Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) decided to fund three new Hayre fellows on two Hayre Fellowships. This is a fantastic chance for three students to stand up and motivate the people in their community and beyond. AMP created the Fellowship in honor of its late Chairman, Michael D. Hayre, DVM. Its aim is to foster young voices to speak in support of science and advancing medical knowledge through responsible animal research.
Gillian Braden-Weiss (left) and Breanna Caltagarone (right) are two veterinary medicine students at the University of Pennsylvania. Both have extensive experience in animal sciences and have worked in shelters, clinics and laboaratories to gain crucial insights into the importance of animal welfare.
Both Hayre Fellows will work together to start the “Thank a Mouse” campaign aimed at educating private practise vets and their clients about the importance of animals in research. They have a great opportunity to reinforce the role that animals play in the development of veterinary medicine.
The third Hayre Fellow might be recognizable from the Committee list. Megan Wyeth is studying for a PhD in Neurobiology at UCLA, studying epilepsy in mice. Megan was a crucial player in the highly successful UCLA Pro-Test rally in April. She plans to use the Hayre Fellowship to expand UCLA Pro-Test, now renamed Pro-Test for Science, across to other universities in California. Megan has the passion and the commitment to become a driving force for change in California.
You can read more about all three candidates.
Dr. McConnell, a long time friend and classmate of Dr. Hayre said:
We welcome Megan, Breanna and Gillian and the contributions they will make to research advocacy during their tenure as Hayre Fellows. Mike Hayre was an inspirational leader and mentor who valued the contributions students made to biomedical science and animal welfare. He believed the future of medical advancement depended on the public’s understanding and acceptance of animal research in medicine. I’m confident that Mike would view the work of this year’s Fellows as essential to that vision.
On behalf of Speaking of Research, we wish all three Hayre fellows the best of luck over the next year, and offer them our full support in changing public opinion in their local communities and beyond.
Regards
Tom Holder
Speaking of Research 
Aaron,
So are you volunteering to take the place of the Chimpanzee for the experiments? Why is it that if you animal rights activits are so concerned that animal testing doesn’t work that you don’t volunteer yourselves to take their place? Funny how you all draw the line there.
I’ve asked many times but have yet to receive an answer from one of you lot about refusing any medical treatment that may have been developed through animal research. Would you? If not, it’s time to shut up.
Can chimpanzees get Malaria Hepatitis B or HIV?
No yet they are the closest species to humans. Shows how ridiculous it is to test on animals when our very closest relative is immune to these 3 deadly conditions.
Epic fail.
Also any lab animal has had a disease INDUCED upon it, so the surrounding factors that cause the diseases are absent.
Epic fail #2
The simple fact that the pro-cruelty lobby are defending themselves against rightfully concerned citizens is testament to the fact that this is the beginning of the end.
However monkeys do get SIV – which is a very good model for the human version. Whereas the disease was once a definite death sentence it is now a manageable chronic disease whereby those with it can live relatively normal lives. Thanks for HAART developed through monkey SIV models.
What do you mean the surrounding factors weren’t there – HIV can come about by tainted blood or having sex – how you got it is largely irrelevant in finding a treatment.
AronC, where to start!
Chimpanzees may not naturally get HIV, and if given it do not usually go on to develop AIDS, but they can naturally get a strain of SIV (SIVcpz) that causes AIDS and results in a 10-16 fold increase mortality in wild chimps, which is intermediate between that seen with HIV-1 in humans and that seen for HIV-2 in humans.
This is interesting because phylogenetic analysis indicates that SIVcpz is the direct ancestor of HIV-1, which probably arose when a strain of SIVcpz jumped species into humans about 100 years ago. SIVcpz itself was probably acquired by chimps from the monkeys they eat about 500 years ago.
See: Keele B.F et al. Nature Vol 460, 23 July 2009, doi:10.1038/nature08200
Chimpanzees certainly get Hepatitis B, which again occurs naturally in chimpanzee populations
See: Hu X. et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 February 15; 97(4): 1661–1664.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10677515
Finally while chimpanzees are resistant to the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum they do suffer in the wild from infection by the closely related malaria parasite Plasmodium reichenowi.
Martin M.J. et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Vol. 6;102(36):12819-12824 (2005)
There’s actually a lot of interest in the scientific community in looking at differences in susceptibility to different infectious diseases between closely related species, and between sub-species, as this may provide important clues as to how to develop more effective treatments or prevention strategies.
Huntington Life Science did have its licence briefly revolked, but it was restored once HLS demonstrated that they had taken action to ensure the abuse that lead to the licence being revoked could never happen again.
Harold Shipman murdered over 200 patients, does this mean that all GPs should be treated as potential mass murderers?
Of course not, though his case did highlight the need to improve safeguards to prevent the rare cases where doctors abuse their position. The same applies to animal research.
Adrienne,
Well then my mistake. As for what happens to the animals it depends. Some animals can be adopted out if their institution allows it and yes some are euthanized. Despite what some would like you to think, it’s extremely rare that invasive procedures can be performed on the same animal more than once. Also, there is a lot of research that goes on not related specifically to human medicine. There is a significant amount of basic research which involves learning how the body functions. The animal rights people are mistaken when they say that a mouse is so different from a human. Most of the systems work the same. The liver funtions pretty much the same in mammals. Same with many other systems. Many of the genes regulation those systems are the same in a human as they are in a mouse.
I agree with Joan regarding the Nazi reference. In fact it’s because of the Nazi’s that we don’t do experiments on humans before it’s been tested in an animal model. What they did was horrific and that’s not what we do. To imply otherwise is wrong.
I’m not going to use myself as a test subject because I believe in biomedical research and it’s methods. Are you willing to test treatments on yourself instead of an animal? Why do animal rights people always want us to test things on ourselves but aren’t willing to do the same?
I’ll be honest and say I’m not really familiar with Huntingdon Life Science or it’s case. I do know that biomedical research is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US.
Animal rights groups tend to focus their energy on a very narrow part of biomedical research and ignore the rest. Are you willing to deny a loved one medical treatment for your beliefs? If you ever need medical treatment for a disease will you refuse? Don’t you think it’s hypocritical if you don’t?
Simon
No, I’d genuinely like to hear your answers. You’re being arrogant to assume that I don’t actually wish to engage in debate.
