Tag Archives: ohsu

Mice and macaques pave the way for effective HIV vaccines

Posted on September 29, 2011 by | 2 Comments

There is encouraging news this week on the prospects for an effective vaccine against HIV. A  research team led by Professor Mariano Esteban at the Spanish Superior Scientific Research Council (CSIC) have announced that the vaccine MVA-B elicited a persistent immune response against HIV in  85% of volunteers in a phase 1 clinical trial. MVA-B is a therapeutic vaccine, it is not intended to block infection but rather to keep HIV levels in the body at levels well below those at which the virus can cause illness.

As a CSIC press release published online on EureakAlert! notes the MVA-B vaccine, created by inserting four HIV genes from the B subtype of HIV – the subtype accounting for most HIV infections in Europe and North America – into a vector derived from the Modified Ankara Vaccinia virus (a smallpox vaccine and shown to be safe in both animal studies and extensive human use), notes that:

In 2008, MVA-B already showed very high efficiency in mice as well as macaque monkeys against Simian’s immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Due to it’s high immunological response in humans, Phase I clinic trials will be conducted with HIV infected volunteers, to test its efficiency as a therapeutic vaccine.”

This is indeed true, a 2007 study in mice revealed that the MVA-B vaccine induced a strong immune response , while a paper published in 2008 by the same group demonstrated that a very similar MVA vaccine was able to induce a robust response involving both the HIV-1-specific CD4+ helper T-cells  and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells in Rhesus macaques, and was able to control virus levels in macaques infected with the SHIV 89.6P hybrid virus whereas in unvaccinated monkeys the levels of virus rose and most developed an AIDS-like illness.

There is a question over whether the immune response generated by the MVA-B vaccine will be able to restrict HIV in humans, after all the MRK-Ad5 vaccine which failed to restrict the HIV virus in human trials and the pathogenic SIV MAC239 – considered a better model for HIV infection than SHIV 89.6p – in macaque monkeys had successfully controlled SHIV 89.6P in earlier studies.

Some reassurance on this issue comes from a study at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) that was announced earlier this year, where a group led by Dr. Louis Picker used a different vaccine vector – one based on Cytomegalovirus – to elicit a very similar broad immune response , with strong memory T-cell involvement, to that induced by MVA-B, and found that it induced long-term control the highly pathogenic SIV MAC239 strain. This was the highest degree of control demonstrated to date against this SIV strain, and indeed the cytomegalovirus vaccine is one of the first to demonstrate any ability to control SIV MAC239 levels.

Professor Esteban and his colleagues are certainly not resting on their laurels either, further clinical trials of the MVA-B vaccine are planned, to determine whether it can protect against HIV.  In the meantime they are also seeking to improve on this vaccine.  Earlier this year they published a paper in the open-access journal PloS One where they deleted a gene in the MVA vector to yield a new MVA-B  vaccine that showed in mice a substantial increase in the magnitude and breath of the immune response compared with their original MVA-B vaccine, and an even better  memory T-cell response. They now plan to evaluate this improved vaccine in a non-human primate model of HIV infection, and it will be interesting to see if they choose to use a more stringent model of infection such as SIV MAC239 rather than SHIV-89.6P.

Despite the setbacks and disappointments over the past two decades, it is clear from the work being done at the CSIC and OHSU that real progress is being made towards the development of both prophylactic and therapeutic  vaccines against HIV, and it is just as clear that animal research continues to play a vital role in that progress.

Paul Browne

→ 2 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

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

Obesity, Smoking and Addiction

Posted on April 18, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Morbid obesity and cigarette smoking represent the two most substantial causes of preventable death in the Western world. According to recent estimates, about 1/3 of all adult Americans are morbidly obese (meaning that their excess of body weight is large enough that it causes illness or disability), and these numbers are increasing; approximately 15% of the American public smokes – though the proportion smoking  in many parts of  the developing world is much higher. The rates metabolic complications that correlate with obesity, including diabetes, are also on the rise. Because both obesity and smoking influence risk for cardiovascular disease, stroke and cancer (the three leading causes of death in the United States), smoking and obesity account for substantial disease burden, health care dollar expenditures and deaths. They cut many human lives short and exert a substantial impact our national economy.

