Tag Archives: Ray Greek

For Life on Earth – The Birth of Another Pseudoscience Organisation

Posted on May 10, 2013 by | 6 Comments

Who are FLOE?

There is a new British animal rights group on the scene called “For Life on Earth” or FLOE for short. Founded by Louise Owen, who has worked with both Medical Research Modernisation Committee and Seriously Ill Against Vivisection (both now defunct), the website seems almost an advertising tool for the various writings of Ray Greek and Niall Shanks (There are no shortage of Amazon links on the site and recommendations that you “buy it now”), with typical pseudoscience about how animal research is no longer necessary.

A professionally finished video on the front page (above) informs us that since we don’t take ourselves down the vet, or our pets to a hospital, that “common sense” would suggest research cannot cross species lines. It is worth noting that veterinarians deal with a variety of different species (so much for not crossing species lines), furthermore, the One Health Initiative DOES aim to get greater collaboration between veterinary and human medicine due to their overwhelming similarity. The Zoobiquity website discusses many aspects of the similarity between human and animal treatments.

The video goes on to suggest that personalised medicine offers opportunities for “treatments [that] are tailor made for you and you alone, for your unique genetic makeup”. Again, they negate to note the huge influence  and growing role of animals in personalized medicine (such as the creation of mouse avatars which are injected with a person’s tumour cells so as to find the specific treatments that will work for that person). I also recommend reading our earlier post “When Personalised Medicine and Animal Research Meet”.

The video finishes with the curious phrase:

“We at For Life on Earth present science illustrated by “Animal models in light of evolution””

This makes me wonder if the whole website is not simply a straight marketing tool by Greek and Shanks’ publishers.

Much of the website revolves around Ray Greek’s regular writings (often on “Opposing Views”) that assert that animal models are not predictive. In reply, you should read a great post by Dario Ringach, an excerpt of which can be found below:

Researchers create models of disease in animals by trying to replicate what they believe are the essential components at play. These animal models can then be used to generate predictions for therapeutic interventions, which can then be tested in human clinical trials. If a prediction is falsified, so is that specific animal model of the disease.

When this happens, scientists seek to understand how the data depart from the prediction, what factors were ignored that might play a role, and use prior knowledge and intuition to develop a better, improved model. In the course of developing and refining such a model, scientists will go through many such cycles. A model is expected to be valid if and only if it captures all the key ingredients of the human condition.

The fact that one can postulate inaccurate animal models of human disease does not invalidate the whole methodology of animal research, it merely shows the work is difficult. But animal models can in fact be successful.

So what are the aims of FLOE?

For Life on Earth (FLOE) - Animal Research Science

“For Life on Earth is committed to making this level of science debate happen. Our objective is to ensure that such debates are broadcast live on television, via a platform such as BBC’s Newsnight or Question Time, both being suitable for the seriousness of such an important topic, and able to incorporate audience participation.“

It is a common claim among animal rights groups that there is no debate. In Britain, over the last 11 years, there have been four independent enquiries about animal research: House of Lords Select Committee (2002), Animal Procedures Committee (2003), Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) and the Weatherall Report (2006). On television there has been one Newsnight debate (below) on the scientific merits of animal research between Michelle Thew (BUAV) and Professor Tipu Aziz. Perhaps Ray Greek is simply frustrated that his fellow anti-viv organisation chose not to put up a scientist, but rather their own CEO. Question Time would not fit For Life on Earth’s vision of a scientific debate; as it is a current issues discussion programme dominated by the 3 partisan political panellists (of 5 total) that rarely discusses scientific issues. An animal research debate would be held in short sound bites, with political panellists trying to get the biggest applause. In terms of other opportunities for debate, Dr Greek himself has debated against scientists like Dr Michael Conn on CNN (contrary to the website’s assertion that such debates have never happened).

“For Life on Earth will focus on the most efficient routes by which to advertise the fact that veterinary principles must not be applied to ill, or critically ill humans. An effective pressure campaign, coordinated with the help of the international community, can then help to ensure that legislative decisions made by governments implement current scientific knowledge.”

This straw man argument suggests that current biomedical methods are based on veterinary principles. While there are some similarities between veterinary and clinical medicine (they both try to make ‘animals’ better), there are also clear differences. Given the overwhelming majority of scientists are in support of animal-based research, perhaps FLOE should not be so confident about explaining what “current scientific knowledge” entails. Modern animal research remains at the cutting edge of scientific discovery.

Wait, who are For Life on Earth again?

Well this is where things get interesting. FLOE is registered to a virtual London address through the company British Monomarks. This is not remarkable in itself, until you discover the host of other animal rights organisations that also use this same company for a virtual mailing address.

WC1N 3XX FLOEFLOE are in the company of the Animal Liberation Front Press Office and Supporters Group (offering support to jailed animal rights extremists). They also share their address with the Gateway to Hell campaigns and SHAC – who have a long history of animal rights extremists in their ranks. One wonders what individual connections draw these same organisations to use the same virtual address company.

