The Independent newspaper today ran a front-page story about the success of initial results from trials of a gene therapy treatment to treat a rare form of hereditary blindness. The article pointed out that the technique had already been shown to work in animals.

But what are the implications?

Only last week the Independent ran a front-page story about the lack of hope in finding an HIV vaccine. This they said was despite many years of tests in animals—some of which showed positive results but subsequently failed in humans.

‘Scientists must try harder to win this debate’. So said Mary Dejevsky, whose husband suffers from Parkinson’s disease, in yesterday’s Independent.  Surprisingly, she was talking about the embryology bill and hybrid embryos.

Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, took a rather different view on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. Towards the end of the discussion she said:

‘I really feel like there is a change in the scientific community – numerous scientists phoned me at home over Easter and said we need to get into studios, we need to engage with the bishops’ concerns, we need to engage with the public. And three or four scientists literally did back-to-back interviews all weekend, engaged with these debates, and are having these debates with the public and with the media.’

Almost hidden by acres of UK media coverage of the (at times hysterical) debate about hybrid human animal embryo research, I was interested to spot a small item about HIV vaccine research. It was in the Financial Times this morning, based on a Reuters report. Last month we blogged about leading scientists calling for HIV vaccine research to go back to basics, including animal research. Now, according to Reuters, the US government has acted:

The US government has announced a major overhaul of its effort to produce an AIDS vaccine, stressing a return to basic scientific research after the failure of a key clinical trial last year.

Government officials at a summit with AIDS scientists pledged to prioritise spending on lab work and animal tests rather than expensive, and thus far disappointing, large-scale vaccine trials on humans. ‘We need to turn the knob in the direction of discovery. That is unambiguous,’ said Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who convened the meeting outside of Washington.

Let’s hope, for the sake of patients, that sense will also prevail in our current scientific/political/ethical/religious/media preoccupation with hybrid embryo research.

The antivivisection groups have been strangely quiet about the European Commission’s response, released last week, to the Parliament’s Declaration on primate research. But perhaps it’s not so strange; no doubt the antiviv groups would prefer that such sensible and considered conclusions are buried, given that they would be very difficult to spin.

The Commission recognised that limited use of primates is imperative in particular biomedical research fields, including infectious disease such as malaria and neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s. Of course replacement should be the ultimate goal, but it is simply not possible at present.

The Commission said:

We wish a Happy New Year to all our supporters. For those who have been away, or just enjoying the break, there have been a few snippets of news around.

Most prominent has been the media reports of the denial of a knighthood to Professor Colin Blakemore in the new year honours list. There has been plenty of speculation based on a memo which was leaked on a previous occasion which suggested this was because of his outspoken support for animal research. However, as far as we can make out, little is known about the reasoning this time around.

Colin Blakemore is the new Chair of RDS as of December last year, and we have no doubt he will continue to do excellent work, both as a leading scientist and in explaining more widely why there is still a need to use animals in research.

Congratulations to the producers of the documentary Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing, broadcast on BBC Two just over a year ago. It has just won the best Science Documentary category of the annual Grierson Awards.

The documentary was widely praised in previews and reviews at the time. Many reviewers believed it to be ‘balanced’ but it was clearly too balanced for the antivivisectionists like Europeans for Medical Progress, who subsequently complained to the BBC.

Animal Defenders International (ADI) seem to be riding high. This organisation is the international campaigning wing of the National AntiVivisection Society. Their autumn 2007 newsletter just dropped through our letterbox with the claim that the European parliament has ‘set a historic target to end experiments on primates’. This is described as ‘the single most important breakthrough in over a decade’.

We’ll see about that.

The case for the use of non-human primates in research is well made in a Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ blog article today, and is otherwise well described on the RDS website.

In any case, the claims of ADI do not stand up to scrutiny…

In today’s Chronicle of Higher Education Mary Beth Sweetland – until recently VP and director of research and investigations for PETA and a close Newkirk associate – made a comment that is almost certainly not condoned by Newkirk and other animal rights bigwigs.

My years of experience with whistle-blowers have forced me to realize that I cannot label as monsters all who work in animal laboratories
- Unfortunately you need a subscription to access the full article

It’s a revelation that will come as no surprise to anyone that’s done animal research, or knows people who do.

However, this isn’t meant to be a gloat, and I hope Sweetland’s comment isn’t used against her by other activists.  It’s nice to see that some committed activists do appreciate the nuances of the debate.

All too often we only hear the views of people like Newkirk(1) who persist with the old, tired position of ‘anyone connected with animal research = sadistic torturer’.

Long may sense continue.

------------------------------------------------
(1) Described by Alex Pacheco, her PETA co-founder, as “a media whore” (USA Today, 19th Nov 2007), other mainstream activists such as Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, feel her ‘neither condemn nor condone’ attitude towards ALF actions is unhelpful – and morally wrong:

‘We’re demanding ethical consistency in the way people live their lives,’ Pacelle says. ‘Once you move into the domain of intimidation or illegal conduct beyond civil disobedience, you’re moving into a dangerous pile of quicksand.’
- PopMatters.com, 19th Nov 2007

I recently received an email from a journalist, who despite not being routinely involved in this debate could easily see the flaws in recent antiviv claims:

"The Hadwen Trust have said that a new European Commission report puts the UK at the top of the animal research rankings. However, if you look at the notes on the bottom, you’ll see that the figure they use is not even from the Commission report!

… they said they used the UK estimate for animal research because European figures didn’t account for certain types of research. How the UK figure can therefore be used as a comparison is a bit of a mystery to me!"

See Dr Hadwen Trust website, News, New Statistics: Britain still the animal testing capital of Europe, 9th Nov 2007

Unlike the rest of Europe, the UK counts breeding of GM animals as a procedure meaning that when GM animals aren’t counted we aren’t actually in the top spot. That you have to compare like with like – just because France, for instance, doesn’t count GM animals it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have thousands running around the lab – seems to have passed the folk at DrHT by. However, ‘UK is number 2 in Europe’ doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.  It’s sad that one of the supposedly respectable antiviv groups has resorted to these tactics.

The UK collects and publishes the fullest details of animal research undertaken in the world, as well as being acknowledged by the antis as being "at the forefront of cutting edge non-animal research"(1). Add to this that DrHT’s very own Gill Langley recognises that UK animal research is a "very tiny minority of research effort"(2), and the negative comments look very silly indeed!

It would benefit animal welfare more if the DrHT had instead held these facts up as an example to other countries.

I’d actually say that it is a source of pride that the UK is the world leader in conducting top quality animal research that is carefully regulated and fully accounted for.

-----------------------------------------------------

(1) National Anti-Vivisection Society & Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research (Nov 2002) Monkeys & Men
(2) Gill Langley (17th July 2001) Oral evidence to House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures

Hot off the press:
Two British-born scientists, Sir Martin J Evans and Oliver Smithies, and an Italian-born colleague, Mario R Capecchi, share this year’s Nobel ’for their discoveries of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells‘.

In layman’s terms, they developed a way to make ‘designer mice’ that meant that the role of different genes in human development and disease could be tracked. The technique could be used (i) to discover the function of a gene, and (ii) to create of animal models of human disease such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes and heart disease.

This incredibly powerful technology – referred to as a ‘magic wand’ by Prof Ira Herskowitz in 2001 when she presented the Lasker prize to the trio – has had a revolutionary impact on medical research:

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.

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. 

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. 

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.