Tag Archives: alternatives

Animal Testing and Human Trials: Alternatives or Complements?

The Animal Justice Project, a British-based animal rights group, is no stranger to misinformation. Previously we have debunked their factual errors regarding malaria studies in Sweden and eye injury studies. There was also the time they produced a press release which suggested 52oC (125oF) was the same as boiling water (which admittedly might be true if you tried to make a cup of tea in the lower stratosphere).

Recently on their website, a blog by Judith Snaith has been put up. The blog is a mash up of animal rights myths and misinformation, but one line was of particular interest.

More than 100,000 humans are killed yearly by prescription drugs that passed animal testing. Animal research is not the final phase, 90 per cent of drugs that pass the animal tests fail in human trials. So if we have to test on humans to be accurate, can we not skip out the middle monkey?

Let’s break this down bit by bit. The figure of 100,000 is an American one (Lazarou et al, 1998) with the figures for the UK approximated at around 10,000 (Pirmohamed et al, 2000) using a similar methodology. We have mentioned the flaws in these figures in our “Animal Rights Pseudoscience” page:

The statistic of 100,000 deaths in a year is taken from a 1998 meta-analysis by Lazarou and colleagues that examined rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) observed in 39 studies undertaken between 1966 and 1996 (Lazarou et al, 1998). The methods used in this meta-analysis were subsequently criticised for failing to adequately take into account differences between the 39 studies examined, a failing which may have lead to an over estimation of the number of deaths due to ADRs (Kvasz et al, 2000).

Between 2001 and 2002 Pirmohamed and colleagues analysed admissions to two hospitals in Merseyside, in order to determine if the cause of admission was an adverse drug reaction (Pirmohamed et al, 2000). Their results indicated that ADRs accounted for 6.5% of hospital admissions, and that ADRs may be responsible for up to 10,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom. The study also found that:

  • 95% of ADRs were predictable from the known pharmacology of the drugs (i.e. from animal testing and human clinical data).

  • A large majority of ADRs were caused by older drugs.

  • About 70% of ADRs were either possibly or definitely avoidable.

So a large amount of these deaths come down to human error as the adverse drug reactions were both predictable and avoidable.

Judith mentions that these 100,000 deaths came from drugs which had passed animal tests. What she chooses not to mention is that these 100,000 deaths came from drugs which had also passed clinical trials in humans. There is no logical reason to put these deaths at the feet of animal tests – particularly as the animal tests do not check for the common causes of drug deaths – accidental overdose, negative drug-drug interactions from secondary medications, incorrectly prescribed medication etc.

Judith then goes on to mention that 90% of drugs that pass animal tests go on to fail in humans:

Animal research is not the final phase, 90 per cent of drugs that pass the animal tests fail in human trials

We’ve definitely seen and debunked this statistic before. The inference is that animal tests are not effective as many drugs fail later on. Prof Lovell-Badge explains some of the many flaws in this argument. Firstly, there is a similarly high failure rate in the human trials:

Consider that of all the drugs which pass Phase 1 clinical trials in humans, 86% will fail in later stage human trials. Yet, we do not hear activists suggesting that humans are an entirely inappropriate model for drug development (though we should note that one human is not a perfect model for another).

Furthermore, this whole argument is premised on a misunderstanding of the different role of animal and human trials:

The role of preclinical animal tests is to check if the drug offers any potential therapeutic value and, importantly, if it is safe enough to move to Phase 1 trials in humans. This does not even mean free of all side effects, but to learn whether a drug can safely be given to humans and at what approximate dosage.

Put another way, every stage of drug testing acts as a safety barrier for dangerous drugs being sold. Pre-clinical in vitro tests, pre-clinical animal tests, Phase I clinical trials, and Phase II-III clinical trials all work successively to remove potentially dangerous compounds from reaching the market. These are not their only functions, animal tests may help assess appropriate therapeutic doses, which can be later refined during clinical trials. These tests (animals and humans) may also help discover potential side effects (this does not mean the drug will be rejected – it depends on the seriousness of the condition it is intended to treat).

Judith Snaith goes on to combine her two assertions to claim that we don’t need to do the animal tests – we can just move straight to humans.

So if we have to test on humans to be accurate, can we not skip out the middle monkey?

This ignores the huge number of dangerous compounds which are removed from the drug development process because they show toxic effects in animals. To skip this step would be to allow these compounds to be trialled in humans. Furthermore, when one safety check doesn’t guarantee safety, that doesn’t mean removing the check makes anyone safer.