Overall, For Life on Earth shows all the signs of being another antivivisection, pseudoscientific organisation. I guess it’s another excuse to get out the Animal Rights Bingo.

Speaking of Research

Addenum 13th May 2013

FLOE have removed the address from their website since this article was posted. Click the image below to see a cached version of the website for evidence.

For Life on Earth Address

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, News

Tagged , , , , ,

The Golden Goose Awards

Posted on April 30, 2012 by | Leave a comment

Politicians sometimes deride research based on the what they perceive as being “silly” titles of federal funded grants.  If they spot a title that deals with “games”, for example, they may assume it deals with some sort of amusement of little value to society, instead of a deep, powerful branch of mathematics that describes the behavior of competing rational agents with much relevance to voting, economics, cooperation, and so on.  Animal rights activists also enjoy the hobby.  The latest example is IDA’s list of “ridiculous research” ,whose claims were sadly repeated by far too many news journalists who were clearly too lazy check if they were accurate.  There were some honorable exceptions, notably an excellent editorial entitled “When the facts ruin a good spin” in the Times Union, which discusses a project on the role of music as a conditioning stimulus for drug use ends with a statement with which we heartily agree:

What’s “ridiculous,” to borrow the press release’s language, is that we fall for it, over and over, egged on by politicians eager to score easy points. And what’s “wasteful” is the time and energy that could be so much better spent on something other than a cheap shot.”

Back in 1976 the House Committee on Appropriations asked the National Science Foundation “Why does the Foundation persist in supporting research whose results have no apparent value to the American people?“  The NSF responded in part that:

Basic research seeks an understanding  of the laws of nature  without  initial  regard  for specific  utilitarian  value. Ultimately, however, it  is of the  most important  practical significance, because in a broad sense it is the foundation upon  which rests  all technological development.  Applied research builds on the results of basic research, seeking detailed  information  about  a specific situation  whose general laws have  been  discovered by  basic  research.  The  final step  toward  utilization  of research-development is  the systematic  application  of knowledge to  the  design  of  end products. [...]

As we  increase  our  knowledge  of nature  and  mankind,  in order  to adjust  nature  to our survival, safety,  comfort and convenience, we must  depend  upon  scientific research  to clarify the  relationships  of many, many things.  Thus,  we study  atoms,  even  though  they  will never  be seen  by an  unaided  human  eye.  We study  stars  too  faint  to  be  seen without  a  telescope  and  with  wavelengths  which  can  only be  detected  with  radio  receivers  or  photographic  plates. To  understand  geology, we must  look  at  geologic formations  and processes in many  parts  of the world where different  conditions have existed.  To understand  more about the  phenomena  of life, we must  study  the  behavior  of viruses,  single  cells,  plants,  and  animals  of  many  species.

A book was compiled covering various areas of research with Isaac Asimov writing an essay defending the value of basic research.

Thus, it was with some surprise and delight that we read in the news about Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) understanding the value of basic research.  The Washington Post reports that:

On Wednesday afternoon, Cooper rose to the defense of taxpayer-funded research into dog urine, guinea pig eardrums and, yes, the reproductive habits of the parasitic flies known as screwworms–all federally supported studies that have inspired major scientific breakthroughs.

Together with two colleagues he created the Annual Golden Goose Awards to honor federally funded research  “whose work may once have been viewed as unusual, odd, or obscure, but has produced important discoveries benefiting society in significant ways.”

Studying dog urine, among other stuff deem crazy by animal rights cranks, led to major medical discoveries

The article goes on to describe how research on dog urine led to an understanding of the effects of hormones on the human kidney, how studies in the guinea pig led to a treatment for hearing loss in infants, and how studies on the screwworm led to the effective control of the a deadly parasite that targets cattle.  All these provide additional examples refuting the notion that learning about life processes from animals cannot yield knowledge applicable to human health.

The Golden Goose Award has the backing of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Association of American Universities (who in 2011 published a series of “Scientific Inquirer” articles skewering dubious politically-motivated attacks on basic science) and the Progressive Policy Institute, who are to be congratulated for this excellent initiative to highlight the importance of basic research.

At the press conference to launch the award Rep. Robert Dold told reporters that “When we invest in science, we also invest in jobs. Research and development is a key part to any healthy economy,” while  Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.) added “It’s critical, and the federal government has an important role to play,” who went on to describe how injecting horses with snake venom might “seem peculiar” but led to the discovery of the first anti-venom.

Taking us, once again, to the concluding words of Asimov’s essay:

Unless we continue with science and gather knowledge, whether or not it seems useful on the spot, we will be buried under our problems and find no way out.  Today’s science is tomorrow’s solution — and tomorrow’s problems , too — and, most of all, it is mankind’s greatest adventure, now and forever.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Animal Rights News, News, Science News

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

Predictions and Animal Models of Human Disease

Posted on November 3, 2011 by | 3 Comments

Some animal activists argue human disease cannot be modeled in animals.  They think physiological differences between species imply that treatments developed by means of animal research will not translate to humans.

