[ HOME ] [ NEWS ] [ EVENTS ] [ GENERAL ] [ HUNTING ] [ FARMING ] [ VIVISECTION ] [ LINKS ] [ CONTACT US ]

National Anti Snaring Campaign

SHAC

SPEAK CAMPAIGN

HUNTWATCH

ARAN

BRIGHTON ANIMAL ACTION

Campaign for the Abolition of Animal Slavery

Anchor: vegetarian
Free vegetarian ebook site with recipes to improve your health

"Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories
and are called medical research". George Bernard Shaw

The APE team would like to remind you that Maria Daines' rock
song "Monkey In A Cage" is available for downloading from May
the 5th.Please help us to promote MiaC by cutting and pasting
the APE banner code onto all your networking sites and
sending it to as many friends as possible.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j211/Hellotrees/apelogo300.gif
Download The Song Here: pick "preview" to listen
http://indiestore.7digital.com/miacdownload
Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and look at the
pics in the "gallery" section of the site:
Many thanks,
APE team
www.againstprimateexperiments.com
More about MiaC can be seen and heard here:
http://iacmusic.com/songs.aspx?SongID=34807&ArtistID=18307

VICTORY! END TO CRUEL GOAT EXPERIMENTS

After a sustained campaign over the last 18 months, the Southern Animal Rights Coalition have finally put a stop to cruel and unnecessary hyperbaric research conducted by the MoD at the QinetiQ laboratory in Alverstoke, Hants. The campaign began after 9 goats were rescued from the facility in June 2006. We immediately began weekly protests in Alverstoke, as well as leafleting and demonstrations across the country. This ensured mass local support for our campaign. We reviewed the MoD's research, and exposed the scandal behind their 'science', as well as highlighting other agencies who had already adopted non-animal tests in this field. As well as this we worked with MP's, including Mike Hancock MP, who helped keep this issue in the political arena. After a few months of the campaign, the MoD announced a review of the tests, which we ensured was fully aware of our findings and research. We are delighted that these tests have stopped, although we maintain that it is a decision that is 100 years overdue. This also highlights a far wider issue, of repeat tests which are being conducted across the country without review, and which would be halted were they exposed to the public. The MoD stated: they only conducts animal testing where absolutely necessary and all work involving animals is carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.  The MoD has recently reviewed the requirement for further such hyperbaric research. The testing programme was aimed at improving the accuracy of the information relating to the likely probability and consequence of decompression illness following escape from a submerged submarine in varying depths and internal submarine pressures. This requirement has now been achieved, and the review has concluded that the remaining associated areas of uncertainty in submarine escape and rescue relate to events that are considered highly unlikely, and do not therefore need to be addressed by means of animal testing. The MoD has endorsed these recommendations and as a result, it has no immediate need to continue animal testing of this type." France has been using a non-animal method for ages but the MoD wouldn’t recognise it!!

Animals at Sussex University
According to a new report just launched, Sussex University Challenged, and produced by Violence-Free Science, the university is carrying out outdated and unnecessary research using animals. Molecular biochemist Colleen McDuling and senior research scientist Jonathan Balcombe used 6 of the university’s research papers fiocusing on experiments carried out over the last 5 years.  Naomi Scott of Violence Free Science said that the report also questioned the government as the Home Office should only licence animal use if no other methods are available. The report looked at alcohol withdrawal in rats and overheating of rabbits’ hearts, amongst others. The university didn’t accept the findings – well, we’d hardly expect them to, would we?

BUAV: Campaigners win key animal test freedom of information court victory
The Government has been unlawfully withholding the details of the animal experiments it licenses in the UK, according to a key ruling from the Information Tribunal released on 30 Jan. The case was brought by the BUAV after the Home Office refused to reveal basic information about animal experiment licences the organisation had applied for under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It attempted to argue that only the information which researchers applying for such licences chose to publish in summaries could be released. The basic information asked for by the BUAV covers the purpose of the experiment, what is to be done to the animals, how the applicant intended to limit animal suffering and, crucially, how they proved it was essential they used animals rather than alternatives in their proposed experiments. The BUAV is not interested in information that identifies who is or was involved or where the research is or has taken place. The decision means that far more information about what is done to lab animals and for what purpose - and about consideration of non-animal alternatives - will have to be disclosed by the Government. The cover-up of this information prevents informed public debate about the controversial area of animal experiments and, as the Home Office candidly accepted at the hearing, it means the Government cannot be held to account. The ruling is a key victory in the BUAV’s campaign to get the Government to abide by the FOI law and be open and transparent about animal experiments. It follows victory in the judicial review it brought against the Government last year when a High Court Judge ruled the Government had been unlawfully licensing animal experiments at Cambridge University. The organisation first asked for the licence information of 5 separate applications as a FOI test case soon after the Act came into force in January 2005. The Government had attempted to fudge its duty to release information so far by releasing ‘summaries’ of the licence information spun for public consumption. The tribunal agreed with the BUAV that such summaries are biased towards emphasising the positive aspects of the research and said they amounted to creating a “perception of a positive spin”. The BUAV argues this inevitably means any negative aspects such as animal suffering are downplayed. ‘This is not just a victory for the BUAV – this is a victory for the British public who expect to access honest and open information about the nature of animal experiments that take place in the UK. The Home Office’s repeated refusal to release basic non-confidential information about animal experiments just goes to further prove they are afraid of how the public will react if they are given real information about what actually happens to animals in UK laboratories, often at tax payers expense,’ said BUAV chief executive Michelle Thew. The Home Office has been directed by the Tribunal to conduct a proper analysis of what is, and what is not confidential within the licence applications in question following the ruling. The BUAV was represented by Daniel Alexander QC. 68% of people in the UK would like to live in a world where no-one wants or believes we need to experiment on animals, according to a poll carried out earlier this year on behalf of the BUAV by independent research group NFP Synergy. 76% of the British public think the Government should, as a matter of principle, prohibit experiments on any live animals which cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm in a TNS national opinion poll commissioned by the BUAV in 2003.

Vivisection Review
The European Commission is currently reviewing Directive 86/609/EEC, which sets out the rules for animal experimentation across the whole of Europe. There is still time to make a difference to the final draft. The European Commission itself acknowledges that non-animal replacements "...have the potential to provide robust information through quality-controlled, state-of-the-art tests which are faster and less cost-intensive than classical animal-based tests". Contact your MEPs and urge them to make Alternative Research a priority as part of the revision process of Directive 86/609/EEC. For contact details of your MEPs visit http://www.europarl.europa.eu Many non-animal research techniques exist that are cheaper, quicker and more effective than Animal Testing. A few are molecular research, computer simulations, tissue and organ culture and use of micro-organisms such as bacteria. It is in all our interest that Animal Testing is replaced with Alternatives based on Human Biology not Animals.

