Tag Archives: animal research

Jane Goodall and White Coat Waste are wrong about nicotine addiction research

This open letter is from scientists and leaders in the addiction research community.  If you’d like to join the signatories listed below, please do in comments at the bottom of this article. Please also share with others with an interest in research on addiction.

Smoking – and nicotine addiction – are sometimes easy targets for criticism by many people. For others, addiction is a mental health issue of deep concern, affecting one in seven Americans during their lifetime, often resulting in immeasurable suffering and even death.  There are many reasons that addiction can be an easy target and perennial candidate for ridicule. One is that some believe addiction is “simply a matter of weak willpower,” evidence of a “moral failing,” or some other character flaw. In this, we see parallels to medieval beliefs that schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression were due to witchcraft, demonic possession, wandering uteruses, and weak moral character.

Addiction is a brain disorder

Through decades of scientific study of the brain, behavior, genetics, and physiology, we now know that addiction is a complex disorder affected by neural function, genes, and the environment. We also know – at a specific level – about the brain chemistry and circuits that increase the risk for and play a role in addiction—including smoking. Unfortunately, there is still a lot we do not know, including questions such as: Why are some individuals vulnerable to addiction and others not? Why does relapse after any kind of treatment occur at such phenomenally high rates? Why do drug abusers persist in seeking and taking substances that so clearly will lead to incarceration, poverty, even death?

It is these gaps in knowledge – along with empathy for those suffering because of addiction—that lead the nation’s health research agencies to actively support addiction research. Yet, there are others who seek to end this lifesaving research. For example, a months-long campaign by the anti-animal research advocacy group White Coat Waste Project targeting nicotine addiction research recently got a boost from Jane Goodall, the celebrity primatologist known for research on chimpanzee behavior. This marks yet another high profile pairing of Goodall and groups fundamentally opposed to all nonhuman animal research. Here, Goodall wrote to the head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about research on nicotine addiction in monkeys conducted at the FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR).

Addiction costs the US billions each year

What Goodall claims is that the research is a misuse of taxpayer’s money because of her belief that ‘the results of smoking are well-known in humans’, and that the same research can be done in humans. Both statements are shocking, no less so because they come from a prominent scientist whose very profession is based on reporting facts.

Even a cursory glance at the state of tobacco use in the US gives some clues as to why statements like this are irresponsible: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), tobacco use kills approximately 440,000 Americans each year. Given the White Coat Waste Project’s interest in saving the taxpayer’s money, the estimated economic impact of tobacco use, including everything from healthcare costs to cigarette-related fires, is almost $200 billion per year (see NIDA Research Report Series online, 2012). So, clearly nicotine addiction remains a significant public health problem and it is quite evident that we do not understand this disorder well enough to eradicate it—current treatments basically have just slowed it down. There is much work to do.

Outright wrong: the FDA nicotine research Goodall targets is not taxpayer funded

There is another blatant inaccuracy in Goodall’s letter to the FDA, namely, the very idea that this is a fraudulent waste of taxpayer’s money. In fact, the funding source for NCTR nicotine research is the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), which was established to oversee implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

What is important here is that CTP funding comes from “tobacco user fees” charged to manufacturers of tobacco products. In other words, no taxpayer’s money is funding this research. How can the public trust any claim by Goodall and White Coat Waste if even this basic fact was ignored?

Why research with humans cannot answer the full range of questions

What is lost in the simple formulation that Goodall uses is the fact that research with humans cannot answer fundamentally important questions that are basic to progress in understanding, preventing, and treating addiction. Species other than humans take drugs. The fact that monkeys and rodents “self-administer” drugs in a manner similar to humans provides scientists with an extremely valuable model of drug addiction. The discovery of the “reward center” in the brain, the role of the chemical dopamine, even the basic principles of many behavioral therapies for addiction—all of these basic findings come from studies with monkeys and/or rodents self-administering drugs. In fact, the discovery that nicotine is the primary ingredient of tobacco products that contributes to their addictive properties, as well as the designation of nicotine as a drug of abuse, relied on self-administration studies. And yet, we are just at the beginning of understanding addiction as a brain disorder (rather than a simple moral failure or a series of bad decisions).

