After a period of dominating the headlines, news on the bird flu front has been quiet for the last few months. However, this hasn’t signalled a corresponding hiatus in efforts to combat and deal with a future H5N1 outbreak.

Scientists and researchers have been diligently working away from the media glare, and it seems to have paid off. Antibodies isolated from the blood of Vietnamese survivors may simultaneously offer protection against several strains.  This is great news since no one can be sure how effective current vaccinations and drugs such as Tamiflu (designed for ‘traditional’, less virulent strains), would be against bird flu.

The antibodies have already proven effective in the lab and in mice, and the researchers are confident that they could be used in humans. The antibodies could be used to protect key workers, such as nurses and doctors, in countries where a bird flu epidemic strikes. The researchers say it could also be used as an emergency antidote in people who have already been infected with bird flu – if administered within a few days.

Human trials will hopefully happen soon; watch this space.

BBC online, Scientists find bird flu antibody, 29th May 2007

A series of articles in the Times Higher Educational Supplement has highlighted once again the debate about animal experiments at universities, and perceptions of secrecy surrounding the issue.

Last week, Michelle Thew, Director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) accused universities of ‘stonewalling as part of a cynical attempt by some researchers to control the public debate about animal experiments’. She claimed that the problem of animal rights extremism has been grossly exaggerated by the media, and that safeguards are in place to protect the identity of researchers.

This is deeply disingenuous. The modern tactics of the animal rights extremists are to target institutions like universities based on the type of research going on there. It is well known that many of the extremists are completely obsessed with primate research. Individuals only become at risk after the extremists have decided on their next target. Michelle Thew, who recently claimed that there are only ‘one or two’ extremists, is completely out of touch. It is easy for her to criticise when it is not her getting bricks through windows at night.

A far more sensible approach was outlined in this week’s Times Higher, that universities should take cautious but proactive steps to be more open about animal research. It is, after all, an essential part of medical research to improve the health of the nation.

The government has made enormous progress in the past two years in tackling animal rights extremism. There are tough new laws to crack down on harassment and criminal damage, and a hugely improved police operation has succeeded in bringing many extremists to justice. As a result, it is time to take a fresh look at the benefits of communicating the important role of animal research. And many universities are already doing so.

RDS applauds those researchers and universities who have decided that the time has come to counter the misinformation and propaganda from the animal rights movement. We will give all the help we can to this vital endeavour.

The Sainsbury’s Eco bag created controversy; were its green credentials marred by unethical sourcing?

This is not the only example. The Co-op plastic carrier bags carry this text:

We don’t test our toiletries or household products on animals
Independently reviewed by BVAV www.buav.org
FOOD SAFETY Refrigerate all chilled foods…
SAFETY FIRST To avoid danger to children....

The Co-op does have a clear policy on such use of animals, and this is a worthy aspiration. However just as with Sainsbury’s bag it seems to me there is at best muddle, or at worst a touch of hyposcrisy. The Co-op sells medicines tested on animals, but in fairness it does not make a not tested on animals claim here. But for food safety, and safety at home, animal testing has and does protect the environment, protect our food, and protect our children.

Around thirty people have been arrested today for alleged offences relating to animal rights extremism in raids across the UK and mainland Europe. The police say the ‘substantial operation’ targeted burglary, conspiracy to blackmail, and offences against animal research operations.

Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Leppard, who commanded the operation, said: ‘In recent years, animal rights extremists have conducted sustained campaigns of harassment and intimidation against the animal research industry, seeking to achieve their objectives by creating a climate of fear’.

The arrests are a great step forward in the fight against extremists and positive news for the European research community, which has the right to conduct its work without the fear of harassment and intimidation. The arrests in the Netherlands and Belgium show that the law enforcement agencies are increasingly successful in co-operating on an international level too. This has become necessary since animal rights fanatics widened their range of activities to mainland Europe. Today’s police action was successful and much evidence should have been secured that will aid in prosecution.

Whilst not every arrest leads to a successful prosecution, we hope this is a major step in bringing animal rights extremists to justice.

EMP is peddling yet more erroneous pseudoscience(1), and Tony Benn is fronting their latest drivel.

Benn is a long-time advocate of animal rights and abolishing animal research, but he has more reason than your average joe to be grateful for research involving animals – he had a pacemaker fitted in 2005.

