Tag Archives: animal welfare

A welcome end to random-source dog and cat dealers

Posted on February 15, 2012 by | 1 Comment

The National Institutes of Health has announced that starting October 1, 2012, NIH funds may no longer be used to buy cats from Class B dealers. A similar prohibition in the purchase of dogs from Class B dealers takes effect in 2015.

Although dogs and cats constitute only small percentage of research animals, they have been used in American biomedical research for over a century for studies of cardiovascular and neurological diseases, and for other areas of research including recent studies that led to a gene therapy for the eye disease Leber’s congenital amaurosis, whose success was reported widely last week.  The use of these animals is tightly regulated by the Animal Welfare Act, and they are only employed for studies where lower species do not provide adequate models.

Class B dealers are individuals licensed by the USDA under the Animal Welfare Act to resell animals they did not breed themselves. Class A dealers are breeders who do raise the animals themselves. Class B dealers may purchase dogs and cats from sources such as municipal pounds, from individuals who bred and raised the animals, and from other licensed dealers. They are required to keep records on where they got each animal and to hold pound animals for a minimum period so that if an unwanted animal was actually a stray, the owner has time to reclaim it.

Animal statistics in 2010 (US data) - Dogs account of 0.25% and cats 0.08% of the total number of animals used.

Class B dealers used to provide a large number of cats and dogs for research because they were virtually the only source for older animals and for some breeds. Regrettably, some Class B dealers used practices that violated the Animal Welfare Act both in terms of how they acquired animals and how they treated them.  The National Academies of Science studied the specific areas of science where Class B dogs and cats were being used and concluded that NIH could develop alternate supply mechanisms to replace them. NIH decided the best way to facilitate the transition was to provide an initial outlay of funds so that Class A dealers could begin raising older dogs of the breeds required for scientific research. It is expected that these breeders will be able to produce the necessary animals by 2015.

After October 1, 2012, NIH-grant supported research can only use cats from the following sources: Class A dealers, privately owned research colonies, or client owned animals, such as animals that participate in veterinary clinical trials.  The same policy will apply to dogs in 2015 when the Class A breeding program is in full swing.

The transition of NIH-funded research away from the use of Class B dogs and cats is an example of how measures can be taken to correct ethical problems regarding the treatment of animals.  When ethical concerns exist, thoughtful and deliberate steps can address those concerns, while preserving important biomedical research projects.

Bill Yates and Alice Ra’anan.

Bill Yates is the Chair of American Physiological Society Animal Care and Experimentation Committee. Alice Ra’anan is Director of Science Policy for the American Physiological Society. The views expressed above are exclusively those of Bill Yates and Alice Ra’anan and do not necessarily represent those of their employers.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

An Open Letter to the Laboratory Animal Veterinary Community and Research Institution Administration

Posted on January 24, 2012 by | Leave a comment

The decades following passage of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act in the 1960s are marked with wide-ranging and significant changes to the administration, oversight, and responsibility for daily operations of institutions engaged in laboratory animal research. The intent of the legislation, and the central purpose of the accompanying and continuing changes, is to best ensure the welfare of animals in research.

This goal encompasses all aspects of laboratory animal care— their participation in ethical scientific studies, their humane treatment during daily care and maintenance, and their receipt of the highest standard of clinical care. Do scientists engaged in animal research perform all of these duties?  No. In fact, by law, it is not scientists who have the ultimate responsibility for oversight of all issues involved in animal welfare, but the attending veterinarian and institutional officials.

In practice, there are a range of individuals who share in the responsibility to provide for animal welfare. Many different types of expertise are needed to provide the best management of a laboratory animal research facility. Scientists working with animals have expertise in the topic their research addresses, in the activities that research requires, and in use of animals in research. Depending on their research area, background, and training they may have tremendous depth and breadth of knowledge about the animals’ behavior, psychology, physiology, and other systems. But it takes more than this to accomplish all that is needed to maintain an animal research program.

Animal research programs always include veterinary staff to provide the animals with clinical care. They typically also include animal care staff to provide daily husbandry; behavioral management staff to provide environmental enrichment and animal training; and facility management staff who work with engineers and others to maintain clean and safe environments for the animals. In addition to facility management, clinical care, and daily husbandry there are also divisions of personnel charged with evaluation and oversight of the research, including the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, associated staff, and compliance officers. Oversight for the entirety of the animal research program typically rests at the level of university administration.