Instead of using monkeys in nicotine addiction research, Goodall suggests that ‘smoking habits’ can be studied ‘directly’ in humans. These two scenarios are entirely different—you don’t study ‘smoking habits’ in monkeys (who generally don’t go to the local gas station for some smokes). Smoking habits are an incredibly important part of nicotine addiction, but studying nicotine self-administration has entirely different goals. For example, the NCTR researchers are interested in brain changes following nicotine taking in adults and adolescents. What the monkey experiments allow them to do is isolate just nicotine (burning tobacco creates approximately 7000 chemicals)

and study its effects in a highly controlled environment. This approach allows the researchers to draw much firmer conclusions about effects on brain function than could ever be obtained in people smoking cigarettes. To treat nicotine addiction, we have to know precisely what nicotine does to the brain, and we need to do this in a systematic, carefully controlled manner.  We also need to know, however, what all the other chemicals are doing in order to understand the “real life” situation.  Studying nicotine alone provides a platform for going about doing those types of studies, eventually recreating the real life experiences of the tobacco abuser.

Absolutism is different from consideration of animal welfare

Research in laboratories with animals is conducted humanely, ethically, and under careful oversight guided by federal and state laws, regulations, guidelines, and by institutional policy.  Importantly, it is unclear what evidence Goodall and White Coat Waste have for any serious violations of regulations at the FDA facility. It may be the case that Jane Goodall and White Coat Waste are opposed to animal research that is conducted in order to benefit human health. That is a different argument, however, than saying that addiction research is unnecessary, that human studies are all that is needed, or that the animals are abused. We in the scientific community wholeheartedly support ethical, humanely-conducted research on addiction to nicotine and other drugs of abuse, which is in the public’s interest. At the same time, we condemn this irresponsible and factually-challenged assault on research at the NCTR.

Conclusion

We, the undersigned, support the careful, considered and regulated use of primates in addiction research. While respecting Dr. Jane Goodall as an eminent primatologist—known for her knowledge of chimpanzee behavior in the wild—we do not believe she has the necessary expertise to intervene into the scientific questions of addiction research and neuroscience. Addiction is a major public health issue worldwide, and requires and deserves close scientific scrutiny, some of which will require the use of animals.

James K. Rowlett, Ph.D., Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D., Vice President, Research, Health Policy, and Abuse Liability, Pinney Associates, Inc. and Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Marina Picciotto, Ph.D., Charles B.G. Murphy Professor of Psychiatry and Professor in the Child Study Center, of Neuroscience and of Pharmacology, Deputy Chair for Basic Science Research, Dept. of Psychiatry, Deputy Director, Kavli Institute for Neuroscience, Yale University

Travis Thompson, Ph.D., L.P., Professor, University of Minnesota; Past President of American Psychological Association Division of Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse; Past Member, College on Problems of Drug Dependence Executive Committee

Charles P. France, Ph.D., Robert A. Welch Distinguished University Chair in Chemistry, Professor of Pharmacology and Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center- San Antonio

Michael A. Nader, Ph.D., Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology, and Radiology and Director, Center for the Neurobiology of Addiction Treatment; Co-Director, Center for Research on Substance Use and Addiction, Wake Forest School of Medicine

Thomas Eissenberg, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology (Health Program) and
Director, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University

Nancy A. Ator, Ph.D., Professor of Behavioral Biology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

Roger D. Spealman, Ph.D., Professor of Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Kathleen A. Grant, Ph.D., Chief and Senior Scientist, Division of Neuroscience, Professor, Dept. Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon National Primate Research Center

