Good to see that the crack troops at SAS (Sense About Science) have included misguided mumbo jumbo about microdosing in their celebrity slag-off today. Apparently TV actress Jenny Seagrove (of Waitrose ads and Judge John Deed fame) said that microdosing could replace ‘animals and primates’ (so primates are not animals?) in research. Pharmacologist Professor Nancy Rothwell, Vice President for Research at Manchester University and chair of RDS, countered:

The mistake is understandable Jenny, but microdosing is a technique for measuring how small doses of drugs move around the body. It has not yet been properly validated, but in the future it may replace some animal tests. Unfortunately, if we want new medicines for diseases like cancer or cystic fibrosis, there are some cases where there are no alternatives to using animals.

Also animal-rights-inspired was Heather Mills McCartney’s feeble attempt to link milk drinking and obesity. See more nonsense from the celebs, and sense from the scientists, in a leaflet on the SAS website and some excellent reporting by The Guardian and the BBC. The Sun got in the act, too, with Profs Rap Dim Star Comments. Mental images of Professors rapping about astronomy. Hmmm.

Interesting feature on the animal experimentation debate in last week’s science journal Nature. Amongst other things, they did an anonymous international online poll of nearly 1700 biomedical researchers. About half of them used animals in their research.

When asked to rate how necessary animal research was for progressing biomedical science on a scale of 1 (not at all necessary) to 4 (essential), three quarters of all respondents, including those who did not work with animals themselves, said it was essential. About a fifth rated it as 3, and only a tiny minority (about 1%) thought it unnecessary. So much for antivivisection claims that lots of scientists oppose animal research.

Nature commented that: 

The Guardian today published a short news item Many animal tests are badly flawed, say scientists. This news item was based on a paper in this week’s British Medical Journal, and the subject of a BMJ press release.

I thought it looked very familiar. I checked, and it seems this is research published as a report on the University of Birmingham website six months ago. I thought its conclusions were a bit dodgy then and I blogged it here.

This is just the same research redrafted for the BMJ. If at first you don’t succeed in getting publicity, just redraft your paper and get it published in a different place. If you’re lucky you might then get the national newspapers interested in a story based on an exaggeration that is six months old anyway.

Rather than bury this as a comment on an old blog entry I thought I’d follow their example and do a new one to put it right at the top.

The BBC 10 o’clock news on 7th December showed how media coverage of the issue of the use of animals in research has moved on. A report on the Northwick Park drug trial was followed by a report on the conviction of an animal rights bomber

First of all what about the drug trial? The official report focused on what it should; learning from problems and the impact on the volunteer who was affected.  We certainly should learn from this episode, just because things go right most of the time does not mean we cannot learn and change. However animal testing abolitionist groups continue to say that the animal tests failed, this shows a general failure, and all animal testing should be stopped. An example from the BUAV:

Widely previewed and reviewed, Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing (BBC2) on Monday evening was widely seen as an excellent documentary about a ‘difficult’ issue. But the antivivisectionists didn’t like it, if the following from ‘Beast’ on the Beyond Bunnies blog is anything to go by:

… it was the pro-vivisection tubthump it always threatened to be, in which the only person (other than Mel Broughton) from an anti-vivisection standpoint who appeared on camera was Pete Singer - who was properly stitched up, as already discussed on the below entry. Too angry to blog further. Bile coursing down nose, hard to type.

I guess the antivivs just don’t have any persuasive arguments that journalists and producers feel are worthy of inclusion in a serious documentary. They only have themselves to blame.

Contrast Beast’s whining (I concede his description of his reaction is great, I can just see him snivelling) with the review by Lucy Mangan in The Guardian on Tuesday. She thinks the documentary was ‘superbly balanced’ and ‘outstanding’. She concludes:

Wishart [Adam Wishart, producer/director] remained personally ambivalent right to the end, when he confesses with relief that a discussion between Aziz [Tipu Aziz, neuroscientist and surgeon] and Peter Singer, author of (and coiner of the phrase) Animal Liberation 30 years ago, allowed him to come down - just - on the side of the scientists. Aziz told Singer that the 100 monkeys he had used had so far helped 40,000 people with diseases such as Parkinson’s and dystonia. Singer said that he ‘could see that as justifiable’.
Wishart’s achievement lay in the fact that viewers were not manipulated into agreeing with that position. They were still free to agree or disagree - but were far better informed when it came to doing so than they had been 80 minutes before.

Last night’s documentary ‘Rats and Mice and Me’—based around animal research at Oxford University—was excellent in virtually every way.

We have long said that what happens to animals used for research should be put in the context of the benefits to people. Many animal rights activists appear to have little understanding of what happens to patients in hospitals. Hence what might seem gruesome , such as carrying out brain surgery on an animal, is far more understandable when you see the equivalent brain surgery in a human.

