-developer of the rhesus intrauterine pathogenesis model with Alice Tarantal, Ph.D., CNPRC core scientist. Barry has recently shown that there is a strong immune response in rhesus monkeys to a potentially paradigm-shifting approach to HCMV vaccine design, and contributed important expertise and resources to this current research.

CNPRCrhesus,K_WestUCD, 4

Rhesus monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center. Photo credit: Kathy West

The work highlights the collaboration of Duke University researchers with experts in rhesus immunology and virology at the National Institutes of Health National Primate Research Centers. Contributing authors also included David O’Connor, Ph.D., and Michael Lauck, Ph.D., experts in macaque virology, pathology and genetics at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, Xavier Alvarez, Ph.D., at the Tulane National Primate Research Center, and Takayuki Tanaka, D.V.M., Harvard Medical School and the New England National Primate Research Center, which provided macaques for the study. Additional authors’ contributions are included in the Duke news release.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Director, NIH National Cancer Institute, NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Derfner Children’s Miracle Network Research Grant.

Reference:

Kristy M. Bialas et al. “Maternal CD4+ T cells protect against severe congenital cytomegalovirus disease in a novel nonhuman primate model of placental cytomegalovirus transmission” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511526112

Animal Experiments in the UK: Government releases 2014 statistics

The UK Home Office has published its annual statistics showing the number of procedures carried out on animals covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986; this covers all vertebrate species. It shows that in 2014 there was a 6% fall in the number of procedures, from 4.12 million down to 3.87 million.

Click to Enlarge

Overall, 96.5% of animals used in scientific studies were mice, rats, fish or birds. Cats, dogs and primates (which are offered special protections under UK law) together accounted for less than 0.2% of the total (similar to in previous years). The statistics also reveal that half of all experiments were the breeding of GM animals which were not used in further experiments. Overall, 2/3 of all experiments involved genetically modified animals.

Number of Animals Used For Research in the UK 1945 - 2014

Last year’s plateau, and this year’s fall are likely to reflect the economic conditions for biomedical research (though the number of procedures is likely to lag R&D spending as research funding can last several years. Below we see the R&D expenditure of pharmaceutical companies in the UK over the last decade (note that this does not include R&D by universities, who conduct almost twice as much animal research in the UK as pharmaceutical companies). Spending slowed in 2012, which may be reflected in the animal numbers for 2014.

Pharmaceutical R&D in the UK

The fall in numbers may also be in influenced by further adoption of the 3Rs – Replacement, Refinement and Reduction. Home Office Minister, Lord Bates noted:

Today’s figures indicate the science community continues to respond to the Government’s firm commitment to adopting measures to replace, reduce and refine animal use.

Procedures on non-human primates stayed almost constant going from 3,236 procedures in 2013, to 3,246 in 2014. The number of procedures on cats fell 22% to 210 procedures and on dogs fell 14% to 4,107.

A ban on cosmetic testing on animals (1998) and of using great apes (gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees) in research (1986) meant both had zero procedures in 2014. There were 138 household product tests, all on rainbow trout for EU regulatory purposes. This comes after 2 years where no such tests have been done – household product testing on animals will be banned in November 2015.

For the first time the UK statistics include retrospective reporting of suffering. Rather than just submitting licence proposals to the Home Office that include estimated levels of suffering, the researchers now have to report on what was actually seen (using a variety of measures). Unfortunately the statistics put these in two separate tables (Table 3 and 8). So we have combined them to get severity for all procedures in 2014. We can see most experiments are sub threshold (28%; less than the introduction of a hypodermic needle) or mild (50%), with remainder as moderate (14%), severe (5%) or non-recovery (3.5%; the animal never awakes from anaesthesia).

Severity of procedures 2014 UK

It is important to note that in line with new EU requirements, the UK now reports animals used in studies completed, not started in the given year. The statistical release says:

As a result of the change to counting procedures completed as opposed to procedures started, all procedures started before 2014 but completed in 2014 should be in both the pre-2014 and 2014 figures. Any procedures started in 2014 but completed after 2014 will not be included in the 2014 figures. It is expected that these opposing effects will partly cancel each other out. Any impact of the change from counting procedures started to counting procedures completed will be temporary and will disappear from future years’ data collections.

Finally noting:

As a result, the 2014 data and comparisons with previous years’ data should be interpreted with some caution.

Speaking of Research congratulate the UK government on continuing to produce the most comprehensive statistics on animal experiments worldwide. It is also important to note that these statistics are released as a press conference each year where representatives from the scientific community speak about the importance of animals in research.