129 Rabbits liberated from lab breeder
It has been reported that on the 6^th Jan, 129 rabbits were liberated from a lab breeder in Lincolnshire. This breeder supplies HLS, as well as several UK universities. The photos show the cramped, unclean conditions of this hell hole - would we expect anything else? Watch the video and pics - to download hi-res images of the rescue go to: http://www.shac.net/ARCHIVES/2008/january/9.html

Nicotine experiments
Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) experimenter Eliot Spindel has been killing infant monkeys in nicotine studies for 24 years. But that's not enough for him - Spindel has a ticket to ride the federally-funded gravy train and continue these needless experiments until 2012. Since 1972 the National Institute of Health has awarded Spindel $7.6 million taxpayer dollars to dose pregnant monkeys with nicotine via pumps embedded in their backs. Spindel has failed to produce data that can't already be gleaned from human clinical studies. Animals acquire nicotine intravenously whereas humans inhale it. Animals receive mass doses in brief intervals, while people encounter small quantities over long periods. In 1999, Science Journal reported the way a drug digests contrasts widely from one species to another. By the time a monkey excretes a drug, it doesn't look like the same drug in a human. In fact, data derived from distressed animals is so misleading, early experiments prompted the tobacco industry to dub nicotine harmless. Epidemiological and clinical studies - not animal experiments - have disclosed all applicable data about smoking-related illnesses in people. Eliot Spindel squanders millions to impregnate monkeys and implant nicotine-dosing pumps in their backs. Females endure up to 5 surgeries as pumps are modified during pregnancy. Foetuses are cut out and killed during different developmental phases. Their lungs are dissected. One caretaker who worked in Spindel's lab for 2 years stated: "Among the most horrifying things I witnessed at the lab were the times baby monkeys were stolen away from their mothers... A worker reached into the cage to rip the baby from her mother, who screamed and fought to keep her baby safe. Once removed, the entire room of monkeys erupted into pandemonium - screaming, thrashing, and crashing against the sides of their cages..."  You can send your letters/e-mails of complaint to: Elizabeth G. Nabel, M.D. Director, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Building 31, Room 5A48, 31 Center Dr. MSC 2486 Bethesda, MD 20892 USA ph: 001 301-496-5166; email: nabele@nhlbi.nih.gov Joseph Robertson, Jr., M.D., MBA, President of OHSU 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Rd. Portland, OR 97239-3098 USA ph: 001 503-494-7891 email Dr. Robertson through his assistant: elliojer@ohsu.edu

Israel – undercover investigation
Video footage has been released of a shocking new undercover investigation of monkeys and cats undergoing brain research at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Laboratory workers are shown forcefully removing the unwilling macaque monkeys from their cages, immediately confining them to special chairs, for up to eight hours a day. The monkeys then face a punishing and extreme training regimen, where they are forced to observe a screen and perform repetitive tasks for hours on end. Their only reward will be a few drops of water. To ensure compliance, the animals are kept in a constant state of thirst, except on weekends. In addition, the monkeys and cats undergo surgery to expose parts of their brain. The animal rights group 'Let the Animals Live' is responsible for the undercover investigation, which they intend to use in court. In addition to the welfare concerns evident in the video footage, Israeli law states that an animal experiment shall not be performed if the objective of the study can be achieved by the use of non animal methods. It would appear that non-invasive methods used in human medicine could indeed have been used instead of the cats and monkeys. 'Let the Animals Live' plan to take their case to the Israeli courts later this week. Although conducted in Israel, the research has links to Germany, Denmark, the US and Oxford University, in terms of scientific support or funding. Although similar research may be taking place in these, and other countries, both politicians and the general public are showing clear signs of their opposition to such experiments. Earlier this year, a majority of MEPs voted in favour of a Written Declaration that would set a timetable to end all monkey experiments in Europe. To view the full investigation report go to: www.letlive.org.il/english/article.php?id=173

FOOTNOTE: After the report was released to the media a demonstration was held outside the Weizmann Institute. Cars honked in support and the whole cast of a popular TV show joined the protest as well as a former news anchorman.  Let the Animals Live has received umpteen messages from shocked people, some of whom said they wanted to liberate the monkey and were prepared to go to prison if caught. Some protesters even wore black T shirts with “For the animals it’s an eternal Treblinka” printed on them. The exposé has been discussed in the Knesset. The organisation is pressing for a prosecution as Israeli laws have been broken. They have been backed by members of the Knesset. Those guilty could get up to 3 years.

Animal rights advocates are behind a ceremony today at the Knesset during which MKs will sign a pledge to protect basic rights such as freedom from violence, hunger and thirst, the right to live in a space that enables free movement, and the right to perform actions natural to the animal's species. Some 30 MKs have already said they plan to attend the event, an initiative of the group Anonymous and the parliamentary lobby for animal rights. Tomorrow, the ministerial committee for legislative affairs is scheduled to discuss several bills aimed at protecting animals. Jan 2^nd 2008

"Out of an ethical recognition of the fact that animals undergo unlimited experiences ... suffering and pleasure, fear and joy ... I think we, as human beings and as a society, are obligated to act to defend their basic rights. These rights include, among other things, the right not to suffer from violence, from hunger or from thirst." Thus reads the Declaration of Animal Rights, signed in the Knesset Tuesday by the initiative of Anonymous for Animal Rights, on Animal Rights Day.

Monkey boiled alive in US lab
A monkey, slotted to be used in a drug-product research experiment, was instead boiled alive inside an Everett laboratory, a KIRO Team 7 Investigation found. It's a deadly error, but not the first one KIRO Team 7 Investigators uncovered at SNBL USA. The company houses around 2,000 primates and represents clients like Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Seattle Genetics. Using hidden camera footage, Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne shows you inside a facility that's no stranger to federal animal care violations. When it comes to scientific experiments, often the Cynomolgus Macaque monkey is the primate of choice. They weigh anywhere from about 3 to 25 pounds and make lots of barking noises. It's hard to image how anyone could miss one sitting inside a small cage. In early Nov, SNBL employees set out to clean pens full of monkeys and, at times, their babies. Our hidden camera footage, taken inside SNBL headquarters, shows just how obvious it is to see and hear these animals jumping around in their enclosures. Despite that, KIRO Team 7 Investigators confirmed someone placed a wire kennel, with a healthy female macaque monkey still inside, into a giant rack-washer. The 180^o water, caustic foam and detergent killed the primate at some point during the 20-minute cycle. Joanie McCully is a former Animal Care Supervisor for the SNBL. McCully is upset by what she calls a "long-standing disregard" for animal care at the Everett facility. As an example, she points to an e-mail from a veterinarian working at SNBL entitled "uh oh". McCully asked the vet, "I heard about the monkey, pretty bad." The reply: "Oh yes- what a mess! Knew it was going to happen at some time - many close calls. Now all the paperwork – USDA and AAALAC. What FUN!" McCully was floored by the reaction. "When I inquired about it, the reply I got back was 'Oh, dear.' Think of the paperwork. That just upset me to my soul because no animal in there should die because of somebody’s mistake or negligence or lack of compassion." McCully says she was recently fired after telling federal inspectors that some SNBL employees were abusing primates and failing to follow other US Department of Agriculture guidelines. Her list of complaints include: employees carelessly spraying monkeys with acid and intentionally slamming primates on the floor. Why would they do that? “Drop that cage from a standing position. Drop it. Monkeys would land on their heads in that cage and they'd (employees) spin it around to confuse the monkey and get it all out of sorts. Then, they’d do the procedure. That way the monkey is cooperative.” The company, so far, has refused to speak with KIRO Team 7 Investigators about that allegation or a number of others listed in U.S. Department of Agriculture reports. A Japanese conglomerate, Shin Nippon Biomedical, owns the Everett research centre. It did not respond to KIRO Team 7 Investigators regarding the animal welfare record of its subsidiary. A USDA spokesperson confirmed to Halsne that SNBL is on what that the agency calls the "risk list." It's a special category where inspectors visit more often than once a year, as required by law. That agency also tells Halsne, 'You get on the risk list by having a pattern of non-compliance.' The USDA confirmed to KIRO Team 7 Investigators that its inspectors are aware of the scalded monkey incident. That agency has no other comment until that investigation is complete.

