Today’s news about the targeting of GSK shareholders by Campaign Against HLS (Who? Seems SHAC has disappeared) has rightly focused on some salient points, namely the illegitimacy of these tactics and the abuse of shareholders’ information.

However, I also saw a fascinating quote in The Guardian from other ‘animal rights activists’;

Privately, animal rights activists are sceptical that an individual or a grassroots organisation would have the resources to send the letter to 170,000 shareholders or publish addresses online.
The Guardian, ‘Animal rights activists tell drug firm’s small investors to sell up or else’, 9th May 2006

This is the only acknowledgement I’ve yet seen of an important practical consideration.  Without disparaging the concerns of those few people who have been unfortunate enough to receive a letter, a quick totting up of the figures (on the back of a fag packet if I smoked, but in these modern times actually done on my mobile) shows what a desperate, and pathetic, attempt this was to grab a few media headlines.

CAHLS has threatened to write to all of the 167,000 individual GSK shareholders (see The FT, ‘GSK says investors targeted by extremists’, 9th May 2006) will receive a letter from them within two weeks.  This would cost a huge sum of money – even if we’re generous in our calculations!

Even if CAHLS:
1.  Hand-delivers half of the letters to keep costs down (unlikely because (i) there really aren’t enough activists willing to cross the line into illegal action to deliver 83,500 overnight and (ii) it would be risky hand-delivering letters, someone would be bound to see and then identify the miscreants).
2.  Uses 2nd class stamps (a bad idea in light of their self-imposed, two-week deadline and the Post Office’s track record on deliveries).
3.  Made their activists bring their own pen and paper, rather than the group buying envelopes etc.

83,500 letters @ 23p each = £19,205

Chances of a new, grassroots organisation having £20k for any sort of campaign?  Zero.
Chances of an established group secretly funding a £20k hate-mail campaign in light of legislation changes?  Slim to none, you’d hope.

This seems like the last gasping breaths of the opponents of HLS who are not only in denial about their abject failure, but are drawing attention to it with their ludicrous activities…

Covance, a contract research company, opened a large extension to its science facilities at Harrogate last week. Harrogate LibDem MP Phil Willis and Science & Innovation Minister Lord Sainsbury spoke at the opening celebrations. This new centre, which will use animals -mainly rats and mice - alongside other research methods, is part of a new “bio-science” (a mixture of chemistry and biology) complex. Crucial work is being done here to develop new medicines based on genetic analysis. The focus is medicines which are custom-designed for a particular task and particular genetic profiles. One fascinating area of great interest is the development of inhaled drugs, making it possible to absorb medicines through the lungs. 

The local community is largely supportive and did not oppose the expansion plans. The company recruited about 100 new people and there will be further recruitment over the year. The investment is good news for the local economy and the UK as a whole since Covance could have invested almost anywhere in the world.

In their in-depth investigation into the ethics (and science) of animal research, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted politely that “some critics of animal research and testing tend to attribute any problems with the final product solely to the use of animal testing”. To put it bluntly, anti-vivisectionists claim falsely that that drug side-effects are caused by reassurances of safety from animal testing, whilst ignoring the in vitro and computer tests which are also carried out as part of the pre-clinical tests.

Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP), which masquerades as a scientific organisation, is the worst offender in this dishonesty. Animal rights activist Kathy Archibald, from EMP, spoke at a recent debate on the Oxford Lab (reported by the BBC). In an on-line article, responding to the views of genuine medical research charities, Kathy falsely represents the role of animal testing in almost every way possible. She claims drug side-effects have killed many people despite extensive proof from animal tests that drugs were safe. This is not how animal testing works.

The feeble team of assorted antivivisectionists deserved to lose the debate at the Oxford Union last Wednesday night - as they did. Alistair Currie is a junior staff member of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection with no obvious research experience. Andrew Knight has a veterinary degree, but likewise no apparent research experience, and promotes vegan pet-food. Gill Langley is an old-time antivivisectionist who has been trotting out the same sad and weary line about species differences for decades (as if we didn’t know). We won’t even comment on Yuri Geller.

By contrast, the eminent scientists speaking in favour of animal research included Professor Colin Blakemore, Professor John Stein, and Lord Robert Winston. Any one of these has more expertise in animal research than the combined members of the opposition panel. Compared to them, the antivivisectionists simply have no credibility. Is this the best they can do?

On 27th April the Oxford Union proposed the motion “This house would not test on animals”. Over 85% of the Oxford Union voted against the motion, at 321 votes, defeating the motion by 225 votes. Given the antivivisection line-up, it’s surprising they got as many votes as they did. They must have invited all their friends.

Our congratulations to Laurie Pycroft, founder of Pro-Test, who also spoke up for animal research. He made history by becoming the youngest person ever invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union debating society.

You would have thought they would have learnt that setting themselves up to fail is dumb ... but the latest NAVS leaflet repeats yet again as its first point the lie (for that is what it is) that pencillin kills guinea pigs but not people; ergo all animal testing is useless.

