At last, a science documentary that’s engaging, doesn’t dumb down science too much and doesn’t create fake controversy (see last week’s New Scientist article about technological populism - we see all too many examples of that). And the mini series is mostly about animals – not natural history, but the science of genetic modification.

Animal Farm is the sort of programme that perhaps only Channel 4 has the guts to commission. It avoids the Brave New World and Frankenstein cliches, although it does include some weird and wonderful animals (mostly used in food production). The concept involves two presenters who investigate GM from different perspectives but in a very straightforward way. Dr Olivia Judson is an enthusiastic scientist, while Giles Coren is a sceptical foodie. I loved Sam Wollaston’s review in today’s Guardian which characterised both of them as GM creatures.

But there should have been more rigorous testing of the GM food. It’s all very well Giles Coren appealing to the yuk factor and having his prejudices confirmed by the apparently bland taste of his ‘GM’ steak, but where was the blind taste test?

Next week I’m hoping to see some cute mice instead of featherless chickens and muscle bound cattle. The real benefits of genetically modifying animals are in medical research, which uses close to one million GM mice every year in the UK alone.

We reported earlier on this blog at the way that an in-depth investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman threw out a number of allegations of misconduct by the Home Office made by the by animal rights group Uncaged. RDS is writing shortly to MPs to bring this important report to their attention.

This is all part of a long campaign by Uncaged called ‘Diaries of Despair’. It seems now that Uncaged, which is at the marginal end of rationality, are calling for a ‘commons inquiry’ into the supposed ‘ombudsman whitewash’ as outlined on their website.

Interestingly, Uncaged claims that the Ombudsman’s conclusion suggests that they were prejudiced against them from the start. Uncaged say that the Ombudsman seemed:

‘to view us as ill-informed and naïve campaigners who can’t tell the difference between a critique of vivisection as a whole and a narrower critique of the way regulations are implemented’.

RDS strongly doubt that the Ombudsman had any such preconceptions. It is immediately apparent from the report of the Ombudsman’s investigation that they did a thorough job looking at all of the issues.

Just for the record however, RDS certainly does see Uncaged as ill-informed and naïve. What concerns us even more is the waste of taxpayers money if any more of this daftness and yet more inquiries occur. We hope MPs will take note.

The topic of discussion for a meeting tomorrow of an organisation known as the Laboratory Animal Science Association seemed to me initially to be taking welfare to slightly crazy heights.

After all, although zebrafish are fast becoming the model of choice for many biologists, I thought that they were primarily used for study of the embryo and development – not too much scope for pond weed and treasure chests there. Even if adult fish are in labs there’s hot debate about whether fish actually perceive pain or discomfort as we know it; and how much enrichment does a fish need?

I was soon educated: one of the fastest Google searches I’ve ever done (’zebrafish’ and ‘enrichment’) returned a very pertinent article among the top hits, Evolution of Standards in the Care and Use of Zebrafish in the Jan 2007 issue of Animal Lab News. 

It turns out that zebrafish use is expanding because (i):

In its latest Parliamentary bulletin, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) claims that there is greater than ever Parliamentary support for the BUAV’s campaigns. It bases this on the 166 MPs who signed up to the BUAV’s EDM on primate experimentation last year.

There is no real evidence to support this claim. A similar EDM in 2003 received 223 signatures. So perhaps support is falling.

In any case, little effort has been made by the scientific community to properly inform MPs about the case for well-regulated animal research, and the high animal welfare standards that exist in the UK.

However, times are changing. Instead of the polarised debate that the animal rights groups seek to promote, we are seeing more recognition of the need for an ethical approach to contemplation of animal experimentation. This means more emphasis on the refinement, replacement and reduction of animal research projects—known as the 3Rs.

Earlier this week the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) held an excellent Parliamentary reception to showcase efforts by the commercial and academic bio-science sector to improve animal welfare standards, reduce the number of animals used in individual research projects and develop replacement alternatives. Information about the event is on the NC3Rs website, and an excellent booklet was published with details of the numerous projects which were on show as posters for the event.

While a minority of MPs are sadly stuck in the ghetto of animal rights propaganda, there are indications that many wish to see a more sensible debate. With the welcome activities of NC3Rs—raising the profile of the improvements in science that can be gained from developing better and fewer ways of using animals—there is every reason for MPs to discover for themselves the substantial gains that can and have been made.

Climate change sceptics, peddlers of ID and antivivisectionists all have one thing in common – a tendency to cherry-pick, or failing that, bastardise, science so that it seems to support their view.

This quote from Nature could be used to describe all three groups (although the article reference is about climate change sceptics).

"Their argument continues to shift,” says Naomi Oreskes, a geologist and science historian at the University of California, San Diego. “That makes it clear that the issue for them is not the science. Whatever the science is, they will try to find ways to question it.”

Climate change 2007: Climate sceptics switch focus to economics, Michael Hopkin
Nature 445, 8th Feb 2007, doi:10.1038/445582a

This spoof site about the dangers of ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water to the non-chemically minded) shows how anything can be supported by corkscrewed ‘science’.

Whilst we’re on the subject of pseudoscience, some of you may remember this blog of mine, Scientific method overthrown!

A recent government initiative is e-petitions; these aim to get the government direct access to the views of the public.  The problem is people often sign such things before they know all the facts.  I speak from experience: in my youth, the terrible photos paraded on antiviv stalls moved me to sign more than one ‘ban animal testing’ petition.  It took several years before I realised that these photos aren’t from the UK, and they’re decades old – I’m sure that some pictures exhibited today are the same ones that caught my eye 15+years ago!  I could point out more, such as some of them look like they’ve been (badly) doctored, but I digress…

It is unsurprising that there are a couple of animal research related petitions, both supportive and antiviv:

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has today issued a press release claiming that the use of primates in drug testing could be reduced in certain circumstances—in this case for the testing of monoclonal antibodies.