Alan J. Budney, Ph.D., President, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Past President, Division of Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse (28) and the Division on Addictions (50) – American Psychological Association, Professor, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

Peter W. Kalivas, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Neuroscience, Medical University of South Carolina

Marilyn E. Carroll, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota

Craig A. Stockmeier, Ph.D., Professor, Dept Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Janet Neisewander, Ph.D., Professor, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University

Mary E Cain, PhD, Professor of Psychological Sciences, Past President for Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology, Kansas State University

Wei-Dong Yao, PhD, Professor, SUNY Upstate Medical University

Lance R. McMahon, PhD, Chair and Professor of Pharmacodynamics, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida

Michael N. Lehman, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomical Sciences, Chairman of the Board, UMMC Neuro Institute, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Donna M. Platt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Michael A. Taffe, Ph.D., Associate Professor, The Scripps Research Institute

Linda J. Porrino, PhD, Professor and Chair, Wake Forest School of Medicine

Kevin B. Freeman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Mei-Chuan Ko, Ph.D., Professor, Wake Forest School of Medicine

Sally L. Huskinson, Ph.D., Instructor, Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Mark Smith, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Davidson College

Daniel C. Williams, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Director, Division of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Eric J. Vallender, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Matthew Banks, PharmD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University

Paul May, Ph.D., Department of Neurobiology & Anatomical Sciences, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Juan Carlos Marvizon, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, UCLA, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Catherine M. Davis, PhD, Assistant Professor, Division of Behavioral Biology, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Klaus A. Miczek, Ph.D., Moses Hunt Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, Pharmacology, & Neuroscience, Tufts University, Department of Psychology

Wendy J. Lynch, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia

Michael T. Bardo, Professor of Psychology, Director, Center for Drug Abuse Research Translation (CDART), University of Kentucky

Xiu Liu, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Pathology, Associate Director, Graduate Program in Pathology, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Katherine Serafine, PhD, Assistant Professor of Behavioral Neuroscience University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Psychology

Robert L. Balster, PhD,  Butler Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Research Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, former CoDirector of the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

David Jentsch, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University

William W. Stoops, Ph.D., Professor, University of Kentucky College of Medicine

Jack Bergman, Ph.D., McLean Hospital / Harvard Medical School

Barry Setlow, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida College of Medicine

Doris J. Doudet, PhD, Professor, Dept. Medicine/Neurology, University of British Columbia

Leonard L. Howell, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University

S. Stevens Negus, PhD, Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University

Carrie K. Jones, Ph.D., Director, In Vivo and Translational Pharmacology, Vanderbilt Center for Neuroscience Drug Discovery, Vanderbilt University

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal experiments in the UK decline by 5% in 2016

The UK Home Office has published the 2016 annual statistics showing the number of animal procedures carried out in Great Britain under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986; this covers all vertebrate species (and Cephalopods). In 2016 there were 3.94 million procedures carried out, down 5% from 2015 (4.14 million).

While we often describe these statistics as being for the UK, they do not include Northern Ireland (who carried out 22,508 procedures in 2015), and so are technically the figures for Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales).

CC-BY speakingofresearch.com

Procedures on animals in Great Britain for research in 2016. Click to Enlarge

Overall, 96.6% of animals used in scientific studies were mice, rats, fish or birds. Dogs, cats and primates (which are offered special protections under UK law) together accounted for 0.22% of the total (similar to in previous years). The statistics also reveal that almost half of all experiments (48.6%) were the breeding of GM animals which were not used in further experiments – this is almost identical to 2014 and 2015. Overall, 64.9% (almost two thirds) of all experiments involved genetically modified animals, this was down from 67% in 2015.

Different colours represent changes to the counting method in 1987 and 2014.

Trend over time in animal experiments in the UK. Click to Enlarge.

Using the trend graph we can see how the number of animals used in research appears to be flattening out after almost two decades of rising numbers. It should be noted that the Home Office reported in 2015 that it believes there were statistical errors in the 2014 report as a result of new counting methodologies, but that this has been ironed out for 2015 and 2016.