Speaking of Research

Find more on the stats here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469508/spanimals14.pdf

Read last year’s release here: http://speakingofresearch.com/2014/07/10/animal-experiments-in-the-uk-government-releases-2013-statistics/

Guest Post. How to Engage with the Public About Animal Research: Society for Neuroscience Panelists Offer Strategies to Scientists During Annual Meeting

Today’s guest post is from Amanda Dettmer, Ph.D.,  a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Dr. Dettmer is a developmental psychobiologist whose research examines the early life organization of sociocognitive development in nonhuman primates. She received her PhD in Neuroscience & Behavior from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2009. You can follow her on Twitter.
Dr. Amanda Dettmer

Dr. Amanda Dettmer

 

During their annual meeting in Chicago, the Society for Neuroscience (SFN) yesterday held a 2-hour lunchtime session dedicated to public outreach concerning animals in research. The panelists were international experts on communicating the importance of animal research to the public, and they offered invaluable advice to the hundreds of scientists in attendance.

While it’s clear that scientists – and the institutions that employ them – must be more proactive in communicating the importance of their research and the animal models they use, the panelists offered several tangible pieces of advice on how to achieve this goal. The strategies offered cater to researchers working with various animal models and, more importantly, with varying degrees of comfort in engaging the public in their research.

The session opened with remarks by the chair of the SFN’s Animals in Research Committee, Dr. Michael Goldberg, who stated, “We’ve been staying under the radar to avoid animals rights activists, and this strategy is not working,” particularly with respect to nonhuman primates in research. Earlier this year, Goldberg and the President of SFN, Dr. Steve Hyman, submitted a letter to Science in response to an article published there, “Embattled Max Planck neuroscientist quits primate research.”

AM15_Logo_CMYK_Horizontal_SavedForWebThe first panelist, Dr. Rolf Zeller, is the founding president of the Basel Declaration Society (BDS) and a founding signatory of the Basel Declaration, by which researchers recognize the necessity of animal research in biomedical research, and endorse the highest standards of ethically responsible animal research. Stating that researchers will “never convince PETA, but we can convince the public,” Zeller stressed the importance of engaging the public and offered the BDS’ most effective strategies for communication in Europe: regular media training sessions for trainees and established scientists, persistent use of social media, and open access publications on scientific communication. Zeller offered his “Golden Rules” for public outreach, which included:

  • 1) Receive good training in science communication,
  • 2) Be proactive and honest about your research,
  • 3) Discuss your animal research with colleagues, especially any who might be skeptical, so that they understand why it is important,
  • 4) Make it clear you care about animals,
  • 5) Explain why animal research is essential for patients, and
  • 6) Join the BSD and sign the Declaration to be part of a proactive community.
Pro-Test Italia

Pro-Test Italia

Dario Padovan, President of Pro-TEST Italia, a non-profit that “aims to promote and disseminate to the public correct knowledge on scientific research,” followed with an emboldening presentation on how the group increased positive public perception of animal research in Italy with regular strategies easily and equally employable in the US: 1) active, daily activity on social media (the group responds to every incorrect/negative Facebook comment on their page, 2) engaging young scientific experts to reach their contemporaries (saying “most users of social media are 18-34 years”), 3) regularly producing YouTube videos that show detailed primate research in a humane and responsible way (which receive tens of thousands of views and >90% net “thumbs up” ratings), 4) fighting fire with fire by creating satirical anti-animal rights propaganda, and 5) getting patients who benefit from animal research involved in public outreach.

Pigtail macaques at the Washington National Primate Research Center

Pigtail macaques at the Washington National Primate Research Center

Dr. Michael Mustari, Director of the Washington National Primate Research Center, then highlighted the outstanding care that nonhuman primates at his, and all of the other six, National Primate Research Centers in the US, receive, as well as the significant contributions primates have made in the advances of such diseases as HIV/AIDS, polio, ebola, and Parkinson’s disease.

Mustari said, “People who argue against nonhuman primate work do not pay attention to reality.” He drove home the need to engage with the public by showing the type of video that the public needs to see regularly to understand the value of primates in research, like this one showing a quadriplegic serving himself a beer for the first time in 13 years, thanks to advances made possible by primate research. Mustari ended by discussing the inspiring global outreach the WaNPRC performs under the directorship of Dr. Randy Kyes, Head of the Division of Global Programs at the WaNPRC.

