When I first saw the story in The Sun ‘Rabbit flu was revenge’ I thought it must be a sick joke. For a start, I’d heard of bird flu but not rabbit flu. But I checked and found the sad news on BBC Online that a young farmer had indeed died from so-called rabbit flu (caused by a bacterium called Pasteurella multocida) earlier this month. The sick twist to this story is that, according to today’s Sun report, animal rights extremists have been tormenting the young man’s distressed parents with phone calls telling them his death was ‘the rabbit’s revenge’ (they claimed he’d been culling rabbits). How low can they go?

The disease, also known as pasteurellosis, is apparently common in cats and dogs, but it is quite uncommon for it to pass to humans (about 400 cases a year recorded in the UK). According to the Health Protection Agency it is treatable with antibiotics and fatalities are extremely rare. In this case it developed into a fatal septicaemia. I assume the young farmer, John Freeman, did not get the antibiotics that would have saved him, or was treated too late. Ironic really, considering that all antibiotics, from streptomycin and penicillin onwards, have been developed and tested using animals.

It’s quaintly predictable that the rent-a-quotes at PETA should try to make a story out of an artistic display where a naked woman cuddles a pig!

Yes it is true, remember it is the silly season and PETA combines a lack of a sense of humour and perspective with the arrogance of assumed expertise in mental health:

This seems to be a desperate cry for help that merits visits from mental health counsellors, not voyeurs

The funny part is the field day for headline writers: Sun (Pig sick over dead porker), Mirror (ART..OR PIG SICK). The Mail predictably focused on how it was funded by taxpayers, and the US Media swallowed the PETA line.

However dig deeper, and it is apparent that this story is an own goal for PETA. It is actually a story about replacement alternatives to animals - I kid you not!

The artists funding for this project came from the Wellcome Trust SciArt initiative. working on tissue culture of human cells. You can see more details, and an even a video here.

But we always knew publicity was PETA’s objective, not real progress in animal welfare.

I was sad to learn of the death of Professor William ‘Bill’ Russell three weeks ago. He was co-inventor with the late Rex Burch of the Three Rs - Reduction, Refinement, Replacement - the guiding principles of animal research today. I hardly knew him, but I do remember him bursting into song while giving talks to large and distinguished audiences. He was clearly a polymath and a fascinating man.

The three Rs are a lasting legacy, with many welfare awards and even a building in the names of Russell and Burch, and of course there is now a National Centre for the Three Rs.

There’s a delightful obituary of this delightful man in The Guardian today by Caroline Richmond. She sums up the ‘musical polymath and promoter of laboratory animal welfare’ thus:

a funny and erudite polymath who wrote science fiction novels, introduced the concept of replacement, refinement and reduction - the 3Rs - into animal research, and had successful careers as a psychoanalyst, zoologist, agronomist and sociologist. His wide ranging knowledge and capacity to set almost anything he was going to say to a Gilbert and Sullivan tune made him immensely popular and earned him a place on BBC Radio’s Round Britain Quiz for several years.

I realised reading his obituary just how much I didn’t know about Bill Russell.

Brendan O’Neill has written an incisive and mostly thoughtful article about animal rights extremism in spiked-online. He points out, rightly, that the bunch of thugs and morons who carry out direct action in the name of animal rights are far from genuine terrorists.

There is much in this article that we would agree with. The fear of animal rights extremism has induced a paralysis in the scientific community that goes well beyond the reality of the threat. There is simply no way that a handful of extremists can target all the hundreds of institutions and thousands of people involved in animal research in the UK at once. If we all spoke out together, we could drown out the tacit support the extremists get from the antivivisectionists, through their distorted and misleading accounts of animal research. This would accelerate the marginalisation of both antivivisectionist activists and extremists.

Exactly one-month after a new animal rights organisation - VERO - was founded to oppose the building of the new research centre at Oxford University, they have achieved precisely nothing.

Sure, to her credit, the founder of the group, Sharon Howe, managed to blurt out on Newsnight her personal view that animal research doesn’t work. When the day comes that we all believe that a student of modern languages knows more about medical science than the overwhelming majority of researchers and doctors throughout the world, then VERO really will have achieved something.