What exactly don’t I understand? Please enlighten me.
Adrienne,
To say all those that support animal testing are cruel is equally arrogant. It’s also clear by your questions you don’t actually understand anything about research beyond the animal rights talking points. I’m not going to answer your questions because you’re not going to listen to my answers so what’s the point?
Could the researchers answer me a few questions please?
1. What do you do with the animals who survive the tests but who are no longer needed for your research?
2. Do you refuse any treatment that may have been developed by the experimentation on inmates of Nazi death camps in WW2?
3. If you believe the research is so vitally important why not become a subject yourself? Surely it makes more sense to test medicine and procedure on humans for human health? After all, you’d have anaesthetic etc?
4. How can you claim that vivisection is not cruel when it takes baby animals from their mother’s and inflicts sensory deprivation to study blindness in infants, when blind human infants could be studied instead?
5. If animal abuse does not occur in research why did Huntingdon Life Sciences have its license revoked by the government?
To say that all those who are against testing are ignorant, is incredibly arrogant.
1) It depends on the study. Many research facilities have programs to adopt out animals after studies. In other cases animals can be transferred to training protocols or to other investigators. When neither of these are an option the animals would be humanely euthanized.
2) Do you? It’s extremely offensive when animal rights groups try to bring up Nazis and slavery. It’s a cheap and honestly revolting tactic that denegrates the horrors that these human beings had to go through. I suppose you are using this as a response to “Well why don’t you give up modern medicine if you hate animal research so much?”. Clearly you’ve just illustrated the point that people who are anti-animal research have no intentions of giving up these benefits that are reaped from the thing that they despise. If you admit to the impracticality of such…how do you expect animal research to stop at all? Will it all end with just a sudden halt? I’m sure you’ve read stories of parents begging for their children to be put into clinical trials for their last chance for survival…will you tell them no, research is done now, sorry? So then, you probably want to reduce the number of animals used, right, so you could phase it our gradually? Try to use animals that are known to have a less complex nervous system or even invertebrates instead? Funny thing is…that’s exactly what we do now in research. We reduce the amount of animals used, we try to replace animals where possible with in vitro models or replace animals such as dogs and primates with mice or zebrafish or even drosophilia, and we refine the techniques that we use so that we can better provide pain and distress-free lives to our laboratory animals. Why don’t you put your time and energy towards develping alternatives to testing on animals instead of harassing people? Do you know who are the ones who are developing these alternatives? Yup, it’s the researchers themselves. You say that it is arrogant to assume that all who are against animal testing are ignorant. I agree…but it is also arrogant to assume that all who are for animal testing are some sort of mutated breed of villianous human, bent on torturing animals for pleasure and money. No matter what their views are on animal research, those who hurt animals on purpose, with cruel intentions are obviously sick-minded. These people ARE NOT the researchers, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and animal caretakers. I have never heard any animal rights supporter offer me a solution to how the complete end of animal research would not be completely devestating. Can you?
3) I do, actually, on a regular basis. Many researchers who use animals in biomedical research I know do the same. Do you?
4) The word vivisection is misused here, as it frequently is. Please cite. More than likely you’re referring to a study before the Animal Welfare Act ws enacted. Are you going to mandate that blind human children be subjected to this just because they had the unfortunate circumstances of being born that way?
5) Why were two PETA employees in North Carolina charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty if they really have animals’ best interests in mind? In your eyes do those people represent the entire PETA community? Similarly, you can’t pick and choose who you want to associate with biomedical research. It’s telling that over and over again animal rights groups tell the same old stories (or set-ups, in some cases) as examples of where animal research went wrong.
“Beyond the animal rights talking points”, Mr. Templar, I have nothing to say to you or the supporters of legalized institutional animal cruelty.
If you are so fortunate to have the companionship and love of a dog as a pet, why would you consider him/her too important to you, (if indeed you do, as most people feel about their companion animals), than the other dogs who, through no fault of their own, find themselves abandoned, homeless and hopeless, and are used as tools in research/education,etc. Don’t jump to the other species abused in labs please, answer this question. You are so adamant with your questions to anyone who dares to challenge the right/moral right of any individual who purposely brings suffering to an animal who cannot escape, choose or beg for mercy.
Ronnie/Janke: So please, in your own words describe in detail what exactly this experiment will do that you claim is “atrocious”. What exactly is your science background to make such a claim?
Ronnie/Janke, your “example” hardly bolsters your arguments. if you read it you’ll see that it describes an experiment involving the use of transgenic mice and cell culture which seeks to elucidate the processes through which maternal smoking damages the lungs of the developing foetus. This is not just a curiosity since studies of this sort are informing clinical practice, in particular nicotine supplements (patches etc) have in the past been recommended to women who are trying to quit smoking during pregnancy, so it is important to determine how harmful nicotine itself is to the developing foetus.
What exactly are we going to accomplish with these arguements? I really doubt any of the animal rights “people” are suddenly going ot agree with us and I’m certainly not about to agree with them. So where are we going here? While the arguement is fun and all, it’s rather pointless. Wouldn’t be better served focusing our (and by us I mean researchers) efforts on those that are willing to listen. You know, normal people.
David,
I’d certainly like to meet the animal rights people you mentioned. All that I have interacted with have been rude, confrontational and beligerant. I have zero respect for them.
They are out there and want to be heard, but their voices are squelched by the hateful screams of a few extremists. We have to work to engage with those advocates who believe that civil discourse is the way to achieve an honest rendering of this topic. Thank goodness that have we have these Hayre Fellows to help us bridge the gap in order so that we may have an intellectually honest discussion and achieve a more harmonious world in the process.
What your saying David is that by concerned people fluttering eyebrows and kindly asking you to stop you can carry on hurting and violating animals. Lovely for you isnt it? Woohoo! Beautiful! Its perfect!
For the victims it is no solution, for a lot of us it is also unsatisfactory. So how then can we stop you, what is it going to take? Fear? Intimidation? What will it take to bring you to justice?
To make you pay for your attrocities?
You actually dont have any respect for anything, period. Its not like we’re in it for the money.
No, just none for animal rights activists.
I use the word terrorist to describe animal rights memebers because that’s what you are by definition. The definition of terrorism is,”those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of others.” Seems to me that fits most of the activities of the animal rights movement.