In sum, the number of individuals and divisions now involved in ensuring laboratory animals’ welfare and humane treatment in ethical scientific studies extends far beyond the scientists most identified with animal research.  What does this mean? It means that there is a great deal of shared responsibility for both successes and the occasional failures in the conduct of laboratory animal science.  It also means that any discussion of continued improvements in the daily activities that affect animal welfare, as well as changes in policies that govern the conduct of animal research, should benefit from teamwork among these different stakeholders.

A Veterinary Technician works with rodents

A huge number of people are involved in animal welfare in laboratories

Finally, it should mean that in public dialogue the voices of scientists and research advocates are routinely joined by laboratory animal veterinarians, university officials, and others who play important roles in laboratory animal research.  This is true even when that research is controversial and has the potential to elicit attention from animal rights activists. All too often, however, few of these voices are raised when the public eye is turned to issues of concern in animal facilities. Rather, in place of thoughtful answers to questions raised by a range of parties—by the press, by animal rights activists, by other scientists, by USDA reports— what is often offered are generic statements that contribute little to understanding of the events and the context in which they occurred. For example, in response to virtually any type of incident, an institution’s response might be along the lines of:  “We follow all regulations and hold animal welfare in highest regard and priority…”

It is long past the time that our community should have abandoned this approach and required more from each of its members and divisions.  To accept anything less is a mistake.  Absence of accurate information, accompanied by the failure of institutions and their representatives to engage in public dialogue, only further erodes public trust.

The intent of the AWA, subsequent legislation and policies, accreditation programs, revisions of guidelines, and continued increases in regulatory oversight is to ensure the best animal welfare and humane treatment possible.  In the rare cases where the apparatuses put in place to achieve this goal fail, sometimes from accident or human error, two things must happen.  First, it is contingent upon all of those involved to immediately work together to identify the reason for the failure and ways to minimize the possibility that it occurs again.  Second, those ultimately responsible for oversight should provide the public with accurate information, explanation, and opportunity for discussion.  At the very least, they should be able to articulate the rationale and their support for the research programs and their contribution to scientific and medical progress.

Are we suggesting that attending veterinarians and institutional officials open their doors for daily chats with animal rights activists?  No, but we do believe that addressing legitimate public concerns and questions about their animal research programs are among the key obligations of those charged with oversight and conduct of those programs.

While scientists can address questions about the scientific side of animal research, we need the laboratory animal care and veterinary staff to provide their expertise in service of addressing public questions about clinical care and husbandry.  If they do not, it will be no surprise if the public view of animal research is disproportionately colored by the relatively rare adverse events and the misrepresentations of animal rights activists. Many believe that it is possible—and perhaps acceptable—to ignore this part of reality in order to focus on more immediate demands for time, energy, and resources. Consider, however, that a fundamental part of the AWA, accreditation, regulation, and professional obligation is actually to ensure communication with the public that supports animal research.  Thus, it is our entire community who share a primary obligation to engage in the dialogue that surrounds us.

Speaking of Research Committee

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News, Science News

Tagged , , , ,

Opponents of animal research should refuse medical treatment

Posted on November 17, 2011 by | 86 Comments

In a new post, animal rights activist Rick Bogle bemoans that his side is often challenged with a natural question:

“Would you forgo medical treatment developed through animal research?”

We can safely assume that the vast majority of those that oppose animal research do not have any qualms about vaccinating their children and companion animals or that, in case of an accident, would rush to the nearest emergency room to be treated with the benefits of animal research.

Are they not hypocrites?

Mr. Bogle doesn’t think so.  In response he writes that to live true to our own challenge scientists must refuse all benefits obtained in ways we consider unethical as well.

Namely, he challenges us back with: (a) not traveling on roads built by slaves — if we really oppose slavery, (b) refusing the care of a doctor whose education was based partly on knowledge obtained by  Nazi physicians — if we truly oppose the Holocaust, and (c) for our daughters and wives to forgo gynecological care — as many of its techniques were apparently developed by Dr. J. Marion Sims using non-consenting human subjects.

This is a flawed argument.

It is clear that none of the unethical practices Mr. Bogle mentions are accepted nor widespread today.  Thus, by traveling on a road built by slaves one is not actively supporting slavery.  By accepting gynecological care, one is not actively supporting experiments in non-consenting human subjects.  And so on.