The last five years appears to show animal experiments remaining relatively constant around 4 million. While this is higher than in the 1990s, it remains much lower than the 5.5+ million animals used in the mid 1960s.

Procedures on non-human primates fell slightly from 3,612 procedures in 2015, to 3,569 (down 1%) in 2016. The number of procedures on cats fell by 19 to 190 procedures and on dogs rose to 4,932.

A ban on cosmetic testing on animals (1998) and of using great apes (gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees) in research (1986) meant both had zero procedures in 2015. It should be noted that some research may continue on great apes in zoos, however such research can be observation-based only as “procedures” on great apes are illegal under ASPA.

For the third time the UK statistics include retrospective reporting of suffering. Rather than just submitting licence proposals to the Home Office that include estimated levels of suffering, the researchers now have to report on what was actually seen (using a variety of measures). Unfortunately, the statistics put these in two separate tables (Table 3 and 8). So we have combined them to get severity for all procedures in 2016. We can see most experiments are sub threshold (38%; less than the introduction of a hypodermic needle), non-recovery (4%; the animal never awakes from anaesthesia) or mild (38%), with remainder as moderate (16%), or severe (3.9%) Overall the proportion of moderate and severe rose from 18.2% in 2015 to 19.9% in 2015 (though numbers in severe category fell). Also of note in the severity data is the rising proportion of sub-threshold experiments in the creation/breeding of genetically modified animals from 45% in 2014, to 55% in 2015, to 65% in 2016, suggesting improving methods.

CC-BY: Speakingofresearch.com

Severity of animal research in the UK in 2016

Other things to note in the UK statistics:

  • 48.6% of procedures were for the creation and breeding of genetically altered animals (not used in other experiments), 28.5% were for basic research, 13.5% was for regulatory purposes and 8.6% was translational/applied research [Table 1]
  • Over the experimental procedures, 64% of the “severe” experimental procedures were conducted on mice for regulatory purposes. This is often because death is an endpoint in such procedures [Table 3.1]
  • Over 97% of the animals were born in the UK [Table 2.1]
  • 49.2% of procedures were conducted in universities and medical schools, 25.3% were in commercial organisations (e.g. pharmaceuticals), 13.2% were done at non-profit making organisations (e.g. medical research charities), and 12.2% were done at other public bodies. [Table 11]

Speaking of Research congratulate the UK government on continuing to produce the most comprehensive statistics on animal experiments worldwide. It is also important to note that these statistics are released as a press conference each year where representatives from the scientific community speak about the importance of animals in research.

For animal research statistics of countries around the world please see our statistics page.

Source of UK Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2016

See previous years’ reports:

Speaking of Research

Asthma and Animal Research: A Public Health Perspective

As a public health researcher with a focus on behavior change and complex interventions, I am more interested in studying how to get children to adhere to their asthma medication regimen rather than the mechanisms of inflammatory asthma. I am currently studying the risk factors associated with asthma attacks in children, which include among others, sub-optimal medication use, poverty, and access to healthcare. The aim of this research is to understand what risk factors for severe exacerbations – such as asthma attacks that send children to the emergency room – exist, thereby enabling healthcare and public health professionals to mitigate the risks of these ‘at-risk’ children.

My interests have nearly always been in applied in nature, however I understand that basic research underpins everything thing that we do in public health. Animal research is foundational to what we do as public health professionals. Without animal research, we would not be able to mitigate the risk factors these children have as we would not have the asthma medications we do today.

It seems that the sphere of public health shies away from discussing and supporting animal research; I’ve had colleagues tell me to be careful of talking too openly about my experiences in animal research outreach, for fear of alienating others – and potentially hindering my career. However, I strongly believe that public health professionals should be more open to discussing and supporting animal research. It is imperative to the continuation of both public health research and its application.