The animal rights movement tends to focus only on a small section of animal testing, They like to stick with primates, dogs and cats because those get the “Aww ” factor in their rhetoric, but 95% of research is done with mice and rats. Also, there is a lot of research that is done on a molecular level using animal models.
My guess is researcher could explain to the animal rights people what their research is doing, but they wouldn’t understand it anyway nor would they care. They are beyond reason at this point and only adhere to their narrow goals.
That link is wonky mr jentsch.
Can you just describe what purpose your vivisection has? I’m aware you inflict drugs on to primates, then kill them, and this is supposed to assist in what?
I’ve seen inside your hell hole & it certainly doesn’t represent health for the human race.
Part of what David Jentsch studies is the biology underlying characteristics that lead to risky behaviors in humans and monkeys. Drug abuse is a huge societal problem, and basic research in animals provides insights into dysfunction that will allow for development of treatments and preventative measures.
http://tinyurl.com/pdqurb
To Megan: “Drug abuse is a huge societal problem. “Primates are paying the price for human being’s risky behaviors? Primates wouldn’t choose this behavior if not forced by research/scientists. Human beings choose their dysfunctional paths, and it will always be so. Leave the primates alone. The “underlying characteristics” of human choices won’t be cured in any manner with this monster’s “research”/experiments on creatures who have no desire to substances of addiction.
And the cure for the primates is to cut forcibly addicted pregnant primates open, torture their babies for a while, then murder them, or do you call it, “putting them out of their misery”, misery caused by the hands of researchers. Disgusting, one example of the seneselss legalized, protected animal abuse that goes on daily. Write your papers, receive your awards, you are still nothing but obscene torturers of the most vulnerable among us, the creatures of our world. Yet, the NIH extravagant grants keep coming. Yes, you so-called scientist have a gravy train on which you ride to death. News flash, the public is waking to your waste, cruelty and over inflated status in society.
What you described would never be an approved protocol, nor would it be responsible research.
Dysfunctional is just that – not functional. These people deserve help, and society benefits as a whole.
Finally, NIH grants are extremely difficult to get – my future as scientist is far from secure.
What on Earth are you talking about? Do you even know or was this some lunatic comment by your buddies?
Megan: In the clinical, glossy terms, here is just one such experiment:
Grant Number: 1R01HL066118-01A $382,750
PI Name: SPINDEL, ELIOT R.
PI Email: spindele@ohsu.edu
PI Title: SENIOR SCIENTIST
Project Title: Nicotine & Alpha7 nicotinic receptor in lung development
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): According to the latest statistics from the CDC in 1999, 12.3% of American women smoked during pregnancy, translating to over 400,000 smoke-exposed infants. Smoking during pregnancy is the largest preventable cause of low birth weight, premature delivery, neonatal morbidity, and mortality. Indeed it has been estimated that 10% of all fetal and neonatal deaths are due to smoking during pregnancy. Perhaps less well appreciated is the recent, evidence that smoking during pregnancy directly and adversely affects lung development as manifested by altered pulmonary function and increased respiratory illness in children born of smoking mothers. Remarkably, how smoking produces these effects is unknown. While the cause of pulmonary damage caused by maternal smoking is likely to be multifactorial, it is the basic hypothesis of this application that part of the effect of maternal smoking on lung is mediated by nicotine transported across the placenta to interact with alpha7 nicotinic receptors in developing lung. Our preliminary evidence indicates 1) that alpha7 nicotinic receptors are highly expressed in developing lung; 2) that prenatal nicotine exposure alters alpha7 nicotinic receptor expression in lung; and 3) that collagen gene expression is markedly up-regulated in areas of altered alpha7. Suggesting that nicotine’s effect on collagen is mediated by alpha7 receptors, prenatal nicotine exposure has no effect on collagen gene expression in the lungs of cx7 knockout mice. In exciting preliminary data, nicotine inhibits fibroblast proliferation from cells isolated from wildtype neonatal mouse lung, but has no effect on proliferation of fibroblasts from alpha7 knockout mice. This suggests that some of the growth retardation caused by smoking during pregnancy may be mediated by the interaction of nicotine with alpha7 receptors. In this application, using alpha7 knockout and alpha7 gain of function mice, we propose to first demonstrate a link between the effects of prenatal nicotine exposure and alpha7 nAChR, then using cultured pulmonary fibroblasts and epithelial cells begin to determine the mechanism by which nicotine produces these effects. Based on our preliminary data and epidemiologic data on human infants, we will focus on 3 aspects of smoking’s effects on lung development: pulmonary function as measured by active and passive tests, cell growth, and collagen expression. From these studies will come some of the first explanations of the molecular mechanisms that underlie the effects of smoking during pregnancy on lung development. These findings will also potentially point to ways to block some of those effects of smoking during pregnancy as well as assist in fighting smoking during pregnancy.
Thesaurus Terms:
drug interaction, embryo /fetus toxicology, embryology, lung, lung development, lung injury, nicotine, nicotinic receptor cell proliferation, collagen, drug administration rate /duration, drug administration route, gene expression, placental transfer, receptor expression, respiratory function, tobacco abuse female, gene targeting, laboratory mouse, morphometry, plethysmography, tissue /cell culture, transgenic animal
Institution: OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
PORTLAND, OR 972393098
Fiscal Year: 2002
approved protocol? Your future as a scientist may include stopping such atrocious, harmful experiments if you stopped to do some in depth research on the level of suffering inflicted upon animals in approved protocol.
Ronnie/Janke,
Making the comment that drug abuse is a “choice” shows a gross misunderstanding of the social, cultural and biological factors that “push” one along the pathway to behavioral addictions. In my opinion, the greater moral breach would be to do nothing to try and counteract the misery and suffering that pervades the lives of people that are losing their struggle with dependence. That being said, there is no doubt that the greatest of sensitivities must be shown when conducting research studies on addiction where the subjects are either animals or humans. Tackling disease – by whatever method – is an ethically complicated endeavor, but that hardly means that we should not do it. Indeed, the suffering in the world demands that we do.
How old is breanna?
Why do you keep saying that people who don’t agree with your vivisecting con are terrorists? And you call those amongst us who won’t buy into the lie that chemo cures cancer etc stupid!