In contrast, the use of animals in medical research today is ubiquitous.  Animal research provides medical benefits that translate into longer and healthier lives.  There is a public demand for such benefits. If the desire for living longer and healthier lives vanished tomorrow, so would animal research, along with the rest of medical research.

Mr. Bogle’s challenge rests on a false analogy.

A proper analogy would be the following.  Suppose you oppose child and forced labor practices and you discover that a particular US company manufactures its products overseas under such labor conditions.

Would you still buy form such a company?  Is there any way in which you can rightfully say that you morally oppose forced labor but are nevertheless entitled to benefit from the cheap prices the company has to offer?

Of course not.

If you buy from such a company you are a hypocrite to the full extent of the word, as you are actively supporting, financing and perpetuating a practice you consider immoral.

Ethical principles are supposed to guide one’s moral judgements.  If you have strong moral principles you want to impart on the rest of society, you better be the first to be prepared to accept the consequences of such principles.

Mr. Bogle and his ilk should stop benefiting from our research immediately.

They should live by their beliefs, and we can help.

Until then, they are nothing more than hypocrites.

→ 86 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

YES to Animal Welfare and NO to a Ban on Animal Research

Posted on November 2, 2011 by | Leave a comment

The following is a guest piece by Prof. Michael Hengartner of the Basel Declaration. An organization founded in Germany to promote well-regulated humane research using animals.

The Goals of the Basel Declaration and the Basel Declaration Society

Animal welfare and scientific and medical progress are not contradictory. More than 800 international researchers have already shown their commitment to accepting greater responsibility in animal experiments by signing the Basel Declaration and supporting the corresponding organization. The Basel Declaration Society aims for a more impartial approach to scientific issues by the general public, and more trusting and reliable cooperation with national and international decision makers.

In November 2010, life science researchers from Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, France and the UK addressed the challenges of animal research and adopted the “Basel Declaration”. This document marks an unprecedented effort by the scientific community to achieve more trust, transparency and communication around animal research. The event was echoed in international media, among them the Scientific American, the Medical Tribune and nature.

“The high quality of medical care today would not have been achieved without research in animal experiments. It is important to inform society about the major significance of research using animal experiments for the health of humans and animals,”

- Prof. Dr. Burkhard Ludewig, Director of the Medical Research Center, Institute of Immunobiology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Signatories to the Basel Declaration commit to accepting greater responsibility in animal experiments. They also sign up to intensive, unprejudiced dialogue with the general public. This dialogue is factual, and focuses on achieving concrete goals. The signatories additionally demand that animal experiments needed to obtain research results remain permitted, now and in the future.

“The Basel Declaration came about not in response to any specific occasion, but as a spontaneous voluntary commit­ment by the scientific community to the best-possible approach to indispensable animal experiments. We present a picture of our modern animal experiment-based science, the deliberation process, the basic conditions and our approach to the issue of animal experiments and show openly what we do and why,”

- Prof. Dr. Stefan Treue, Director, German Primate Center, Göttingen, Germany.

The goal is to make the Basel Declaration the worldwide ethical guideline on animal research, comparable to the Helsinki Declaration which defines ethical guidance on research into humans.

“Basically we have long regarded the principles behind the Basel Declaration as a matter of course, because no researcher performs animal experiments unnecessarily. The Basel Declaration establishes a platform for us on which we can network internationally in order to demonstrate this to the public more clearly still. The message is evidently getting across: For the first time we are now engaged in sustained dialogue with representatives of critical organizations in a spirit of genuine partnership that bring all sides together more than any extremist slogans do,”

- Prof. Dr. Rolf Zeller, Department of Biomedicine at the University of Basel, Switzerland and first President of the Basel Declaration Society, which was founded in September 2011.

The Basel Declaration Society celebrates its first birthday

Sign the Basel Declaration!

“The aim is for as many researchers as possible to learn of our initiative and affiliate themselves with it. We invite all colleagues and the general public to accept this offer of a genuine dialogue and to really live this Basel Declaration,”

- Prof. Dr. Michael Hengartner, Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Everybody involved in animal research or animal care around the world is asked to sign the Basel Declaration, and to become a member of the Basel Declaration Society. Doing so marks a commitment to strengthen public awareness of the importance of animal models in experimental biomedical research, to foster communication between researchers and the public, and to enhance acceptance of the Basel Declaration.

Animal research is under ever-increasing public and governmental scrutiny, even though its importance for biomedical innovation and the necessity of animal experiments to further knowledge in basic research are beyond controversy.

