Friday morning at the BA Festival of Science in York saw a whole morning devoted to improving the robustness, relevance and transferability of data from animal experiments which are intended to evaluate potential clinical interventions.

Interesting points were raised by several speakers, particularly about the importance of properly designed experiments. Not only should sample sizes be correctly calculated to ensure that the data produced are statistically significant, but randomisation(1) and double-blinding(2) should be standard practice.

Investigations into the published literature on stroke showed that the majority of studies have not fulfilled these criteria, and it is likely that other areas of research are similarly afflicted.

This is similar to the state of human clinical trials 10-15 years ago, and we can only hope that experimental design is improved as quickly as possible.  Recognition of the issues is the key first step. The speakers at the event are doing the vital job of highlighting these problems, whilst stressing exactly what this does and does not mean.

Just as historical bad design did not render the concept of clinical trials as being flawed, the speakers noted that this did not mean that animal models were not a valuable tool in biomedical research:

"This isn’t to say that animal models of stroke are bad… it’s that we can do them better and we must make substantial efforts to improve the quality and reporting of those studies.”
- Dr Malcom Macleod, CAMARADES

Dr Ian Roberts, who spoke on the important of statistical analysis, recognised in a BMJ article that analysis of information is currently limited to stroke research. Based on such limited information he wrote,

"it would be inappropriate to make general statements about the value of animal research"

RDS supports every effort to improve the quality of data gained from animal studies.

-------------------------------------------------
(1) Where allocation of which animals get the trial substance and which get the placebo is randomly determined.
(2) Where those giving the substances as well as those monitoring the results do not know which animals have received the trial substance or placebo.

We see from a new post on the SPEAK website that the monkey named Felix who they were campaigning to save from Oxford University has now died. SPEAK claimed that Felix was been tortured and that he lived in a small cage, although in fact this primate appeared on a BBC documentary allowing people to make their own judgements about how the animal was looked after.

But we should not shy away from the reality of research. Almost all animals are humanely killed after research, usually to study their tissues to gain further information. Animals are not simply research tools, they are sentient beings. It is regrettable that any animal has to be used, and then die, in research. But it would be even more regrettable if research to advance knowledge and potentially help treat or cure people with distressing and disabling diseases such as Parkinson’s or stroke could not go ahead. And we should not strive to keep animals alive for no good reason if it simply makes them suffer.

In true SPEAK style, their initial pronouncements on Felix sounded sinister; as in their message to Oxford University ‘if for any reason you feel it’s in your best interest to kill Felix before you had intended to, then think again. Or if Felix mysteriously dies, then we urge you to think very seriously about this course of action. The British public will take a very dim view on this course of action, should you choose to take it, and at SPEAK we will never forget such conduct’.

But presumably unable to carry through any threat, SPEAK has now decided apparently that Felix is just a symbol.

The Independent’s Green Goddess columnist Julia Stevenson’s green hue seems to be that of naivete and gullibility. Her latest column says ‘We don’t need to capture wild primates and destroy them in labs’. She’s right: we don’t need to and we don’t do it, because almost without exception primates are bred especially for research. And someone should tell Julia and her antivivisection spinmeisters that apes haven’t been used in the UK research for well over 20 years, or in any EU country since 2000.

That’s not all. Inspired by groups like Animal Defenders International (this is what the National Anti Vivisection Society prefers to call itself, unsurprisingly), she took part in a monkey-in-cage photocall last week. Apparently there were 20 photographers there. Strange we haven’t seen the pictures yet. Maybe they were all undercover police.

Singer Maria Daines was also there, whose dreadful dirge ‘Monkey in a Cage’ (earnest, but naff, lyrics here) is apparently topping indie and rock charts. I don’t follow the charts, but everyone tells me it’s nowhere near the top 20, let alone number one.

Julia is woefully out-of-date on the progress of the antivivisectionists’ Written Declaration in the European Parliament on primate research. She thinks it still has to get 100 more signatures ‘for a ban on primate testing’. Wrong on both counts. It has already received the requisite number of signatures (on the day before Julia’s piece was published) to move to the next stage, which I think means:

• EU President notifies EU Parliament which publishes declaration and names of signatories in the minutes of the relevant sitting. This ‘closes’ the procedure.
• Declaration is forwarded to institutions named together with names of the signatories.
• The EU Commission will probably provide a written answer to the declaration.

This hardly warrants the jubilation in the ADI camp and it certainly falls far short of ‘the end of primate research in Europe’. Jan Creamer, ADI chief executive, trumpeted:

‘This is history in the making and will end the suffering of some 10,000 primates a year in European labs and the adoption of more reliable modern alternatives.’