Apart from being heavily promoted by unpleasant organisations like the Animal Liberation Front, a quick internet search demonstrates that VERO has gained little in the way of profile or new followers. The fact that they have had to rope in such ageing antivivisectionists as the long discredited animal rights philosopher Richard Ryder, indicates once again that there is little new blood entering the movement. Likewise MEP Caroline Lucas, whose scientific credentials would put her in the flat earth brigade, is as predictable a member as ever.

We applaud Oxford University for completely ignoring this bunch of assorted animal-rights campaigners. Keep going VERO. You are doing a great job at exposing the paucity of arguments from the animal rights front.

Some might argue that comparing numbers of animals used in different ways by our society is at best meaningless and at worst invidious - the ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ argument. But I had to highlight the figure just released by the Dogs Trust (better known as the former National Canine Defence League). It turns out that last year in the UK more stray dogs were put down because they couldn’t be homed (7,743) than were used in research (7,670). A staggering total of 101,586 stray dogs were found.

My question for those animal rights activists who would say ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’: why don’t you campaign for more responsible pet ownership and leave valuable medical research alone? Or, as the vegetarian vivisector hinted this week, campaign against butchers, abattoirs and meat eaters? The potential number of animal lives to be saved if we all turned veggie in the UK is 100 million.

One of the defining images of the first Pro-Test rally in Oxford was of the banner ‘Vegetarians against the Animal Liberation Front’. Whilst we might automatically assume that vegetarians side with antivivisectionists, it seems that the unpleasant tactics of the animal rights extremists and the misinformation from the antivivisection groups is enough to put anyone off their cause.

Having failed to win the moral arguments against animal research, the antivivisection groups are increasingly concentrating on trying to undermine the science. But they must have failed to take into account the ultimate antidote to their propaganda - the vegetarian pro-vivisection scientist. Read her story on The Guardian blog. It’s compelling. 

The RDS blog regularly exposes bad science, and unwarranted extrapolation from the facts, from those opposed to animal research (eg Pseudoscientist shows true colours).

But we should also expose bad science from those who know better, such as the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of the European Food Safety Authority. Its report Opinion of the Scientific Panel AHAW related to the aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes has been reviewed by the Royal Society who have highlighted how statements to decide policy on animal experimentation should not include classics such as

Spiders may be clever but we don’t know ...

Proposals to protect prawns as we protect monkeys ...

We need good animal welfare science for good policy making. The EU should throw out the EFSA report, if only to maintain its own credibility.

I blogged before (Lies, damn lies and statistics) about the misleadingly named antivivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress and its equally misleading claims of support from 83% of GPs. This claim comes from a survey conducted in August 2004. One of the odd conclusions that EMP draws from it is:

The clinical relevance of animal research requires urgent evaluation - a fact now accepted amongst the medical profession ...

So there could be no doubt about it, EMP headlined its press release ‘Doctors fear animal experiments endanger patients’

EMP’s sister organisation AFMA has posted the complete survey in raw data form. It tells a rather different story, of leading questions and omission of results that were clearlyinconvenient for EMP/AFMA. We have an astute member of the discussion forum Oxford Gossip to thank for drawing this astounding spin to our attention. Another member of Oxford Gossip helpfully analyses the questions and concludes:

It’s a simple fact that every single day of their working lives, GPs will be treating patients in one way or another using findings from animal research. I’ve taught hundreds of medical students in both Oxford and London for over 15 years, my parents are medics, my father in law and sister in law are medics, I’ve yet to encounter a single one who doesn’t appreciate the value of animal based research. Where on earth did they find these GPs?

OK, so this is anecdotal. But, particularly in the light of another omission by EMP/AFMA, very credible. EMP/AFMA commissioned the survey company TNS Healthcare to carry out the poll of GPs. TNS subsequently dissociated itself from EMP/AFMA’s analysis of the results in no uncertain terms:

The conclusions drawn from this research by AFMA are wholly unsupported by TNS and any research findings or comment published by AFMA is not TNS approved.