If vivisection worked why are there more sick people than ever before?
It doesn’t work, you’re all greedy money grabbing luntatics. You don’t save people. If you did, you’d be doing it. Not marketing vivisection, chemo and drugged primates etc. Oh and paying kids to do your dirty work.
It is ironic, is it not, that you open your message by questioning the over-generalizations that all individuals self-identifying as animal rights activists are terrorists or stupid (certainly, I personally have met many animal rights advocates who are decent, intelligent and kind people) and then you accuse all researchers of being “greedy” “lunatics”. Who is over-generalizing now?
In your post, you prove that, in fact, you are not one of the decent, intelligent and kind animal welfare advocates. You hold extremist ideas that disallow you from participating in an effective, reasoned and balanced debate about this topic. It is unfortunate that your rhetoric disheartens so many legitimate advocates, who yearn to engage with scientists in civilized debates but can not because people such as those posting here turn everything into a rant.
Breanna is old enough to have a BSc in Animal Science and an MLAS in Animal Science.
Chemo is a treatment for cancer – it has many nasty side effects but overall it greatly improves life expectancy for those treated – in that sense it saves lives. Furthermore is kills cancer – someone who undergoes chemotherapy can go from a state of having cancer to a state of not having cancer (thanks to the chemo) and thus it can cure cancer.
Why do you think there are more sick people? Everyone must die at some point and there are more people alive than ever before, so in that sense more people will get sick – however people have a better chance of survival from most diseases and thus we see a reason that the life expectancy of the Western World continues to rise.
What do you mean scientists would be saving lives if that’s what they wanted? Are you complaining that they’re not surgeons or frontline doctors? If they were who is going to give those doctors the tools to heal people? A million more doctors wouldn’t help if no one was doing the research to invent/discover Penicillin, Insulin and the like
Tom
I’m curious to know from the animal rights terrorists here what their education level is and what expertise they have to make a jugement that what we do is torture? All I see is the posting of the same animal rights talking points I see elsewhere so my guess is they don’t really have any idea.
“The same animal rights talking points” are relative and timely given the fact that your educational level failed to teach you that just because somethng is “legal and supported by much of the masses”, does not make it right. If reaching your high educational “level” results in losing touch with the rights of the victims (subjects/”models”) of your experiments, while you intentionally inflict pain and death, then sit back and observe them as “things” and not living, breathing beings, for whom you consider are not worthy of a natural life, why would we desire to reach, or drop to your level?
Congratulations, your education and glorified misplaced position by society has unleashed you from all moral restraint, allowing you to experiment on animals with demonic drive, in addition to financial gain. A misspelled word or two doesn’t quite compare to your failures in a higher level of moral conscience.
The terrorist are INSIDE the laboratories, not outside protesting. And how many lives have been lost in animal rights protests or in actions resulting in only property loss? Come on, lets hear the figures. Hard to come by, right!
Ronnie,
Yes, why just yesterday I was reading the paper about how a group of rogue researchers blew up an animal rights activits car. And my friends on the police were mentioning how some poor innocent animal rights person had their house vandalized. Happens all the time.
The fact you losers haven’t killed anyone is merely chance. It’s not like your some mastermind bomb makers that know what you’re doing. You’re using crude incindiary devices that don’t descriminate. And how will you justfiy the first time some kid gets killed by one of your devices? Will they deserve it because of what their mom or dad do? It doesn’t matter if it’s only been property so far. It’s not your property so leave it alone. Would you like it if someone blew up your car in the name of their agenda? I’m guessing no.
Well this has degraded quickly. It’s too bad these animal rights terrorists have nothing better to do than come on here and post thier stupidity. If the weight of their arguments were as strong as they claimed and held by as many people as they claim they wouldn’t have to resort to terroristic activities like destruction of property and threatening researchers,
It serves no pupose at all.
It is awful that such young people have been brainwashed into supporting people like Jentsch.
I only hope they will come to their senses when they grow up a bit and realise how awful what they are now doing is.
though that could just be wishful thinking
None of these individuals necessarily support me, or my research; indeed, in this debate, I am merely ancillary. But they support my right to engage in exceptionally important, legal, properly conducted and ethical biomedical research. In doing so, they repudiate the activities and thinking of people who endorse illegal, heinous, violent and antisocial methods. That is what this is about; not about me.
That being said, I must once again comment on the fact that work such as mine is of the highest value, recognized broadly by physicians, their scientific societies and the National Institute of Health’s Acting Director (http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04172009_statement_terrorism.htm). Collectively, my published work and the statements of these leaders speak for themselves.
Just erase the closing parenthesis to make the link work.
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04172009_statement_terrorism.htm
My apologies for the “wonky” link, and thanks to Megan for posting a corrected one.
May i ask what purpose david jentsch’s vivisecting serves?
I also cannot fail to notice that one of the three females who are being paid to lie to the public about vivisection, is only around 13 years of age?
Uh…two veterinary students and a PhD? 13 years old? Sounds like someone has the education of less than a 13 year old…
Part of what David Jentsch studies is the biology underlying characteristics that lead to risky behaviors in humans and monkeys. Drug abuse is a huge societal problem, and basic research in animals provides insights into dysfunction that will allow for development of treatments and preventative measures.
PI Name: SPINDEL, ELIOT R.