There is a deadly serious point here. Ending primate research would hamper research into HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, and malaria – to name but three serious medical problems in which primate studies are indispensible. While we would all wish to see non-animal alternatives ‘adopted’, it’s simply not possible until we have the alternatives, which is a long way off.

So it’s just as well that a Europe-wide ban cannot happen simply on the say so of naïve MEPs swayed by antivivisection songs and stunts.

The latest European Parliament written declaration proposal from MEPs on stopping use of non human primates has already been noted on this blog.

One might assume that all the MEPs who have signed so far, have of course carefully weighed up the arguments before they signed.

Fat chance!

The declaration states the justification for:

establish(ing) a timetable for replacing the use of all primates in scientific experiments with alternatives

noting that almost all primate species share more than 90% of their DNA with humans and it is acknowledged that the primate species have a capacity to suffer greatly in
captivity.

Whilst the fallacy of using this argument in respect to animal welfare has already been exposed, some MEPs are happy to have it both ways....

Richard Corbett MEP has said, in the context of comparing the proposed European Treaty and the rejected European Constitution:

The DNA of mice and humans is 90% the same ... but the remaining 10% is rather important.

Not what you just signed up to Richard!

We cannot help but wonder how many days of action are needed by the antivivisection groups to make their case. No sooner have Animal Aid held their ‘Action Day for Primates’ on 25 August, than the National Anti-Vivisection Society is to demonstrate for ‘International Primate Day’ on 1 September. We didn’t see any media coverage of the Animal Aid event, and we don’t expect much for the NAVS.

Once again we have to listen to the very limited combined weight of expertise of various celebrities like actress Jenny Seagrove and TV presenter Michaela Strachan. One wonders when these people are going to bother to actually find out some of the facts about primate research instead of trotting out the same tired old antivivisection propaganda.

Perhaps those who care to take part in these days of action should take note of the latest posting on the relatively new blog of SPEAK Political, which claims that “we scratch and claw for every piddling little victory whilst allowing the big picture to completely elude us. At our present rate of achievement, in another 100 years we won’t have moved on much from where we are now. No wonder so many of us drift away disillusioned.” SPEAK used to have lots of days of action. Perhaps the animal rights movement depend too much on celebrities and days of action?

The work of charities is supposed to reflect the public interest. It is for that reason that antivivisection groups cannot become charities.

So we were intrigued to see the statement from the RSPCA that it would be ‘extremely concerned and angry’ if the Home Office figures for the number of animals used in 2006 showed another increase. The increase reflects more research being done into the genetic basis of diseases, and is very much in the public interest if this can be translated into new treatments and cures. It was welcomed by some patient groups.

It should have been as dull as ditchwater. A judgement is expected today in this week’s High Court hearing about a few of the finer technical details of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This is a judicial review, the culmination of three years of costly legal wrangling by lawyers representing the UK’s oldest antivivisection society and the Home Office.

But Michelle Thew, BUAV’s Chief Executive, is well-known for bending the truth in media interviews. Michelle has used every opportunity she can to ‘sex up’ the judicial review by repeating BUAV’s unfounded and irrelevant allegations against Cambridge University marmoset research. 

Radio 4’s normally excellent Today programme ran a story this morning on Shambo, the TB-positive bullock in Wales, which left something to be desired in the reporting standard.  Clearly, the monks at the temple are distressed but there are a few facts that I think need to be borne in mind before allowing claims like the Welsh Assembly have committed an ‘act of desecration against the temple’ and ‘sacrilege against their religion’ to go unchallenged.

The right to practice religious beliefs freely is an important one – but other rights also exist. The reality is that this world has overlapping considerations that make cases like Shambo’s particularly messy.

Paul McCartney has said he will stop funding cancer research charities that use animals:

he revealed plans to refuse funding to organisations that practice vivisection, after discovering a number of charities close to his heart advocate the practice

It’s quite right that he follows his own beliefs but not that he uses his celebrity to spread untruths:

There are better alternatives but you’re not allowed to challenge the status quo

This is just not true:

A great deal of cancer research is carried out without using animals. In certain areas, however, animal research remains essential if we are to understand, prevent and cure cancer. (Cancer Research UK)

So where does he get his information? Apparently from Alistair Currie - Senior Research and Campaigns Co-ordinator - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. So we know why he is so misguided. 

A surge of publicity has highlighted again the research published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and others alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This has important lessons for the debate about animal research.