Pacemakers have depended quite heavily on animal research. In the 1950s animal studies demonstrated the restoration of heart rate, cardiac output and mean aortic pressures with complete heart block through the use of a myocardial electrode. The first pacemakers (1950) were crude, painful and powered from an AC wall socket; a potential hazard of electrocution of the patient by inducing ventricular fibrillation. However, by 1957 control of post-surgical heart block was a significant contribution to decreasing mortality of open heart surgery. Further animal research led to the development of implantable pacemakers (1960), leading to Mr Benn’s life-saving treatment.

Now in this democratic society I respect Mr Benn’s right to disagree with animal research, but I certainly don’t respect hypocrisy.

--------------------------------
(1) a film about medicines – I’ve been told it’s deathly dull as well as riddled with pseudoscientific inaccuracies, but have been put off so thoroughly by the press release (where they say "Watch this film for an insight into just how far scientific methods have come since thalidomide" – a strange comment since one of the main ways scientific methods progressed was increasing the rigour of animal testing and legislative requirements that would have averted the thalidomide tragedy) that I just haven’t been able to bring myself to sit through it yet… I’ll report back next week on what I think.

Tomorrow the antivivisectionists are gathering in Strasbourg to issue yet another declaration on the use of monkeys in research.

Of course it’s UK activists (it was ever thus) in the form of NAVS and its ‘youth’ wing Animal Defenders International who are leading the charge. Their European Parliament Declaration 40/2007 calls for ‘a ban on the use of Great Apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans) and wild-caught primates, together with a commitment for a phase-out of all primate use within the EU.’

This demand is quite moderate – deliberately and stealthily so. 

Last year the animal rights campaign group SPEAK was becoming increasingly frustrated that the debate was not going its way. Typical of postings on its websites from those times was the article pleading IS ANYONE OUT THERE LISTENING?

Well it seems that SPEAK now has some unlikely listeners. On its ‘Site Demo Report’ website posting of 12 April, SPEAK claims that ’the builders of the Oxford torture centre were clearly seen to be stopping their work and listening to SPEAK supporters talking on the megaphone on today’s demo. They listened as the true horrors of what happens inside laboratories was described‘.

So there we have it. After years of campaigning, SPEAK have finally found someone to listen to them. That is progress. We hope they are happy.

A leaflet appeared recently from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) suggesting that the use of animals for toxicity testing is an ‘outdated’ science. This is actually a frequent claim by animal rights groups.

But is it a good argument? Have the antivivisectionists bothered to put any thought into this line of debate, or does it just trip off the tongue like so much else of what they say? After all, we still use wheels after thousands of years. So they can’t surely be suggesting that just because something has been in use for a long time it is automatically obsolete.

The only attempt at justification that BUAV makes is that we don’t still use some technologies from the past. The examples it gives are a typewriter, a large mobile phone, and a single-winged propeller plane. These are not great examples, since we still use aeroplanes, keyboards and small mobile phones. 

If ever there was a distasteful campaign, it is the current publicity that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is seeking in its opposition to the use of animals for research into illegal drug abuse.

The problems of drug abuse may seem very distant to a group concerned solely with animal rights. Yet for those who are affected—directly and indirectly—they can devastate people’s lives. The scornful approach which the BUAV takes in suggesting that ’health consequences of their use are entirely avoidable‘ says more about the mentality of animal rights campaigners than anything else. 

I commented before on the failure of BUAV to get its sums right, here and here.

Under its new leader, things at BUAV seem to have got even worse: I spotted the following howler in the weekend newspapers:

‘200 million animals are used in research and testing worldwide for consumer goods every year,’ according to Michelle Thew of BUAV.

Now, I assume that by consumer goods Ms Thew means non-medical products – this is the theme of the article. In the UK, safety testing of such products accounts for just 4% of all animal procedures, or 120,000 a year (most animals are used in biomedical research, not safety testing). Worldwide estimates for all animal procedures aren’t too reliable, but we have calculated that they are unlikely to add up to more than 50 million a year. Assuming that, like in the UK, 4% of these are for the safety testing of non-medical products ... we get a total of 2 million worldwide.

If they really want to ‘engage in true debate’, BUAV should start by getting its facts straight. But on past performance I doubt we will see it correcting this error any time soon.

