If ever there was an example of a single technology which antivivisectionists quote as a successful alternative to animal studies, it is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The Dr Hadwen trust even organised a presentation about this research method from an Oxford University Professor at their recent meeting in Brussels.

As we have pointed out many times, the failure of antivivisectionists to accept the limitations of some of these alternative methods of research is frankly dishonest. Fortunately, there are more credible sources than animal-rights literature.

Nature journal this week carries an extensive review of what we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. RDS certainly acknowledges the view of the author that MRI is the most important imaging advance since the introduction of x-rays. However, as the review points out, ‘fundamental questions concerning the interpretation of fMRI data abound, as the conclusions drawn often ignore the actual limitations of the methodology’.

The concluding sentences of the review are particularly strong, albeit rather technical:

‘Today, a multimodal approach is more necessary than ever for the study of the brain’s function and dysfunction. Such an approach must include further improvements to MRI technology and its combination with other non-invasive techniques that directly assess the brain’s electrical activity, but it also requires a profound understanding of the neural basis of haemodynamic responses and a tight coupling of human and animal experimentation that will allow us to fathom the homologies between humans and other primates that are amenable to invasive electrophysiological and pharmacological testing. Claims that computational methods and non-invasive neuroimaging (that is, excluding animal experimentation) should be sufficient to understand brain function and disorders are, in my opinion, naive and utterly incorrect’.

Today the well-known primatologist Dr Jane Goodall called for a Nobel prize for advancing medical knowledge without experimenting on animals, as reported in the Guardian. This rather misses the point. Since about 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine or physiology involve the use of animals, it is already the case that around 30% do not.

The issue is also discussed on the Guardian ‘comment is free blog’, coinciding with the launch of a report by animal protection groups across Europe calling for greater efforts to replace animal experiments across Europe.

We would all wish to see alternative methods developed that could fully replace the use of animals in research. With current scientific knowledge it cannot happen yet. But this is an area of potential common ground between the scientific community and the animal protection movement. At a meeting held at the European Parliament in Brussels, we heard of the many examples of new technologies which have replaced animal studies, or could do so in the future. Much progress has been made already, and there is much more to be done. 

The news in the Times that monkeys have been genetically engineered in the US to contract Huntington’s disease (HD) highlights the continuing ethical dilemmas of animal research. There cannot be any doubt of the suffering of the animals, although it is not pain itself which is a major feature of HD.

It is presumably this suffering, rather than genetic engineering per se, which led the RSPCA to ‘completely condemn’ these experiments. But that is only one side of the story. As always, a modicum of balance is necessary before making a judgement for society as a whole. The other side of the coin is that many people still suffer with HD. Indeed, because of such neurodegenerative diseases, it is likely that the number of monkeys used in research worldwide will rise in future years.

It is true, as the RSPCA points out, that there are other methods of research. But they have limitations and are not satisfactory. In the absence of greater information about the likelihood of scientific and medical benefits from such research, we cannot give a verdict on this particular research. We hope our colleagues in the US have done as good a job as we would wish to see in carefully assessing and weighing the potential benefits against the harms to the animals. This would be the very least we would expect.

The UK may be looking towards a future without parents fretting about their children catching meningitis, universities no longer having to put together contingency plans for outbreaks amongst amorous students, and the elderly not succumbing to this vicious disease. Reports last week of the successful preliminary clinical trial of a vaccine, shown to produce strong responses to the bacteria causing meningitis B, have raised hopes of eradicating meningitis from the UK and Europe.

The vaccine, MenB, was injected into 150 babies at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age, and triggered an immune response when tested against 3 strains of meningitis B. After the 4th dose, the immune response was 100%, 98% and 93%. When you hear these exciting and hopeful results, it’s easy to overlook the years of research that have led to this discovery when such results are published. Progress against this disease has depended heavily on animal studies.

Animals have helped us understand the disease, and test potential treatments and vaccines, so much so that the last decade has seen the UK vaccinated against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib vaccine), meningitis C, and a vaccine that offers immunity against the most common causes of pneumococcal meningitis.

Novartis, the company involved in producing the new MenB vaccine, continues to be the focus of a sustained campaign from anti-vivisection campaigners - in fact a whole week of action has been promised from the 26th May by one particular group. With such hope of getting rid of the disease, it is a wonder they don’t quieten down a little, and just let the scientists get on with their fight against one of the world’s deadliest killers.

A new publication, Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research, lays out the expectations of the main UK funding bodies for the use of animals in research.

The guidelines outline legal aspects of UK research involving animals, and information on how the 3Rs should be applied. It is the first time major UK funders—the NC3Rs, BBSRC, NERC, MRC and the Wellcome Trust—have collaborated in this way. Dr Vicky Robinson, chief executive of NC3Rs, comments: ‘the NC3Rs is delighted that these major funders speak with one voice on such an important issue for the scientific community.’ Further information is available from the NC3Rs website.

It can be downloaded directly by clicking here. (Adobe PDF File, 542kb)

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.

