It’s been a year since the Halls announced that they would close Darley Oaks, and the past 12 months have witnessed many changes for the better as discussed in an article by Stephen Pincock, ‘Research winning war with extremists, says group’, The Scientist, 23rd August 2006.

As with many online articles, comments may be submitted and I was bored by the same old drivel being spouted by the same old people: Andre Menache (Animal Aid, humiliated on the Oxford Gossip chat forum); Chris Pedler (British Anti-Vivisection Association); Pat Rattigan (British Anti-Vivisection Association as well as an HIV, Sept 11, and Moon Landings sceptic according to his website).  As usual all made false claims about the scientific validity of animal research and other unsupported statements:

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.

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.

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:

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.

A new group calling itself VERO - Voice for Ethical Research at Oxford - has been formed to campaign against the new animal research centre being built by Oxford University. The conjunction of ‘VERO’ (suggesting truth) and the word ‘ethical’ is clever, but the name belies a reliance on the same tired old antivivisection untruths and propaganda.

In an open letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University last week, the group, which has 20 founder members, said:

Antivivs and ARistas around the world, rejoice!  For Theodore Hapner has renounced the scientific method in favour of his own techniques, and in so doing can guarantee you any result you like.  No more will you be hobbled by the scientific community’s demand for empirical, reliable evidence:

‘If you’re looking for some button-down traditionalist who relies on so-called induction, conventional logic, and verification to arrive at what the scientific community calls ‘proof,’ then I’m afraid you’ve got the wrong guy,’ said the intrepid 44-year-old rebel, who last month unveiled a revolutionary new model of atomic structure that contradicted 300 years of precedent. ‘But if you want your results fast and with some flair, then come with me and I’ll prove that the boiling point of water is actually 547 degrees Fahrenheit.’

The Onion, 5th June 2006, Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method

------------------------------
Those antivis and ARistas who have had their sense of humour and sarcasm surgically removed, The Onion is a spoof news site.
Anyone who thinks I’m being overzealous in pointing this out, pls see the response of Greenworlds to an Onion story...

Kathy Archibald, director of the antivivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress, writing recently to The Gloucester Citizen, stretches the truth so far it breaks. She calls for animal research to be judged on ‘facts, not rhetoric’ then has the audacity to say: 

Patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress - supported by 245 MPs and 83% of GPs - suggests a scientific evaluation to settle the matter once and for all.

and

Pro-vivisectionists are lobbying hard against an evaluation, which begs the question: what are they afraid of?

Three points:

1.  When has Europeans for Medical Progress ever done anything for ‘patient safety’? It also claims, with absolutely no evidence, to be an organisation of ‘scientists and medical professionals’.

2.  83% of GPs and 245 MPs may well agree that independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research (this is the part of the text of parliamentary Early Day Motion 92) is a good idea. That doesn’t mean they are EMP supporters.

3.  ‘Pro-vivisectionists are lobbying hard against an evaluation’ – I don’t think so. See our news item on the RDS website (and we did subsequently publish the article in RDS News - winter 2005 issue, page 8) and my recent blog discussing a rather limited evaluation of this sort. Qualified support and mild criticism, I’d say.

We are delighted to see the Oxford animal rights groups SPEAK draw attention on their website to a recent ruling against them by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). See Tigger’s recent blog on this. In this particular case SPEAK had been persistently misquoting Professor Michael Rawlins, claiming that he stated that ‘the animal testing regime… is utterly futile’. As the ASA adjudication makes clear, Professor Rawlins said no such thing.

In their defence, SPEAK refer to an article in the Daily Telegraph in which Professor Rawlins was similarly misquoted, although not in exactly the same way.

Perhaps in future SPEAK should take heed of their own advice. In an earlier posting on their website, they were bleating about the media coverage of the High Court hearing on the injunction to prevent them harassing staff and students at Oxford University. At that time, SPEAK stated:

judging by today’s coverage - Oxford University have won a significant coup against SPEAK campaigners. Which – as it happens - just goes to prove that you shouldn’t believe everything you hear

SPEAK also complain pitifully that Professor Rawlins only made a complaint against them, and not the Telegraph. Perhaps they don’t realise that news articles do not fall under the remit of the ASA. Ignorance is no excuse, although in the case of SPEAK, we expect little else.

I almost – but only almost – feel sorry for SPEAK.  Not only did they have the props pulled from under one of their favourite quotes yesterday, they don’t have the intelligence to realise why it was dishonest, leading to another classic display of throwing their toys out of the pram.

Yesterday saw a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority against a leaflet/ poster, frequently used by the SPEAK group.  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins was less than impressed when he saw the words “The animal testing regime… is utterly futile” being attributed to him in his role as the Chairman of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

Sir Michael’s letter to the ASA, dated 13th March 2006, made these crucial points:

• The comment was twisted from a genuine scientific point that was made at a Chatham House debate (which, by the nature of these debates, makes it an unreliable source… see below for an explanation of why).
• This comment was taken entirely out of context (it referred to long-term carcinogenicity studies of known genotoxins being futile… because they were already known to be toxic!), meaning SPEAK breached the British Codes of Advertising Practice and deceived the public.
• By attributing their propaganda to a source such as the Chairman of NICE, SPEAK falsely imbued this statement with the authority of the scientific community, again deceiving the public.
• By encouraging other organisations to download, reproduce and distribute this leaflet, SPEAK hold responsibility for this untruth being used repeatedly by the antiviv/ AR movement.