Alternatives to animal toxicity testing
With a European ban on animal testing for cosmetics looming, companies are giving a hard look at high-tech alternatives. The chip looks like a standard microscope slide, but it holds hundreds of tiny white dots loaded with human cell cultures and enzymes. It's designed to mimic human reactions to potentially toxic chemical compounds, meaning rats and mice may no longer need to be on the front line of tests for new blockbuster drugs or wrinkle creams. Prof Jonathan Dordick and fellow chemical engineering professor Douglas Clark of the University of California, Berkeley lead a team of researchers planning to market the chip through their company, Solidus Biosciences, by next year. Hopes are high that the chip and other "in vitro" tests — literally, tests in glass — will provide cheaper, efficient alternatives to animal testing. The product developed by Dordick and Clark consists of 2 glass slides. The first, called the MetaChip, has uniform rows of little blots containing human liver enzymes. The other slide, the DataChip, contains an identical array of blots which, depending on the test, could be growing human liver, bladder, kidney, heart, skin or lung cell cultures. Sandwiched together, the 2 chips mimic the human body's reaction to compounds. If the cells inside die or stop growing, it's a sign that a toxin was introduced. About $3 million in federal money, including grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, has gone to Troy, N.Y.-based Solidus. Dordick said a pharmaceutical and a cosmetic company are testing the chip now and they hope Solidus will have a product on the market by late 2009.

Animal testing on the rise
New figures released by the EU on 8^th Nov reveal that the number of animals used in experiments went up by 3.2% between 2002 & 2005. UK researchers are 2^nd on the list in terms of numbers of animals used, behind France. In 2005 EU researchers used 12.1m animals in experiments - 78% were rodents, mostly mice. As in 2002, no great apes (chimps, gorillas or orang utans) were used in research but just over 10,000 primates were used, very slightly more than in 2002. Testing in France and Britain rose by 5% and 3% respectively. While Germany, in 3^rd place in terms of the number of animals used, cut its testing by 12%. The number of animals used in cosmetics testing increased by 50% to 5571. Almost all this testing occurred in France despite a 1999 EU directive banning the use of animals for cosmetics testing. All member states must adhere to the directive by 2009 and by 2012 no cosmetic can be sold or marketed in the EU that has been tested on animals. No cosmetic testing using animals took place in Britain.

But tests flawed and duplicated - At this year's British Association Festival of Science a report from the Camarades Collaboration that reviewed 288 animal studies of prospective treatments for stroke concluded that many animal experiments are flawed. The report found that animal studies frequently do not use experimental techniques that are the "gold standard" for clinical trials. For example, only 1/3 of the studies randomised which animals went into the treatment and control groups. And in only 1/3 of cases were the experimenters who assessed the experimental outcome blinded to whether each animal had been given the treatment or not - a well known source of unconscious bias. Another problem highlighted by the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik today is that too often the same tests are duplicated - particularly by companies not willing to share data.

The danger of animal tests
In a petition filed Nov 14 with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, an international coalition of scientists and doctors seeks to compel the agency to stem the flood of dangerous drugs reaching American consumers by mandating the use of scientifically superior non-animal testing methods when those alternatives exist. Noting a series of recent tragedies in which pharmaceutical products that seemed safe in animal tests injured or killed consumers or participants in clinical trials, the coalition calls on the FDA to emulate a EU regulation that requires the use of human-centred testing methods, when available. Today's submission, the Mandatory Alternatives Petition, or MAP, lays the groundwork for legal action. If the FDA does not act within 6 months, the petitioners will consider further action. "Dangerous drugs are killing American consumers because regulators allow drug companies to use misleading animal tests," says coalition spokesman John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C. "The Food and Drug Administration could avert these tragedies by focusing on human-centred methods."  Recent pharmaceutical product testing failures include Merck's HIV vaccine, which appeared safe and effective when tested in monkeys. Subsequently, a large international clinical trial was halted when Merck's new vaccine appeared to increase the risk that a human patient would contract the virus that causes AIDS. Coalition members point out that more than 90% of drugs tested in people after successful animal tests are not approved for wider use because they don't work or they are unsafe. Half the drugs that are approved are later withdrawn or relabelled for adverse effects not detected by animal tests. Adverse drug reactions are a leading cause of death in the USA. Vioxx, a painkiller that appeared beneficial to the heart in mouse studies, was withdrawn from the market after it was shown to be the likely cause of thousands of fatal cardiac events in people. To reduce such risks, the MAP coalition urges wider use of human-centred research methods such as microdosing, tissue studies, and virtual drug trials. Greater use of alternatives would also have a humane benefit because it would reduce the use of monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, and other animals. In Europe, the use of scientifically satisfactory alternatives, where those alternatives are available, is mandated under EU Directive 86/609/EEC. The MAP is signed by more than 100 doctors, scientists, and other experts, including famed primatologist Roger Fouts, neurologist and public health expert Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., pediatrician Roberta Gray, M.D., and economist Jeremy Rifkin. Nonprofit organisation members of the MAP coalition are the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, In Defense of Animals, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organisation that promotes preventive medicine, especially good nutrition. PCRM also conducts clinical research studies, opposes unethical human experimentation, and promotes alternatives to animal research.

Perverse science
Songbirds captured from the wild and captive canaries and finches are exposed to different light cycles or are fitted with eye caps glued tightly to their heads to block out all light. Researchers then cut the birds' heads off to slice their retinas out of their eyes, and dissect and study their brains for clues to the secret of migration.

