Last week saw the announcement of one of the most exciting technical and medical breakthroughs ever: the development of ‘neuroprostheses’, or electronic brain implants.  This amazing feat has enabled a paraplegic man’s brain to directly interface with and so control computers and robots: thanks Haruspica for your illuminating blog on this.

The research reported in Nature represents ‘the culmination of decades of investigation by many research group into computing, engineering and the neurobiology of animals and humans’; but there is still a way to go before neuroprostheses become clinical practice.

This breakthrough highlights perfectly the way science and medicine progresses: many groups work very hard – often in seemingly unconnected areas – and years later these come together to form something beneficial to humanity.  However, certain groups often fail to appreciate the size of the task and difficulties involved in developing treatments and cures.  For instance, antivivisection groups such as BUAV and EMP constantly whine that science has yet to produce a cure for AIDS, despite the fact that it was identified a mere 25 years ago and has seen huge developments in diagnostics and treatments thanks in large part to animal research.  Not only do these antivivisection groups ignore the valiant efforts and successes of those involved, they actively (and irresponsibly) dispute the validity of the work done; setting their own opinion over those who work in the field and who are therefore rather better informed (see a previous blog Monkey business).

Neuroprostheses (see also the bionic eye development announced last week), treatments for AIDS, malaria, flu (of any description let alone the dreaded bird flu), TB – the list goes on and on – solutions to all these require much ingenuity, together with dedication, intelligence and research on animals.  Researchers with these qualitites may save millions of lives; but according to the following cretinous statment are not needed.

What the enormous majority of sick people in this world need from us is not our ingenuity and our laboratories
Alistair Currie, BUAV Campaigns Director, speaking at the Oxford Union over the motion ‘This House would not test on animals’ (motion not passed)

Alistair Currie inhabits a fairyland where if people donated everything that they could spare then all the world’s troubles would be solved!  Yes, the world would be a better place if more people were charitable: fewer children would starve, die of drought or hypothermia.  But for the millions of AIDS sufferers, those paralysed, those succumbing to cancer and many more terrible diseases, there would be no cure: and I want no part of a world where money is thrown at them but no effort is made to tackle these things.

From Nature

Brain-machine interfaces promise to aid paralyzed patients by re-routing movement-related signals around damaged parts of the nervous system. A new study in Nature demonstrates a human with spinal injury manipulating a screen cursor and robotic devices by thought alone. Implanted electrodes in his motor cortex recorded neural activity, and translated it into movement commands. A second study, in monkeys, shows that brain-machine interfaces can operate at high speed, greatly increasing their clinical potential.

So what does Animal Aid show and say?

Experimenting on monkeys with the hope of unlocking the secrets of the human brain is an exercise in futility. The most dramatic difference between humans and any other species, including the great apes, is found in the central nervous system. Our brain is four times larger than that of a chimpanzee, which is four times larger than that of a macaque. The human brain is enriched with specific cell types implicated in communication, language, comprehension and autonomic functions

Quote from the Nature paper:

This system consists of a chronically implanted sensor and external signal processors developed from preclinical animal studies.

More from Animal Aid:

I have yet to hear a sufficiently compelling scientific argument that justifies the suffering inflicted on primates in medical research. 
Dr Charlotte Uhlenbroek, leading primatologist and BBC science presenter.

Try this Dr Uhlenbroek:

Mr Nagle said the sensor had restored some of his independence by allowing him to carry out a number of tasks - such as turning the lights on - that a nurse would normally do for him.  He told the BBC: ‘I can’t put it into words. It’s just wild.’

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...

One thing we enjoy doing is exposing the animal rights groups who masquerade as medical or scientific organisations in a bid to sound respectable. The worst offender here is Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP), which even claims to be a ‘patient safety organisation’, see our earlier blogs highlighting its misinformation.