Prediction through the development of models is no doubt a goal of scientific work.  Predictions are the fruits of theories that can be tested experimentally. If a prediction is false so is the theory, and a new one must be generated based on prior knowledge and the specific way in which the data falsified the theory.

Unfortunately, those that claim animal models are not predictive of human response take some literary license in restating the above along the following lines:

Predictions, generated from hypotheses, are not always correct. But if a modality or test or method is said to be predictive then it should get the right answer a very high percentage of the time […]

If a modality consistently fails to make accurate predictions then the modality cannot be said to be predictive simply because it occasionally forecasts a correct answer. The above separates the scientific use of the word predict from the layperson’s use of the word, which moreclosely resembles the words forecast, guess, conjecture, project and so forth. […]

Many philosophers of science think a theory (and we add, a modality) could be confirmed or denied by testing the predictions it made.

This language delicately nudges one to equate different concepts, namely theory, hypothesis, modality and method. In this deceptively innocuous equation, resulting from either an honest misunderstanding or mischievous intent, lies the foundation to a seriously flawed argument.

Consider the domain of physics. Here, physicists put forward mathematical theories of some natural phenomenon which, in turn, generate testable predictions. If a prediction is falsified, so is the theory. When this occurs, scientists seek to understand how the data depart from the prediction and use prior knowledge and intuition to develop a new working hypothesis, which is embedded in a new theory.

Mathematics is the language of physics — its methodology. Obviously, by using mathematics one can create many different theories. The overwhelming majority of them will be false. Science is difficult because most of the time our ideas turn out to be wrong.

But one’s ability to conjure up large numbers of incorrect theories does not invalidate mathematics as a method in the physical sciences. Mathematics can in fact be used to arrive at accurate descriptions of how matter behaves. It makes no sense to describe this state of affairs by stating that mathematics (the modality) gets it right occasionally.

A similar situation arises in the domain of biomedical research. Researchers create models of disease in animals by trying to replicate what they believe are the essential components at play. These animal models can then be used to generate predictions for therapeutic interventions, which can then be tested in human clinical trials. If a prediction is falsified, so is that specific animal model of the disease.

When this happens, scientists seek to understand how the data depart from the prediction, what factors were ignored that might play a role, and use prior knowledge and intuition to develop a better, improved model. In the course of developing and refining such a model, scientists will go through many such cycles. A model is expected to be valid if and only if it captures all the key ingredients of the human condition.

The fact that one can postulate inaccurate animal models of human disease does not invalidate the whole methodology of animal research, it merely shows the work is difficult. But animal models can in fact be successful.

knockout mice, animal research, animal rights

A laboratory mouse in which a gene affecting hair growth has been knocked out (left), is shown next to a normal lab mouse. (Courtesy NIH)

One of the proponents of the idea that animal research cannot be used to predict human response to disease is Dr. Ray Greek who was recently interviewed by Steven Novella for the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (as it turns out, Dr. Greek won a bid to appear in the podcast).

There is an interesting part of the exchange where Dr. Novella attempts to explain hat some models have indeed been extremely predictive of human response.  Starting at 15:45min into the program he gives Dr. Greek the example of a how SOD1 mutant mice have helped in the treatment of ALS.  The model “is a home run for humans with SOD1 mutation”, he said.

Dr. Greek’s reply was simply “Well, let’s face it.  If you study 10,000 genetically modified mice there is bound to be one that you are going to hit a home run with.”

In the eyes of Dr. Greek and the animal rights activists that adhere to his views, the type hard scientific work that leads to the development of a predictive model of human disease boils down to a mere chance discovery.

Dr. Novella tries insists that such a characterization of animal research as not predictive is meaningless — it is as if one were to ask “Does surgery work?”.  The answer, he says, is “of course, some surgeries work and some don’t, and you have to ask which ones work and for what [...] You [Dr. Greek] want to make a final pronouncement for surgery as a medical intervention.”

But there is little hope of getting the message across.

Dr. Greek retreats to discussing toxicology testing and declares disease research to be, well… “more complicated.”

Dr. Novella appears to politely give up in frustration and rapidly moves on with the rest of his show.

We sympathize.

Indeed, genetically modified mice have been and continue to be a very useful tool to dissect the roots of human disease and develop new treatments.  This includes the study of type II diabetes using mice with mutations in the glucokinase gene, the shaker1 mouse as a model of human genetic deafness, the role of genes in inherited psychiatric disorders, in cancer research in general and for the development of successful new therapeutics for breast cancer in particular, in the advance of new treatments for lupus, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and so on.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has a full chapter dedicated to how genetically modified animals are used in the study of human disease.