To illustrate this point, let’s use asthma as an example. The most effective medications for managing asthma are aptly named preventer and reliever medications. Preventer medications contain glucocorticosteriods and they work to prevent symptoms by reducing swelling, sensitivity, and inflammation in the airways. On the other hand, Reliever medications, or bronchodilators, work to open the airways and rapidly relieve symptoms.

Animal research has played an important role in the discovery of both glucocorticosteriods and bronchodilators. Glucocorticosteriods were developed using mouse models and the derived biomedical pathways. Bronchodilators were developed the 1960s, as a result of Otto Loewi’s research on adrenaline and other neurotransmitters.  Loewi used two beating frog hearts, aligned near each other, to demonstrated that slowing the pulse of the one heart and then circulating that perfusate through the other heart that it caused the other unaltered heart to also slow. He found that the same was true when he repeated the experiment, this time increasing the heart rate. This discovery proved that nerve cell communication is chemical rather than electrical, which led to the discovery of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, and provided the foundation for future neurotransmitter research.

Glucocorticosteroids were developed using mouse models.

In relation to asthma, bronchodilators (beta2 agonists in particular) mimic the sympathetic nervous system discovered through Loewi’s famous experiment and allow health professionals to synthetically relieve the symptoms of asthma. Other studies using mice models have also elucidated the biomolecular mechanisms of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma. Without Loewi’s initial experiment relying animal animal research, we would not be able to treat asthma as well as we do today. Without animal research, asthma management would likely rely on alternative medications that offer little in the way in relief; without effective treatment applied asthma research would focus only on prevention.

One of the reasons I was drawn towards public health and applied research was the focus on environmental, cultural, and large system-level factors that influence health, but this can come at the expense of ignoring the wealth of basic research that allows us to study these upper-level factors. When we forget the foundational work that lets us pursue our passions, everyone suffers. Public health professionals, at the very least, need to acknowledge–if not actively advocate for—the value animal research has in improving the health of the broader public and  should actively advocate for.

In writing this post, I had to research on how asthma medications came into being. Skimming through the biomedical literature was daunting (and confusing at times), but there are great resources already created to help clarify points for the those less familiar with biomedical research, such as myself – Understanding Animal Research, Animal Research.Info, and this website, Speaking of Research are great resources. I encourage public health professionals to educate themselves in how animal research allows them to do the work they do today. Then share that knowledge, – be that over Twitter, a blog, an email to colleagues, the options are endless. Support well-evidenced and humane animal research, because our work depends on it.

Audrey Buelo, M.P.H.

How animal enclosures are designed to meet the needs of laboratory animals

Having worked in animal research for over 14 years now I have not only gained a comprehensive knowledge of the requirements for animals used in research but have also seen significant improvements in this field. Currently, I work at King’s College London as a Site Manager where I oversee three animal units.

The role of an animal technologist varies dependent on experience but all are there to provide the best possible life to animals in research. Trainee animal technologists will often perform general husbandry duties such as cleaning cages, feeding, and watering, whereas senior technologists may be involved in colony management, scientific procedures etc.

During my career, and the many tours of research labs I’ve given, one of the common discussion is the type of cages used and how they vary so much between species.

Requirements for housing research animals in the UK are stipulated by Home Office and Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 as well as any additional institutional requirements beyond this law. Providing the correct type of environment is essential for species to exhibit their natural behaviour.

Example of UK minimum cage sizing for M. mulatta

Housing requirements vary between species but here are some examples of why cages are designed in such a way:

Primates

Primate caging is typically tall as this enables the animals to feel more secure, as in the wild they would use the trees to climb high and get away from prey. Providing higher cages also allows for a more complex environment. Bars are often horizontal to allow the animal to climb the cage and maximise this as much as possible. Cages are normally made out of steel to ensure the animals are safely contained and also withstand potential damage in what are often a strong and intelligent species.