Scientists and technical staff conducting animal experiments face increasing public distrust, and often even aggressive rejection. Media covering the topic frequently lack objectiveness.

This is why already more than 800 international leading scientists have signed the Basel Declaration, to show their conviction that responsible animal research and the sustainable advancement of science and medical progress are compatible.

We hope you will join them with your signature.

Better education

“Animal experiments will remain necessary in biomedical research for the foreseeable future, but we are constantly working to refine the methods with animal welfare in mind,”

- Prof. Dr. Michael Hengartner, Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Advancing the knowledge, implementation and use of 3R principles to reduce, replace and refine animal experiments plays an important role in embedding the Basel Declaration in daily practice. All stakeholders, i.e. everyone engaged in experimental research, the general public and authorities/decision takers, must be made more aware of 3R principles and their current implementation. Moreover, 3R-related issues must be an integral part of scientific publications, and peer reviewers must be better informed about the use, dissemination and quality control of 3R methods. More research is required that captures results in a comprehensive and validated database related to 3R technology and methods.

The 3R principle (replace, reduce, refine) has its origins with William M. S. Russell & Rex L. Burch, who published their “Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” in 1959. These principles are regarded internationally as the guideline for avoiding or reducing animal experiments and the suffering of laboratory animals:

  • Replacement: replacement of animal experiments by methods that do not involve animals
  • Reduction: reduction in the number of animals in unavoidable animal experiments
  • Refinement: improvement in experimental procedures, so that unavoidable animal experiments

More than a piece of paper

On October 16-18, 2011, more than 80 international life sciences researchers and signatories to the Basel Declaration met in Berlin. Their aim was to continue making a constructive and active contribution to the debate taking place in society. They request that the incorporation of the new EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes into national law by January 2013 happens consistently in all European countries, and to the highest standards – like those in Switzerland.

Animal Welfare is a high priority for scientists

The Swiss severity classification system helps to identify the impact of scientific procedures on the health and well-being of experimental animals. A thorough severity degree classification is essential for improvement in line with the 3R principles. It helps to define humane endpoints in advance, and to assess progress in refinement, project by project. Participants in the Berlin conference recommend the implementation of severity classification systems, and voluntary use of such systems by the scientific community in countries where these are not yet mandatory.

Obligation to the public

Berlin conference delegates unanimously agreed that science must not only take a clear stand on the responsible handling of laboratory animals, but also has to show greater transparency towards the general public. To make their motivation and methods more comprehensible to the public and decision makers, the researchers committed to cooperate more closely with politicians, the media and schools, and to give greater importance to the communication of science. As a first step they presented position papers, developed in working groups, to representatives of the European Parliament, the EU Commission and the Federal Swiss Veterinary Office FVO.

The Basel Declaration signatories acknowledge the need for greater discussion of animal experiment issues and also of the risks of research approaches and possible misuse of new technological developments. In addition, they declare their intention to communicate not only results und scientific controversies, but also processes and approval procedures, in order to foster a deeper understanding of research.

“We realize that society funds our research and has a lot of justified questions on the subject of animal experiments and on research in the life sciences. Our aim is to engage in an in-depth, sustained and transparent dialogue. This reduces anxieties and promotes acceptance of views – on both sides,”

- Prof. Dr. Michael Hengartner, Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Zurich, Switzerland.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Good Lord! They’re Defending Animal Research

Posted on October 27, 2011 by | 7 Comments

Individual European governments are currently working out how to translate a new EU Directive on Animal Research into their own national laws. It would seem a good time for governments to be talking about the benefits of well-funded, humane research using animals. Wait a minute …. the British Parliament are.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.

On the 24th October 2011 the British House of Lords (Upper House of Parliament) debated the issue of animal research regulation (click for full text of debate). In response to Lord Wills’ initial questions on the impact of the directive on UK law there was a flood of support for the medical breakthroughs made possible by animal research.

The House of Lords

Lord Winston

Lord (Professor) Winston, an eminent British scientist who works in both reproductive biology and the field of organ transplantation, spoke of the role of animals in experiments in his own field.

My field has largely been that of in vitro fertilisation and reproductive biology. It is interesting to consider that more than 1 million babies could not have existed without the research that has been carried out on rodents. That is true of my work in the screening of embryos for genetic disorders. This has been a revolution in reproductive medicine. It means that women can embark on a pregnancy knowing for certain that they will be free from having a baby which will die in the first few years of life. That was made possible purely through extensive animal research. Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field, whether it be the liver, heart, brain or kidneys, or neuroscience or any major discipline.