PepsiCo Declares No More Animal Tests!
Food-industry giant PepsiCo-the multibillion-dollar parent company of brands like Pepsi-Cola, Tropicana and Quaker Oats, has joined the ever-growing list of companies that are creating products without using animals in laboratory tests. Prior to its agreement with PETA, PepsiCo and its partners had funded several experiments on animals: The PepsiCo Foundation funded an experiment that involved surgically implanting testosterone pellets and human prostate tumours in mice and injecting them with an acid compound. 2 animals died before the end of the study, when all the animals were killed. PepsiCo's partner, Tropicana, funded a student research project that involved injecting 60 young rats with a chemical that causes colon cancer, leaving the majority of these animals to suffer with the disease for 7 months, only to be killed at the end of the experiment. PepsiCo's affiliate, the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI), funded an experiment in which mice were infected with a respiratory virus and then forced to exercise on a treadmill for more than 2 hours for 3 consecutive days, after which they were all killed. The GSSI funded an experiment in which live rats' hind limbs were cut open from the heel to the knee and their muscle tissue was cut out, after which the animals were killed. The GSSI awarded several grants to students to conduct animal experiments, such as one in which a student caused rats' muscles to waste away in order to learn how various protein supplements could re-grow the tissue. After PETA brought these experiments to the attention of PepsiCo executives, the company began discussions with us regarding what they could do to eliminate animal testing. As a result of this collaboration, PepsiCo has announced that it will not experiment on animals and is pledging to communicate its opposition to animal testing to all entities that the corporation works with. More info: http://caringconsumer.org/products_pepsi.asp

Stop Squandering Resources on Pointless Animal Experiments
Are worms gay? If they are, what does that mean for humans? Erik Jorgensen at the University of Utah received money to study this question. The nematodes are mostly hermaphrodites - each worm produces both sperm and eggs. Jorgensen activated a gene in the hermaphrodite worms' brains, which apparently convinced them to try to mate with other hermaphrodites rather than just with the male worms. The conclusion, according to Jorgensen's quote in the Times: "We cannot say what this means for human sexual orientation, but it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain." Even those who support research on animals should be careful about accepting the experimentation industry's claim that the use of animals in laboratories will help find cures for Alzheimer's, AIDS, Parkinson's, cancer and other diseases that are frightening just to contemplate. Consider first what some experimenters are paid big money to do. In July, Johns Hopkins University announced that it was attempting to create a "schizophrenic" mouse by inserting a gene from the DNA of a human family with schizophrenic members into a mouse. Yet a diagnosis of schizophrenia hinges on the patient hearing voices that aren't there and seeing things others don't see. How exactly does an experimenter know if this is true of mice, even if a gene has been inserted? At Oregon Health & Science University, experimenter Eliot Spindel injects the foetuses of pregnant monkeys with nicotine and then gives the mothers vitamin supplements to see if that makes it "safer" to smoke while pregnant. Yet we've known since 1972 that smoking is harmful to human foetuses. Spindel's money would have been better-spent convincing pregnant women not to smoke. Under the guise of studying foetal alcohol syndrome, David J. Earnest at Texas A&M Health Science Centre examined sleep problems in baby rats that were force-fed alcohol. Perhaps Earnest is unaware that human infants don't binge-drink after birth. At universities and primate centres across the country (USA), experimenters are still tearing infant monkeys from their mothers to observe the detachment and psychosis that result from this trauma. These are variations on the dreadful experiments conducted by Harry Harlow more than 40 years ago. Monkeys have the tops of their skulls removed, electrodes stuck in their brains and wire coils implanted in their eyes to look at the connection between eye movement and the brain; birds whose testicles are sucked out so that experimenters can examine what happens to their songs; cats who have their backs cut open and weights attached to their spinal tissue and are then killed, supposedly to study lower back problems in people. These animals are caged for their entire lives, traumatized, physically and emotionally damaged, killed and cut up for experiments that don't even pretend to be about saving humans. Whether or not you agree with me that it's unethical to do this to animals for any reason, surely it's obvious that much experimentation on animals is a terrible waste of money and lives. NewsBlaze. 15 Nov by Kathy Guillermo - director of research for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Drug company intimidated doctor
Although this isn’t directly to do with animal rights, this article shows how the same companies who froth at the mouth about animal rights intimidation are happy to do the same to doctors worried about the effects of a drug.

GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, made a concerted effort to intimidate a prominent physician into keeping quiet about some of the controversial diabetes drug's safety issues, a congressional investigation has found.   The shocking allegations against Glaxo only serve to underscore questionable practices many drug companies use to monitor and influence respected doctors whose opinions can affect sales of medications. Avandia's cardiovascular problems have been the subject of concern since May, when an analysis of 42 clinical trails published by the Cleveland Clinic showed that patients taking the drug had a 43% higher risk of having a heart attack.  Over the summer, GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) came under fire for an apparent failure to warn the public about the cardiac risks associated with Avandia. Testimony at a congressional hearing in June revealed that the company and the FDA had known about the heart attack risk as far back as September 2005.  That congressional investigation also uncovered allegations that in 2005, an unnamed FDA scientist who had advocated for a strong black box warning on Avandia about its risk for congestive heart failure had been removed from an Avandia safety review. Now, a new Senate Finance Committee report has alleged that Glaxo tried to silence Dr. John Buse, a diabetes expert and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina. In 1999, Dr. Buse began expressing concerns about the cardiovascular risks of Avandia.   Earlier this summer, the Senate committee heard testimony from Dr.  Buse, who said he felt pressured by the drug's maker, SmithKlineBeecham (now part of GlaxoSmithKline) to sign a clarifying statement drafted by the company that downplayed his concerns.  During his testimony, Dr. Buse described name-calling and what he said was the veiled threat of a lawsuit by a high-ranking drug company executive after he had criticized Avandia at a medical meeting.  Dr. Buse also testified that Glaxo complained about him to his supervisors at the University of North Carolina. Now, the Senate Committee has implicated 2 high-ranking Glaxo executives in the intimidation campaign against Dr. Buse.  The report alleges that Glaxo Chief Executive Jean-Pierre Garnier (the one who’s complained about AR intimidation) and former research chief Tachi Yamada were involved in the intimidation.   Glaxo told the Wall Street Journal that it denies trying to stifle Dr. Buse.  However, the spokesperson conceded that Glaxo had tried to correct Dr. Buse's "inaccuracies"  "People at the time were very passionate about this new medicine and could perhaps have handled the interactions with Dr. Buse better," the Glaxo spokesperson said. "We did apologize to Dr. Buse for the tone of some of the conversations."