In the letter, Sir Michael also made it clear that animal research is vital (keep reading to see the letter itself):

Well, well, well.  Pro-Test founder Laurie Pycroft can add yet another feather to his cap.  Somehow, between standing up for animal research in general and the Oxford lab in particular, Laurie managed to find time to be profiled in Bliss magazine.  The hard-hitting biopic is in the August issue, but for those who can’t wait till it hits newsstands (SPOILER ALERT!  Laurie reveals which products he uses to achieve his trademark volume-at-the-roots ‘do!), here’s a teaser:

To borrow the language of Bliss readers:

The media around the world seems at last to be taking a responsible attitude in their reporting on this issue, critically evaluating their sources and making sure their evidence is good before publishing.  A fine example of this was recent coverage in The Sun (see Thumbs up to The Sun) and it looks as if similar ethics are prevailing across the pond.

The Arizona Republic had a great article recently where they were not taken in by two of the US’ most disingenuous AR organisations: PETA and PCRM.  Choice quotes include;

… it must be remembered that those who yell the loudest are not always right, and should not always carry the day.

[On the applicability of animal research to humans]
Whom to believe on that point?  How about the American Academy of Neurology for one?  This organization, unlike the animal-rights outfit that calls itself a Physicians Committee [PCRM], is actually made up of doctors.  Brain surgeons, no less.  Smart people.

… Opposing Covance because it uses animals in its research is to inhabit an Alice-in-Wonderland universe where priorities are turned absolutely upside down.  It’s to indulge in raw emotionalism against the cold, hard fact that people – precious, wonderful people – get sick and medial advances based on animal research have helped mitigate that grim reality.
Arizona Republic, 8th June 2006, ‘Warm, fuzzy’ PETA really inhumane

It looks as though the silent majority amongst the readership are pleased with this critical evaluation of the issue, as shown by the comments:

It is good to see that at least some journalists are not taken in by the unthinking animal activists. I am alive and well today, as are many of the activists, because of medicines and procedures developed through animal experimentation. As an animal owner I am aware that my animals also benefit from medicines developed the same way.

…thanks to the Republic’s editors for understanding that naming oneself as “Ethical” or as a “Physician” does not make one so.
(Peter6887, June 15, 2006 08:23AM)

Today’s Sun had one of the best articles that I’ve ever seen on animal research and the impact it can have on a person’s life. (1).

The account from Laura Cowell, a 20-year old cystic fibrosis sufferer is poignant, and shows her gratitude for the work that developed her drugs, saving her life:

"I wish the medicines I need weren’t tested on animals – but without them I would have died a long time ago… I grew up with cats, dogs and rabbits and I even keep rats as pets.  I love animals – but I also want to live."

The well-written article concisely captured what it is like to suffer from cystic fibrosis, accurately detailing the symptoms, and the plethora of drugs needed for treatment:

without a cocktail of drugs – all of which have been tested on animals – Laura would not have survived her first birthday… She has to take 30 tablets every day… and uses a steroid inhaler to help her breathing.  All were developed using animal tests.  And all HAD to be tested on animals before being licensed for use in humans.

The Sun also got their facts right about licensing laws and the Home Office statistics.

If this wasn’t impressive enough, The Sun rose even further in my estimation by printing one of the very few accurate accounts of the Thalidomide tragedy ever to appear in the media – and described how the lack of testing then directly led to our current animal research laws.  (For info on the Thalidomide tradegy see GeorginaTheGiraffe’s blog)
--------------------------------------
(1) The Sun, 18th May 2006, ‘I would have died without animal testing’, Ed. Jayne Symons p45.

Antivivisection groups must be smarting from the relative lack of attention from the press. The weekend of May 13/14 was a great opportunity for them to make a good case to counter the huge press and public support for responsible animal research and testing. But we heard almost nothing, apart from the predictable BBC ‘we have to be balanced - even if it means wheeling out the flat-earthers’ approach. The RSPCA approach of engagement and constructive challenge obviously was not divisive enough for the BBC.

The BBC had a tough choice finding someone for this ‘balance’; EMP is discredited, NAVS is lost in the past, and PETA is just too dangerous to talk to (watch them endorsing unlawful shareholder targeting on the video link on this BBC page)

So the BBC was left with BUAV which trots out isolated anecdotes of animal based science being wrong and saying it is old fashioned and implying it can be completely replaced. I actually do not know why the BUAV does this, because, through its association with the Dr Hadwen Trust, it appears to endorse the scientific method and the role of animal research (Have a look at the lab room interviews at their ‘Science Room’).

So why does BUAV say the exception proves the rule?  This Question and Answer from a US pundit says it all;

Q. I’ve heard the following expression from people all over the country and on television. It makes absolutely no sense:
“That’s the exception that proves the rule.”
Is this a bastardization of some other phrase? If not, what does it mean?
A. Don’t you get it? The whole point of this saying is that it doesn’t make sense. It’s what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point of view of advancing the debate it’s about one jump ahead of “yo mama,” but it beats standing there with your mouth open.