Animal testing is not an alternative to human trials, it complements it. Medieval castles had high walls and soldiers in them – both protect the defenceless people in the keep. Sometimes high walls and soldiers were not sufficient, and the castle was sacked, but no one would conclude that high walls were pointless and that everyone would be safer if there were just the soldiers. In reality, doing away with the castle would mean more soldiers would die, just as doing away with animal tests would likely lead to more deaths in Phase I and II clinical trials; the consequence of this would be that fewer people would volunteer for clinical trials (just as fewer soldiers would wish to defend a low-walled castle).

We use a variety of methods in biomedical science – computer simulations, tissue studies, animal models, clinical trials, epidemiology etc. Different methods can teach us different things and the results are often used in combination to build our knowledge and understanding of physiology and disease. The same is true in safety testing – all methods of screening drugs have advantages and drawbacks, but if we use them effectively, in combination, we can see that safe and effective drugs make it to market.

Would the French soldiers have taunted King Arthur if they didn’t have high walls? (Monty Python’s Holy Grail)

Speaking of Research

Guest Post: Why science needs to improve

Today’s guest post is from Jeremy D. Bailoo, PhD, a developmental psychobiologist in the Division of Animal Welfare at the University of Bern, Switzerland. He is currently involved in research which examines the manner by which we house and care for animals and its relevance to animal welfare and how it affects experimental results. He is particularly interested in providing empirically based procedures for refining animal housing.

Why science needs to improve

In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Professor Marc Bekoff and Dr. Hope Ferdowsian outlined their reasons for believing that science does not need mice. Their article was written in response to an editorial in the New York Times which advocated for the need for female mice in laboratory research. Bekoff and Ferdowsian made a number of interesting points and cited relevant supporting literature. However, their response presented only certain aspects of the issues involved. In this piece I will deconstruct the arguments levied by both sides. I will refrain from critiquing information that was not accompanied by a citation in either article, as these constitute unsubstantiated opinion.

The authors of the New York Times editorial described a new study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience which suggested “that research done on male animals may not hold up for women. Its authors reported that hypersensitivity to pain works differently in male and female mice….If these differences occur in mice, they may occur in humans too. This means a pain drug…might appear to work in male mice, but wouldn’t work on women.” These authors then state that failure to consider gender or sex in research is well recognized and cite the work of Zucker and Berry (2010) as well as the repositioning of interests statement of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) specifying sex as a biological variable in NIH funded research (see here and here).

The NYT editorial framed a well-articulated argument and did not overstate any of the claims that it made. The issue of the underrepresentation of females in biomedical research has been repeatedly highlighted (e.g., here, here, here, here and here) with little change in US science funders’ policy until now. It is important to note that nowhere in this article is it stated that all research in mice is ungeneralizable to females. Indeed, whether a scientific result is generalizable to both sexes is dependent on the phenomenon being studied; and this seems to be the case in particular for pain research in mice.

Mice in a research laboratory. Image courtesy of Understanding Animal Research.

Mice in a research laboratory. Image courtesy of Understanding Animal Research.

In their argument against the use of mice in research in the Huffington Post, Bekoff and Ferdowsian state that “numerous experiments on male and female non-human animals (animals) fail to reliably hold up in humans, and many prominent researchers have argued we need to develop non-animal models in order to learn more about serious diseases from which numerous humans suffer.” It is without question that some (not all) experiments in male and female rodents fail to replicate their results when that same experiment is performed on humans. However, as the ability to falsify and to replicate an experimental result are the cornerstones of the scientific method, failure to replicate an experimental result does not imply poor generalizability of an animal model to the human condition. I have recently co-authored an article on this topic demonstrating that meta-analytic studies have revealed that the reporting of criteria related to experimental design and conduct in some biomedical animal experiments is poor. The reasons why the result of an experiment conducted in non-human animals may fail to be replicated in humans is a consequence of complex processes that cannot and should not be trivially summarized by the statement “we need to develop non-animal models in order to learn more about serious diseases from which numerous humans suffer.”

In support of their argument, Bekoff and Ferdowsian cite the article “Mice Fall Short as Test Subjects for Some of Humans’ Deadly Ills”. In summarizing this article, Bekoff and Ferdowsian imply that because C57BL/6 mice (a single strain of 16 classified as Tier 1 in priority for investigation) do not seem to be able to model sepsis in humans, then all mice fail as a model of human disease. This is a logical fallacy, and a quick google search leads to very interesting responses to this article. Some are in favour of this piece (e.g., here) while others quickly identify flaws with the logic (e.g., here and here). Indeed, in the original article, the authors state “The study’s findings do not mean that mice are useless models for all human diseases.”