So, why do so many people engage in over-eating and smoking, when it’s obvious that these behaviors are harmful? In the case of smoking, the nicotine content in a cigarette – coupled with its other ingredients – produces feelings of reward and relaxation that people find desirable. The high sugar and fat content of many of the food items readily available today do the same because they taste so good. Because they are such powerful rewards, these stimuli are sought out and consumed by people, though there are significant differences between individuals, but what is now causing great concern is the degree to which these behaviors are leading to a generation of health problems – inherited by those who haven’t even made these choices themselves. These inherited factors are not just genetic.

Exceptional new work from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) has now shown that monkey mothers who consume a diet rich in sugar and fat during pregnancy give birth to offspring that are themselves prone to acquiring excessive body fat, exhibit heightened anxiety responses and carry a host of changes in gene expression and brain chemistry that underlie these susceptibilities. In essence, mothers who eat an unhealthy diet influence the physiology of their offspring in ways that make them obesity prone. Kevin Grove, the OHSU researcher leading these studies, indicated that an unhealthydiet during pregnancy:

“is programming the [fetal] brain to also seek that high fat diet and those highly palatable diets later in life, which are going to make them at higher risk for obesity and diabetes…”

Similar results have been found for smoking; for example, studies in rats show that when a fetus is exposed to nicotine during gestation (as they are when pregnant women smoke), the resulting offspring is at higher risk of seeking out nicotine and developing a pattern of routine intake. In other words, in both cases, mothers – by engaging in excessive eating and/or smoking during pregnancy, affect the life-long pattern of behaviors in their children.

Once some (but not all!) individuals begin smoking or eating high sugar/fat foods, they experience progressive loss of control and an associated spiral into food and cigarette addiction. The hallmarks of this dependence include 1) unsuccessful attempts to quit or control the behavior, 2) continued engagement in the behavior despite knowledge of a problem caused by it and 3) giving up life activities previously enjoyed because of the behavior. Put differently, what makes an addiction what it is is the fact that individuals cannot voluntarily stop, reduce or control their food/cigarette consumption. Once again, research reveals that it is genetic factors that differentiate those that descend into addiction from those that are resistant to it.

Today, research in humans and animals is focused on the biological factors that cause the compulsive nature of addiction. Studies in rats have revealed that changes in the activity of a neurotransmitter called dopamine contribute to the emergence of food and drug addiction. Studies in monkeys are beginning to reveal how obesity and food addiction take hold. For example, the news program Nightline ran a profile of research going on at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at OHSU that addresses the biological origins and consequences of obesity caused by intake of high sugar and fat diets, coupled with relatively low activity levels. These studies are showing what genes, proteins and biological pathways contribute to obesity and help to explain why it is so difficult to escape. As stated in the program:

“The animals [at OHSU] may hold the answer to curing a health problem tied to many of the leading causes of death in the United States…”

Across this nation, there is scarcely a family that is not affected by the sickness and death caused by smoking and/or obesity. This includes scientists who study animals in order to find cures for these problems. A researcher at UCLA, Professor Edythe London, who has been ruthlessly targeted by opponents of animal research, described her commitment to solving the riddle of cigarette dependence in a 2007 OpEd entitled “Why I use animals in my research”.

“My personal connection to addiction is rooted in the untimely death of my father, who died of complications of nicotine dependence. My work on the neurobiology of addiction has spanned three decades of my life…. To me, nothing could be more important than solving the mysteries of addiction and learning how we can restore a person’s control over his or her own life. Addiction robs young people of their futures, destroys families and places a tremendous burden on society.”

For many who have a personal insight into the devastating effects of addictions like compulsive smoking and/or over-eating, the humane and regulated use of a small number of animals in order to prevent suffering in the future is justified. Though their loved ones have suffered and/or died, there is hope for others, and scientific progress aimed at accomplishing this will not stop, no matter how much the nature of addiction or the animal research aimed at ending it are misunderstand and misportrayed.

Regards

David Jentsch

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , ,

No Scares for ONPRC Monkeys at Halloween

Posted on November 23, 2010 by | 3 Comments

Well people are always bugging us to include more footage from biomedical facilities – here is something recently released by ONPRC:

It was nice to see this story appearing on CNN’s iReport.

“Last week, monkeys at Oregon Health & Science University’s Oregon National Primate Research Center enjoyed a pumpkin feast.  In what has become somewhat of an annual tradition, monkeys living at the center received locally grown pumpkins.