RDS strongly supports this targeted approach to identifying opportunities for reducing animal use. According to the NC3Rs, the next stage is to identify and tackle the obstacles, particularly around the validation and international acceptance of alternative tests by regulatory authorities. Questioning the scientific appropriateness of the primate model is also an important part of the work. The scientific community has never tried to pretend that animal models are perfect, or can deliver all the answers with total reliability, so the need for critical scrutiny and appraisal will always be relevant.

This is exactly the kind of valuable work which the NC3Rs should be undertaking, and is supported by the principle of a Parliamentary motion which already has the support of over 40 MPs. Please ask your own MP to support this ‘EDM number 429’.

One minute the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is complaining that sinister forces is preventing it getting its message out in the press—see our recent blog. The next minute, it is crowing about how successful it is at getting its own messages into the press. The BUAV boast that the January edition of the respected BBC Wildlife Magazine ran a ’fabulous article‘ on the BUAV’s undercover investigation at Nafovanny. This was exactly the same investigation they were previously complaining that they could not get coverage for.

This incoherence is almost certainly a sign of the return of Michelle Thew as the new Chief Executive of BUAV. In her introductory mail out letter, she claims to be developing a ’visionary strategic plan‘. To find out more about this vision, she refers readers to the BUAV Update - their supporters newsletter. I turn with excitement to the Update to find out all the juicy details of this visionary plan. Michelle states (again) that her ’first task is to develop a dynamic and visionary strategic plan‘. She later states that she is ’putting all her energy into formulating a strategy to take the BUAV closer to their goal‘. But nothing else. How disappointing. I search in vain to find out more. About as informative as the rest of the stuff that comes out of BUAV then! 

A written declaration of five Members of the European Parliament on primates in scientific experiments was tabled last September. Such a statement is the equivalent of an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the UK Parliament. It has received 59 signatures (the EU Parliament has 732 members) so far. According to European Parliament rules, declarations only need to be discussed in the Parliament if more than half of the MEPs have signed it. The Declaration lapsed last Thursday (18 January 07).
The declaration is full of false claims:

The ‘Happy New Year’ mailing to supporters of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has a lengthy moan about the ‘barriers’ that it claims are blocking it from ‘telling our side of the animal testing argument’. Much of this is put down to the supposed ‘vested interests’ and ‘deadweight of the testing industry’ - the usual stuff.

BUAV seems to be particular concerned that the ITN and Sky News reports on its infiltration at the Nafovanny primate breeding centre in Vietnam were ‘suddenly pulled’ after the broadcasters had a phone conversation with the ‘powers that be’. BUAV names the Home Office and the Medical Research Council in this category.

BUAV says it wants to make 2007 a ‘landmark year’ in telling the stories that the powers that be would rather keep quiet. The antivivisectionists have always been superb at creating elaborate conspiracy theories, with supposedly sinister and powerful forces acting behind the scenes against them. This must be great for fundraising. But in fact it is BUAV who would be uncomfortable with the truth—which is why it doesn’t reveal what really happened.

Uncaged is one of the smaller and more radical animal rights groups in the UK. Unhinged might be a better name. This group has waged a long campaign of misinformation against the Home Office for alleged maladministration in relation to an animal research project carried out by the company Immutran on xenotransplantation.

Presumably as part of that campaign, a mysterious ‘Mrs G’ made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman back in 2005. The report of the investigation into that complaint has just been made public - and soundly rejects all the allegations made. For example, the report states

This well-known phrase is used to illustrate a leading question; who would answer yes?! The approach is quite common in the dubious fringes of public polling. The collection of these suspect polls has just been enhanced by no less than the European Commission [smile … you paid for it :-( ]

The questions asked of the public on animal experimentation included:

Title: Increasing the welfare of animals used in experiments
Question: Do you believe that more needs to be done by your government to improve the level of welfare / protection of animals used in experiments?
Question: Do you believe that more needs to be done to improve the level of welfare/protection of animals used in experiments by action at EU level?
Question: More specifically, for each of the following animals used in experiments, how important do you believe is it to improve their current level of welfare/protection?
Question: Should there be more transparency and public participation in determining when and how animals are used in experiments?
Question: Should there be more transparency and public participation in determining when and how animals are used in experiments?

As context, of the respondents to the public questionaire, over 55% said they would not agree with the use of animals ‘To develop treatment for disease and medicines, and test their safety prior to placing on the market’, and 85% got their information from animal protection organisations.

The replies to the experts questionaire trashed many of the Commission’s suggestions, in particular condemning the ‘scientific advice’ received from the European Food Safety Agency. My particular favourite from this ‘advice’ was:

Spiders may be clever, if allowed enough time ...

Now cry … you paid for this as well :-(

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 European Directive 86/609 sets the legal framework for national laws in EU member States for the Regulation of Animal Research and is being revised.
The UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act implements this Directive.

It’s clear that this directive revision will be challenging with some animal protection campaigning groups spreading claims that research and testing is immoral and unreliable. However many MEPs are wise to the more outrageous claims of groups like ECEAE whose credibility can be judged by the fact that the UK member is BUAV.

Also the EU approach of encouraging consensus does mean that biomedical researchers are firmly seen in the middle ground, and again extreme positions are frowned upon. The recent protracted debate on balancing environmental protection and animal testing, REACH, has injected a heady dose of realism into MEPs. The Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik, also struck such a considered and realistic tone in his recent blog:

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.