100 years ago today RDS was announced to the public. A letter in the national press on 24 April 1908 said: ‘A Society has been formed with the name of the Research Defence Society, to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them.’

In 1912, RDS even had a ‘shop’ in London.

In 1908 (as we know from BBC One’s Casualty 1907) life expectancy in the UK was about 45 years, and Paul Ehrlich and Ilya Mechnikoff were about to win the Nobel Prize for research on magic bullets they called antibodies.

Key points that Lord Cromer, founding president of RDS, made in his letter 100 years ago are just as fitting today, for instance: 

‘The great advance that has been made during the last quarter of a century in our knowledge of the functions of the body, and of the cause of disease, would have been impossible without a combination of experiment and observation.’

Our centenary year also marks significant anniversaries of other medical developments related to animal research:

There has been a steady and sustained rise in openness about animal research from many of our leading research institutions in the UK.

This reflects partly the extremely effective government and police action to tackle animal rights extremism, for which we are extremely grateful. It also reflects a commitment from many more individuals in the scientific community to engage in an informed debate about animal research.

It is critical to point out that animal research is not a separate activity to the rest of biomedical research. Rather, is an integral part of the research effort to advance knowledge and ultimately develop new treatments and cures for patients. It is one of many important elements of the UK science base.

We give special mention to two major funding institutions in the UK, for their commitment and contribution to greater openness: the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.

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.

There is every indication that the more sophisticated and nuanced debate about the future challenges of animal research, which we have been hoping for, can materialise.

Last month our new Chairman, Professor Colin Blakemore, outlined in profile in the Times Higher Education Supplement the new approach to the debate which RDS will take.

This was followed up by an article in the New Statesman online by the Director of the RDS outlining the challenges ahead.

Finally, a detailed and extensive editorial has been published (as a pdf) in Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (which is the Journal of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) outlining how we see the new arguments unfolding.

With many of the animal rights extremists in jail or awaiting sentencing, now is the time to improve all aspects of the debate, and of course the science, 3Rs and animal welfare as well.

RDS is pleased to see that the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) has posted information on its website about systematic reviews. NC3Rs is one of many organisations which could take an interest. This is because of the potential to use systematic reviews to improve experimental design, and so reduce the numbers of animals used in research, as well as achieve better (and more ethically acceptable) results.

A recognition of the need to ensure the highest quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and retrospective review of animal studies is something we believe should be embraced. There is cause for concern that we are not always getting it right. On the other hand, the good news is that this has been recognised by leading organisations like the Biosciences Federation, which has organised a series of meetings on experimental design for animal researchers.

Ultimately there is no reason why the UK could not become an established world leader in this area. We are already among the leaders in quality of biomedical science, 3Rs research, and the culture of care for laboratory animals.

Leading US scientists, including Nobel prize winner David Baltimore, primate researcher Ronald Desrosiers, and virologist Neal Nathanson, have voiced criticisms recently of the direction taken by HIV vaccine research. They say, not for the first time, that more money should be spent on basic research, rather than rushing to human trials of vaccines that do not look particularly promising. In the US, one third of the National Institutes of Health HIV/AIDS research budget goes to human trials of vaccines.

Desrosiers said the field is hampered by many unknowns, such as an understanding of which immune responses a vaccine must elicit. Baltimore added ‘HIV has found ways to totally fool the immune system, so we’ve got to do one better than nature because nature just doesn’t work in this circumstance.’

No-one would suggest that animal research holds all the answers, but animal studies are a crucial part of going back to basics – they will continue to provide vital clues about the human immune system’s response to HIV.

All this is common sense and rather gives the lie to simplistic and misleading antivivisection statements like:

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:

RDS has made clear its support for the concept and practice of systematic reviews. These can help inform how animal studies may be improved and interpreted for the benefit of human health.

Unfortunately, systematic reviews are not a panacea. Some of the published systematic reviews have been so highly selective that their findings had limited relevance, as discussed on a previous blog entry. In other cases animal data is too diverse to make the reviews meaningful. And for much basic research, the objective is not to predict the outcomes of human trials, but to discover new knowledge, whether relevant to humans, animals or the environment.

For these reasons, RDS unfortunately cannot support the current e-petition to the Prime Minister by the organisation known as SABRE. This petition would require, amongst other things, that each licence application includes references to systematic reviews of existing relevant studies. This is simply not practical. How can an application for a new piece of work make reference to a non-existent systematic review?

RDS will be engaging in a number of ways during 2008 in the debate about how to improve experimental design and encourage systematic reviews. It’s a shame a little more thought had not gone into the wording of what could otherwise have been a sensible proposal.

Congratulations to Dr Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive of the NC3Rs, for the carefully worded response to the announcement that the Animal Liberation Front released 129 rabbits from a breeding facility in Lincolnshire.

The NC3Rs statement expressed great concern about the release of these animals. It pointed out:

These are captive bred animals which are not prepared to cope with life in the wild or as a pet. Putting them in this situation is not in their best interests and is likely to be stressful for them, regardless of ones view on the rights and wrongs of using animals in research.