Each fall, members of the primate center’s animal care staff purchase or obtain donated pumpkins to give to the monkeys. The seasonal squash is considered a favorite treat by the animals, which also receive other fruits and vegetables year-round. About 100 pumpkins were provided to Rhesus Macaque monkeys and Japanese Macaque Monkeys.”

It is good to see ONPRC trying to get information out there to the public.

Cheers

Tom

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Campus Activism, News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Defending Against the Inaccurate (and sometimes downright false)

Posted on October 29, 2010 by | 1 Comment

Each year, as the rainy season returns to Oregon, so too does another all-too-predictable event: new claims of abuse leveled against my employer the Oregon National Primate Research Center. Nearly every fall, a small animal rights organization called Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) fuels their yearly “National Primate Liberation Week” with alarming press releases accusing my institution and others of abuse.

This of course would be understandable and acceptable if the facts were indeed true. However, in my decade of working at one the country’s eight national primate centers, I’ve learned that most SAEN claims are based on misunderstandings or misstatements. Their goal: to cause anger and hatred of scientists attempting to end suffering for both humans and animals.

SAEN’s most memorable headlines over the past few years include:

In 2010: “Group Names OHSU 6th Worst U.S. Primate Lab; Government Records Document Federally Sanctioned Animal Cruelty”

In 2003: “Research Labs Under Reported Primate Use, Broke Law, Says National Watchdog Group”

and perhaps the most alarming:

In 2004: “’Epidemic’ Sweeping Oregon Primate Center, Hundreds of Infant Monkeys Dead, Charges Watchdog Group”

Any person with a pulse will certainly react to such news with anger and disgust. The problem however, is that none of these claims are true.

Just last week, SAEN accused Oregon’s primate center of depriving monkeys of food and water, allowing animals to live in uncleaned cages and forcing animals to live in housing that was too small. Here’s the release: Group Names OHSU 6th Worst U.S. Primate Lab; Government Records Document Federally Sanctioned Animal Cruelty. (SAEN release Oct 19)

SAEN said that federal documents prove their case. So do they? We’ve posted them online and as you can see for yourself…the allegations and the truth hold little resemblance:

SAEN Claim: Animals were deprived of food

What the records show: In one study animals would not receive fruit or vegetables for a short period because they were receiving these vitamins in another form. In another health diet study, animals were given a smaller portion of food. In a third case, animals underwent temporary change in feeding schedules so animals could be trained.  Food was provided after daily training. Clearly SAEN’s claims of starving animals are inaccurate.

SAEN Claim: Animals were forced to live in dirty cages

What the records show: Cage washing was delayed for one day because it would have interfered with the research study. In another case, the cage washing was delayed briefly to limit stress for the animals.

SAEN Claim: Animals were forced to live in housing that was too small.

What the records show: Monkeys were temporarily placed in a slightly smaller group housing to better encourage socialization.

While reasonable people can debate what is truth and what is a lie, few can deny that at best, SAEN’s allegations are a gross exaggeration of the facts.

As for our previous experiences in responding to SAEN’s inaccurate claims:

In 2003, SAEN claimed that the Oregon primate center was lying about the number of animals in its care. Read the claims for yourself.

Again, not true.

SAEN leveled this claim by juxtaposing two reports to two separate federal agencies. One report contained in the NIH Annual Report lists all animals at the Oregon primate center. The other report, the USDA Annual Report of Research Facility lists all animals involved in research. Because a large number of our animals live outdoors in one-acre breeding habitats (meaning they are not used in research), these two reports clearly measure two entirely different things.

Of course SAEN’s allegation of fraud is very serious, but in this case it was based on either a complete misunderstanding, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts

In 2004 SAEN leveled its most incredible charge. That year, SAEN reported that an epidemic had killed almost 400 monkeys at the Oregon primate center.

How did this happen?

The simple answer: It didn’t.

SAEN based this claim on an annual census report provided to the National Institutes of Health annually.

Here’s the report belowIn making it’s claim, SAEN pointed to column 5 of the report – a reduction of 394 infants that year. So where did these animals go? See the additions just two columns to the left. 304 of these animals became adults. The rest were temporary transfers to other locations in and outside of the center and as for SAEN’s epidemic, it never occurred.

So when SAEN is made aware of their errors are they quick to set the record straight? Based on the fact that all of this information remains posted on their Web site – clearly not.

Of Course Oregon’s primate center is not alone in combating SAEN’s frequently inaccurate claims.

Speaking of Research has written about this issue on many previous occasions.