Cancer research wasted – together with animal lives
Millions of pounds of charity donations and taxpayers' money have been wasted on worthless cancer studies, the BBC has learned. File On 4 has discovered thousands of studies have been invalidated. It found some scientists have failed to carry out simple and inexpensive checks to ensure they are working with the right forms of human tumour cells. Cancer Research UK said it used robust procedures to check the cell-lines used in research. One of the latest examples of scientific research to be affected by this problem is a study of oesophageal cancer. Researcher Dr Chris Tselepis worked with an international team which has found that TE7, an experimental culture of cancer cells used in labs for the past 20 years, was the wrong cancer. Few scientists publicly admit such problems but Prof Geoff Pilkington, of the University of Portsmouth, told the BBC that he had to discard research into brain tumours after it emerged his team were studying human cells contaminated by the cells of rats and mice. "Whole programmes of research had to be redone using verified human brain tumour cells," he said. "It's hugely expensive and it's incredibly frustrating," Prof Pilkington added. The problem is compounded by the fact that studies based on erroneous research data will be printed in reputable scientific journals and become part of the accepted literature, thus misleading future researchers. Earlier this year 19 eminent cancer specialists from the UK and USA wrote to the US health secretary urging tough action to end this waste of time, effort and money. The US authorities replied that there appeared to be "abundant evidence" that many studies and publications had been compromised. But the letter's originator, Prof Roland Nardone of the Catholic University of America, told the BBC that some scientists seemed unwilling to act. He said the best way to get scientists to comply would be to withhold research grants and publication in scientific journals unless their research used authenticated cell-lines. This verification can be achieved using a technique of DNA profiling which compares the cell-line with a list of known contaminants and can cost as little as £180 per sample. But the Medical Research Council, the major source of public funds for such research in the UK which provides £70m of grants annually for cancer studies, is reluctant to enforce authentication. Dr Rob Buckle of the MRC told the BBC: "As soon as you start talking about regulation we have to ensure that it is proportionate and does not inhibit research." Dr Buckle said the MRC was not aware of any particular study in the UK which had been compromised by problems with cell samples. However, one of the UK's leading cancer medicine experts has said it is time for the scientific community to put its house in order. Cancer Research UK, which spends £315m a year on research, would not be interviewed for the programme. Instead it issued a statement from Dr Lilian Clark, its executive director of Science Operations & Funding, which said: "It is of paramount importance for us to ensure that all our researchers deliver world class science - they have the latest systems and robust procedures in place to guarantee this." Blah, blah, blah!!!

ASA rejects claim by Pro-Test
Pro-Test, which describes itself as ‘an Oxford-based group campaigning in favour of continued animal testing and in support of scientific research’, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about a leaflet produced by patient safety charity Europeans for Medical Progress Trust (EMP Trust). Pro-Test disagreed with the assertion on the leaflet by Mike Hancock, CBE, MP that: It is astonishing that animal testing has never been scientifically evaluated and the process is long overdue. Pro-Test argued that 3 inquiries into animal testing had been conducted and claimed that these constituted a scientific evaluation of the practice. However, EMP Trust pointed out that these inquiries focused on ethics and legislation and did not constitute scientific evaluation. In fact, all 3 inquiries called for reviews of the reliability and relevance of animal research. The ASA agreed with EMP Trust and rejected Pro-Test's claims: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43465.htm Pro-Test also complained about a statement on the leaflet by EMP Trust that: Hormone Replacement Therapy increases women's risk of heart disease and stroke. Millions of prescriptions were based on monkey data, which predicted the opposite. Pro-Test claimed that HRT was not prescribed on the basis of monkey data but EMP Trust provided abundant evidence to show that it was. The ASA's draft recommendation was to reject this complaint as well - at which point Pro-Test decided to withdraw the complaint. Clearly, they wanted to limit their embarrassment on publication of the ASA's decision to 1 rejection rather than 2. These complaints highlight the contrast between Pro-Test and EMP Trust: EMP Trust's position is based on rigorous scientific evidence, while Pro-Test's case rests on claims which it cannot substantiate. For example, they frequently claim that medical progress without animal research would be impossible - despite the fact that the ASA ruled in 2005 that such a claim is misleading: If Pro-Test were genuinely campaigning in support of scientific research, as they claim, they would support the evaluation proposed by EMP Trust and supported by 250 MPs and 83% of GPs. Instead, they campaign against it - showing they have no confidence that animal tests will prove to be as effective as they claim. The point made by Mike Hancock, CBE, MP, bears repetition: It is astonishing that animal testing has never been scientifically evaluated and the process is long overdue.

Animal experiments holding back psychiatric medicine
Dangle a mouse by its tail, and it will wriggle and strain to escape before eventually recognising the hopelessness of its situation. Measure the time it takes to abandon thoughts of helping itself, and you have one of the classic animal tests for depression. Except it's not, says Laurence Tecott, a research psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. “We can't say that that mouse is depressed, and we can't say you would be if you were strung up by your tail,” he says. The reason we have not seen a genuinely new class of drug in psychiatry for 50 years, he asserts, is largely because animal models are woefully inadequate representations of human-specific disorders.

Mad science Award
This year, there is only one award – it goes to the Home Office (HO). This is the government department charged with approving and overseeing all of the animal research and testing that is conducted in this country, and claims that it strictly regulates all such ‘procedures’. The evidence demonstrates that the HO’s record is far from impressive. A recent judicial review brought by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) against the HO proved that it acted unlawfully by underplaying the suffering experienced by marmosets subjected to brain research at Cambridge University. The experiments included the removal of the top of marmosets’ heads to induce strokes. After the surgery, the animals suffered bleeding head wounds, fits, vomiting, severe bruising, whole body tremors and mental and physical disabilities. Before the damage was deliberately inflicted, they were made to learn tedious and repetitive tasks. Afterwards came more ‘tests’. These included being shut in tiny boxes, being administered potent stimulant drugs, and the withholding of food and water in order to coerce them into ‘better’ test performances. Despite such suffering, the HO classified the experiments as being of ‘moderate’ rather than ‘substantial’ severity. The HO’s shameless conduct over the Cambridge monkey affair is indicative of a deeper malaise within the department. It is routinely claimed that welfare standards in British laboratories are superior to those found anywhere else in the world. Yet in June of this year, the Dr Hadwen Trust revealed that conditions for animals in Britain’s research labs do not meet new revised European guidelines in many aspects. HO advice on minimum pen sizes for some primates falls way short of recognised best practice, being up to 8 times smaller than the new recommendations. Guinea pigs, gerbils and rabbits should all be provided with more than double the space currently recommended, and enclosures for pairs of cats should be almost 7 times wider and 4 times higher. The HO has not made compliance with the new guidelines mandatory for UK laboratories and there is no penalty for non-compliance. There are other important examples of the HO failing to enforce guidelines and thereby ensuring that animals endure suffering beyond that which is formally approved. In 1999, it authorised a Vietnamese company called Nafovanny to export primates to British laboratories from the largest captive-breeding non-human primate facility in the world. The establishment is able to hold 30,000 monkeys, many in tiny, rusting cages. As recently as 2005, The British Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate identified ‘shortcomings in animal accommodation and care’ at the facility. Nafovanny was subsequently the subject of a BUAV-led undercover investigation that exposed horrific ‘factory-farming’ conditions in contravention of international guidelines, and it also produced evidence of monkeys being taken from the wild to keep breeding levels high, and of being passed-off as captive bred when they were exported. The HO claims is has a rigorous protocol for licensing animal experiments in the UK, and that ‘cost-benefit’ analyses are performed to ensure that all animal experiments stand a good chance of benefiting humanity. With this in mind, we have summarised a number of animal research projects that have been approved by the HO. It is for readers to draw their own conclusions. 
Oxford: Brain damage in monkeys increases their fear of toy snakes. Rabbits bled to death to demonstrate health benefits of green tea. Cambridge: Rat heroin addicts’ drug-seeking behaviour is affected when gene-altering chemicals are injected into their brains. Pregnant horses deliberately under-fed. The declared aim was to assess the effects of a reduced diet on the development of the unborn foal. Pony mares abort following surgical manipulation. A team of researchers at Cambridge University’s Department of Physiology used 23 pregnant pony mares to study sugar metabolism in the unborn foal. All of the pregnant animals – some of whom were very near to giving birth – were starved for 18 hours before undergoing invasive surgery. This research received financial support from the Horserace Betting Levy Board. London: Rats with a penchant for junk food give birth to similarly affected offspring. Oxford, Cambridge and Newcastle: Brain-damaged monkeys forced to watch fish. Edinburgh: ‘Cooling’ substances relieve pain in rats – as Socrates knew they did in people 2,500 years ago, and as human clinical research has revealed.