Fact: Giving penicillin to guinea pigs selectively kills bacteria in their gut, which allows the bacteria Clostridium difficule to overgrow, and this bacteria produces a toxin that can kill (Med Microbiol Immunol (Berl). 1981;169(3):187-96).

Fact: Giving penicillin to people selectively kills bacteria in their gut, which allows the bacteria Clostridium difficule to overgrow, and this bacteria produces a toxin that can kill (Health Protection Agency).

And of course that does not mean that 1000’s of guinea pigs are used to test for this bacteria. As in the vast majority of modern medicine and science advanced techniques (ie alternatives!) have replaced animal use (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Feb;12(2):184-6).

I didn’t bother to read on.

Another ASA ruling?

Take a look at this extraordinary trip back into the past. 15 years ago on World Lab Animal Day (today), 20,000 people massed in Trafalgar Square to make their protest against animal experiments heard.

What has happened to the movement? These days all we get for lab animal day is a snarling mass of angry animal rights activists.

All the antivivisection groups can manage now is a fairly feeble fund-raising leaflet filled with the usual rubbish and misinformation. So much for their claims of massive public support!

Arkangel is the magazine of the extreme animal rights movement. Its first edition was 18 years ago. Ronnie Lee, infamous founder of the Animal Liberation Front, set out his thinking on the movement in this way:

“our movement has largely the wrong attitude towards the struggle for animal liberation. We would do far better to consider it as a war”

If bluster and bravado were the only weapons in this self-declared war, there is little doubt about who the winners would be. In an email a few days ago to supporters around country, the campaigning group SPEAK, opposing the new research centre at Oxford University, claimed that:

"the support we receive from the public is at an all time high - we are winning this battle and just as importantly we are winning the arguments against vivisection."

Who are they trying to kid? On the same day as the SPEAK rally in Oxford, RDS revealed that over 100 leading research organisations have posted statements on their websites explaining their ethical policies towards animal research. This is a sign of the growing confidence of the scientific community in making its case for the humane use of animals in medical research. 

At the recent SHAC trial in the US the defendants tried to hide behind the First Amendment – the right to free speech.  They were less concerned with their victims’ ‘inalienable right’ to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which precedes the First Amendment by 15 years.  The SHAC posse claimed that they could post what they liked on their website (home addresses, contact details, children’s school etc), but they were not responsible for the violence and intimidation thus incited: it was a legitimate tactic in their eyes.  The jury disagreed and the defendants are awaiting sentencing.

One posting on the SHAC site read, “Marsh employees: We know where you work, we know where you eat, we know where you sleep. Is HLS really worth it? We are winning.” SHAC took pains to claim that it was not responsible for the incidents, while at the same time applauded those who were.

If anyone was in doubt about the horrendous impact of these extremist tactics, then the account of Ed Walsh and his wife JoAnn McGee should put those uncertainties at rest.  Their work came under fire from PETA a decade ago because kittens were used in the study – never mind that the scientists hoped to help deaf children with their work.

Happily this sort of personal, individual harassment is rare; and thanks to recent changes in legislation, both in the UK and US, it is likely to become even more atypical.  Public acceptance of the need for carefully regulated animal research where there are no alternative has never been greater (opinion polls, Pro-Test, yadda yadda yadda), the media demonstrates an understanding of the issues involved, and scientists who speak out are no longer lone individuals but part of a group.

There are some serious opportunities in this up-and-coming field!  As the academic newspaper ResearchEurope highlighted recently, animal rights extremists are packing the pokey (if you’re American, that is; if you’re British they’re doing porridge; either way, brush up on your prison slang). 

Quick scorecard check:

• November 2005:  Each of two PeTA employees faces 22 felony counts of animal cruelty and three counts of obtaining property by false pretences after killing the animals they purported to be rescuing.  Case outcome pending.

• 2 March 2006:  Six SHAC extremists are convicted of terrorism in the US and are now on the business end of sentences up to 23 years each.

• 11 April 2006:  Four SNGP extremists face 6-12 years in prison each after pleading guilty to conspiracy to blackmail in the Darley Oaks grave robbery.

Now don’t get me wrong, I myself will plead guilty to at least Schadenfreude in the first degree when hearing that these folks get to spend some quality time behind bars for their crimes.  What I find most impressive, however, is that once locked up, their passion for plotting and committing violent, illegal acts seems quickly re-directed into peaceful lobbying for vegan food and non-animal-derived clothing.