So why are these many untrue allegations such a serious issue for health research institutions such as ours? Because, many times these unverified claims are reported as fact meaning that those who wish to mislead the public are often quite successful. We should all be disturbed when the media reports only one side of the issue and places the burden of proof solely on health researchers.  The validity of claims made by organizations such as SAEN deserves the same sort of skepticism and study as our responses.

So, who will pay the ultimate price for all of this inaccuracy? Everyone.  Every single person on the earth has benefited from animal studies. Thanks to animal-based research, we have vaccines, medications and new surgical approaches. But despite these successes, SAEN and others want us to reject this important method for treating disease by repeatedly bombarding the public with inaccurate claims of abuse.

Hopefully Speaking of Research and can continue to shed light on the matter and convince Americans to wait for both sides of the story before making judgment. In the meantime, we’ll start preparing for SAEN’s next press release.

Jim Newman

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

“What Drives ‘animal researchers’ Like Me?”

Posted on April 26, 2010 by | 4 Comments

As World Week for Animals in Laboratories (a week of animal rights misinformation) comes to a close, we have a guest post from Nancy Haigwood, director at Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC). This piece reflects well the frustration felt by many scientists about animal rights activists misrepresent the noble cause of scientists who work on lifesaving research. Tom

I’m a health researcher who studies animals in order to develop new treatments and cures. When you hear protesters claiming that research animals are mistreated, they are yelling about me.

So what drives “animal researchers” like me?

Simply put, our view is that because animal studies lead to improved human health, they should be considered acceptable – provided the studies are highly regulated, the animals are well cared for, and suffering is not allowed. This is not a unique view. It’s also shared by the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association.

What have these guiding principles resulted in? Here are advancements from various labs in the past three weeks alone:

  • Mouse research has revealed how a genetic mutation may cause Parkinson’s disease (link)
  • Research in ducks has revealed a gene that might potentially shield humans from the flu (link)
  • Researchers studying mice learned that insulin-producing cells can be reborn in the body – a significant finding for those with Type One diabetes (link)
  • A blood-flow study in zebrafish has highlighted a possible method for suppressing cancer tumor growth
  • A mouse study suggests a new theory for the cause of Down syndrome: missing proteins in the brain (link)
  • A rodent study reveals that the anti-nausea drug Dramamine could be used during a heart attack to prevent heart damage.
  • And finally, as The Oregonian reported on April 2, monkey studies here at OHSU have solved one of the key mysteries about infections resulting from the virus cytomegalovirus (CMV), a disease that causes brain damage to 8,000 newborns each year.

Animal activists often reject these kinds of discoveries claiming that animal studies are outdated and that all of these breakthroughs could be made in test tubes or with computer models. But in reality, no test tube can simulate the complex immune response of an animal and no computer can mimic a real, breathing lung. Before we can try therapies in real human patients we must study a similar living system first.

In response to our studies, local organizers of World Week for Animals in Laboratories have promised us a wide range of activities. They’ve announced plans of legal protests but also some more menacing-sounding acts too.

According to a Web posting by the anonymous Portland Animal Defense League, the week will include “daytime demos” (we’ve learned that’s usually code for harassing a researcher’s family at home), “office demos” (code for invading a lab or office) and a “surprise action.” The activists also plan to protest the March of Dimes’ annual March for Babies which raises funds to prevent premature births and their devastating impacts to a child who comes too early.

I fully understand and support each person’s right to legally protest when they have concerns. But Illegal actions are different. OHSU researchers have had our homes and cars vandalized. Our children have been terrorized by masked individuals who show up on our doorsteps. We’ve received threats from the Animal Liberation Front that our houses will be firebombed.

As Portlanders, we take pride in the city’s activist culture. However, surely we all agree that harassment, stalking and death threats have no place in our city. Especially when the core issue – health research – benefits so many.

Nancy L. Haigwood, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist/Director, Oregon National Primate Research Center
Vaccine & Gene Therapy Institute
Professor, Molecular Microbiology & Immunology
Oregon Health & Science University

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Debate on Animal Research

Posted on November 13, 2009 by | 3 Comments

The opening footage for the CNN Blogger Bunch discussion “Is animal testing necessary?” on Wednesday highlighted one of the reasons for a recent increase in public attention and media coverage of the role of animals in biomedical and behavioral research. The scorched front door of a scientist’s home illustrated the kind of “direct action” advocated by a number of animal activist groups who hope that harassment, threats of violence, and property damage directed at individual scientists will deter them and lead to an end of animal research. Unfortunately however, the debate also included repeating tape that featured shocking but contextless images of laboratory and farm animals.