Cages are often multi-tiered to allow primates better utilisation of cage height and enable primates to get away from each other when necessary.  Environmental enrichment such as mirrors and perches provide further security to primates.

Primates are socially housed in multi-tier caging. The perches allow the primates to watch what is going on around the room.

Rodents

Rodents have much smaller cages which are normally made up of a plastic, such as polysulfone. These plastics can withstand high temperatures during cleaning and have been shown to last a long time. Traditionally, animals were kept in open top caging but in recent years there has been a movement towards individually ventilated cages (IVCs). IVCs provide a more stable environment by having sealed caging and using air handling units for filtration; this has, in turn, provided a better environment for animal welfare and research. Controlling for the environment can both help control experimental variables, and prevent risks to animal health from external pathogens.

While the caging appears to be relatively small for rodents it is designed around the need of the animals. Rodents are often social species and in some cases larger spaces can cause anxiety due predator/prey relationships.

Environmental enrichment is used to encourage natural nesting behaviours which can be seen in the wild. In recent years red boxes have been implemented in some cages, humans can see through these but animals don’t see through this colour in the same way, therefore this allows better monitoring while making animals feel safe and secure.

Individually Ventilated Cages

Rabbits

Rabbits are often housed in floor pens as this provides space to exercise and express their social behaviour. Rabbits which are kept grouped housed tend to show less stereotypic behaviour and greater activity. Previously, rabbits were predominantly housed in single cages which caused more stress to the animals.  Enclosures are normally made up of wood frame with metal bars or completely metal frame with very small holes to prevent animals escaping.

Environmental enrichment such as cardboard boxes, hay/straw and raised areas can also provide more security and natural behaviours therefore reducing any abnormal behaviour which may be seen otherwise.  As albino rabbits are often used in research, boxes also provide a darker place to prevent damage to the retina of the eye.

Final thoughts

As humans we often believe that larger housing is better, just look at people who often want a huge home, but this doesn’t mean that an animal will be comfortable with this. The key is to tailor this to each species/individual’s needs for the highest welfare standards. Animals which naturally live in holes, or nests, often feel comfortable with less space compared with other animals. Other additions to accommodation such as environmental enrichment can enable expression of natural behaviour further and have significantly increased in recent years, no more barren cages!

In my 14+ years working with research animals, I have seen a huge amount of change. Improvements in caging and enrichment benefit not only the animals, but the pursuit of good science as well, and we should welcome it. I am also a strong believer that this has also improved the morale of staff, after all we all want the best for animal welfare which in turn will lead to good science.

Stephen Woodley

Animal Research in South Korea in 2016

In February 2017 the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (APQA) of South Korea released its animal research numbers for 2016. We spoke to the Animal Protection & Welfare Division and have been able to get a translated copy of these figures. The tables below were produced by the APQA, and we thank Dr Lee for providing these figures.

In 2016, South Korea used 2,878,907 animals in research, up 14.8% from the previous year.

Animal research in South Korea for 2016 by species

Rodents, fish and birds accounted for over 97% of animals used in research – similar to figures found in Europe. Most of the rise in animal experiments came from an increase in rodents (+19.5%), though numbers for fish (+15.2%) and birds (+60.7%) also contributed. There were falls in several categories, including primate experiments, which fell 18.8%.

Severity of animal experiments in South Korea

South Korea also produced severity statistics, similar to those in Europe. 2.6% of research showed no harm to the animal, 28.4% was mild, 35.5% was moderate and was 33.4% severe.We are unclear if these categorizations are based on pre-experiment licenses (what the researcher believed the severity would be) or post-experiment evaluation (what the researcher saw the severity to be).

Trends in South Korean animal experiments 2008-2016

The number of animals used in research has risen sharply over the last nine years, up 279% over the period, rising at a fairly steady rate of over 250,000 animals per year. To see why, take a look at a graph, produced by Nature, on the growth of R&D in South Korea over the same period.