We might have a few minor quibbles. It’s a shame that once again the main focus is on primate research—which only accounts for a tiny fraction of all animal research. On the other hand we have to accept that there are profound ethical issues involved in the use of monkeys in research, and that this type of work needs to be properly justified and understood.

But without a doubt the most enjoyable experience was sitting through a whole hour’s documentary without a single quote from the pseudoscientific quacks of the animal rights movement who claim that animal research doesn’t work. What a relief.

100 years ago, in evidence to the 1906 Royal Commission on Vivisection, the antivivisectionists made exactly the same claims—that animal research was of no benefit to people. Since then we have had the discovery of insulin for diabetics, the polio vaccine, heart transplants and many other major medical advance of the last century at least partially dependent on the results of animal research. The antivivisectionists who deny this are simply wrong. It was good to see the real facts come out at last.

Poor Heather Mills.  On top of going through a very public divorce, an organisation that she’s devoted a lot of her time and energy to is kicking her while she’s down;

An animal rights charity has reportedly shelved plans to use photos of Heather Mills McCartney in a new campaign because it does not wish to be linked with the former model.

People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Sir Paul McCartney’s estranged wife to pose naked for a series of adverts for its ‘I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur’ campaign (1).

But the US-based charity reportedly got cold feet because of her bitter divorce battle with the former Beatle.
Metro, Animal rights group shun Heather, 15th November 2006

With both of the Mrs McCartneys having supported campaigns against medical research whilst benefiting from the fruits of said research, it seems that an overarching hypocrisy is a prerequisite for wives of the former Beatle.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) which Naomi Campbell famously reneged on in 1997.

There have been several fantastic science/medicine stories in the last few days that have fulfilled all the ‘top trump’ criteria you might expect (1) if there were a Science or Biomedical Research pack. All revealed progress in stem-cell-based treatment. The Guardian clearly appreciated the good science too. 

Sadly, the first about mini-livers, see Zebedee’s Mini-livers - hope or hype?, was an example of how poor reporting on scientific issues can lead to unwarranted hype (and/or misleading antiviv spin) surrounding an important medical breakthrough.

However, the reporting of three others has been accurate and excellent:

BUAV has gone all defensive following criticism by the Times Higher Education Supplement this week that it has used Freedom of Information to draw up a potential hit list of universities conducting research on primates.

I sense a whole raft of double standards, fatuous claims and plain nonsense here. Based on their track record, BUAV’s claim to present only ‘scientific, factual, reliable information and reasoned argument’ is laudable but laughable. BUAV’s lies were exposed very recently on this blog

And journalists seeking further information from BUAV found that very little was forthcoming: ‘Sean Gifford, campaigns manager at the BUAV, declined to comment on the FoI requests, saying the organisation had not yet decided what to do with the information.’ Unfortunately BUAV is not covered by FoI.

US antivivisectionist Ray Greek has been rather quiet for a while.

A while back this ‘top science adviser’ said:

‘Melanoma is a lethal cancer in humans but is usually not so in dogs’

A vaccine for melanoma in humans is now being trialled and also at the same time been found successful in dogs, and this recent news story also states:

‘Dogs, like humans, can naturally get many forms of cancer, including melanoma. In dogs, the melanoma is not usually related to sun exposure, but it can be very difficult to treat, and it’s often fatal.’

So is Greek just being quiet, or has the media realised that he talks rubbish?

With half of the UK antiviv/ animal rights movers and shakers currently enjoying Her Majesty’s hospitality it’s no wonder the movement seems to be in crisis – both in energy and numbers.

Their attempts to cover up their dwindling forces haven’t passed unnoticed though:

Announcement - Puppet Accounts
This is a warning for all the anti-vivisection protestors using puppet accounts to disrupt the board. Oxford Gossip does not prohibit multiple accounts if users wish to contribute to different discussions without revealing their identity, but it does not allow them to be used for spamming or trolling.
This is a warning to the two anti-vivisection users on this board who are currently using puppet accounts for trolling. Carry on and we will ban you.
Oxford Gossip, October 2006

I wonder how many more such incidents would be found if more discussion forums etc were on the lookout.  Perhaps the recent vote on BBC children’s programme Newsround could do with some scrutiny?  We have heard rumours that PETA are infiltrating children’s chat forums; maybe the tactic is spreading.

This week’s In the Know magazine (October 10, pages 18-19) has an article about animal research featuring an articulate, intelligent trainee barrister who happens to be diabetic. Lisa says:

Before insulin was discovered, diabetes would be a death sentence. I wouldn’t be here today if scientists hadn’t tested on animals. I know it’s not ideal but it’s the only way forward in many cases. I’d always put the life of a human above an animal.’