Lord Winston also spoke of the need for the Government, and scientific community to engage the public on this issue.

It is quite shocking that every university in this country does not admit that we have an animal house where we do animal experiments. If we do not say this very clearly to the public, if we do not make that message clear, then of course people will start to think there is something clandestine or something to be ashamed of in our research programmes. I really do not think that is true

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe, spoke clearly about the benefit of animal research and the high standards of care that exist in the UK.

From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:

“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”.

There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact-tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals-as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.

Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.

Lord Taverne, founder of Sense about Science, spoke about the importance of
public support.

Public support is of course important-as many previous speakers have pointed out. The progress made in the three Rs also plays a part in this, and there is no doubt that there has been better education, but it could still be improved. I would add to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it would be beneficial if every general practice surgery displayed a notice stating, “All the drugs used or recommended in this surgery have been tested on animals”.

[...]

It is for the sake not only of the health of human beings but of the welfare of animals that we continue to be vigilant to ensure that animal research proceeds effectively and with due care for the animals affected.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough

Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who formerly chaired the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (as an MP in 2010), gave the Government’s position.

Our priorities are: to promote high-quality science and patient benefits; to ensure high standards of animal welfare; to apply the principles of the three Rs; to harmonise EU regulatory requirements so that we do not have different levels in different countries; and to promote public confidence in humane animal research, which can be done only through openness and transparency. … You cannot achieve world-class research unless you treat your animal models with respect and care.

The British Government continue to affirm their commitment to well regulated biomedical research involving animals. Thank the Lords!

Cheers

Tom Holder

→ 7 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Speaking of Regulations

Posted on April 13, 2010 by | 1 Comment

Regulations of research has always been an important issue for animal welfarists (as opposed to animal rights activists who start on a fundamentally different set of assumptions). Many people do not realize that there are strict protocols that monitor and regulate research. For this reason we have created a new page dedicated to the regulations surrounding the use of animals in laboratories. This covers the role of the Institutional Official, the Attending Veterinarian, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and other regulatory requirements.

Some activists suggest that because the animal welfare act does not cover mice and rats, that 95% of research is essentially unregulated. This could not be further from the truth, and the regulations page will help explain how the various institutional frameworks fit together to ensure the highest standards of care to all animals – be it mouse or monkey.

We hope to continue to further expand this section in the future.

Regards

Tom Holder

→ 1 Comment

Posted in News, SR News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

A Curious Tale: Researchers and their Animals

Posted on March 1, 2010 by | 17 Comments

Below is an account of how one researcher (Scicurious from the Neurotopia blog) views her animals, and the lengths she goes to ensure their welfare. Although such relationships vary from researcher to researcher, this account is almost certainly one which many researchers and animal care technicians will sympathise with. Scicurious (blogging pseudonym) is currently a grad student working towards a PhD in Physiology. This piece was originally posted as a post within a post on Neurotopia, and has been reprinted with full permission from the author.

Every day, at the lab, I head up to the animal colony. It’s my responsibility, and even though it’s work that, as a grad student, I probably shouldn’t be doing (I should be concentrating on other stuff and leaving this to the techs), I enjoy it. I have to sacrifice animals in my line of work, and taking care of the breeding colony, bringing new animals into the world, helps me feel a little bit better about it.

It’s more than kindness that makes me want to treat them well. Sick, uncared-for animals do not produce good data. It pays to have an animal caretaker that works well with their animals, as scared animals also do not produce good data. They benefit, and I benefit.

And the world benefits. Many people do not understand the value of animal research in neuroscience, the important things that can be learned from animals and applied to humans. Animal tests for anxiety, depression, addiction, or OCD may not be perfectly analogous, but they can tell you a great deal about how these diseases work. We can develop new treatments and cures. Progress is slow, but it’s essential. Once you have seen some of the people suffering with anxiety, depression, or addiction, looking entirely normal and yet completely unable to live their lives, you cannot just turn away. You want to help. These issues are not just problems of willpower, or problems of just needing to cheer up or relax. These problems originate in the brain, and in order to come to an understanding and a cure, we need to do research. And research into neurotransmitters, protein and gene expression levels, transporters, and signaling from one area to another is something that can still only be done in animals.