It is absurd for anyone to claim such advances are the product of chance.  They are the product of the hard work of dedicated individuals who spend countless hours in laboratories around the world with the goal of advancing the well-being of those affected by disease.  They are the product of those that go to bed thinking about how a protein may work, why muscles may weaken, how a tumor spreads, or why memory fails, in the hope of waking up the next day with some new ideas. They are the product of those that are determined to solve some of the most complex puzzles of biology that afflict human kind.  They are the product of talented students, staff and scientists that together work to rid the world of disease.  They are the product of science.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Animal Rights News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , ,

Herceptin: When personalized medicine and animal research meet.

Posted on September 2, 2010 by | 1 Comment

Personalized medicine is very popular among medical researchers these days, and it’s not hard to see why. By tailoring treatment to fit an individual patient, for example by using information about their genetic makeup, scientists hope to make treatments more effective while at the same time avoiding or minimizing adverse effects.

Anti-vivisectionist Dr. Greek writes about personalized medicine as if one could do this work without relying on animal research at all.

For example, he writes:

When will personalized medicine become a reality?

We are already seeing it, with breast cancer being a prime example. Breast cancer treatment is now determined in part based on a patient’s genetic makeup. About 25-30 percent of breast cancer patients overexpress the HER2 oncogene, which is a gene involved in the development of cancer. The overexpression results in an increase in the replication of the cancer cells. Physicians are now able to identify which breast cancer patients overexpress HER2 and give them Herceptin, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits HER2

This is true…  but where did Herceptin come from?   Does he know?

Herceptin, a humanized mouse monoclonal antibody. Image courtesy of Andrey Ryzhkov.

The basic research that led to the development of Herceptin (Trastuzumab) goes back to work by Milstein and Kohler who discovered the potential for using antibodies to fight disease.    They developed the first methods to produce monoclonal antibodies using mice.   Both Milstein and Kohler went on to win the Nobel Prize partly for this work.

Harold Varmus (now back as Director of the National Cancer Institute) showed that disturbances in some gene families could turn the cells cancerous.  He also went on to win the Nobel Prize for this work.  Robert Weinberg subsequently discovered in rats that a mutant gene (named “neu”) encoding a tyrosine kinase promoted cancer features in cells, contributing to the development of neuroglioblastoma tumors.

Later, Axel Ullrich and collaborators at Genentech cloned the human HER2/neu gene.  Work at UCLA Dennis Slamon and colleagues showed HER2 over-expression in 25% of patients with aggressive breast cancer.

Through screening studies on monoclonal antibody candidates in vivo in mice implanted with HER-2 positive human tumors the group at Genentech then developed the mouse 4D5 (parent of Herceptin) and showed that 4D5 could suppress the growth of HER2 tumor cells as well as enhance the ability of the host immune system to kill them.   A collaboration between UCLA and Genentech then demonstrated that radio-labeled 4D5 localized to HER2-expressing tumors in both mice and human patients.

With the information obtained from animal experiments, Genentech created Herceptin by humanizing the 4D5 mouse antibody directed at HER2.   The ability of Herceptin to prevent tumor growth was then assessed in mice implanted with HER-2 positive human tumor xenografts, and the concentration of Herceptin required in the blood to achieve anti-tumor activity was determined before starting human clinical trials.

So, you see…  Herceptin was derived from a mouse antibody.

Let me repeat: a mouse antibody!

Clinical trials in humans subsequently showed the effectiveness of Herceptin to treat HER2 positive breast cancer.

Perhaps, Dr. Greek and other animal rights activists should carefully listen to the experts that were actually involved in the process of developing Herceptin (a drug he appears to thinks highly of) which, indeed, benefits so many women battling breast cancer.   A drug derived from mice, and developed in mice.

Here is what Robert Weinberg had to say about Dr. Greek’s views on research:

Dr. Greek says the silliest things, [...] implying that people are not studying human tumors, and implying that the kinds of experiments that one can do in mice can be done as well in humans — truly mindless!

I couldn’t have said it better.

Dario Ringach

→ 1 Comment

Posted in News, Science News

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

Laying the foundations of medical research

Posted on April 23, 2010 by | 1 Comment

For the past couple of weeks a debate has been raging on the Opposing Views website between Speaking of Research’s Dario Ringach and the anti-vivisectionist Ray Greek. It has been a debate shaped by Dr. Greek’s attempts to persuade readers to agree with his very narrow concept of what prediction means in biology and his frankly impoverished view on the role of basic research in advancing medical science, and to oblige those debating them to accept a playing field rigged to set them at a disadvantage.  Judging by Dario’s most recent opinion piece and an article written a couple of days ago on the role of basic research Dr. Greek failed in this attempt.

British biochemist Sir Tim Hunt, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2001.

Among all the discussion was one comment that directed readers to an excellent example of the value of basic research and the how study of animal models made many key discoveries possible. Earlier this week the BBC aired a program in their Beautiful Minds series featuring Sir Tim Hunt, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001 for his research on how the cell cycle – through which cells grow and divide – is controlled.  Sir Tim’s work focused on the role of a family of proteins known as cyclins and as the Beautiful Minds program explains the initial breakthrough came from studies of the fluctuations in the pattern of protein expression during the cell cycle in sea urchin eggs.  This discovery was followed swiftly by the demonstration that cyclins were also present in yeast, clams and frogs, allowing Sir Tim and his colleagues to predict that they would have a role in regulating the cell cycle in many species,  including humans, a prediction that was soon confirmed to be true (1).

