For the ‘surplus’ they use old estimates produced by Great Britain (80%) and Norway (38%). The authors themselves admit ‘These data are very incomplete and variable, and may not justify a formal extrapolation to worldwide figures’ and that they ‘do not command such high levels of confidence’. Nevertheless, they use this arguably invalid extrapolation to add 59% to the total.

Another assumption which may not be valid is that most countries do not include breeding of GM animals in their official estimates. The authors allude to two countries that do include them; they comprise a significant minority (33%) and a very tiny minority (0.7%) of procedures in Britain and the Netherlands respectively. Based on these wildly disparate and limited figures, they produce an average of 17% and apply this to other countries, ie they add 17% to official estimates.

While examining the ATLA paper, I came across an interesting statistic that relates to rodents bred for research regarded as ‘surplus’. While many are used as breeding stock or humanely killed so that their tissues and organs may be used in research, some are killed and sold as pet food – for raptors and reptiles. According to the Wall Street Journal in 1999 (reproduced by the UK’s Animal Procedures Committee in 2003), some 180 million rodents are killed for this purpose every year in the USA. At least 10 times greater than the number of rodents used in research in that country.

The antivivisectionists must feel that overall numbers are important, as they have clearly spent a long time collecting a mass of data. But without context they are rather meaningless. That context may be ‘social’ as above, or related to the bigger medical research picture. For instance, spending on UK biomedical research has increased by at least 50% since 1995 while animal procedures have increased by only 18%. 

The strict regulatory regime in the UK does provide, on an annual basis, a mass of statistics about animal research. We know that in 2007, 3.2 million procedures were conducted using just over 3 million animals, and that 83% of these procedures used rodents. We also know the numbers of GM mice used in breeding (850,000 in 2007). Of course, this is not news – we covered the latest UK statistics in a recent blog entry.  Such bald figures may not be of much public interest either.

One scientist quoted by Arron cautioned that the risks of nanoparticles could outweigh the benefits. But any debate about the use of mice in medical research was clearly not considered relevant to the piece.

Of course the antivivisectionists are quick to latch onto statistics such as only 1 in 5000 drugs getting approved for human use. Last week our young friends at Speaking of Research (the US counterpart of Pro-Test) were busy debunking the oft-quoted ‘92% of drugs that pass animal tests fail human trials’ statistic. We have addressed such nonsense several times on this blog.

Tom at Speaking of Research points out that you can use statistics allied with assumptions to ‘prove’ anything. He comes up with his own (hypothetical) case that 90.5% of dangerous drugs have been kept out of human trials thanks to animal safety tests.

The book has received reviews both rewarding the openness Conn has shown, and critising the book for not going far enough in explaining animal research (Deborah Blum, New Scientist; Andrew Read, Nature). In any case, it is an initiation into the world animal extremists live in - an acknowledgement of the extent to which they are willing to go in order to get their message across - to stop all research with animals. 

Blogger the Scientific Activist has written about The Animal Research War, and makes an interesting point that this book highlights the web of support different organisations have created – and people who support organisations with links to extremists should be aware of exactly where their support goes; you can read the blog entry here.

The review in New Scientist sums up what needs to be done in the USA, saying the book ‘asks the research community and its supporters to fight back against a well-honed opposition’. The US science community is under threat from the actions of the extremists. With the UK having better laws we have seen their activity die down, and extremists prosecuted. More information on the decline in the UK can be seen in a recent item on the RDS website. For the most part, scientists are able to be proud and loud about the work they do - this needs to be translated across the pond to prevent people being intimidated into abandoning potentially life saving research.

These simplistic comments are a sad reflection of the failure of the Independent to get to grips with how animal research works. Whilst it is understandable that news pieces are short, the Independent is the only quality broadsheet that has repeatedly failed to give a more in-depth analysis. Contrast, for example, with the more sophisticated approach from the Guardian Comment is Free blog.

For all we know, some years in the future the outcomes of these news stories could be very different. If we do ever gain a successful vaccine against HIV, it could be that animal research plays an important role in its development. And it is not impossible that the results of the gene therapy trials for blindness turn out to be less spectacular than first thought—it would not be the first time.