The CNN debate also demonstrated the willingness of research advocates and animal rights activists to participate in open and public discussion.

Two leaders in research advocacy, Tom Holder (Founder of Speaking of Research) and scientist Dr. P. Michael Conn (Associate Director of Oregon Health Sciences University, author of “The Animal Research War”) presented clear, factual, and direct information about why animal research is crucial to human and animal health.  Two leading opponents of animal research, Peter Young (Animal Liberation Front supporter) and Dr. Ray Greek (President of Americans for Medical Advancement), made the case for halting animal research, but did not provide a clear vision of alternatives that could address major challenges to public health.

The debate touched upon many of the critical points of separation in views of about the use of animals in research.  Tom Holder and Dr. Conn provided the essential rationale for animal research: that it improves human and animal health by providing critical basic understanding, knowledge, and discovery of new prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies.  The counterpoint represented by Peter Young was that the value of all animals’ lives—including mice—are equal to those of humans and, in turn, that no animal research should be conducted regardless of its benefit to humans or other animals.  By contrast, Dr. Greek argued that animal research is ineffective and has not contributed to medical progress. Both of these arguments have been the subject of previous SR posts.

Young and Greek both failed to address the moderator’s direct question about animal studies used in, for example, the research, vaccination, and treatments of H1N1 viruses.  Both also strayed off point with talk of non-research use of animals (Young and the benefits of releasing farmed mink back into the wild) and such red herrings (Greek) as how chocolate is delicious to humans and fatal to dogs.

The time constraints of the program precluded in-depth coverage of some points and didn’t provide opportunity to challenge some of the statements that were misleading or inaccurate.  SR will continue to post follow-up to the debate with detailed analysis and discussion of additional specific points. Wednesday’s debate did, however, serve as a very public marker of the current shift in discussion, strategies, and attention to animal research.  The past decade’s escalating violence against scientists and others who support the responsible, ethical use of animals in research has increased their resolve to be more visible and active in their efforts to engage the public in discussion of the issues.

Discussion of the moral and ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in research is not new, nor is the participation of scientists in talking with the public about their work. Many speak about their work often and openly. They speak to community audiences, to college and other students, and to the media. What is new is the groundswell of support, widespread interest, and new groups (Speaking of Research, Pro-Test, Pro-Test for Science) that have catalyzed and organized efforts to challenge misleading campaigns and expose tactics of harassment used by animal activists in attempts to misinform the public on the one hand, and to discourage scientists from research on the other.

In addition, Wednesday’s debate provided an excellent demonstration that these efforts are successful.  The program provided basic factual information that is key to informed discussion of issues surrounding animal use in research, yet is rarely presented by animal activists. This information is often not clear to the public.  For example, the moderator provided statistics about the number and type of animals in research. These numbers highlighted what would not often be apparent from animal activists’ campaigns: the fact is that of animal in research, 95% are rodents, less than half of 1% are dogs or cats, less than a quarter of 1% are nonhuman primates (United States Department of Agriculture).

Another example:  the show began with images of property damage inflicted by animal activists and quotes by two scientists (Drs. David Jentsch and Dario Ringach) from an article advocating public dialogue about animal research.  The CNN moderator drew attention to the shift in the last decade from protests against institutions to direct harassment of individual scientists and their families.  Bringing the illegal actions taken by animal activists into widespread public awareness is important to informed discussion of the current state of animal research, including both its benefits and challenges. Those who rationalize violent actions against scientists, including murder, are often willing to do so in ostensibly public forums. Unfortunately these forums are frequently not familiar to the broader public reached by better-known and more “mainstream” animal activists groups.  As a result, the public view of animal rights groups generally fails to include not only the scope of their agenda and its far-ranging implications—including the end to all animal research—but it also ignores the extreme views and actions they endorse.

SR will continue discussion of points raised in the debate over the coming weeks.  We appreciate CNN hosting this debate and the participation of Tom Holder, Michael Conn, Peter Young, and Ray Greek.

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.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in News, SR in the Media

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

Peta – Out with the new, In with the old!