Next, Bekoff and Ferdowsian make the claim that the former director of the National Institutes of Health, Elias Zerhouni has lost confidence in the use of mice to model anything that is related to humans (see here). Bekoff and Ferdowsian fail to cite the clarification or perhaps are unaware of the clarification that was given (see here) in which Mr. Zerhouni states, “In short, animal models remain essential to the basic research that seeks to understand the complexities of disease mechanism.” As my colleagues at the website Speaking of Research have put it: “Animal models are essential to developing new medicines. They are, obviously, not sufficient on their own – cell cultures, human studies and computer models (among others) are also crucial methods used alongside animal models.”

The next paragraph with a citation states “Even experiments involving similar nonhuman species have shown that studies in mice, rats, and rabbits agree only a little more than half of the time (please see Hartung and Rovida 2009)”. Careful reading of this citation, however, does not yield this information. Indeed, nowhere in this article are any of these claims made. More interestingly, the cited article states, “no acceptable alternatives to reproductive-toxicity testing (in animals, my emphasis) have emerged, or are likely to be validated by 2018. Computational approaches are also limited by the complexity of reproductive toxicity and because half of the REACH chemicals are mixtures, inorganic, salts or contain metal atoms, rendering toxicity less predictable”. Thus, rather than supporting Bekoff and Ferdowsian’s arguments, it would seem that Hartung and Rovida advocate for the use of animals in toxicological research because there are no good alternatives.


Laboratory mouse. Photo courtesy of Understanding Animal Research.

Bekoff and Ferdowsian then state, “Attitudes toward animals are also changing, and now is the time for action. As per a recent nonpartisan Pew Research Poll, a solid 50 percent of people surveyed now oppose the use of animals in laboratory experimentation — an all-time high in the public opinion research literature.” This is indeed alarming and is the reason I have spent many hours researching these data. It is time that active scientists speak up for their science and break the cycle of misinformation that is spreading throughout our society.

In their penultimate paragraph Bekoff and Ferdowsian indicate that many may be incredulous in realizing “that mice and rats aren’t animals but a quote from the federal register does in fact read, “We are amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to reflect an amendment to the Act’s definition of the term animal. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the definition of animal to specifically exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research” (Vol. 69, no. 108, 4 June 2004).” It is worthwhile to note the date of this citation, June 2004 – 11 years ago. Much has changed in those 11 years and much will continue to change in the future. As science progresses, the type of animals used in research, the manner in which they are used, and their care will be continually scrutinized by scientists and the public. As a result, animal care, use, and corresponding regulations will continue to be adjusted. Moreover, animals used in research (including birds, rats, mice) are covered by Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals since 1985 while guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals have been critically considered since 1963 and have been continually updated as new information becomes available. Ferdowsian and Bekoff are either ignorant of current US regulations governing research or are deliberately being disingenuous.

These authors conclude that “there are numerous non-animal alternatives that are extremely reliable (please also see), and it’s about time they are used.” Again, where is the evidence for this? As I have outlined in this commentary, Bekoff and Ferdowsian have not provided sufficient evidence to come to this conclusion. Moreover, the statement that many non-animal alternatives are currently available and reliable requires careful deliberation. An example of such deliberation can be found here. The unsubstantiated statement that alternatives exist and are reliable does not make it so. Currently, such research and methods complement, rather than replace, research in non-human animals.

Thus, it would seem that the argument levied by Bekoff and Ferdowsian that science does not need research with mice is misleading. Poor reproducibility of experimental results is a problem in biomedical research. Indeed, it is a problem with science in general (e.g., here, here and here). To address the question “does science need mice”, one would have to: 1) examine the fields of science which use mice, 2) identify whether the science is performed with experimental rigour (design and conduct), and then 3) evaluate whether the findings obtained from these rigorous experiments are reproducible. By and large, the scientific community is still at step 2. As I mentioned previously, many fields which conduct research using mice report results that are irreproducible. The current cause ascribed to these failures is poor experimental design and conduct. This insight is gained by analysing whether information related to experimental design and conduct in published manuscripts and experimental applications are reported. For many fields of study employing the use of rodents, we cannot even begin to evaluate the effectiveness of a model because the manner in which the study was reported was poor. It is worth emphasizing that poor reporting of aspects of a study related to experimental design and conduct does not necessarily imply that a study was conducted poorly. Ascertaining this information would require interviews for each published article in question; a Herculean, if not impossible, feat. As highlighted in my recent paper, many solutions have been put forward to improve the manner in which we execute and report experiments but until these are endorsed and enforced, science in general will not improve. And that also applies to research using humans as subjects.