The People’s Petition, brainchild of IT worker David Taylor, is a great way for the hitherto silent majority to stand up and be counted on animal research. Given that opinion polls show that three quarters of us acccept the need to use animals in medical research, I hope thousands and millions will sign. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to sign. When I last looked (at about 10am) the count had gone up to 1854, and it only went live at midnight. I expect most will vote anonymously, but already there are dozens of supportive comments on the site. Here’s a random sample:

"It’s great to see that the silent, educated majority is making its voice heard - the tiny extremist minority has had too loud a voice for too long...”
Posted by: Nick Meade, London

“It is really refreshing to be able to positively support such an important cause for human and animal welfare.”
Posted by: Trish Loakes, Huntingdon

“Ethical animal experimentation is essential for the development of new, safe drugs to alleviate the diseases that afflict man globally.”
Posted by: Chris Snell, Norfolk

“I think this is a great idea. I get fed up with ARA activists declaring that they represent the peoples view, and its about time the people had the opportunity to actually voice their opinion.”
Posted by: Jimmy, Halesworth

There’s a great article about The People’s Petition in The Guardian today, and I heard heart consultant Professor John Martin supporting it on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme at about 7.15am this morning.

We are sure Sir Paul McCartney enjoys his celebrity status. It’s a shame that he continues to abuse it to campaign against the use of animals in research. Whilst McCartney may have been a great musician, that does not make him a great scientist. His statement that animal research is “a holdover from the dark age of medical science” is clearly not based on any particular expertise or insight.

McCartney had previously recognised that some animal testing is necessary, but seems to have subsequently gone back on that position.

What irritates us about this whole affair is that his wife, Heather Mills McCartney, an amputee, has just undergone major and complicated surgery called “revision amputation” which involves re-attaching muscle tissue to her bone. The procedure was developed and refined in animal models.

Sir Paul’s first wife received extensive treatment for breast cancer which was developed and then tested at least partly in animals. Apparently she was not told that animals were involved in developing her medicines because no one wanted to upset her. What is Sir Paul playing at?

30 years after the founding of the Animal Liberation Front (back in 1976), are we seeing the beginning of the end of that movement?

As reported in many of today’s papers, three animal rights extremists have admitted blackmailing the owners of the Newchurch guinea pig farm over a period of six years. This is a serious crime, for which they face possible jail sentences of up to 12 years.

For this, we would like to thank the hard work of all of the police forces involved, and congratulate them on the result.

What we find interesting is the ages of the defendants, 36, 39 and 36. One of them is a vicar’s son and supply teacher. These are no young firebrands. Rather, they are hardcore activists and weary veterans of an ageing animal rights movement. For some time the extremists have been complaining of the difficulties of getting new recruits to their cause. The recent string of convictions and bad publicity for the animal rights militants can hardly have helped.

Some of those accused could be well into in their forties when they get out of jail. Eventually they will run out of steam, just like the rest of the animal rights movement.

MHRA has released its preliminary report on the clinical trial of TGN1412. So now we know that there were no manufacturing errors, contamination or dosing errors in the first-into-humans test of the monoclonal antibody treatment TGN1412.

What we don’t know yet is what did go wrong. Because the serious adverse reactions were rare and unprecedented, further enquiries are needed. But it seems likely that this novel biological treatment triggered stimulation instead of regulation of the immune system. For some reason this didn’t occur in animals that were given 500 times the dose ultimately given to the human volunteers. We know that TGN1412 activates CD28 on the surface of immune system cells, but many different cells carry the CD28 receptor. The failure to predict immune stimulation suggests that scientists needed to know far more detail about the effects of TGN1412 before it was licensed for human volunteer studies. That is, we should have had more studies in human tissues and in animals.

What’s all this? The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection are recruiting for a new Chief Executive. But it was less than two years ago that they announced the appointment of a new Chief Executive - Adolfo Sansolini.

At that time his appointment was described as “an exciting new episode in the BUAV’s long history”. Obviously it was not exciting enough.

Whatever the reason, we can understand why this top job has become vacant again. After all, what do rats do when the ship is sinking?

I only heard Mr Sansolini on the radio once. Without putting too fine a point on it, he was hopeless at getting any sort of argument across. During his almost two-year tenure, his organisation, with a budget of around £3 million, got less profile than an enthusiastic bunch of Oxford students with an expenditure of less than £3,000.

So will the new person fare any better? The job advertisement is asking for a dynamic, forward thinking, visionary and pragmatic leader with a high intellect, integrity, energy and creativity. Some hope! How BUAV squares that with the need to conform to the distorted, narrow-minded, old-fashioned, scientifically illiterate and hopelessly ill-informed approach of antivivisection is a mystery.

Our prediction: BUAV is going downhill, and fast. 

It seems life (or rather, the ALF) is imitating art with their recent ‘liberation’ of ungrateful deer, see Bloodhound’s blog Wildlife prison or wildlife paradise? Happy deers don’t even think about escaping.

In 1998, The Onion, a satirical online newsite wrote a spoof article about the ALF liberating cows, which included the following sentence:

The long-distance transport of the Cumberland cows was deemed necessary in light of an event last August, when 80 Milking Shorthorns were released from the Miklewski farm in Beloit, only to wander back into their pens the next day.
The Onion, 16th Dec 1998, ‘Animal Rights Activists Release 71,000 Cows Into Wild’

Extremists are being brought to book for their tactics (the ‘SHAC 7’ are awaiting sentencing), both the media and public sympathy are against them and the animals are ignoring them - life’s pretty hard for militant animal rights activists!