PI Email: spindele@ohsu.edu
PI Title: SENIOR SCIENTIST
Project Title: FETAL NICOTINE EXPOSURE EFFECT ON PRIMATE LUNG
Abstract: The deleterious effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well established. Maternal smoking is the major preventable cause of intrauterine growth retardation and prematurity. Perhaps less well appreciated, is the recent, overwhelming evidence, that smoking during pregnancy directly and adversely effects lung development. Respiratory problems associated with in utero tobacco exposure include decreased lung function, increased respiratory diseases and increased incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Given the unfortunate prevalence of smoking during pregnancy and the resulting serious consequences, it is of major importance to understand the mechanisms underlying smoking-induced changes in the newborn. Our preliminary data suggests that nicotine itself is one of the factors responsible for the changes in pulmonary function observed in neonates born to smoking mothers. In this application we propose to use the rhesus monkey to characterize the effects of chronic exposure to low levels of nicotine throughout pregnancy on lung development and subsequent pulmonary function. Whole animal studies will be complemented with in vitro studies to begin to determine the molecular mechanisms underlying nicotine’s effect on lung. In preliminary studies we have demonstrated that exposure of pregnant rhesus monkeys to a nicotine dose consistent with that of smokers alters fetal airway development and that related effects can be produced in fetal monkey lung organ cultured. Immunohistochemistry shows wide expression of nicotinic receptors in developing lung and nicotine appears to alter the pattern of receptor expression. Preliminary data further suggests that some of the effects of nicotine, acting through nicotinic receptors, may be mediated by antagonism of the mitogenic effects of peptide growth factors. Thus we specifically propose to 1, Determine the basis for nicotine’s actions by determining the time course and cell specific expression of nicotinic receptor subtype expression in fetal monkey lung; 2, Characterize the effect of fetal exposure to nicotine on lung development and function by functional, morphometric, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis; and 3, begin to determine the mechanism underlying nicotine’s actions by use of fetal monkey lung organ culture. From these studies will come the first description of the effects of chronic nicotine exposure on lung function; a determination of the extent to which these effects are reversible; and a beginning understanding of the mechanisms underlying these effects. Definitive knowledge of the effects of nicotine on lung development would provide an important additional tool in smoking control and will begin to better explain the link between maternal smoking and altered neonatal respiratory function.
You mean “research”… nobody “vivisects” any more. Who invented that word?
‘worked in labratories to gain crucial insights into the importance of animal welfare’
please tell me this some kind of sick joke,
this just shows how you care nothing for the animals you incarcarate in cages. I really don’t think you can grasp how much suffering you are causing these poor souls who find thenmselves, by a simple accident of birth, in your hands. You betray their trust at every turn. You know they are totally helpless and any decent human being would recognise that. Yet all you do is torture them.
their only hope of escape is either death or the man or woman in a mask who may come in the night and release them from the hell.
I totally agree with what holly, karen and helen i totally support what you say.
oh and by the way Jentsch, you really should sort out thoses eyebrows mate :)
A dog is hit by a car. It has a life-threatening hemorrhage and is in pain. What will you do? How will you understand the pain that it is in? How will you treat it without using medicines that were developed using animal models? My cat has diabetes. Will you come to my house and steal of her insulin? My father, by a simple accident of birth developed cancer when I was born. Would you rather him refuse his radiation treatment? Will you come to the hospital and disconnect his chemotherapy? You are free to live in an age without modern medicine as you please, but you have no right to make the choice to deny other people of everyday, life-saving medical treatments. Clearly you have never entered an animal facility or met any of the veterinarians, veterinary technicians, animal caretakers, and research scientist that work there. You would see the exact same amount of compassion you would witness in a veterinary hospital. I know it’s easily to vilify the other side when you don’t agree with what your doing, but making wild claims about how people you’ve never ever met is just childish.
Can i ask again… can you please explain why the western/westernised world is getting sicker not healthier?
Why on earth do you call people who are against your sadistic con ‘terrorists’?
And 3, how come people who’ve worked in your abusive industry go on to reveal the absolute hoax that it is?
The reason you support it is because you are financially gaining & have no care for animal and human suffering. Its called vivisection & torture… not research.
How come a 12/14 year old kid is a veterinary student?
you pro animal killers will find out what its like to be “test’d on”
Is that a threat?
It certainly is. A subgroup of these individuals – being aware that they lack the power of reason to motivate their argumentation – resort to threats of this type. No one with “right” on their side needs to resort to threats and harassment.
It feels the same as undergoing surgery. Anesthesia, analgesia, and a good cocktail for memory amnesia. Next time you need surgery remember — 100 years ago, all you had was a big bottle of whiskey (or opium) to endure the pain.
Helen,
Yawn!! You’re press release is a wonderful bit of fiction. We choose not to debat Mr. Vlasak because he’s an idiot.
UCLA primate vivisector David Jentsch has exposed and poorly defended the immense suffering of non-human primates in his and his colleagues’ laboratories. Jentsch faired badly when confronted by physician Jerry Vlasak, MD, and has served nicely to bring the issue of animal exploitation into the mainstream media.
Jentsch declined an offer to debate Dr. Vlasak directly on KPCC Radio, as other vivisectors have declined similar requests to discuss the scientific validity and ethical consequences of their outdated, scientifically fraudulent, and cruel practices experimenting on non-human animals.
Jentsch, who addicts non-human primates to PCP and methamphetamines before killing them, announced his formation of Pro-Test UCLA, a group of faculty and administrators who had apparently intended to defend the university’s ongoing practice of killing animals. Neither Jentsch nor his supporters have been able to provide specific evidence their research will ever effectively treat human disease, nor have they previously been willing to discuss or consider the use of more modern research techniques that no longer involve killing animals.
Debating who? Someone that argues that killing scientists is Ok?! Vlasak is a coward. If he really “cared about the animals” he would be planting the bombs himself. Instead, he brainwashes and recruits kids to do their dirty work for him. Look where the AETA-4 are now. Poor guys, about to spend 4-6 years in jail each for listening to this guy…. and Vlasak doesn’t give a shit. He is on to recruiting their next group of imbeciles.
Helen,
As a University Professor, please allow me to recommend that you only post original work. By re-posting someone else’s (albeit fallacious) work without attribution, you have committed plagiarism, but it’s not surprising. Animal rights extremists often fail to self-generate new concepts for argumentation, merely referring, time and time again, to the same, stale rhetoric. This is a case in point.
Nevertheless, let me make it clear that I did refuse to participate in a bi-directional conversation with Mr. Vlasak on KPCC, and I shall refuse to do so again in the future. I do not now, nor will I ever, consider him to be a legitimate partner for a civilized intellectual debate because he is neither (civilized, nor intellectual).
Regarding your last point, multiple scientific societies – including ones made up largely of legitimate practicing physicians – and the National Institute of Health Acting Director, himself, have made open statements supporting the validity of scientific research on primates, including my work. I have published extensively in leading journals, including in psychiatric journals, and my work has directly inspired the thinking of physicians about psychoses and addictions. In that vein, your plagiarized text is quite incorrect.