The way some people talk about human rights for chimps these days you might think that chimpanzees were identical to humans. A Professor Sommer was quoted in an Observer article recently as claiming that ’it’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria—neither biological, nor mental, nor social‘.

That’s strange. We thought chimpanzees were a different species to humans. That is surely a clear-cut biological difference. And even if there is not, that does not mean chimps are identical to humans. Even on the continuous electromagnetic spectrum there is no clear-cut point at which green becomes blue. But it is still possible to make a distinction between green and blue.

Quite a number of MPs have now signed the first balanced parliamentary motion (EDM) on animal research to go down for many years. This EDM urges all involved to seek reasoned dialogue on this issue.

Perhaps in the spirit of such dialogue, the campaigning organisation known as Naturewatch has just released a review of progress over the last 10 years of animal experimentation called ‘Who will listen’. Whilst the review itself is somewhat disjointed, it is nonetheless an interesting contribution to the debate.

The misuse of science by campaign groups to promote their cause is all around us. But it has not gone unnoticed. Debates about the weight of evidence for or against scientific topics such as climate change, homeopathy or the safety of vaccinations are widespread. See for example the excellent column and blog by Guardian writer Ben Goldacre on ‘bad science’. This week, Goldacre points out that ‘as long as you cherry pick the data and keep one eye half closed, you can prove anything with science’.

But what happens when the objectives of groups campaigning on different themes are in conflict. This is the messy situation highlighted in a recent Political Update from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The Update complains about a Greenpeace commissioned study which has concluded that a strain of genetically modified (GM) maize, approved for sale by the European commission, has shown signs of toxicity in laboratory rats. Greenpeace is claiming that such GM food poses significant health risks, but the BUAV responds that this study demonstrates little more than the supposed limitations of animal tests.

Both parties are guilty of distorting science by simply interpreting evidence as they wish to see it.

An article in IndyMedia (’A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues’) caught my eye:

ARE NETCU WASTING THEIR TIME? Report into political policing

I had to read it several times to get what I think is the gist; that the UK’s national police unit (NETCU) that coordinates control of domestic extremism, including animal rights extremism - and other such police activity around the world - has not stopped protests and attacks.

Well NETCU’s job is not to stop protest, as long as it’s legitmate. The provisions of UK’s Serious and Organised Crime Act that apply to animal right extremism are not there to stop legal protest. The law has to be broken for the Act to be used. As an example see what it covers in this video link.

NETCU’s job is to deal with illegal activities. This IndyMedia article euphemistically calls this

Actions by those who opt to work by night ....

So all this led me to ask what are IndyMedia editorial guidelines. They ‘hide’ posts that include:

Discrimination: posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.

So it seems Indymedia thinks all these -isms are not OK, but it is OK to allow posts that implicity endorse serious intimidation and violence against people involved in biomedical research, as long as posts include, as this one had, statements such as:

Please note that this report is for reading purposes only and was not produced to encourage or incite anyone to break the law

Rigour (honesty and integrity), Respect (for life, the law and the public good) and Responsibility (in communication, listening and informing) are the new three Rs – an ethical code for scientists. For biomedical scientists, we now have six Rs – we are already guided by Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of animals in research.

Sir David King is chief science adviser to the government; his office developed the code and wants to see it widely adopted. He describes the new three Rs as ‘a simple summary of the values that each of us espouses as practising scientists; it should also demonstrate to the public that scientists take ethical issues seriously.’ Yes, nice idea, but what is it really for? It looks like a sticking plaster solution which says ‘I’m a scientist, I’m a really good person, trust me’.

As Sir David himself indicates, the vast majority of scientists already adhere to such principles without the need for a formal code of ethics. So the real driver of this initiative seems to be a perception of ‘the public’ as anti-science. If this is true, it will take more than a government-inspired code of ethics to engender greater support for science and scientists.

Maybe the code is not intended to promote public interest and debate. Sir David said in Guardian Education yesterday that it should simply be ‘embedded in schools and universities as soon as possible.’ He concludes ‘The public has great aspirations for scientists. We have a responsibility to them [the public or the scientists?], and we must not let them down. I therefore urge all scientists to adopt and help promote the code.’

If only the code could be embedded in antivivisection groups - rigour, respect and responsibility seem to be foreign concepts to them.