Jeremy D. Bailoo, Ph.D.

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

All in a day’s work: Scientists promote alternatives

Once upon a time, the medication BoTox (made by a company called Allergan) was tested for its potency, on a batch by batch basis, in living animals. This medication, which is really a protein derived from bacteria, has many important therapeutic purposes. For example, it has been shown to be very effective in the treatment of chronic migraine headaches – a condition that can have disabling effects on those who suffer from it. It is used to treat disorders in which people sweat profusely (hyperhidrosis) or have overactive bladders, both of which affect people’s qualities of life by impairing normal social functioning. It has also been used in the treatment of motor disorders like spasticity and dystonia, preventing the irregular and disruptive involuntary movements that are found in these disorders, thereby reducing the physical pain that is so often a consequence of them. Of course, it has also been used for aesthetic reasons, an arguably less compelling medical use.

BoTox is used to treat patients with spastic cerebral palsy, lesseing the pain they suffer as a result of their uncontrolled movements

Because the potency of individual batches of BoTox produced vary, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States required Allergan to test each batch on live animals. For each batch, studies were conducted in which the amount of BoTox that was required to produce a specific toxic effect was evaluated in live animals, and the dose was adjusted to ensure that the potency of the drug across batches could be accounted for (roughly, if the batch was half as potent, this can be accounted for by giving twice the dose, ensuring that clinical effects were stable over time). This testing involved a lot of animals, mostly mice.

However, earlier this summer, the FDA changed its mind. It was approached by an organization that had – at considerable expense – developed a test that could determine BoTox potency just as well as the animal tests – but without involving live animals. The test is conducted on cells in a dish.

The organization spent millions of dollars to develop the test and to petition the FDA to consider this replacement for live animal use based upon its empirical results. They were successful.

Who was this organization? Was it the Humane Society of the United States? Perhaps it was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine?

It was none of these. Indeed, since none of these organizations spend their operating budgets on the laboratory research that is required to develop alternatives to live animal studies, it couldn’t have been any of them.

So, who accomplished this? It was Allergan itself. Biomedical researchers at the company who used animals in their tests became determined to find a model system that could replace living animals, and they didn’t stop until they found one. They did this though it came at a huge expense to the company. They were committed to producing medicines that people need and to use the fewest animals in the process, and they accomplished that. As the Allergen press release notes, there have been several attempts, using a variety of methods, over the past two decades to develop a replacement for the LD50 test, but until now all these have fallen short.  A report from a 2008 scientific workshop convened by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)  and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Program for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) provides a good overview of many of the challenges involved in delevoling a replacement for the LD50 test, and the different approaches used to address them.

As always, the alternatives that exist for animal use in biomedical science came from the very scientists who are otherwise roundly criticized by the anti-animal research movement. Maybe the irony is lost on organizations like PCRM, HSUS and PeTA, but not on us. At UCLA, our administration has instituted a funding program that provides seed funding to scientists to promote work on refinement, reduction and replacement. What have the leading anti-research groups done? Nothing, but complain. Perhaps instead of criticizing scientists, these organizations should join with us in attempting to discover alternatives and reduce animal use.


David Jentsch

The Limits of Computer Simulations

Following on from the last post about the limits of fMRI technology, we will now look further at the limits of another so called “alternative” – computer simulations.

Animal rights groups also argue (Warning: AR website) that advanced computer simulations can replace the use of animals in our research.  This position, again, reflects the poor understanding of what goes into a computer simulation and the limitation of the results.

Simply put, computer simulations produce the results of mathematical models (a set of equations) that investigators postulate capture the basic laws governing a physical system.  We can be successful at simulating how air flows across the profile of an airplane because physicists have developed good mathematical models of how matter behaves at these scales (the field of classical mechanics).   Such physical ‘laws’ are developed by scientists by first observing patterns in experimental data (note the emphasis on experimental) and try to envision a simple set of mathematical equations that could capture these patterns.  The postulated laws are then tested by predicting how systems would behave under different conditions, and experiments are conducted to test their validity.  When predictions fail, it sends scientists back to the drawing board.  It is the interplay between mathematical models and experimental work that allows scientists to refine our models, both in physics and in life sciences.