NZ activists’ campaign to close research centre
Animal rights activists are launching a campaign to shut down a Hawkes Bay company that experiments on beagle dogs. Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), based in Whakatu, Hastings, has over 100 beagles for use in experiments on behalf of commercial chemical and drug companies. VARC is the only company in New Zealand using beagles in experiments. Campaigners say the protest this weekend at the beagle breeding centre, owned by Allen Goldenthal, will be the first of many aimed at shutting down the business. Save The Beagles Campaign spokesperson Mark Eden says "This is the beginning of the end for Allen Goldenthal. He cannot survive in business without the support of the community and other businesses. We aim to expose him and cut off all his support. "Anyone in the community that is involved with his evil business is directly supporting the torture of beagle puppies and they will also be subjected to protests and negative publicity. We won't stop until Mr. Goldenthal and Valley Animal Research Centre stops these experiments and frees the beagles". Allen Goldenthal has had a long career testing toxic substances on animals for many overseas chemical companies and has now set up New Zealand's first animal research company using beagles in experiments. With a breeding programme providing hundreds of beagles and sites in both the Manawatu and Hawkes Bay , Valley Animal Research Centre is establishing itself as a significant player in the vivisection industry. VARC is a contract research business, carrying out chemical toxicity testing for international and local drug companies. The crowded and dirty conditions that the beagles live in are inhumane, as is their fate.  These animals are leading lives devoid of human companionship in terrible conditions just waiting to become subjects of experiments. This isn't about saving human lives, this is about profit. In NZ in 2006, over 300,000 animals were used in experiments by universities, pesticide and chemical manufacturers and government research institutes.  Approximately 4,800 animals were subjected to 'severe suffering' and 11,489 to 'very severe suffering'. Experiments were carried out on cats, dogs, guinea pigs, horses, mice, rats and more.  For further information, visit www.savethebeagles.wordpress.com

One leading geneticist, who did not want to be named, says, “We used to throw a chemical (which I cannot name for animal welfare reasons) wrapped in bread to seagulls and then watch them explode.” Taken from Dr Roger’s Home Experiments; Experiments that inspire top scientists - Daily Telegraph

The number of illegal actions claimed each year numbers in the dozens, not the hundreds or thousands. And (this bears repeating) no one has ever gotten hurt. Economic damage has been done, but even the most committed activists don’t come close to the financial thievery perpetrated by the companies they target. GlaxoSmith-Kline, for example, bilked the U.S. public out of $7 billion in taxes by under-reporting its profits, according to the IRS. Their punishment? In September they struck a deal to pay $3 billion, less than half of what they actually owed. In one year this company has done 50 times more economic damage than animal rights activists have done in the past 25 years. Taken from an article by Nick Cooney of Hugs for Puppies (USA)  

BUAV wins case – as animal experiments rise
BUAV have won their High Court case against the Home Office.  During the 3-day judicial review, the high court was asked to rule on whether the Home Office failed in its duty to ensure animal suffering was kept to a minimum during experiments on marmosets at Cambridge University in 2001. The BUAV alleged that the Home Office licensed the experiments under a category of "moderate" suffering, when they should have been classed as causing "substantial" suffering. The review examined 3 other issues, including the post-operative care given to animals. "We're questioning the whole way animal experiments are licensed. The statistics compiled by the Home Office would include far greater numbers of animal experiments that cause substantial suffering if the law was applied properly and this has serious implications on the public debate over animal research," a spokesperson for BUAV said. Professor Michael Balls (father of cabinet minister Ed Balls), emeritus professor at Nottingham University who is chairman of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (Frame), said he was dismayed that progress in science had not produced more alternatives to using animals in research. "As a scientist I'm entitled to believe in modern technology to deal with these problems, but I'm disappointed that more effort hasn't been put into bringing the numbers down," he said. "There's huge pressure to let modern science go ahead, but there's no high quality discussion on whether we need so many GM animals and whether they suffer unnecessarily…… it was "high time" the way animal experiments are licensed in this country was re-examined. Prof Balls, who trained as a zoologist at Oxford University, advised government when the current animal testing legislation was drawn up in the mid-1980s. “I had great hope that the system would ensure that animal use was reduced and suffering would be minimised when I was involved in the passage of the new law in 1985 and 1986, but it seems clear that it is failing in both regards."The so-called 3 "R's" are supposed to underpin laboratory rules and culture. They emphasise the need to reduce suffering and find replacement methods that do not involve animals. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has launched a national survey of scientists who use animals in their research. The aim of the survey is to determine what scientists actually know about the 3 "R's" and how they use them in their everyday work.

Britain's Shame
Home Office figures released on 23 July show that during 2006 the number of animal experiments in Britain broke the 3m barrier. Only those experiments that potentially cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm are counted. The latest figures represent the highest number of animals for 15 years and places Britain at the top of the European cruelty league: All animal experiments up by 115,834 to 3,012,032; Experiments with no anaesthetic up by 109,200 to 1,856,200; Poisoning experiments up by 27,400 to 420,500; Experiments on mice up 106,022 to 2,067,071; on rats down 18,359 to 406,168; on birds up 1,272 to 114,428; on guinea pigs up 1,165 to 30,184; on sheep up 7,048 to 36,377; on cattle down 13,776 to 5,334; on cats up 24 to 524; on dogs down 25 to 7,595; on primates down 448 to 4,204; on fish up 41,212 to 274,066. Radiation experiments on all animals up by 2,769 to 11968. Inhalation experiments on dogs up 702 to 732. Experiments on GM animals up 77,900 to 1,035,343. Dr Dan Lyons, Uncaged's Campaigns Director, said:  Significantly, there's a growing consensus across a wide range of opinion - not just animal rights campaigners – that the Home Office is failing to enforce the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. There are only a tiny number of Inspectors, most of whom have a background in animal experimentation. They have neither the resources nor the inclination to examine the justifications and predictions put forward by animal research applicants. Consequently, the likelihood of useful results is exaggerated while often severe animal suffering is overlooked and trivialised. For example, 2 major research projects in the last decade have been approved on the basis of claims in the application form that they would result in clinical trials of pig organ transplants. But if Inspectors had bothered with the even the most elementary scrutiny, such claims would clearly have been seen as grossly exaggerated, as proved to be the case. Hundreds of thousands of animals are suffering severely in pointless, ill-conceived experiments.  To make matters worse, a current Home Office review is seeking to weaken the regulatory system yet further. Hiding behind the euphemism of 'Better Regulation', the Home Office is in the process of implementing the drug industry's demands for a reduction in both the information required in project licences and reporting requirements. This will make it even more difficult to conduct the so-called 'cost-benefit assessment' of applications, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of the 1986 Act and is meant to determine whether animal experimentation projects are legal and the level of pain permitted.  By intensifying their systematic bias towards the animal testing industry, the Government is riding roughshod over the recommendations of its own expert advisory committee and the public, who both wish to see effective independent scrutiny of animal experimentation proposals and targeted action towards its abolition. As an initial step, we need a debate in the House of Commons to illuminate the role of the Animal Procedures Committee and why the Government is choosing to ignore its mild recommendations for improvements in favour of the demands of animal researchers to be a law unto themselves.  