This program is a reminder that while discussion of animal research tends to focus on animals such as mice, rats and monkeys a lot is being learned about the fundamentals of our physiology through research on more humble model organisms, a diverse collection that includes not just sea urchins and clams but also nematode worms and flies .  These animals, along with other model organisms such as yeast and bacteria, enable us to study how living things work at a very fundamental level, laying the theoretical foundations for future applied and translational research that yields innovative treatments for disease and injury. At the same time, researchers studying other aspects of physiology often require higher mammals. The study of complex brain functions, including vision, hearing, memory, attention and motor planning, as well as how these functions fail in diseases of the central nervous system, is a prime example of this.

If you haven’t watched the Beautiful Minds series yet I strongly urge you to do so, the programs provide a fascinating (if not always flattering) insight into how science works.  And don’t delay: they are only available to view on the BBC iPlayer for another 7 days!

Paul Browne

1)      Pines J.  and Hunter T. “Isolation of a human cyclin cDNA: evidence for cyclin mRNA and protein regulation in the cell cycle and for interaction with p34cdc2.” Cell Volume 58(5), Pages 833-846 (1989)  PubMed: 2570636

→ 1 Comment

Posted in News, Science News

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

In defense of “The scientific basis for the support of biomedical science”

Posted on March 11, 2010 by | 3 Comments

During our panel discussion, Dr. Greek criticized a classic study that appeared in the pages of Science by Comroe and Dripps, entitled “The scientific basis for the support of biomedical science”, which set out to analyze the time sequence of discoveries that had led to major medical advances.

Comroe and Dripps analyzed the top ten clinical advances in cardiovascular and pulmonary medicine in the last 30 years (prior to the study which was done in 1976).   Their goal was to identify the key scientific discoveries had led to these advances.  With the help of consultants and physicians, they read and carefully examined 4,000 individual articles, identifying 2,500 of them as being essential for the development of the body of knowledge that lead to these breakthroughs.

The main result of the study was 41% of all articles considered to be essential for later clinical advances were not clinically oriented at the time of the study, and that 62% of key articles were in fact the result of basic research exploring fundamental questions of biology.  This figure could in fact be considered lower bounds (underestimating the value of basic research), as any given study was categorized as “clinically oriented” even if it was done entirely on animals with a basic question in mind but merely mentioned in passing an interest or relation to a particular disease.

Another interesting outcome of this study was a very rather detailed chronological list of the key elements involved in the development of electrocardiography.  From the early manifestation of electricity in ancient times, to Galvani and the discovery of bio-electricity, Volta, Purkinje, the first ECG recording in frogs and humans, and the development of ECG devices (see their Table 3).  Such a clear sequence of causal events leading to major breakthroughs is what the opposition usually demands as proof for the contribution of animals in medical advances.

The methodology of the study was criticized by Richard Smith eleven years after the publication of the original study.  Here are his central complaints:

“Comroe and Dripps [asked] 40 physicians to list the advances that they thought most important.  They do not, however, say in their paper whether they asked 40 and fewer replied or whether they asked more and only 40 replied.  Nor do they say how they selected these 40, and nor do they say in their methods why they chose only physicians, although they are defensive in their discussion about having done so

From the replies Comroe and Dripps produces a list of the top cardiovascular and pulmonary advances and sent them to ’40 to 50 specialists in each field’ and asked them to vote on the list.  ‘Their votes selected the top t10 advances’.  Again this is very imprecise for a paper published in Science.  Exactly how many specialists were contacted?  How many responded?  How were they asked to vote?  How were the votes put together?”

Richard Smith concluded the study was therefore “unscientific”.

There is, in fact, some degree of validity in the criticism that there is a lack of detail in the original Comroe and Dripps.  However, I would submit these are minor flaws and it should be possible to fill in the missing pieces in a reasonable way  to allow a replication of the study.   Calling the results of the study “unscientific” is not warranted.

In any case, in an effort to take a second look at these issues Grant et al in 2003 decided to address a similar question to that of Comroe and Dripps but using different methods (this was the study cited by Dr. Greek in our panel discussion).  First, Grant and colleagues opted to look at the leading advances in neonatal intensive care.  The first part of the study was performed in a similar way as that of Comroe and Dripps: coming up with a list of clinical advances in one specific area (neonatal intensive care) using a Delphi survey.  The top three advances they identified by voting of experts in this area were mechanical ventilation, replacement surfactant and antenatal steroids (their Fig 2.1).