I work with animals. I am there for them rain or shine. I hike in to work to care for them when the roads are impassable with snow. I race in to work to make sure they have heat or cooling when the power goes out. During one paradigm, I did not get a day off for almost six months, because I had to care for them every day and no one else could replace me. Some people have it worse. I have heard heroic stories of vet techs remaining during a mandatory hurricane evacuation, stringing battery powered Christmas lights up in the rooms, and feeding and watering the animals every day, sometimes with water they had to beg from the Red Cross. I have heard stories of students, post-docs, and techs staying up all night to care for a sick or injured animal, working insane hours to preserve something as small as a mouse. And I have seen some of these same people near tears when an animal is put down. Even when the animal is put down for research reasons, it doesn’t stop us from caring.

I work with animals and I care for them a lot. As far as they can, they care for me as well. They don’t bite unless they have good reason. They cuddle in my arms, snuffling into my armpits where it’s warm. When they have injuries, they let me help them to the extent that I can. The species I work with doesn’t have a reputation for being very friendly, but we work well together.

Birth and death, I am there at every single moment in the life of my animals. I help sometimes to bring them into the world. I help to raise them, especially if their parents cannot do it very well (due to genetic issues or temperament). I feed them, I clean their living spaces. When they are young, I play with them. When they are adults, I do my experiments, treating them as gently as possible, and never forgetting that they are living beings worthy of respect and care. When they are older, I care for them, and make their lives easier. And when it’s time for them to go, I am there for them, too, to make it as painless and quick as possible. Can everyone say the same of their pet hamster or the burger they ate?

Many of the students, techs, and PIs that I work with have expressed similar feelings toward the animals they use. We respect them for what they can teach us, and we treat them well. But other people do not understand. And sometimes, they may understand, and they don’t agree. And that’s ok. I took my qualifying exams while people protested outside my building. But there’s disagreement, and then there’s…something else.

The other day I got something like this in my inbox:

“I hope what you do to animals is inflicted on your children”.

Just looking at that sentence makes my heart rate speed up, and my mind almost reels. I couldn’t get it out of my head. For several nights after that I dreamed that people were threatening me, entering my house, hurting my pets. The last dream I had involved an activist holding a gun to my head. Nights like those you don’t get a lot of sleep. I started checking my locks three times or more.

And this is nothing compared to what the bigger fish at my MRU get. I have heard of death threats, threats involving their children and noting where they go to school. At other institutions, people’s cars get burned, their houses get torched or flooded (or something their neighbors do by mistake), and fake or real bombs are dropped on their doorsteps. We are scared to communicate what we do to anyone outside of science. People ask and I say I’m a chemist. We fear the hatred and the accusations.

We are not monsters. We are the people trying to find the cures. Most people who go into biomedical science do it partly out of interest and partly out of a sense of duty. We see problems and we want to solve them. We want to help people. Many of us go into certain disciplines due to personal experience (could be very personal, friends, or family) with the problems involved: alcoholism, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, depression.

We are trying to help. That makes these threats hurt even more. The very people we are trying to help sometimes hate us for what we are doing. Sometimes, this makes us angry and cynical. Right now, it just makes me sad. And always, it makes us afraid. These people could destroy our lives, and the lives of our families, they could destroy our work, and they could hurt our animals.

And this is why its so important to speak out about our research. We need to tell people what we do and why we do it. We need to make it something that is understood, not feared, and understood to be necessary. The more the public knows and understands what we do and why we do it, the more they will help us. They will see the threats that some people are making as the actions of those too blinded by their views to keep to an open, legal protest. If we can get the public on our side, we may not feel like we have to hide our professions. We may feel that we can work without fear. ‘Til then, I’ll keep getting emails. And keep having nightmares. And keep on going. My work, and the animals I care for, are more important than fear.

Scicurious

Neurotopia Blog

→ 17 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Raising Voices: Animal Research Advocacy and Community Engagement

Posted on September 14, 2009 by | 33 Comments

Animal rights groups and extremists have raised a very loud chorus against animal research. Well-funded, media-savvy campaigns and over-the-top publicity stunts ensure that the public receives a biased and negative message about the role and value of animal studies.  As a result of decades of investment in extensive campaigning, these groups have contributed to decreasing public understanding of, and support for, animal research. At the same time, frustration with failing their major goal—to end all use of animals in research—has contributed to an increase in harassment and violence directed against scientists by animal rights extremists.