Posted on July 4, 2008 by | 6 Comments

It seems Peta is running out of news lately – so its front page has decided to bring back the story of mistreatment of animals at Oregon National Primate Research Center – a story which turned out to be completely false when the USDA investigated. Want proof? Here’s the USDA report giving ONPRC a clean bill of health.

It seems that Peta forgot to check the newspapers after their infiltration because there were plenty of stories regarding the perfectly acceptable conditions inside ONPRC. So for the benefit of Peta members, here’s some of the news coverage.

Peta’s video accused ONPRC of mistreatment – let’s look at some of their claims:

Claim 1. Employers spray high power hoses to clean cages with monkeys inside – soaking the monkeys and upsetting them.

Truth: The Peta video is filmed so that most of the cage is not visible. You cannot see that the technician is actually cleaning the pans beneath the cages while the monkey is safely perched on a shelf away from the water. This is a regular occurrence and does not distress the monkeys. Here is actual footage showing what happens during pan cleaning (rather than Peta’s video which shows how the ceiling appears during pan cleaning).

Peta’s claim that the noise of the water hitting the cages causes the monkeys distress is unfounded when one considers that the monkeys are not sitting right next to the point of impact, but a few feet above on a shelf.

Claim 2. Technicians chase monkeys around their cages in order to move them. This causes the monkeys great distress.

Truth: Unfortunately if you have a large cage then it will is more difficult to capture the monkeys (but most would agree that the other benefits of a large cage, such as the one seen below, outweigh this minor inconvenience). The large cages allow monkeys to move around and play freely – improving animal welfare and adhering to the principle of Refinement within the 3Rs.

In order to reduce the need to “capture” monkeys, positive reinforcement is used to train monkeys to help researchers. Below we can see a monkey being trained to press a button, and later the monkey will be trained to offer up an arm of leg for blood samples.

Claim 3. Mistreatment has resulted in a rectal prolapses in monkeys within the facility

Truth: Rectal Prolapses are a minor problem for monkeys in captivity, similar to hair loss. These problems come and go without causing the monkey much discomfort (if a monkey does appear to be in pain then a veterinarian will attend to them promptly).

Claim 4. The conditions cause monkeys to go mad – animals can be seen in distress, whirling or pacing inside their cages.

Truth: This is perhaps one of the most insidious claims. Peta try to insinuate that the monkeys seen are acting as they always do – whereas it appears that they are acting alarmed by a presence outside their cage (perhaps one with a camera…) This is most certainly not ordinary behavior, and there is a strong chance that the animals filmed are stress-sensitive monkeys used for certain types of experiments at ONPRC. However the fact remains that the footage was almost certainly taken as soon as the intruder entered the room and before the animals had time to acclimatize themselves to the new presence. See the video below for a comparison of Peta’s footage to film taken by members of ONPRC.

[Please favourite, rate and comment favourably on Youtube to ensure more people see this]

CORRECTION:
The following video was entirely shot by Oregon Primate Center (not PETA) to illustrate how certain stress-sensitive monkeys (used for research into behavior) will act abnormally when in the presence of something new (a camera – that looks like a big eye), but will settle down when they realize it is not a threat. Check the previous video to see how a PETA infiltrator misused this fact.

We look forward to next week when Peta will be reporting on cruelty to animals by the Ancient Egyptians.

Cheers

Tom

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Science News, SR News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

SR on YouTube!

Posted on May 8, 2008 by | Leave a comment

For a long time, animal rights groups have taken advantage of new social media tools that exist on the web. Their presence dominates and clouds the issue of animal research, meaning that individuals looking for information on animal research, find themselves faced “Vivisection kills”, “Stop Torture”. Pro-Test broke the mold by being the first group in support of animal research that took advantage of these new opportunities. Pro-Test’s Facebook page is a baker’s dozen shy of 3,000 members, and the group also has a presence on MySpace and Wikipedia.

Now it’s Speaking of Research’s turn to bring a fresh angle to the debate on animal research – YouTube. When you type “animal research” or “animal testing” into YouTube you get a torrent of animal rights videos, well this is only a start, but now we have at least one video providing the unclouded truth about animal research.

View on YouTube, or see it embedded below.

So help Speaking of Research. Favourite the video, give it a good rating, and leave some positive feedback – I’ll be keeping an eye on the comments.

I would like to thank Oregon Health & Sciences University for recording the presentation and sending me a DVD that I could edit into this piece.

Cheers
Tom

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News, SR in the Media, SR News

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