Second, instead of reading and reviewing articles from the literature to identify the key elements of knowledge that contributed to these advances, this team opted for an automated bibliographic analysis of the literature based on a genealogy tree of articles.   Basically the method works as follows.  First, start by searching for articles within the last 5 years that deal with one of the clinical advances of interest (such as lung surfactants using a keyword search).  Keep the top 5% of the most cited papers.  Presumably, this set is of some importance and it will represent the first generation of papers.  Next, generate the next set of papers by looking at the full set cited by the first set.  Rank this new set according to the number of times they each have been cited and, again, keep the top 5% (this set represents the 2nd generation of papers).  And so on.

The method seems automatic and bias-free.  But is it generating meaningful results?  Where is the 5% threshold coming from?  Normally, in science, only a handful of studies in any one period of time provides the key elements that are necessary to drive a breakthrough.  In Table 3 from Comroe and Dripps, for example, they identified only 21 key studies between 1900 to 1967 — about 1 key discovery every 3.2 years.    Thus, I would suggest that 5% is too high a threshold, which only helps to add a tremendous amount of noise in the literature under study at each generation.   Further, the authors never consider citation rates.  So, a paper that received 50 citations in 5 years might rank higher than a paper that received 49 citations in 2 months.

Even if we assume the analysis is yielding a reasonable collection of papers, the authors split the papers in each generation into five categories or levels: level 1 (clinical observation), level 2 (clinical mix), level 3 (clinical investigation) and level 4 (basic research) and finally level 5 (unknown).  Yet, such classification was arrived at depending on the journal the research was published, which seems a rather crude method.

As a matter of fact, in a recent email communication with Dr. Jonathan Grant about these issues, he wrote back saying that:

“The issue I have with my analysis is [...] the metric (research levels) for classifying basic and other research. Although I know of no other way of doing this bibliometrically I have come to believe it is too crude.”

In addition to this issue, one should note that by splitting all the papers into more categories (not just basic and clinical as Comroe and Dripps did) the absolute percentage numbers one would expect for each is category is automatically reduced.  In fact, the highest percentage of studies in any one generation falls in the “unknown” category (~40% of them).  Comparing absolute percentage levels from this study versus Comroe and Dripps is not possible.

Grant and colleagues were careful enough to express reservations about their results when they wrote:

“In reaching this conclusion we are acutely aware of the significant limitations to the revised methodology and, therefore, we caution against the over-interpretation of our results.”

A caveat Dr. Greek should consider mentioning when referring to this study.

In closing, I’d like to offer the readers a challenge.  Consider the two medical advances in neonatal intensive care Grant et al identified with the help of experts: ventilation and surfactants.   It seems to me that anyone with knowledge of medical history in the field will immediately recognize the role animals played in their development.  Don’t take my word for it.  Instead, read the story as told by one investigator that was directly involved in these discoveries.   It is a wonderful tale that will take you from the basic physics of capillarity and surface tension (yes, basic science again), to the elucidation of the composition of lung surfactants in animals, to the treatments that save the lives of thousands of premature babies each year which would have otherwise died 50 years ago.

The inescapable conclusion is that lives of countless premature babies are saved today thanks basic research with animals.

It is as simple as that.

Regards

Dario Ringach

→ 3 Comments

Posted in News, Science News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Score one for dialogue

Posted on February 18, 2010 by | 1 Comment

On Tuesday evening students and faculty of UCLA filtered through security for a unique opportunity to listen to a spectrum of opinions on the ethics and science of animal research at an event co-organized by campus groups Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science.

Six expert panelists had 15 minutes each to share their perspectives, followed by an hour for the audience to pose questions through moderator David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times.  As a proud donor to ASPCA, and an individual directly benefiting from animal research with an insulin pump for his diabetes, Lazarus declared himself to be a living embodiment of the debate.

The six panelists were:

  • Janet D. Stemwedel, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, San Jose State University.
  • Ray Greek, M.D., President of Americans for Medical Advancement
  • Colin Blakemore, FMedSci FRS, Professor of Neuroscience, Oxford University
  • Niall Shanks, Ph. D., Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, Wichita State
  • Dario L. Ringach, Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology and Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles Professor
  • Robert Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, California State University, Chico


Dr. Jentsch (UCLA Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience) introduced the evening by reflecting that academia has always been rife with colleagues who disagree, but who approach the issue with a reasoned exchange of ideas.  “Both groups claim to promote free and open dialogue about the issue of animal rights, something which Jentsch said first prompted him to approach Bruins for Animals about organizing a discussion,” reported the Daily Bruin.  Co-founders of Bruins for Animals thanked everyone for their participation.

Dr. Ringach led off the panel with a strong statement about the innumerable contributions of animal research to human health, knowledge and progress.  One hundred years ago, “Life expectancy in the US was less than 50 years; it is now close to 80….Animal research has contributed to many of these advances.”  He listed medicines for premature babies, vaccinations to eradicate and inoculate against disease, and blood thinners for heart disease all as life-saving treatments developed with the help of animals.  He also stressed the importance of basic research as a compliment to clinical research.  He explained that it is impossible to be certain where the next breakthrough will come from, but that science is a continuum with each study building on previous studies to solve the mysteries of life and disease.