In modern western democracies it is inevitable that some individuals who are either practising scientists, or have a science background, will advocate a line of argument that conflicts with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence.

In many cases, we can see a reason why those individuals might favour a particular theory. Those advocating ‘intelligent design’ mostly have a religious perspective. Those opposed to any form of genetic modification often have strong environmental passions. Those who argue that the MMR vaccine is unsafe may be linked to pressure groups comprising parents whose children have developed autism, or even be against all vaccines. 

Antivivisection groups have long argued that animal research is perpetuated only by powerful groups with vested interests. A typical quote is that from Peter Hamilton of the Vancouver-based animal rights group Lifeforce: ‘the multi-billion dollar research, drug and chemical industries are entrenched in animal research for economic, legal and political reasons’.

Despite the supposed struggle against these powerful lobby groups acting in conspiracy, it was not that long ago that antivivisection groups in the UK were relatively optimistic. For example, in their newsletter of Summer 2000, the National Anti Vivisection Society boldly proclaimed that ‘the days of animal experimentation are numbered’.

It is no doubt to the dismay of those same antivivisection groups that the government recently revealed in a Parliamentary question by Mr Hancock that ...

Perhaps we were pushing our luck, but we just couldn’t resist. Shortly after she came back to head up the moribund British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the new chief executive Michelle Thew set up an e-mail address called ‘askmichelle@buav.org’. The idea was for supporters to get direct access to her to ask questions and offers suggestions.

A little while later, the same Michelle wrote in a letter to The Guardian that ‘the bodies that represent researchers insist on highlighting the activities of one or two isolated extremists, rather than engaging in a true debate’. So we used the askmichelle address to request any evidence that RDS has ever sought to avoid engaging in debate on this issue. To our knowledge, we have never turned down the opportunity to engage in genuine debate.

Perhaps not surprisingly, exactly three months later we have had no response whatsoever. The antivivisectionists are at their best when throwing out grandiose rhetorical challenges. But when it comes to producing evidence, all we get is a deafening silence.

I found a fascinating interactive website last week. Animal Ethics Dilemma is learning tool aimed at veterinary students, but anyone can play. As the name suggests, it shows where you stand on animal ethics, without any right or wrong answers. It does this by letting you develop a personal profile which can change as you work through its practical role plays. These cover farming, sports and wildlife as well as medical research.

It might be interesting if the site offered the option to see an ‘average’ profile. I can tell you that my initial profile was over 80% ‘utilitarian’, with a bit of ‘respect for nature’ and ‘contractarian’ thrown in. I was surprised to find that, after doing the role plays, my utilitarianism and contractarianism went down slightly, to be replaced by 11% ‘animal rights’! I think animals have a right to be treated well by us humans and we should avoid anything that causes unnecessary suffering, but that’s as far as it goes. My ‘relational’ score stayed resolutely at zero – indicating that I believe relationships are essentially human? I suspect that vet students might score quite highly on relational ethics.

The site includes explanations of all the ethical positions, and a list of ‘references’ – explanations of the various terms used in the case histories such as ‘genetic modification’.

Give it a go and, if you are registered to comment on this blog, let us know what you scored!

A UK ‘alternatives’ research lab has benefited from a £240,000 expansion and makeover. The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) Alternatives Laboratory at the University of Nottingham will be re-opened tomorrow.

According to a University of Nottingham press release, the lab, part of the University’s Medical School, is to be re-opened by cabinet minister Ed Balls MP, who heads up the newly created Department for Children, Schools and Families. Previously he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

So what, you might ask, is his connection with Nottingham and the FRAME lab? The press release doesn’t say. Is he the local MP? No. I can reveal the answer to this mystery: his daddy is Professor Michael Balls, ex-director of FRAME and chairman of the FRAME trustees.

Jerry Vlask, self-appointed Animal Liberation Press Officer and swearer of the ‘Hypocritical’ Oath has once again publicly advocated misanthropic violence against researchers in defiance of the physician’s duty to ‘do no harm’.

Vlask’s latest rant is in comments on a pro-AR blog entry ‘arguments against violence as a campaign tactic’(!) – his comments are down the page and titled Animal Liberation Press Office said. They are so extreme, particularly the first one, that he alienates other AR commentators.

I could wax lyrical about the inconsistencies in his position, but someone has beaten me to the punch… I’ve just discovered a new blog ‘exposing animal rights idiocy’ which is entertaining, well-written and incisive. The Speciesists’ Corner is a (fairly) new kid on the block, from February this year.  Hopefully it’ll be around for the foreseeable future.