The Blue Gene Supercomputer was used to approximate brain function

The Blue Gene Supercomputer was used to approximate brain function

Neuroscientists are following on the steps of physicists in trying to come up with mathematical models for brain function.  An example is the successful development of a mathematical theory for the generation of action potentials by neurons, the so called Hodgkin-Huxley equations.  These equations have been successfully tested in a multitude of new experimental paradigms and we now consider it a well established law.  This work, done largely in the squid giant axon, and led them to share the Nobel prize in Medicine in 1963.

As important as this development was, it only provides a tiny amount of information about the workings of the brain.  The brain is composed of around 100 billion neurons, each with approximately 100,000 connections.  To simulate how a brain behaves it is not enough to understand how axons propagate action potentials, we also need to understand how neurons are connected to each other, measure the ‘strength’ of such connections, and figure out how is that each neuron (which is rather ‘dumb’ by itself) can cooperate with thousand of others to perform the computations we take for granted every day, such as reaching out for a cup of coffee, recognizing faces, and so on.  Even if we had full knowledge of the working of individual neurons, we would still not know how a brain really works.  To argue the opposite, would be to argue that just by knowing how a transistor works, we would have full knowledge of how a computer operates.

Science aims at explaining complex phenomena by describing them using a simple set of mathematical equations or laws.  Neuroscientists are building up their knowledge bottom up, by first developing models of how individual neurons work and how they communicate.   From a modest beginning of trying to understand how cells generate action potentials, theoretical neuroscience has advanced tremendously in the last few decades and into a field of itself.  We have reached the point where models of how neuronal populations code for information in certain areas of the brain are being applied to the development of neural prostheses that will allow paralyzed or amputated patients to control artificial limbs.   This work, developed in electrophysiological studies with monkeys, is now being successfully translated into humans.

However, we are still many, many years away at being able to develop models and simulations that capture the working of large neuronal circuits, let alone the entire brain.  As we work towards this goal, the interaction between models and experiments is critical.  We cannot verify the correctness of a model without comparing its predictions to actual data.   As a consequence, both computer simulations and animal work will be required to advance our knowledge of brain function in years to come.


Dario Ringach

The limits of fMRI

Animal rights groups often argue (Warning: AR Website) that new imaging technologies, such as fMRI, provide an alternative to invasive brain research in animals, accusing those doing animal work of failing to adopt these modern methods.  Such a position reflects a misunderstanding of what these instruments measure and their limitation in studying how the brain works. [More information on the limitations of replacement technologies can be found in the “Alternatives?” Section]

Our perceptions, thoughts, speech and decisions are carried out by a complex network of neurons that communicate through brief electrical impulses about one millisecond in duration (so called action potentials or ‘spikes’).  These electrical impulses allows the brain to perform all its amazing computations in real time, such as recognizing faces, keeping your balance, and understanding speech.  In other words, spikes are the currency of computation in the brain.  To study how the brain is capable of these feats we need, therefore, to measure directly how populations of neurons communicate with each other by means of spiking activity.



A central problem here is that neurons are very small (their bodies are about 25 micro-meters in diameter) and they are tightly packed together.  As an analogy, consider a football stadium full of spectators.  The problem is akin to developing a method to listening to the conversation of two individuals in the middle of this noisy crowd.  Clearly, without getting a microphone close enough to them, the background noise would make the measurement nearly impossible.  You cannot listen to an individual conversation with a microphone hanging in the middle of the stadium.  The micro-electrode, an insulated wire with a diameter smaller than a human hair, is such a “microphone” that allows us to record the spikes of individual cells in the working brain by getting close enough to the individual cells.

Is there a way to measure the activity of single neurons non-invasively?  The short answer is no.  What about fMRI?  fMRI does not measure neural activity directly, but instead relies on indirect changes in blood flow and volume triggered by modulation in neural activity.  To begin with, one problem is that we still do not know how fMRI measurements relate to neural activity.  Clearly, to be able to understand how fMRI signals relate to neural activity we need to measure both simultaneously, work that will also require the use of animals.  This exemplifies that without animal research there will be no alternatives either.  In addition, fMRI has a limited spatial resolution of about a cubic millimeter.  In such a volume, one can find 100,000 neurons.  In other words, the ‘fMRI microphone’ cannot listen to individual cells, but to a whole stadium full of them.  Finally, we already know that fMRI signals are much slower than neuronal activity, as the time course of hemodynamic signals is in the order of 5 seconds.  As neurons work tens of times faster (you can recognize an image in about 200 ms), the dynamics of fMRI signals are too slow to understand how brains compute in real time.  Instead, fMRI provides useful information about what brain areas might be involved in certain tasks.  After these areas are identified, electrophysiological measurements can be used to measure the activity of single neurons in those areas.  Such a strategy is now proving extremely useful in neuroscience research.