Holly, besides if I remember the news coverage the UCLA Pro-Test rally had a much, much larger turn out than the Animal Rights rally on the same day.
that just shows, if the coverage was fair, that the majority bought into the same stupidity as you have…i mean..seriously..have you seen how many peeps were willing to vote for Sarah Pallin? does that make her right?? Yr point of view on killing animals for OUR benefit is just wrong..plain and simple…think about it..er..i’d prob waste my time explaining how it would feel to be tested on for the benefit of monkeys would I? but then yr educated..I.E. DUMB’D DOWN’D.
Oh good Lord Holly, what are you a communist? Rise up ye people and cast these chains of oppresion? Give me a break. It really doesn’t matter how you see yourselves, the fact is your a terrorist organization. Well, ALF that is. You do proudly associate yourself with them don’t you? I’m sure Hammas doesn’t think of itself as terrorists either, but they are.
As I said earlier, are you willing to forgo any treatements or benefits of animal research to go along with your ridiculous statments? Would you refuse cancer treatement if you needed it? Would you refuse emergency care if in an accident? If your “companion animals” need veterinary care, do you refuse?
All that education and you are still really that stupid??
Wow, that’s very witty of you. Stay up all night coming up with that one?
What I can’t help but notice about UCLA Pro-Test is that it was formed after Oxford Pro-Test basically disintegrated. Their demo turn out was appaling and the very pathetic act of organising a demo on the same day as the Day for Laboratory Animals was a sign that Pro-Test is most definately on it’s last legs.
Also, Holder has essentially bought himself an honour (the sure sign of corruption). If you note, he’s been made an “honourary fellow”. Since Jeremy Clarkson has been made an honourary fellow to some university or another, it’s hardly something to be proud of.
Pro-Test has so far done nothing but irritate some animal rights activists and give the ALF a good laugh. Their obsession with “violence” towards buildings and cars is quite laughable. What we must not forget is while Pro-Test moan about animal rights acitivists and try to brainwash the public into believing that vivisection works (Bernard would be proud), real terrorists will slip through the net. Has anybody noticed how the hunt for animal rights activists increased after 9/11 and 7/7? Or is that a fact conveniently swept under the carpet? Just like medical and historic fact is.
Give it a couple of years, and UCLA Pro-Test will disappear into the ether, like many pro-myth groups have before. I’m proud to have come to the animal rights movement at this time, the next few decades will be a time of change. The ghost of Claude Bernard shall soon stop haunting universities and the souls of doctors and we shall replace myth and fraud with real science, and real medicine. Now is a time to wake up and smell the blood on the hands of the pro-vivisectionists. I support you Karen and I applaud you, we need more people like yourself in the world!
How about the blood on your hands when, in your ideal world, hospitals will be forced to shut down when they’re no longer allowed to use any techniques or medications that were developed using animal models? Or is yours the hypocritical world where you’re allowed to reap the benefits of biomedical research only when it suits you? Or wait, did you discover how the human body functions down to its last atom without the use of animal research so that it could be programmed into a computer? Please enlighten us!
Holly, what planet are you on?
I am not, and have never claimed to be, an honourary fellow of anywhere – nor have I ever bought one. I have a degree from Oxford, and I worked for three years to get it. Are you misreading “Hayre Fellow”? Which is someone who has received the Hayre Fellowship to come and work alongside Americans for Medical Progress in their outreach program?
UCLA Pro-Test a failure?! 700+ people compared with 40 animal rights activists – I think it was the activists that were making a fool of themselves.
Pro-Test in the UK still do school talks and other activities – but with animal rights activism at an all time low in Britain its activities have calmed somewhat.
I agree with “a good laugh” in that the future, without animal research, that you propose is one where there is so much more needless death.
Why do you think people are so against what you do?
I have never seen any benefits from vivisection, if there were, the world would be healthier not sicker.
Why on earth would you support the torture of animals? Tell us please. Well regulated animal cruelty is no different than …..what, unregulated animal cruelty? The animals didn’t ask you to sacrifice their lives for others, and neither do I. You and your kind need to wake up, if you are capable, which I doubt.
FYI, I believe science works, but science does not have to be cruel. Talk about false misrepresentations, look inside the cages of a laboratory at the animals whose lives, bodies and minds have been stolen and abused by people who perceive themselves above the moral and ethical standards regarding our responsibility and compassion toward animals. Thank goodness there is a growing concern and evident actions being taken to stop this atrocity committed upon the creatures of our planet. And yes, we know YOU are many and powerful who promote these cruelties for your benefit, but we see in the hurting eyes of these dear animals, and we DO hear their cries for mercy. We can not turn away despite the obstacles set in your sick world of torture.
Perhaps you have missed the fact that the world is indeed healthier. The average life expectancy worldwide in 1900 was in the late 30s. Today, it is over 70.
Thank you for proving the point that biomedical research works!
…. count the sick people & there’s proof your barbaric industry never has and never will work.
You wouldn’t need to set people up to persuade the public, it would merely sell itself. It doesn’t.
Masses are now waking up to the lie, the torture and the blatant truth – You haven’t got your eye on the publics health, nor the health of animals. The sole purpose of your roles are merely to continue inflicting torture and death for yet another meaningless paper.
Its not long now until everybody with glimmer of compassion will look around them… you’re not improving anybodys health. You all know it.
What a ridiculous concept. The idea of public advocacy is alive in all industries – what do you think PETA, HSUS, NAALPO, IDA and the plethora of other anti-research organizations do? They sell the (false) idea that the science doesn’t work, that the science is cruel, and the other ridiculous misrepresentations of animal research they commit.
Masses are waking up? Yes we saw that in UCLA, 40 animal rights activists and 700 people behind research.
Why on earth would I support the torture or animals? I support well regulated animal research which has contributed to the improvement in animal and human lives around the world.
Tom
Netanya: As my teenage daughter would say, “Whatever”. It’s clear by your words you are indeed uninformed. It’s obvious by your comments you don’t really know what happens in animal research and only know what the animal rights terrorists have crammed down your throat.
I have no problem with you being against animal research so long as you back up your meaningless words with the willingness to refuse any help that might have been developed through such research. I’d be happy to send you a card to carry with you that states that in the event of an accident you refuse any and all life saving procedures as they have all been tested on animals at some point. Are you willing to go that far? Most animal rights terrorists I’ve heard from have come up with some lame reason why they can accept such services while spewing their asinine rhetoric that it shouldn’t be done. What about you?