I think most people would agree. This presents a dilemma for antivivisection and animal rights groups. They cannot deny that the most people – vegans aside – do not accord animals the same rights as humans. So they either deny the evidence of history – eg the key role of Banting, Best and a dog called Marjorie in the discovery and development of insulin – or claim that animals are no longer necessary in medical research.

The In The Know article outlines the story of insulin and other animal-research-dependent medical advances. So what case does the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection make against animal research in this article? They resort to a string of distortions and blatant lies. Here’s the worst example:

‘… only about 20% of experiments are for medical purposes. Others are for products such as household cleaners, fertilisers and petrol.’

Petrol??? I don’t know where they got that one from.

The animal experimentation figures are publicly available, if a little complex (that’s why we provide an accessible summary on the RDS website). But using some simple arithmetic, it’s clear that the safety testing of household products and agricultural chemicals together added up to just 1.2% of all animal experiments in 2005.

Tests on non-medical products are a very small percentage of animal use. In fact 96% of all the animal procedures in 2005 were used for some form of biomedical research – basic and applied research, medicines development, and testing of new medical and veterinary products.

The incoming director of BUAV, if she is at all concerned about the truth, has a big clean-up job to do.

It’s a great day when the antis show how painfully aware they are of their shortcomings, see Beyond bunnies “Say some killer points and then shut up".

How the tables have turned!  Apparently defending animal research is the ‘easy job’ (since when?!), and

‘This thing is deliberately being turned into a PR war by a pro-vivisectionist lobby that see themselves as on the defensive for too long. That’s dangerous: clever people + emotional blackmail + lots of money to spend on “education” (as Aziz said) = trouble for the Manns & Broughtons of this world.’
[Comment 3]

Ha ha!  We’re turning this into a PR war?!  My irony-meter just blew.

The blog itself had some spectacular sour grapes: because they perceive ‘our’ side as coming off better in the media, it must be because ‘we’ have cheated in some way (and not because irrational people who are blinded by their sense of right are illogical and scary):

‘Intensive media coaching from the slick and over-funded RDS has no doubt helped here’

Tut tut, stop sucking that lemon - as Iain Simpson pointed out (Comment 6) that RDS has never provided media training for him or Tipu as alleged in the blog.  It’s nice that Beyond bunnies is so impressed by ‘our’ efforts that s/he thinks we’re slick, but since when has RDS been over-funded?  NAVS and BUAV each have five times the level of funding of RDS, and we’ve spent the best-part of the last 100 years fighting our corner alone.

In New Labour’s pre-1997 election leaflet New Life for Animals, the party made a range of statements that raised expectations amongst the animal protection community.

How times have changed amongst Labour party members themselves. The Times reported

Lord Drayson, the Defence Minister, became the first major speaker to be heckled at this year’s Labour conference. The former vaccine research company chief turned politician was criticising actions of animal rights extremists when the heckler branded medical researchers ‘abusers’ and labelled as ‘rubbish’ claims that animal testing was necessary. Lord Drayson - who in 1993 founded PowderJect Pharmaceuticals plc in Oxford which specialised in the production of vaccines - told delegates that animal extremism was the ‘one subject that got me into politics’. ‘I was chairman of the biotech industry association when violent attacks on scientists working in my industry became intense,’ he added when the heckler called out ‘abusers’. The heckler called out again but was drowned out by applause for Lord Drayson from the audience. Stewards in the conference hall looked on nervously but resisted challenging the heckler.

So we have gone from unthinking opposition, to open debate, with a clear majority supporting responsible animal use. That sounds like a healthy, informed democracy to me, the one thing antivivisectionists really fear!

Oxford City Council has, for the first time, voted on a motion about Oxford Uni’s biomedical research facility.  It was a victory for common sense and reasoned debate. Liberal Democrat city councillor Richard Huzzey said:

The issue of medical research using animals is important for everyone living in Oxford. It seems odd the city council hasn’t addressed it before.

The overwhelming majority of councillors took an opinion that easing human suffering and saving human lives justified animal research.

I suspect that mirrors most Oxford residents’ feelings, but we are keen to encourage discussion.

I think the council has a role in creating a climate where this issue can be debated peacefully and intimidation and violence are shunned by all sides.

Oxford Mail, ‘Council backs animal testing’ by Giles Sheldrick, 26th August 2006

The fact that the ‘overwhelming majority of councillors’ support Oxford is another crippling blow (following Pro-Test and the People’s Petition, both grassroots movements) to one of the antivivs’ core beliefs – that they represent that majority of the public, particularly in a LibDem constituency.  This highlights again how far-removed from reality this belief actually is.

As for the extremists responsible for the harassment of individuals and companies, the burning of a College boathouse, and the threats against ‘anyone connected with Oxford University’, it is heartening to see that intimidation and violent protest are increasingly giving way to rational discussion – long may the trend continue.