Jason Goldman

Jason Goldman

Dr. Jason Goldman, an animal-researcher-turned-science-writer, rounded out the session by sharing lessons he’s learned from animals in communicating to a variety of audiences. Using brown-headed cowbirds and betta fish as examples of animals that change their messages based on who’s listening, Goldman said, “Animals have learned what I tell scientists over and over: Different messages are required for different audiences.” Goldman offered tangible pieces of advice for burgeoning (and established) science communicators, including 1) tell personal stories whenever possible and evoke emotion (using Cecil the lion as an example), 2) use simple visuals and avoid complex graphics (even popular infographics can be hard to digest), use memegenerator.net to make your own memes to communicate science on social media (this is perhaps the easiest tip to pick up, as I was able to create my own – and first! – meme in about 30 seconds during his presentation), and 4) be relatable and make the public feel smart, not stupid.

The session concluded with a Q &A session from the participants seeking additional advice on best ways to communicate the importance of animal research to the public when you feel like your institution is resistant to the idea, how to deal with the internal struggle of loving animals while conducting research with them, and more. Given that the session went 20 minutes over its scheduled time, it was clear the audience found it an invaluable resource.

Later in the afternoon, Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, gave a Special Presentation to SFN attendees in which he discussed recent advances in neuroscience with a particular emphasis on the BRAIN initiative. Though he rarely mentioned animal models in his talk, he did field anonymous questions from the audience afterward, one of which asked 1) what his personal opinion was on the role of animals, especially nonhuman primates, in the BRAIN Initiative, and 2) what concrete steps the NIH Directorship was taking to engage the public in the importance of animal research.

Collins stated that although the NIH worked with the Institute of Medicine to end chimpanzee research in the US, this “should not be seen as a reflection of how we feel about other nonhuman primates in research.”  He concluded by acknowledging the need for primates in some of the more invasive studies for the BRAIN Initiative that cannot be conducted in humans, and by underscoring the need for continued outreach to the public on the importance of animals in advancing biomedical research.

Amanda Dettmer

Amanda M. Dettmer, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Her writing does not reflect the opinions of the NICHD or the NIH.

Society for Neuroscience Today: Session on Animal Research and Public Outreach

Are you among the almost 30,000 neuroscientists are attending the annual Society for Neuroscience (SFN) meeting in Chicag0 this week?  Are you looking for a session aimed at building outreach and education efforts for better public understanding of animal research?  If so, SFN’s Committee on Animal Research has a session today at noon.

ME13  ANIMALS IN RESEARCH PANEL: Proactive Strategies to Increase the Positive Public Perception of Animals in Research.

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2015, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM  N427

Panelists: Jason Goldman, PhD; Michael Mustari, PhD; Dario Padovan, PhD; Rolf Zeller, PhD

Description:  As scientists become increasingly visible and engaged with the public through blogs, citizen science, traditional media, and other outlets, there is also increasing interest in open communication to gain public support for animal research and to underscore its critical contribution to scientific and medical progress. This panel will answer questions like: How can scientists and organizations engage the public and speak effectively about animal research? What strategies and venues (both novel and time-tested) are being employed to engage different audiences and how can interested scientists learn and contribute? What challenges exist in this area and how are different groups addressing them?

Contact: advocacy@sfn.org

Panelists include:

  • Prof. Rolf Zeller is a developmental geneticist that studies the molecular mechanisms governing organogenesis. He is a founding signatory of the Basel Declaration, by which researchers endorse the highest standards of ethically responsible animal research. He is the founding president of the Basel Declaration Society (BDS), an international grass-root organization dedicated to the Basel Declaration and actively promoting education on animal experimentation and the dialog with the general public, politicians and moderate critics.
  • Dario Padovan is the current president of Pro-Test Italia, which is an association that aims to promote and disseminate information about scientific research to the public. He was one of the founders of Pro-Test Italia and was the first chair of its Scientific Committee. He has masters degrees with honors in biological sciences, nutrition and dietetics, and bioethics.
  • Dr. Michael Mustari earned his Ph.D. in neuroanatomy from the University of Washington.  He is currently a Research Professor of Ophthalmology (UW). Dr. Mustari also serves as Director of the Washington National Primate Research Center (NPRC) at UW. He is responsible for providing scientific and administrative leadership to ensure an optimal environment for the care and well-being of nonhuman primates, which often provide the best animal models for studies of complex systems. All 7 NPRCs support the NIH mission of advancing scientific knowledge needed to develop new treatments and cures for diseases.
  • Dr. Jason G. Goldman is a science writer based in Los Angeles. He writes about human and animal behavior, wildlife biology, ecology, and conservation for various publications. He was editor of The Open Laboratory 2010: The Best of Science Writing on the Web, is co-editor of The Complete Guide to Science Blogging, and hosts a podcast called The Wild Life. He received his PhD at the University of Southern California.