I can send you a card that states you refuse to use any of the benefits derived from slaves in our country as well. Your offer is a fav. with defenders of vivisection.
Veterinarians are being forced to reconsider their position of torturing, killing animals in order to reach the title of Doctor, and the false statement that it is appropriate to kill an animal in the quest to make life better for other animals. Please, not for mine!
BTW, the word TORTURE, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture is intentionally inflicting physical or mental pain and suffering for ANY reason based on discrimination of any kind, or the instigation of or with consent or acquiescene of a public official or other persons acting in an official capacity. This pretty well defines what is done to animals, many shelter animals who are betrayed not once, but twice by abandoning them to a miserable existence in laboratories, for medical and vet. want-a-bes.??
If the animal bond is so precious to vets, or if vets desire to help animals, then why would they routinely conduct cruel and needless experiments on imprisoned animals? “Torture/practice on dogs probably makes a good veterinarian, if that is the kind of practitioner you want in the family.” On every level, veterinarians show a remarkable ability to overlook the damaging consequences of their actions in the area of using innocent animals in their gruesome teaching, practice and experiments.
The human beings here who support and take part in bringing suffering to another being because they can -for whatever reason- are so utterly detached from what is being done that they see the situation merely as a means to an end. Difficult to read the words, but it is not difficult to see that only a few of us recognize such cruelties as wrong and are attacked as uninformed. The facts are available for any to see and there is no term for “kind Cruelty” except used in “animal care” in research. You have all lost your moral compass and follow what has been crammed down the throats of the public as to the extent of suffering and death millions of animals suffer in your pristine institutional animal abuse enterprises/universities/laboratories – Yes, you have been “trained” by the experts :those who live comfortably knowing they torture, maim and bring unspeakable suffering to victims in their powerful grasp.
Congratulations to the three fellowship recipients. I look forward to hearing from them about their exciting work.
I see the uninformed have already joined the fray. Repeated experiments on the same animal to the extent that Ronnie describes have to be justified to the IACUC. I’ve actually never seen such experiments approved myself.
The comments also show a fundemental misunderstanding of what most animal research really involves. A large percentage of the research actually involves studying specific proteins, or gene expression, or enzymes. There is a lot of molecular research using animal models.
There is also a lot of research based on veterinary medicine. It’s why your local veterinarian is able to vaccinate against rabies, Bordatella, FIV and why there are treatments for heartworm, UTI’s and others.
I know I’ll or the others involved in SoR will never change the minds of those like Ronnie and I suggest we don’t try. They’re hopeless. Instead lets lend support to our Hayre Fellowship recipients so that they can go out, counter the idiotic claims of the animal rights terrorists, and educate those that still have an open mind.
We advocate the responsible use of a minimum number of animals in approved research, for which every step is taken to alleviate discomfort. Animal research should be undertaken with great care and thoughtfulness, and always in great appreciation for the life of the subject, be it even a fruitfly or earthworm.
I sympathize with people having reservations about the use of animals in research, but I would also hope that they would likewise accept people who upon reflection arrive at a different conclusion.
How fortunate for both science and social ethics that these three talented young people have chosen to stand in defense of the concept that scientific investigation can be simultaneously productive and attentive to the needs of those that are subjects of the research, as well as those that benefit from it.
Throughout my career, I have been continuously impressed by the participation of veterinarians, veterinary technicians and veterinary students (such as Braden-Weiss and Caltagarone) who bring their overwhelming compassion for animals and humans alike into the research setting. They ensure that the lives and welfare of animals in the laboratory are considered and that no procedure produces any more distress than is required. What is more, they work daily with research investigators to ensure that modern technologies that eliminate pain and distress are implemented, where possible.
They work with professors, research staff and graduate students (like Wyeth) whose goal is to alleviate suffering wherever possible. Many researchers are inspired to their work by the suffering that surrounds them – the pain of family members, friends and strangers, alike. Endorsing the value of work that enhances the well-being of billions of humans and animals (both those alive today and those that will be born in the future) is nothing less than noble.
Together, their work is not torture, nor is it anything like it, and to make that case shows a complete lack of understanding of what research really is about. If anything, their goals are the antithesis of torture because they strive to achieve the ultimate alleviation of pain.
Could not agree more with you Prof. Jentsch!
I would just like to say that receiving Hayre Fellowship is truly an honor, and I applied for this fellowship based upon my own opinions and ideas that I have formed through years of experience in both laboratory and companion animal medicine. I have worked extensively in laboratory animal facilities, conducted in vitro research, worked at veterinary clinics, and volunteered for animal shelters.
I continue to believe in the use of animals for biomedical research based on the alleviation of suffering in both humans and animals that I have seen in my experiences. I like the rest of the research community, am passionate about the humane care and use of laboratory animals, so I make it my mission not only to see that animals receive the proper care they deserve, but to educate the public about the importance of biomedical research.
The SR website has many of the facts that people are typically misinformed about, and I invite you to look them over. While we have come a long way as far as alternatives to animal testing, in some cases, there is no alternative. I feel it is irresponsible to not carry out research that will one day lead to live-saving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and surgical techniques.
I am Hayre Fellow because I believe that biomedical research will help you, your family, your dog and cat, your neighbors, your colleagues, and every human and animal, so that they may live healthy, longer lives.
Gillian – this will be the last from me. I only hope that you will go on the internet and find out about the animal research that has been done for the past 50 years. You might also want to read Hans Reusch “The Slaughter of the Innocent.” And my absolutely last remark – somewhere I read here that researchers are concerned about the care they give their animals. Well, I believe it was in the late 80’s or the early 90’s that 60 Minutes had Dr Michael Carey on explaining his research- he shot 600 cats in the head for wound study. Other researchers were troubled with this type of protocol and said it was unnecessary – that wound studies had been done over the years on our soldiers. Well -shooting 600 cats – not 100 cats – but 600 cats in the head was certainly not taking care of them. And what was the great learning from this carnage? Zilch. Please don’t take my word. I believe that biomedical research results can be found on the internet. If not, I rely on the Physicians Committee for Responisble Medicine
to search this out. And I truly believe that one day this cruel protocol of using live animals will be exposed for what it really is -barbaric and unnecessary.