Study shows animal results misleading
A 10 year study carried out in Germany at the universities of Würzburg, Erlangen & Regensburg analysed 51 series of animal experiments and investigated if the declared aims had been achieved and new medical knowledge gained. It established that 99.7% of the information produced using 5,000 animals was not applicable to humans and that no medical use had been found for the remaining 0.3%.  This was published in the German scientific journal Altex (issue 22), in national newspapers and in Der Steuerzahler – the German Taxpayers Federation journal, protesting that taxpayers money was being wasted on animal experiments. Source: German Assn of Doctors Against Animal Experiments

Primate Research Condemned – application rejected
While Oxford University and the British government are actively pursuing monkey research to study the human brain other countries are condemning it. Permission has been refused at La Charité University Hospital in Berlin and at the Großhadern Hospital in Munich as well as at the University of Zurich and the Institute of Science & Technology, also in Zurich for the same experiments which have been carried out here in England, involving denying monkeys water to entice them into a chair, fixing their heads so no movement is possible and attaching electrodes onto the brain for scanning purposes. They are then subjected to touch tests where they have to identify different object shown on a monitor. As a reward they are given a drop of fluid. The after-effects of opening the skull are known to be painful and human volunteers at the University of Marburg who had their heads fixed were begging to have the clamps removed after 20 minutes as it is so unbearableIt was considered that the denial of water would infringe the dignity of the animals and the experiment would cause unjustifiable suffering.  A former senior neurologist at a German university hospital pointed out that neurological research is already being carried out by painless modern methods not involving any animals and in May this year he called brain research on monkeys “an absolute swindle”.  Another neurologist in Washington DC pointed out that the numerous differences between a human and monkey brain makes data gathered at best dubious human for human purposes. The late Dr Werner Hartinger, an experienced German trauma surgeon stated that only 2 groups of doctors approve of animal research – those who’ve not inquired into it sufficiently and those who gain some personal benefit from it. Source: German Assn of Doctors Against Animal Experiments. Many thanks to Dennis for the above 2 articles, which show just how unethical and backward thinking we are in this country

Europeans for Medical Progress Trust has launched a new film. Safer Medicines showcases state-of-the-art approaches to ensuring future drug safety. World leading scientists from industry and academia present their vision for the future of drug development and it’s without using animals. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v404499SJxbPccm  

Ending animal experiments
How many times have you heard the line of compromise: “we look forward to a time when we have better methods, and animal tests can be abandoned”?  It’s a line they’ve been using to justify vivisection for decades.  But this line isn’t going to work anymore.  The thinking behind it has the potential to start dismantling the industry right now.  There’s a big gap between what can be proved, and what is generally known.  Decades ago it was understood that animal tests were not the reliable pre-clinical test they were claimed to be.  For most of the last century good non animal methods existed.  But the real change has been the last decade, when the use of technology has meant that the ‘alternative’ non-animal methods are so incisive and accurate that they are preferable to animal tests. 

Cell culture technology: In the year 2000 toxicology experts compared cell culture and animal data against human data in an international study.  It was discovered that cell culture was much more predictive of human data than animal tests were.  Since then, cell cultures have improved in accuracy.  Several skin and eye models have evolved, which means product safety is more accurately assessed.
Finding useful drugs: Previous efforts to test cancer drugs for effectiveness used animals.  It was believed to have missed useful drugs, and all drugs it did identify were useless or toxic.  Now, the American National Cancer Institute maintains cultures of 60 different human cancers, and can screen thousands of drugs and plants a year against them.  It’s cheaper, quicker, and much more accurate.
Healthy Babies: While birth defect rates are rocketing, a review of animal tests for teratogenicity (the ability to cause birth defects) showed that they had been terrible: slightly more effective than pure guesswork.  There’s even a theory than any substance can be shown to a teratogen by animal tests, and there’s no substance discovered which proves this wrong.  Oxygen, essential vitamins, fruit juices and water have been ‘proven’ dangerous in animals, although safe in humans.  Over 97% of substances identified as dangerous by animal tests are safe. The alternative?  The Embryonic Stem Test (EST).  In cell culture, it’s more accurate than a range of animal tests.  The Micromas is similar and 100% effective in identifying strong teratogens.  This whole area of vivisection could and should be abandoned now.
Computers: Given the rate at which computer technology is advancing, it’s not surprising that amazing things can be done.  Virtual hearts can be given virtual drugs and the effect on their rhythm and activity simulated accurately.  Drug companies are taking this technology on readily.  An entire virtual human has been in development recently, and versions are already available.  Drugs can be tried on these flexible models, which give accurate results.
Microdose: Imaging technology was developed by brain researchers and enables great insight into what’s going on in the body.  It can even trace the effect and pathway of tiny doses of test drugs when they're given to a human.  To evaluate the technique (‘microdose’), one millionth (0.0001%) of HIV drug AZT was given to patients. Conclusions were in detail, for example “between 30 and 45 minutes 0.09% of the oral dose resided in the white cells of the blood”.  They were also able to see how it entered the genetic material. By comparison, animals metabolise drugs along different pathways, at different rates, and because their organs are different, the reactions are usually different. Through using computers, cell culture and microdosing, we can easily gain a better picture of a drug’s safety, and can therefore abandon animal tests in this area too.
Protein analysis: Now it's understood that disease starts in the individual cells, which are different in all animals.  The individual proteins in the cell determine how illnesses develop.  Proteomics analyses proteins and is cataloguing them.  This area is already giving masses of information about individual illnesses.
The above techniques are only scratching the surface of the masses of technology which wasn’t available before, but is now. The point is that if we could only stop animal experiments when suitable replacement methods are available, that time is very clearly here. But animal tests are increasing.  The UK Home Office has just lost a court case over its failure to regulate animal tests.  Drug companies are still getting licences to use animal tests when alternative methods are not only available, but they are superior. What are we going to do with this? The gap between the general knowledge of this situation and the reality is massive.  We need to bridge the gap.  Vivisection Information Network (VIN) has recently started a Newspaper Group to target national and regional press to help spread the truth.  If you have ideas, please get in touch.  If you’d like to help but are unsure about your own writing skills etc., you’ll get help so get in touch. VIN exists to get the medical information better known, knowing that this evidence has the potential to bring vivisection to a stop - literally.  If we’re going to make this happen, the first question we need to ask is what each of us can do to spread this knowledge. Vivisection Information Network. P O Box 223, Camberley, GU16 5ZU vivisectionkills@hotmail.com