We already know that some animal studies give results which translate reasonably well in to medical advances for people. Inevitably, in other cases, significant differences between the animals and humans, or problems in experimental design, or insufficient animal research, mean the results are less helpful. The Independent could do more to inform readers about the nature and intricacies of medical research. An occasional science column along these lines would be welcome.

In fact, scientists and medical research charities have been trying to engage the public, the media and politicians on this issue for about three years. So I suggest it’s not for lack of trying that the scientists’ voice is not being heard, but that many people have not been listening.

However, I think Fiona would agree with Mary’s analysis that ‘…the British public’s combination of scepticism and susceptibility to simplistic argument is in direct proportion to the failure of our scientists to engage with us .… what the MMR finding shows is the dangerous vacuum that is left when reputable scientists fail to communicate’.

Fiona had actually been on the Today programme to discuss of Andrew Wakefield’s appearance in front of the GMC about his conduct in relation to MMR. She had some very interesting things to say too about media ‘balance’ on difficult scientific and medical issues – definitely worth listening.

But back to the debate over the human embryology bill and hybrid embryos. At last we are beginning to see feature articles that aim to cast more light than heat on the issues. I recommend today’s Guardian G2 piece by Aida Edemariam. Its title ‘A matter of life and death’ is the only slightly immoderate thing about it.

‘Given the current state of knowledge, the use of a limited number of other species of non-human primates remains, however, unavoidable for several vital research programs such as on immune based diseases (eg multiple sclerosis), neuro-degenerative disorders (Parkinson, Alzheimer, etc), infectious diseases (HIV, malaria, TB, hepatitis, SARS, etc) and other serious diseases. 12 out of 17 diseases listed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) under the programme to fight epidemics and pandemics require the use non-human primates during the development, production or testing of the related vaccines and medicines.’

and

‘However, it is recognized that, with the current scientific knowledge, not enough alternative methods are yet available to replace the use of non-human primates in all areas of biomedical research today, nor in the near future. The need for their continued use in biomedical research is also highlighted in the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee in 2002.’

Perhaps the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection hoped to bury this positive and robust statement about the need for primate research by claiming that a freedom of information tribunal had ruled that ‘the Government has been unlawfully withholding details of the animal experiments it licenses in the UK’. BUAV trumpeted ‘This a major victory in [our] long campaign to get the government to be more open and transparent about the animal experiments it licenses in the UK to allow proper and informed public debate.’

This is not quite what the information tribunal said, and to spin this as a ‘major victory’ is surely delusional. This hearing last Wednesday did NOT require the disclosure of anything in addition to that already disclosed in response to the original FoI request (although it’s possible that a future hearing may do so). In summary, it asked that the Home Office reconsider its response the original BUAV information request in preparation for a further hearing to be held on an unknown future date. It gave the Home Office 28 days to lodge an appeal. It seems likely that this will do nothing more than divert Home Office resources away from regulation of animal research.

Today, the antivivs have got themselves in a bit of a lather over the news of a new GM mouse model of the common cold . You might think that any reasonable person would welcome a mouse that has the potential to replace the use of great apes (ie humans and chimpanzees) in research. Not only is there potential for a common cold treatment, which has eluded scientists for over 40 years, but the virus can also cause serious and life-threatening complications such as acute asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia.

Leanne Male of the charity Asthma UK said:

‘Ninety per cent of people with asthma tell us that colds and flu triggers their asthma symptoms but as yet there is no specific treatment for virally induced asthma attacks and steroid treatments are only partially effective against them.  We welcome this latest advancement as it will lead to a greater understanding of viral infections and their link with asthma and may help the development of a suitable treatment for virus-induced asthma attacks, thus greatly improving the lives of the 5.2 million people with the condition in the UK.’