Drs. Shanks and Greek did not directly refute advances made with the help of animals, suggesting instead that they could have been made without animals.  They further made assertions that toxicological responses in animals are poorly predictive of similar effects in humans, and that only humans are worthwhile subjects of research to benefit humans.

Dr. Blakemore began with a history of the controversy over animal research, concluding that it must be humane, responsible, and well-regulated to be accepted.  He asked people to reflect on whether biological researchers alone among scientists truly are ignorant and antiquated, stubbornly and maliciously clinging to archaic scientific methods rather than pushing the boundaries of their field with state-of-the-art technologies.  He described his experience as the Executive at the U.K. Medical Research Council during which time funding for human research well exceeded that dedicated to studies on animals.

Dr. Stemwedel asked people to consider that scientists also strive to be ethical, and that the characteristic is not monopolized by animal rights activists.  She explained that believing we have greater obligations to our fellow humans certainly does not mean that we have carte blanche to treat animals however we want.  Dr. Blakemore pointed out that researchers actively develop and enthusiastically take advantage of alternatives to animals in research because all agree that it is not ideal.  Thus far such alternatives are valuable in combination with judicious use of animals, but cannot fully supplant it.

The ethical arguments are more shaded than the facts of science.  Dr. Stemwedel proposed that humans are special because we have moral capability.  She noted that while there are historic examples of societies treating human populations in ways seen as egregious today but considered moral at the time, the difference being that even then the people they subjugated demonstrated their moral ability, while nonhuman animals cannot.  There was a general agreement that moral boundaries are dynamic and can change, and it is up to society as a whole to decide what it is that we feel comfortable doing.

Dr. Jones contended that the difference between humans and other animals is a false dichotomy, arguing that there is no defensible reason for speciesism.  He claimed that the differences between species are analogous to superficial and amoral differences within species, like race, sex, and religion.  Rather than humanity, the animal rights side of the panel agreed on sentience – the ability to feel pain – as being the appropriate attribute for drawing the line for experimentation.  Dr. Jones contested using moral ability as the place to draw the line because people who are amoral due to mental impairment (people who do sometimes participate in invasive and risky clinical trials with the consent of their guardian) are nevertheless appropriately precluded from terminal research by their human status, rather than being grouped with other (amoral) animals.

There were a number of areas of common ground between panelists.  For example, it was asserted that of all the reasons humans use animals, biomedical research is the only one whose aim is to improve humanity, that it is imperative to abolish any undue suffering and to develop alternatives, as well as, that it is crucial to further this dialogue, and to condemn threats and violence.

Upon being asked what changes he would like to see, Dr. Jones’ reply was three-fold: that biomedical scientists be educated in the ethics of animal research, that the Animal Welfare Act be extended to cover all vertebrates (as in the U.K.), and for increased transparency in research institutions – that they open up in service to informing the public about the truth.

On the pro-research side Dr. Ringach closed by calling for more discourse, with an inspirational call to all scientists to speak out and to explain their research, and for granting institutions to publically support them.  He also pointed out a fork in the road for factions in the animal rights movement, urging that we proceed together with no tolerance for campaigns of violence and intimidation.  Coordinators on both sides faced vehement criticism for organizing this discussion, and in a show of supreme courage and dedication, they persevered to pull off a productive evening.

The event was conducted in a collegial spirit with a respectful audience and panelist members who want to make progress on this issue listening thoughtfully to one another. The evening was a breakthrough success from all perspectives.  A report on the event in Nature emphasized the overriding sentiment that “Scientists in the United States must publicly discuss the merits of animal research if they are to win over the public and neutralize the threat from activists….  ‘The only way to breakthroughs is to have the courage to be open,’ Blakemore told Nature.” We all hope to carry this forward towards future advances.

In summary, the debate will go on, but, for now, we can score one for dialogue.

Regards

Megan Wyeth

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Campus Activism, News

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

Bruins for Animals and Dr. Ray Greek speak against extremists’ attempt to derail dialogue

Posted on February 10, 2010 by | 5 Comments

The upcoming panel discussion, Perspectives on the Science and Ethics of Animals Used in Research, at the University of California Los Angeles co-hosted by Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science has drawn interest all around. The event is the result of joint efforts by the two groups working together “with the goal of opening an ongoing dialogue between individuals who are in favor of or against the use of animals in biomedical research.”  The panel will include six speakers who will present their views on the use of animals in biomedical research, as well as moderator-driven discussion based on questions submitted by the audience.

“The event is structured to maximize the opportunity to engage in a civil, intellectually honest discussion on issues about which people hold passionate, differing opinions. This event must demonstrate that such a discussion can effectively take place in order for future dialogue to be possible.”

More information about the February 16th panel discussion can be found at Pro-Test for Science, Bruins for Animals, and Speaking of Research.