EMP’s sister organisation in the USA is the so-called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organisation which is heavily funded by the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. One of those engaged by PCRM is John Pippin, who calls himself ‘Senior Medical and Research Advisor’. Since PCRM does not carry out any medical research, it is not clear why it needs an adviser, except to sound credible in its campaigns against the use of animals in research.

In a recent letter to The Scientist magazine, John Pippin claims he wants to ‘counter the absurd publicity stunt by Simon Festing and RDS, in the article Scientists call for retractions’.

Pippin writes:

Unwilling or unable to rebut Dr. Bailey’s scholarship, they have resorted to personal attacks. When I read Dr. Festing’s feeble accusations of extremism against Dr. Bailey, I was reminded that character assassination is the last cowardly refuge of those unable to engage in the debate. [our emphasis]

In fact the article contains no accusation of extremism by our Director against Bailey. But we are fascinated by John Pippin’s remarks. A recent email he sent (around what he thought was a private animal rights network) said the following:

The Research Defense Society (RDS) is a shameless shill for the animal research industry in the UK. It is funded by animal killers such as research institutions, business interests, drug and device manufacturers, etc.

The CEL (Chief Executive Liar) for RDS is Simon Festing, a professional sycophant without other identifiable skills, who will say anything to earn his salary. It is our good fortune that he is demonstrably robotic and shallow.

Now what were you saying about character assassination earlier, John? Remind us please, just for the record!

For almost 100 years the Research Defence Society has been explaining why we need to use animals in medical research. In our time, we have seen some pretty pitiful attacks on animal research by anti-vivisection and extremist groups. But the recent speech by Alastair Currie of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) at the Oxford Union Society debate, posted on BUAV’s website, really takes the biscuit for awful arguments.

By the third paragraph, Alistair is describing animal research as being equivalent to the ‘morality of the thief’. Presumably the comparison is obvious to him, but he makes little attempt to explain it. The fact that animal research is lawful, highly regulated and subject to frequent unannounced inspections seems to us to make it somewhat different to theft. How many thieves apply to the Home Office for a licence! And the fact that the benefits of animal research fall to the whole of society, in particular to sick and vulnerable people, makes the comparison with the selfish thief even more bizarre. Just how much thought went into this by Alistair, we have to ask.

At the end of the same paragraph, Alastair Currie likens animal research to Stalinism. Alastair has been heard recently on the news complaining that the Government won’t meet with the BUAV. The Government has consistently stated its belief that animal research has helped to save the lives of hundreds of millions of people, for example in the 2004 report Animal Welfare – Human Rights: protecting people from animal rights extremists. But BUAV thinks that it is more like the slaughter of millions of innocent people carried out by Stalin. One wonders what common ground there could possibly be between BUAV and the Government for a constructive meeting!

I’ve personally witnessed that Jarrod Bailey, ‘Science Director’ of the antivivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress, is fond of that dubious practice, self-citation (see below for details).

An excellent paper in ‘the journal of unlikely science’, Null Hypothesis, lists some of the reasons people self-citate:

Self-citation references can also be used to (i) let journal reviewers and referees know who has written the paper (which may not always be a good thing!), (ii) to establish to readers your reputation in a given area and/or (iii) satisfy cravings to see your name in print! In this short article I aim to examine the art of self-citation in academic writing and give some effortless hints and tips.
Professor Mark Griffiths; Self-citation : A practical guide; Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, UK; Null Hyp. ‘Best Of’, pp14-15

Prof Griffiths then goes on to give tips for successful self-citation, although warning that:

The bioscience community who use animals have rightly been concerned about free speech: it would be wrong to expect the freedom to do research and not allow the freedom to comment. Hence support for protests, even if they are a massive distraction. But let’s not get blase about protest:

A man was arrested during an animal rights protest which frightened pupils at a Ware primary school. A group of around 25 protesters were camped outside drugs firm GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) premises in Park Road last Friday, supervised by at least 12 police officers. Pupils at St Catherine’s C of E Primary School were playing outside during their lunch break at the time. One 10-year-old told the Mercury: “There were little children from Years 1, 2 and 3 that were crying their hearts out. “I’d like to know what the animal rights people thought they were doing by frightening young children, who thought they were going to get murdered.” Deputy headteacher Kirsty Robinson said: “On the advice of police we were asked to move the children to the playground at the back of the school and padlock our gates. The children were more frightened by the people shouting and the fact they didn’t really understand what was going on with all the police there.” Dennis O’Sullivan, headteacher at next-door Chauncy School, said: “The police offered to stop them because they were making a lot of noise and we had a GCSE French exam starting, but they couldn’t actually hear it in the exam room. “They were shouting things like ‘Murderers!’ at the building, but there was no-one around to hear."

Frightening little kids isn’t ‘legitimate protest’ to me.

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)

Just days after the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) launched its report on use of non-human primates in research, the Government posted its response to a different report on the same topic, namely the Animal Procedures Committee’s Report on Non-Human Primates. The two make interesting comparisons.

BUAV is calling for a legislative or administrative prohibition on all primate experiments in Britain. In contrast, the Government has made very clear that there is no immediate prospect of an end to this use whilst the benefits to humans, animals and the environment outweigh the costs to the animals involved and until there are suitable alternatives available.

This is not what BUAV want to hear. Unfortunately for them, it couldn’t be simpler. The benefits of using non-human primates in research remain both significant and necessary at the present time.

Non-human primates are accorded special protection under UK law. Their use constitutes only about 0.1 per cent of all animal procedures. For now this research will continue, despite the campaigning of the animal rights groups. We await with interest the report of the Weatherall Committee which will investigate a more strategic approach to the future use of NHPs in research at both a UK and global level… (and) will help inform the scientific basis on which future policy decisions are taken.

As some of you know, the chat forum OxfordGossip has a pretty big section devoted to discussion of the Oxford lab and AR.

It can be soul-destroying at times to wade through the endlessly regurgitated, badly-expressed nonsense and general abuse against ‘meat eating savages’ that some of the antivivs/ ARistas post (see OxGoss knocks Bailey off his high horse and Animal Aid shown the door).  Just yesterday I blogged here on the fact that NAVS are still making claims about morphine and penicillin 13 years after they were shown to be untrue.

However, this morning I saw something that brightened up my day and has hopefully set the tone for the weekend: Stop The UK Seatbelt Laws is a new thread that brilliantly parodies all the antiviv/ AR arguments in a mere 3 pages (at last count).  I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

The starting post is a rip-off of a genuine antiviv/ AR post where the words ‘animal testing’ have been substituted for ‘seatbelts’.  It should be hard to believe that someone could wade into a forum where there are several thousands posts on this issues – some of them very intelligently expressed – and for their first post put something so naïve…

Antivivs/ ARistas note how easily your claims are debunked, even through the mode of satire.  If you actually read the rest of the forum section, you’ll see how they are each specifically debunked with individual thoroughness (over and over and over again). 

It seems that the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) aren’t up-to-date, even on their latest press release where the Notes to Editors contains information that has been proved wrong many, many, MANY times; including being deemed erroneous by an independent bodies such the Advertising Standards Authority.

For ‘Examples of species differences’, NAVS uses the (rotten) chestnuts that:

morphine calms people & rats but excites cats and mice;
penicillin is a useful antibiotic for people but kills guinea pigs

Sigh.  These fallacies have been debunked so many times that it’s not even funny – just wearying – that they keep being trotted out.

What the hell, let’s go one more time:

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) last night held a debate to mark the launch of their new report on the use of non-human primates in research, which is described on their website. It was a sterile debate, with the anti-vivisectionists intransigent in their view that the abolition of the use of animals in research is the only ethically justifiable position.

BUAV reports get longer and duller, but no less distorted or inaccurate. The arguments certainly have not changed. Primates are supposedly so similar to humans that they deserve to be given equal protection, yet at the same time so different from people that no research can ever benefit humans. We’ve heard all that before.