Thankfully, not all good news can be buried; once it’s out it’s out. The ensuing debate on the Independent’s Have Your Say is the usual sterile stuff: antivivisectionists denying that animal research works despite the evidence of medical and scientific history, and claiming that it’s all cruel and unnecessary because we have non-animal alternatives. Now who would use animals if it wasn’t necessary in their research …?

If they want a proper, open debate it’s time for the antivivisectionists to get real.

Another story which got some media interest was the announcement by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) of an increase in animal testing for so-called ‘health foods’, reported for example in the Times. As is so often the case, without the relevant facts to hand, it is difficult to comment on the detail. It seems only some of this research is carried out in the UK.

This is one of those cases where the lack of information available to the public can be just as frustrating for RDS as it is to the animal rights groups. It would be nice to match up the claims of the antivivisection groups against the relevant project licence abstracts on the Home Office website. Unfortunately, a lack of user-friendly interface means searching the abstracts is far from straightforward.

We believe 2008 will see the continued demise of animal rights extremism, and the emergence of a more sophisticated and nuanced debate about animal research in the UK instead. Watch this space!

On 6 September 2007 the European Parliament adopted Written Declaration 0040/2007, now referred to as ‘WD40’, which called for the European Commission to use the revision of the Directive on animal research to ‘establish a timetable for replacing the use of all primates in scientific experiments with alternatives’.

However, written declarations are not part of the legislative process. They are simply an expression of opinion. Any MEP can put down a written declaration on any subject and then ask others to sign it. MEPs are usually willing to sign these declarations simply because they do not have any real effect. Many of the MEPs who signed this one had previously signed ones calling for more research in serious or debilitating diseases.

If over 50% of the MEPs sign a declaration it is ‘adopted’ – ie read into the minutes of the Parliament and a copy sent to the European Commission. Nothing else happens, although in this case we understand the Commission is likely make a statement in response.

MEPs dislike the idea that primates are used in experiments, because they do not understand why it is necessary and because they have been given a false impression by animal rights groups that it involves causing a lot of suffering to chimpanzees and other higher primates. The antivivisectionists even sent ‘gorillagrams’ to MEPs. Chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas have not been used in the UK for over 20 years and their use is now banned. We don’t have any figures, but we would be most surprised to find that gorillas had been used in any European country in recent years.

More effort is now being made by the scientific community to explain to MEPs the importance of animal research and the use of non-human primates. Earlier this week a group of scientific organisations held a briefing in the European Parliament with research experts to start this process.

The presentations at this event made a compelling case for such research. But perhaps the most enjoyable part of the briefing was to see the researcher for Caroline Lucas MEP, an ardent antivivisectionist and supporter of the written declaration, being put on the spot. She was asked about the sentence in the declaration that suggested monkeys destined for Europe are at risk of being used for ‘human consumption’. She had to admit that this was not true. Sometimes the facts matter.

‘The ability to precisely tailor mouse genes has completely revolutionized the practice of biomedical science for the last decade and is likely to become even more important in the decades to come. We are certain to reap an enormous bounty of information from knockout mice and reap great benefits for the improvement of human health.’
– Prof Ira Herskowitz, presenting the 2001 Lasker Prize to Capecchi, Evans and Smithies

Although she made these comments just six years ago, the predicted benefits for human health are already recognised:

‘Thanks to this technology we have a much better understanding of the function of specific genes in pathways in the whole organism and a greater ability to predict whether drugs acting on those pathways are likely to have beneficial effects in disease.
– Stephen O’Rahilly, Head of the Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Cambridge quoted by Reuters, ‘Designer mice’ pioneers win Nobel for medicine, 8th October 2007

Steve Brown, director of the mammalian genetics unit at the Medical Research Council in London, said the three researchers have ‘given us the toolkit to understand how genes function’ in mice and so, by extension, in humans. As a result, of their work, he said, ‘we’re on the cusp of having a much better understanding of the relationship between genes and disease.’
– The Associated Press, US, UK Scientists Win Nobel in Medicine, 8th October 2007

Animal research has been an integral part of over 70% of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine – it seems that the contribution of animal research to the field of biomedicine continues to be recognised with the highest accolades of science.