The huge rise in spending on basic and applied research means that animal experiments were likely to rise (and did) over the same period. In 2013, South Korea had more researchers per thousand people in employment (12.84) than Japan (10.19), the USA  (8.81) or Germany (8.54). Medical and health sciences were the largest discipline (by publications) in South Korea (see Nature article).

If you know of any animal research statistics not on our list, please contact us.

Open letter: Private workshop on the “necessity” of monkey research does not represent broad public interests or the scientific community

This weekend there will be science marches around the globe. Scientists and science proponents will gather to provide a visible sign of support for work that benefits the public, the environment, and the world in innumerable ways. The march has been highly publicized  – rightfully so, because it serves as a reminder that scientific research and scientists can be threatened in a variety of ways that can have consequences with breadth and depth that should be of concern for society as a whole.

This week there will also be another event that has potential for consequences for science and public health. But it is neither a public event, nor one that has been publicized.

The private event is a workshop titled, “The necessity of the use of non-human primate models in research.” The workshop is supported by Johns Hopkins University and is organized by Prof. Jeff Kahn in the Berman Institute for Bioethics, with participants that include philosophers, bioethicists, a leader of the Humane Society of the US, veterinarians, and scientists– all by invitation only (see roster in workshop agenda below). Its stated goals and approach are: “To help address the issues of the use of NHPs in research, we are convening this working group to examine the science, ethics, and policy aspects of the use of NHPs in biomedical and behavioral research and testing, with the goal of identifying consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The focus of the working group will be to evaluate the current and potential future uses of NHP models, drawing on the approach used in the 2011 IOM Report “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity” (IOM, 2011).

The group lists as their objective: “The product(s) of the working group process will be a report or series of reports based on the working group’s expert analysis, which will include principles and criteria for assessing the necessity of the use of NHPs in research.” (emphasis added)

Detail is here: Animal Working Group Meeting 1 Briefing Book

In other words, the working group, privately convened, is intent on replicating the 2011 IOM process applied to chimpanzees in order to produce their own principles and criteria for assessing nonhuman primate research broadly. This process should cause grave concern for scientists and for the public who rely on research conducted with nonhuman primates.

The scientific community has publicly weighed in on the necessity of primate research. Most recently, the National Institutes of Health convened a working group to consider nonhuman primate research and concluded “that the oversight framework for the use of non-human primates in research is robust and has provided sufficient protections to date.” Similarly, a letter from over 400 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, rejected a claim from notable public figures that neuroscience research with non-human primates is no longer useful. The hundreds of scientists argued that, “primate research was still critical for developing treatments for dementia and other debilitating illnesses.” (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/13/brain-experiments-on-primates-are-crucial-say-eminent-scientists)

Consideration of the ethical justification for research and of the care for animals in research occurs at many levels and in public space. Public health, including the interests of patients and of society as a whole, is integral to those decisions. The scientific community provides expert knowledge about what types of studies are needed for progress in the basic understanding of biology, brain, behavior, and disease and also about how to move forward with new prevention, intervention, and treatment to address health challenges. Funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, are charged by the public to make decisions about science and do so through a process that involves multiple layers of expert review. Federal agencies also oversee research and standards of care for humans and animals involved in studies and provide opportunities for the public to comment on standards and to benefit from decisions.

The private workshop has the appearance of being secretive while also directly opposing the processes in place for responsible public decision-making. As such, it appears to be yet another attempt to influence decisions about science without adequately representing either public interests or the breadth and depth of expertise in the scientific community. Without adequate scientific representation the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as adequately representative of the current state of scientific knowledge. Without adequate representation of the public agencies that safeguard societal interests in scientific and medical progress the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as representative of fact-informed, balanced consideration of research.