PCRM is nothing but a source of information. It is nothing more than PeTA with white coats. JAMA ran an article not long ago distancing the medical profession from this group of lunatics.
Congrats Gillian!!! We look forward to your great work of educating the public and gathering support for the future of science and medicine!
To call PCRM doctors a bunch of lunatics is cruel and unkind. They have been instrumental for closing a lot of unnecessary dog labs in many of the most prestigious medical teaching hospitals where other digital means are now effectively being used. Pretty good and compassionate work for these “lunatics.” And guess what -the medical association is finally jumping on THEIR bandwagon re the importance of diet for health. Too much meat and dairy is being linked to cancer, heart problems, and diabetes. Again not too bad for a bunch of lunatics. God bless their noble work.
speakingofresearch: PLLLLLeassse, do you actually believe that? Researchers are not trying to save the dog’s life, they are trying out procedures, doing tests and procedures – practicing, and sit back coldly to observe the result. Experimental transplants, grafting, breaking bones and fixing them, (how many times?), burning tissue to see how their victims react, or survive. Oh yes, keep the dog drugged after the wounding and slicing and dicing, keep his/her agony to a minimum…..No one in his/her right mind, or with an ounce of compassion could bring this suffering, or miserable existence to a dog/animal.
The doctor is trying to save my life, and I am paying him to do so, and I chose the operation. Researchers are in no way trying to save the lives of animals who are used as research tools. Fortunately, I am not the only person in the world who is aware of the extent of suffering these animals endure, from breeding, transport, survival in laboratories, passed around from lab to lab (if they survive a while), emotionally and physically tortured to death.
The difference is there is no torture. The point of torture is to put the other being in pain – in research the aim is to minimise the pain – most procedures will not cause any pain to the animal. Have you ever gone for an operation in a hospital? Did you consider the doctor there to be torturing you? No? Well you get the idea of research.
You’re also contradicting yourself – do you believe researchers are torturing animals or caring for them to get results – you can’t pick both and criticise both.
Oh, its ok for your neighbor to torture his dog if he gives the animal anesthetic, then cares for his injuries, wounds, invasive surgical procedures – gets the dog all patched up, then does another experiment – and another, until he finally takes the dog’s life. Experiment failed?
And yes you are so correct in stating that the researchers want healthy, non-stressed animals, before they exhaust them with their experiments, then discard them like trash. That IS the only reason they are “cared” for in the least….for the sake of the result of the test or experiment, or how well the student’s learn from watching or taking part in cutting up an animal, burning or blinding an animal. Such “Kind Cruelty”.
Ronnie- God bless you for caring about animal suffering. You will never be able to convince ‘SpeakingofResearch’ of anything. I have been writing letters for the animals for over 30 years now and I never try to convince anyone who has a closed mind. Thanx for speaking for the voiceless .
To: Why Can’tWeAtLeastBeRespectful: Yes, why can’t the torturers be respectful of the life of another living being?
I DO have the article before me which states that research studies show that animal abusers are more likely to abuse a spouse and children, and an extremely high percentage of criminals locked in prisons were animal known abusers. Now, explain why this kind of “individual or private sector” animal cruelty is a considered wrong and a crime while the human beings who purposely inflict terror, torture and murder to an animal consigned to a research laboratory are funded by our government, exhalted, placed in high esteem by society and allowed to practice the most vile and depraved experiments upon defenseless, often homelss animals? – specifically the loyal dog, Mans Best Friend.! You are worried about human Clearly, there is no decency extended the animals by your perceived “decent human beings” (the “White Coats”) who carry out this so-called research. Animal Cruelty is not decent by any definition.
The difference is you don’t find a young animal abuser giving the animal anesthetic and providing round the clock veterinary attention to ensure it does not suffer unduly – on the other hand the researchers care greatly for their animals, partly because a stressed animal does not provide good data.
…and Janke/Ronnie – why are you pretending to be two different people despite providing the same email address?
So who cares for your “Mans Best Friend” when it’s sick or injurec? Where did that person get their training and how do they know the medication or procedure they use will work?
Animal research is not animal cruelty. By equating the two you obviously expose how little you know how research is conducted.
Clearly “Megles” and “Janke” seem to have swallowed the deadly myth that human decency doesn’t include respectful discussion of the issues and treating others like human beings. I’m sorry that I don’t have handy the article which stated that REPEATED research studies have shown that a lack of human decency leads to the unnecessary vilification of others who hold different views and causes needless suffering to the poor people who happen to stand up for what they believe in.
How sad that these young people have to take such baseless criticism!! Shame on you both.
My response – I will let God decide where shame belongs was taken off. I think that is wrong.
I agree with “Janke.” Biomedical research is a boon for the researchers who get lucrative NIH grants while repeating often protoculs from the past. I’m sorry I don’t have handy the article which stated in one instance that I believe it was 500 REPEATED research studies – all causing needless suffering to the poor animals in the research. How sad that these young people are so gullible and unthinking. i would hope that they would have done their homework. Clearly they have not.
Given that you can’t even spell “protocol”, I doubt that you know what you are a talking about. A study might be independently repeated 2 or 3 times by independent labs to confirm the results. After a result is well established, nobody will go back and waste their time re-doing it. Go do your homework…. please.
I’m glad you are such a spelling purist. We are all entitled to spelling and grammatical errors from time to time but to dismiss my thoughts for a spelling error borders on the ridiculous. Look at the content- not the spelling!
These young people seem to have swallowed the deadly myth that they have to bring pain and suffering to helpless, imprisoned animals in order to attain their status in their medical fields. How sad and tragic that a human being can become accustomed to torturing restrained animals and then we pay them to take care of our beloved pets. The public is waking to the horror and misery behind these legalized, protected animal abusing techniques and institutions. Shame on them.
They have not swallowed any myth. They have reached that conclusion after ~15 years of higher education and reading medical history. Society agrees with then, that’s why it is legalized (at least you got that part right). Animals are treated humanely, nobody tortures restrained animals.
Activists should be ashamed of trying to stop live saving research without having studied the issues carefully. Their activities amount to murder — murder of those that would not be able to survive because there activities prevent the acquisition of new knowledge, development of drugs and surgeries. Activists, in fact, are the ones with blood on their hands.