TNS did not provide any interpretation of the data to the client
TNS did not give permission to the client to publish our data
The data does not support the interpretation made by the client (which in our opinion exaggerates anything that may be found from the data)

TNS Healthcare reactive statement, September 2004

‘Is it the end of an era?’ asks an article from this week’s Economist, pointing out that campaigners for animal rights are losing their long war against scientific experimentation on animals.

Well not for one person. More like deja-vu. We reported back in April on the surprise departure of the Chief Executive of the largest antivivisection group in the UK - the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). Now the BUAV has made the even more surprising announcement that they are re-appointing their former Chief Executive, Michelle Thew, back to the same position.

It’s an interesting decision because Michelle is certainly articulate. She was one of the few antivivisectionists in the UK who could cobble together an argument against the use of animals in research that started to sound faintly plausible, even though it was based on the usual deception and misinformation about the medical benefits of such research. But perhaps it also indicates that there is little new blood coming through the antivivisection movement, which is so discredited that it is unlikely to attract people of any significant calibre.

Michelle presided over the early days of the declining influence of the antivivisectionists. But since she left for sunnier climes, things have only deteriorated further. This is recognised by the BUAV in their press release, which explains how the organisation must address the ‘increasingly pro-animal experimentation political environment’.

So welcome back Michelle. We hope you enjoyed the Economist article! And we are glad to see that the BUAV can at last find something to get excited about again. We doubt it will be for long.

One small example of how you can’t trust anything the antivivisection or animal rights groups say. Well, not so small, it relates to nearly 42,000 animal experiments. Animal Aid claimed in a recent press release criticising the rise in UK animal research last year:

The number of experiments involving genetically modified animals has risen by 43,428. Almost 42,000 of these were on undeclared species of animals.

Now the second part had me scratching my head. Sadly, I’m all too familiar with the annual statistics on animal procedures, which run to about 90 pages and over 30 detailed tables of figures, four appendices, explanatory notes, etc, etc. It seemed highly unlikely that 40,000 procedures on genetically modified animals could be on ‘undeclared species of animals’.

I started going through the tables. Table 3 (which runs to three pages) and table 3.1 give all the detail. Most of the GM and mutant animals are mice (92%), followed by fish, rats, amphibia and fowl. Oh, and three sheep. No undeclared species there. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 also relate to GM animals. Again, all species declared.

Then I went back to table 2.2 which details the somewhat technical sounding ‘Scientific procedures by Schedule 2 listed species and source of animals (genetically modified animals)’. Schedule 2 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 lists those species that must be obtained from designated breeding or supplying establishments (which is most of them), unless a specific exemption is granted.

And there it was, just above the bottom line, ‘animals not listed in Schedule 2’, on which there were 41,758 procedures.

The mystery was soon solved. Just below, a footnote stated:

The ‘animals not listed in Schedule 2’ here were 300 domestic fowl, 3,067 amphibia and 38,391 fish

Which were of course listed in tables 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and others.

The annual statistics are not the most user-friendly publications, but they are freely available and groups like Animal Aid should take care to examine them thoroughly before making such specious claims.

The Wellcome Trust has produced a booklet Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action that will be of interest to anyone interested in science communications, or, as we should call it these days, ‘science in society’, ‘engagement’ or ‘dialogue’. The 13 essays include one by the RDS Chair, Professor Nancy Rothwell, called Public engagement on the use of animals in biomedical research.

Nancy says that ‘just a few facts can instantly dispel myths’ - the much maligned ‘deficit model’ of science communications does have a place. She also argues - and this may surprise some - ‘that any scientist who is not passionate and concerned about animal welfare should never undertake research on animals’.

I think this paragraph provides particularly good advice for would-be communicators:

Scientists need to identify clearly their role in discussions on animal research. Given the intensity of the debate, it is easy to step onto the defensive and assume that the scientific community’s job is to persuade ‘the public’ of the value of using animals. There is a danger of assuming such a role. Science will benefit much more if its protagonists explore the need and value, and confront the concerns and sensitivities about the use of animals. It is particularly important to acknowledge publicly that animals used in research can and do suffer sometimes, and the moral issues that this raises.