In the weeks leading up to the event, it has become clear that some members of the animal activist community are using the occasion to focus threats, intimidation, and harassment on members of the panel, UCLA scientists, and research advocates. At the same time, other opponents of the use of animals in medical research have stepped forward to condemn the threats and the apparent attempts to sabotage efforts for discussion. Bruins for Animals issued the following statement on their website:

“Ideally this event would be open to the general public and originally this was our intention. Due to the fact that a group of violent individuals attempted to stop this event by threats and intimidation, we have had no option but to make this event closed to the broad public due to security concerns. These same individuals have called for open debates and are now apparently trying to sabotage our efforts to promote open dialogue and education of this important issue. It is unfortunate that the actions of a small group have resulted in the closing of this event that so many of you wish to attend, and for this, we apologize. …

Bruins for Animals condemns the use of violence, moreover the violence perpetrated by certain individuals has resulted in overshadowing the scientific and ethical reasons why many are opposed to vivisection.”

Dr. Ray Greek, one of the panel participants speaking against the use of animals in biomedical research, also addressed the issue in a thoughtful essay.  Greek begins by noting the uniqueness and significance of the event, and goes on to discuss the impetus for his essay.

“This is the first time, in my recollection, that experts in their fields opposed, to varying degrees, to using animals in research and experts in favor of such use have sat down at the same forum and presented their views. As such, the event is very controversial and unfortunately more heat than light has been generated. It is the source of some of this heat that I would like to address in the essay.”

Dr. Ray Greek

Greek’s essay is a welcome discussion of the panel’s purpose and potential to encourage dialogue about the use of animals in research.  He addresses a wide range of questions and issues, including his assessment of the venue, the selection of panel participants, the audience, and the need for security. Greek criticizes the attempts of various vocal activists to derail or diminish the event:

“More pointedly, I do not understand the opposition coming from animal rightists. … But this event is the first in a series of events where the AR and AV communities are getting what they have wanted and yet I am reading what can only be described as vitriol and not well-informed vitriol at that.”

And also points out what seems obvious to almost everyone:

“If activists wish to engage in direct action, promote direct action, condone violence in the pursuit of certain outcomes and so forth, so be it. (Now is not the time and this is not the forum for a debate about the ethics of such actions and positions.) But it is disingenuous to simultaneously act in the ways described above and then feign surprise and offense when society does not take seriously their request to participate in an event that functions in the confines of the norms of society. You cannot have it both ways.”

There are a number of noted schisms between factions in the animal activist community and heated discussion over agendas, tactics, and methods of advocating for their viewpoints. Greek addresses this issue as well, with a pointed comment about the harassment directed at UCLA scientists.

“But while we are on the topic, when was the last time a protest, especially home demos (a tactic favoured by some of those expressing vitriol over the February 16 event), resulted in immediate change? If individuals in the AR and AV movements are serious about having the scientific facts on their side and wanting a forum to have those facts presented to society in general, they might consider the old medical adage: first do no harm. Continuing home demos after a researcher has agreed to a panel discussion and subsequent debate is not helpful. The researcher is under no pressure from society to participate in the process. Society already agrees with him that vivisection is a necessary evil. If the researcher is going to continue to be exposed to threats and harassment irrespective of his actions, then why bother?”

Speaking of Research does not agree with Dr. Greek’s position on the use of animals in research or many of his arguments about the validity and usefulness of the results of animal studies. We have in common, however, our understanding of one major purpose of this panel, and more broadly of encouraging discussion of this complex issue in public forums.  As Greek says:

“The purpose of the panel and subsequent debate is not for anyone to change the minds of people with a vested interest in the process (this is a straw man set up by the writer)* but rather to air the various positions in a forum so society can be exposed to them and thus make a decision about the validity of the views expressed. (*The writer Greek refers to is an animal extremist posting from See You in the Streets.)”

We believe that the UCLA panel is an important step forward.  There have been few other occasions and groups that have worked together to identify common ground, debate, and discuss animal research publicly. These include the 2006 debate at the University of Wisconsin Madison between scientist and Institution Animal Care and Use Committee chair Eric Sandgren and Rick Bogle, an animal activist and founder of Primate Freedom.  In the UK, The Boyd Group, is a “forum for open exchange of views on issues of concern related to the use of animals in science.” Its membership includes individuals and organizations from the spectrum of views on the use of animals in research and its objectives are “to promote dialogue between these diverse people and organisations; and, where there is consensus, to recommend practical steps towards achieving common goals.” These efforts are accompanied by a range of other types of activities that promote engagement and dialogue between members of the scientific community, research advocates, and the public.

We appreciate the effort that Bruins for Animals and Dr. Greek have taken to make public statements condemning the tactics of animal activists who advocate for, or condone, violence against scientists and supporters of animal research.  We look forward to this event, where panelists will offer their broad range of personal views on the science and ethics of animal research.  We sincerely hope the event will mark a new beginning where civil dialogue and debate are possible in a topic that evokes strong emotions from all sides.

Allyson J. Bennett, Ph.D.

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

→ 5 Comments

Posted in News, Campus Activism, Animal Rights News

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