Yet those of us who engage in scientific outreach and education efforts find that members of the community, including students, welcome opportunities to hear from us and to learn about other views of animal research. The great majority are interested in knowing more about why we believe animal research is essential, how we treat animals in our care, and how our studies may contribute to improvements in human and animal health.  There is no shortage of public interest in learning more about animal research. This is particularly true among the youth that are the targets for carefully crafted campaigns by groups like PeTA.

David Jentsch and Tom Holder give press conference

It is important for scientists to engage the public in the debate over animal testing

The question is not whether the public is interested and can be reached with “our” message, or whether there are ample opportunities to do so. Opportunities for scientists to engage in community outreach and education are not limited.  There are a large number of outstanding educational programs, including those with long histories as well as more recent initiatives, in which many scientists participate.  Interest in issues related to animal research and ARA activity is also reflected in active discussion in venues such as Science Blogs, where bloggers DrugMonkey, Isis the Scientist, and Janet D. Stemwedel have all  engaged their readership in posts and vigorous commentary on issues related to animal research.

The question really is whether more scientists will choose to commit time and energy to animal research advocacy efforts.  And underlying that question are others:  Among all of our obligations and competing pressures for time, why spend time on outreach and education?  What will it achieve?  Why can’t someone else do it?  Don’t animal rights people “win” if I take time away from science to speak out on animal rights issues?

The short answer to all of these questions is that the voices of scientists engaged in animal research are essential to challenge the loud chorus of misinformation rising from animal rights activists and dominating the discussion. In absence of challenge, it seems likely that the current trend towards decreasing public support of animal research will continue. It may well escalate as increasingly effective social media campaigns executed by ARA groups pervade elementary school and onward without effective counter.  The results of decreased public support are obvious, far-reaching, and—ultimately—damaging to public health.

Some people are philosophically committed to a position in which no use of animals, for food, entertainment, research, is morally acceptable. The majority of people, however, do not equate animals’ rights with those of humans.  Many times people confuse animal welfare with animal rights.  Many people do not understand how animal studies contribute to breakthroughs in medicine and why these studies are necessary for progress. People are also often not aware that animal research is conducted humanely and is well-regulated at federal and local levels.

All of these issues are complex.  The success of many animal rights groups’ campaigns depend heavily upon poor public understanding of animal research, uncountered misrepresentations of scientists and their work,  and exploitation of the misconceptions and negative perceptions that many people have of the use of animals in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Unfortunately, for the most part, animal rights groups have also been able to count on launching misinformation campaigns with very little threat of organized, public response from the scientific community.

Scientists can provide an effective counter to animal rights extremism by presenting accurate representation and information, by demonstrating visible and active support for their own and their colleagues’ work, and by engaging in respectful exchange of ideas with those who seek open discussion of the use of animals in research.


Speaking of Research provides a venue for scientists to speak out in favor of lifesaving research developed with animals.  SR was founded by Tom Holder and inspired by the successful British student movement “Pro-test”. In the UK, Pro-Test’s experiences have shown that an informed public will rally together against animal rights extremism and come out to support scientists in their use of animals in lifesaving biomedical research.

SR aims to challenge animal rights dominance of the issue by participating in talks and debates on campuses across the country and by utilizing web-based communications tools to organize a network that can provide encouragement, information and support to all who care about medical progress. We also challenge ARA campaigns directly when they are based upon misrepresentation.
SR is run by a committee of people who believe that animal research remains crucial to the future of medicine.  Among its successes is the first mass pro-research demonstration in the US in April of 2009 at UCLA, site of a spate of attacks against researchers. Following a car fire attack by animal rights extremists, Professor David Jentsch, founded UCLA Pro-Test and held a rally that drew 700 supporters and demonstrated the strength of active and visible animal research advocacy.

There are many ways to serve as an advocate for animal research. Some are as easy as signing an online petition.  Coordinated efforts and vocal, concerted support is important to all of us and to the future of biomedical research that is essential to improvements in human health.

A member of the SR Committee, I have recently founded the North Carolina Chapter of Speaking of Research (NCSR). NCSR seeks to support scientists in active and visible efforts to provide the public with accurate information and resources about the importance of animal research in medical science. It also serves as a local exchange for news about issues related to advocacy and about local animal rights extremism.  Please join our facebook group or email me at NCSpeakingofResearch@gmail.com for more information.

Allyson J. Bennett, Ph.D.

The views expressed on this website/blog are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, Wake Forest University Health Sciences.

→ 33 Comments

Posted in Campus Activism, News, SR News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,