Nancy concludes:

Animal research remains one of the most difficult areas of public engagement, and one that many scientists are still reluctant to embrace. However, it also provides a fascinating case study where public opinion has shifted, where any adverse effects on the scientists who speak out are extremely rare, and where openness is gradually increasing. As such, it is an example of the remarkable influence of the benefits of public engagement in one of the most difficult areas of biomedical research.

Today sees another ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority, this time against the National Anti Vivisection Society.  A leaflet distributed by NAVS claimed that ‘laboratory animals suffer terribly at every stage of their lives’; a statement to which RDS strongly objected, since some animals are often used solely for breeding, as control groups, or purely for observation.  In addition, the UK has world-renowned animal welfare standards.

On this occasion NAVS did not even respond to the ASA’s request for information.  Since NAVS has not adhered to previous rulings (see Behind the times), there is no reason to suppose that it will abide by this latest one.

Incredibly, NAVS is blaming the ASA for its own lack of response!  When approached by The Guardian, NAVS’ Chief Exec Jan Creamer said that the group had had no contact from the ASA:

‘We contacted them yesterday and said what is this all about and they said they had sent us a fax,’ she said.  ‘They’d never received a response so they left it at that.’

‘We exhaust as many avenues as we can to give a fair hearing to the advertiser,’ said an ASA spokesman.  ‘If they don’t respond, we still have to make a ruling.’
Guardian, 26th July 2006, Anti-vivisection claims on suffering were misleading, says advertising authority

I find Creamer’s comments hard to believe.  RDS has had quite a few dealings with the ASA over the years and in our experience it’s very good at communicating – usually by letter, but also the occasional phone call; and it isn’t shy about asking for more info or clarification.  ‘Left it at that’ also doesn’t quite tally with what NAVS has written on its website:

RDS is obviously opposed to any form of cruelty at any time of the year. But this week is special. This week is supposedly ‘National Cruelty-Free Week’.

The largest antivivisection group in the country, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, is entitled to run any sort of week it wishes. After all, it is opposed to all use of animals in scientific research, even where there are clear medical benefits.

But what about the other organisations involved? The Co-op claims on its website to be the only supermarket with BUAV accredited own-label ranges of cruelty free products.

But at the same time, the Co-op boasts of being the fourth largest pharmacy operator with more than 360 branches to its name. This webpage shows a child using an asthmatic inhaler and a picture of what would appear to be a laboratory environment.

This is surely confusing. The Co-op is more than happy to advertise BUAV. But then has numerous pharmacy stores with shelves stacked with all medications developed and tested on animals and shows a picture of a child using an inhaler that was developed with the help of animal research. Double standards by the Co-op? We wonder. Time for a letter to customer relations we think!

The animal rights group Animal Aid has always stressed that it campaigns peacefully. At one time this extended to a policy of not employing anyone with animal rights related criminal convictions. Has this now changed, or is this just another example of animal rights hypocrisy?

I was interested to read about one Kate Fowler, featured in The Guardian G2 ‘ethical living’ column on Tuesday 18 July. She says she works for Animal Aid. As The Guardian itself reported six years ago, Ms Fowler was convicted of conspiracy to commit violent disorder after being involved in a hunt-related incident in which police officers were overpowered by masked individuals, and a house where a pregnant woman and her 15 month old daughter were living was attacked. 

So quite apart from holding up a violent criminal as a role model, Animal Aid has questions to answer on its apparently squeaky clean employment policy. How about it, Animal Aid?

And another thing. The nice Ms Fowler says:  ‘We have achieved a lot in the last few years - the fur ban, the ban on battery cages, the voluntary cosmetics ban - but it can never be enough and never fast enough.’ She obviously doesn’t know, or has chosen to forget, that it was RDS who helped achieve the cosmetics ban.