When animal rights activists demonstrate at UCLA carrying a sign stating “Support alternatives to animal research” they don’t need to convince us.  We fully support  and work towards the development of alternative, non-invasive methods.  Their sign is designed to suggest to the public that such methods currently exist and some scientists refuse to use them.   As we explained above this is not true.  Furthermore, the development of alternatives cannot be done without the use of animals.  The relationship between neural activity and the BOLD response in fMRI signals is one example of this process.   Only after such validation takes place, could one then proceed to apply the method with confidence in humans.


Prof. Dario Ringach (bio)

Animal Liberation Front Press Office become desperate

In a pathetic attempt to be noticed, North American Animal Liberation Press Officer (NAALPO), Jason S. Miller, decided to send an email to a group of researchers, research institutions and pro-research groups (including SR).

In an email containing links to typical AR pseudo-science, misinformation and misanthropic philosophy, Jason kindly explained our future:

Your newly formed “vivisector resistance movement,” as exemplified by Speaking of Research and other whoring shills for your cozy little industry, will quickly sink into the moral cesspool over which it is constructed. Your blatant speciesism, torture, murder, and anachronistic scientific practices are doomed to extinction.

Charming. I must confess I almost feel honored that Speaking of Research gets a mention – could it be we’ve hit a nerve? With animal research helping develop the medicines of tomorrow (fighting swine flu, combating HIV and offering hope for DMD patients) it would seem that such methods are far from anachronistic. I also wonder if Miller has ever seen the inside of a lab? Animal welfare is of the highest priority as you can read in our “Why Animal Welfare Matters” blog post. Oh, and what on earth is a “vivisector resistance movement”?

The Vivisector Resistance Movement?

The Vivisector Resistance Movement?

So who is this Jason Miller? Other than a member of NAALPO, an organization which reports on the violent actions of the Animal Liberation Front and the Animal Rights Militia, Miller is the founder of the “anarcho-veganist” website, Thomas Paine’s Corner (TPC):

[TPC] approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position, as portrayed in the graphic above by the juxtaposition of the Boy Scout–a victim of one of the indoctrinating mechanisms for our imperialist, patriarchal, faux Christian, corporatist, statist, speciesist society–against the anarchist symbol.

TPC Logo

It’s only missing “military industrial complex” and “marxism” to complete the hand (no, wait, there’s sections on the website for both of those…). Miller’s email might also have something to do with us ignoring his last hissy-fit written on TPC. Talking about the UCLA Pro-Test rally:

In that nauseating spectacle the unapologetic monkey-torturer, David Jentsch, and industry shill Tom Holder, the “founder” of Speaking of Research and a “founding member” of Pro-Test in the UK, whipped a crowd of adoring sycophants into a frenzy with a chant calling for animal testing.

Having seen some of Prof. Jentsch’s vervet monkeys I was impressed at the high standards of welfare – as well as the personal care and responsibility that Jentsch felt towards his animals. A far cry from Miller’s claims of “monkey torture”. However Miller falls into the mistaken belief that we could switch to “alternatives” tomorrow:

We have multiple other means by which we can advance our medical and scientific knowledge, including epidemiology, clinical testing, autopsies, biopsies, genetics, post-marketing drug research, computer modeling, tissue cultures, microdosing on human animals, personalized medicine, and nanotechnology

Check the “alternatives” page for scientific a deconstruction of this argument. A few intersting choices in his list – much genetics are  studied in animals, particularly mice, where you can “knock out” a certain gene to see its effect on the animal and thus the phenotype of the gene. Such work offers hope to sufferers of genetic conditions such as Cystic Fibrosis and Duchennes Muscular Dystropy. Biopsies are done on animals except the animal rights movement tends to rebrand it “vivisection”. Personalized medicine is an ideal which will certainly require animal research in its creation. The fact is these methods are complementary on animal research, not alternatives.

Well Jason, I hope you’ve learnt something – and please stop emailing large groups of people to make spurious and misanthropic claims about the research you appear to know so little about.


Tom Holder