Finally, without consideration informed by understanding the fundamental characteristics of the scientific process, the workshop conclusions will only reflect an agenda biased to reach a particular conclusion. As it is framed, it appears that the question of “necessity” is one that cannot account well for the role of basic research, of uncertainty, and of the difference between decisions based in a particular set of values and decisions about the best scientific course of action to answer questions and advance understanding of human and animal health.

For all of these reasons, the reports emanating from this private workshop must be critically examined with healthy skepticism, rather than taken as an authoritative account. We remain concerned that the products of a workshop will serve to advance an agenda that is harmful to public interests in scientific research.

[Note:  If you would like to sign on to this letter please add your name to the comments].

Signatories,

Christian Abee, DVM, DACLAM, Professor and Director, Michale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, Univ. of TX MD Anderson Cancer Center

Jeremy D. Bailoo, PhD, University of Bern

Allyson J. Bennett, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Member and former chair, American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research Ethics)

Michael J. Beran, PhD, Psychology Department and Language Research Center, Georgia State University

James Champion, Morehouse School of Medicine

Julia A. Chester, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University

Linda C. Cork, D.V.M, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University  (Senior member of the National Academy of Medicine;  Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists)

Robert Desimone, Ph.D., Director, McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience

Doris Doudet, PhD, University of British Columbia

Marina Emborg, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Medical Physics; Director, Preclinical Parkinson’s Research Program, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Lynn Fairbanks, PhD, Emeritus professor, Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute, UCLA

Charles P. France, Ph.D., Professor, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio

Patrice A. Frost, D.V.M, President of, and signing on behalf of, the Association of Primate Veterinarians

Michael  E. Goldberg, MD,  David Mahoney Professor of  Brain and Behavior in the Departments of Neuroscience, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Ophthalmology
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons,  and Senior Attending Neurologist, New York Presbyterian Hospital. (Past chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

Katalin M. Gothard, MD, PhD, Professor of Physiology, The University of Arizona

Kathleen A. Grant, PhD, Professor, Oregon National Primate Research Center

Sherril Green, DVM, PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford Medicine

Nancy L. Haigwood, PhD, Director and Professor, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University

Keren Haroush, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University

William D. Hopkins, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience, Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University

J.David Jentsch, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University

R. Paul Johnson, MD, Director, Yerkes National Primate Research Center

Joseph W. Kemnitz, Ph.D., Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Robert E. Lanford, PhD, Director, Southwest National Primate Research Center, Texas Biomedical Research Institute

Kirk Leech, Executive Director, European Animal Research Association

Jon Levine, PhD, Director, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center; Professor of Neuroscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Alexander Maier, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University

Juan Carlos Marvizon, PhD, Adjunct Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Earl K. Miller, Ph.D., Picower Professor of Neuroscience, The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John H. Morrison, PhD, Director, California National Primate Research Center, Professor, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of California Davis

Michael Mustari, PhD, Director, Washington National Primate Research Center and Research Professor, Department of Biological Structure, University of Washington

J. Anthony Movshon, University Professor and Silver Professor, Center for Neural Science, New York University

William T. Newsome, Harman Family Provostial Professor, Stanford University, Vincent V.C. Woo Director, Stanford Neurosciences Institute
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Melinda Novak, PhD, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Kimberley A. Phillips, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of Neuroscience, Trinity University; Affiliate Scientist, Southwest National Primate Research Center, Texas Biomedical Research Institute

Peter J. Pierre, PhD, Behavioral Services Unit Head, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dario Ringach, PhD, Professor of Neurobiology and Psychology, University of California Los Angeles

Marcello Rosa, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

James Rowlett, PhD, University of Mississippi Medical Center (Chair, American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research Ethics)

Mar Sanchez, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine; Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University (Chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

Jeffrey D. Schall, Ph.D., Bronson Ingram Professor of Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Director, Center for Integrative & Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University

Igor I. Slukvin, MD, PhD, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

David A. Washburn, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Georgia State University

Robert Wurtz, PhD, Scientist Emeritus, National Institutes of Health