Japan Airlines flying beagles to labs
PETA has learned that Covance , a company with a history of egregious cruelty to animals and the world's largest breeder of dogs for use in experimentation, is using Japan Airlines to transport beagle puppies from New York City to vivisection laboratories in Tokyo. PETA is asking Japan Airlines to follow the lead of Air Canada and other compassionate airlines by refusing to transport dogs and other animals to vivisection laboratories. Help us persuade Japan Airlines to stop participating in the cruel global trade in animals! The journey to Japan can take up to 28 hours. Dogs are crammed into tiny transport cages, may not receive sufficient food or water during the long journey, and may be forced to sit in their own waste. Cargo holds often lack adequate air conditioning, heating, and ventilation, so animals may endure extreme discomfort from temperature extremes or suffocate from insufficient oxygen. And this is just the start of the animals' suffering. Contact Japan Airlines and ask the company to stop shipping animals to Japan for use in laboratories: Hanover Court, 5 Hanover Square, London W1S 1JR, U.K.

Documents expose Police corruption in Oxford
Documents that have been disclosed at the trial of the SPEAK 16 have highlighted a sinister relationship that exists between law enforcement officers in Oxford and Oxford University. On Mon 30^th April proceedings against 16 SPEAK supporters who were arrested for public order offences arising from a peaceful demonstration at the Oxford University Encaenia ceremony on the 21^st June 2006 finally got underway at Oxford Magistrates court almost a year after the alleged “offences” had occurred. Due to legal arguments the trial was halted for a few days but now continues at Bicester Magistrates.  The damning documents came to light less than 2 weeks before the trial of the SPEAK 16. The 16 defendants were served via their respective legal representatives with a transcript of a dictaphone tape recording which a serving Thames Valley Police (TVP) officer had recorded on the day of the Encaenia Ceremony. What makes this tape remarkable was the content of the conversations, which took place between TVP officers, including senior ranking officers, after the arrests of the defendants had taken place. Due to the ongoing legal case Arkangel cannot fully report the contents of the documents containing the transcript of recorded conversations between TVP officers - a conversation that exposes corruption at the very highest levels of TVP. From the transcripts of the conversation that were discussed in Court, it is clear that the officers heard on the tape had no idea the dictaphone was still active when they regrouped after the legal demonstration had been put down. This also included comments at a de-briefing held in the presence of the commanding officer responsible for the policing of the demonstration on the day and officers involved in ‘Operation Rumble’, the code name given for the policing of all demonstrations related to the ‘Oxford Animal Lab’ campaign run by SPEAK. The transcript has revealed the true extent of the relationship between senior TVP officers and Oxford University. It has also revealed a very disturbing picture of the ‘mind set’ of serving police officers, who have by their own admissions been involved in what is clearly a campaign of harassment and intimidation against those who are legally speaking out about animal abuse at Oxford university. What can be disclosed about the recordings at this stage is that officers refer to Oxford University as a “sleeping giant” and that the protestors do not realise just “how powerful the university is”. The officers then go on to talk about the influence Oxford University has, saying that “it’s got Masons” and “influence with MP’s” and “barristers” and also has friends in the “DTI”, as well as the “Home Office”.  Officers talk about the need to: “incite people with a double buggy” to go through the protestors so: “that they can’t get through” and this would allow them to impose public order conditions. Probably most disturbing parts of the transcript are where officers refer to a leading SPEAK organiser saying that they need to “persecute him” and “Wage a dirty war”. What is also disturbing is the attitude police officers take towards female members of the public. Officers refer to passing members of the public who are female as “Bitches”. It also clearly reveals that TVP have played an active part in trying to create the conditions in which a draconian High Court injunction can be implemented against SPEAK. According to an article on the SPEAK website “the picture that is now being revealed at Bicester magistrates court is one which should cause the deepest concern for anyone who truly believes in ‘Free Speech’. It is interesting to note that despite the sensational story unravelling at Court, highlighting the extent of corruption within TVP and the influence Oxford University exert within not just the police but other public and what should be neutral bodies, journalists are conspicuous by their absence”. The article goes on to say: “This case has taken on dimensions that go far beyond the events of June 21^st 2006. It is self evident that the political nature of this case eclipses questions of the limits of protest defined by public order legislation to a question of whether we any longer have any rights to protest at all in the UK today.” Arkangel

Covance loses cover-up attempt
Covance has had its attempt to stop the European arm of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) from publicising video footage taken during a covert investigation of its US laboratory, thrown out of court by a British judge, who characterised PETA US’ findings as “highly disturbing”. As a result, the firm has been ordered to pay the group £145,000 to cover the organisation’s costs and legal fees. Describing Covances’ lab as a “monkey’s Guantanamo Bay,” PETA Europe managing director Ingrid Newkirk said in a statement: “Instead of spending a small fortune to try to cover up its abuses, Covance could have used the money to improve the hideous conditions for animals in its US prisons”. The battle kicked off in 2005 when PETA US revealed the video footage as part of an 11-month undercover investigation at Covance’s animal research laboratory in Vienna, Virginia. The footage, among other evidence, exposed workers striking, choking and taunting monkeys who were kept in small cages and often denied access to medical attention, even for severe injuries. An ensuing investigation by the US Department of Agriculture - conducted after PETA US filed a formal complaint – resulted in Covance being fined $8,720 for violations of the US federal Animal Welfare Act. As one the world’s largest contract research organisations (CROs), Covance – who undertakes research for large pharmaceutical firms such as Pfizer - has a reputation to uphold and therefore the company has been fighting tooth and nail to block publication of the footage - this is the second lawsuit Covance has filed and lost against PETA regarding this issue - in 2005, the CRO was forced to withdraw another lawsuit it filed against PETA US. The damaging footage is now freely available on the internet.  You can read about the exposé at: http://www.covancecruelty.com/insideCovanceUS.asp

Germany puts forward animal test reduction
Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung/BfR) has launched an initiative that it believes could reduce by as many as 2.8m the number of laboratory animals needed to test chemicals for reproductive toxicity under the EU’s new REACH regulation. The regulation calls for some 30,000 industrial chemicals to have their toxicity evaluated and defined by 2018, with the first tests scheduled to begin next year. The chemicals will be reviewed by a new European Chemicals Agency, which will have the power to ban chemicals seen to pose a significant health threat. With the regulation due to take effect on 1 July, the animal testing issue is taking on increasing urgency. In 2004, when the REACH bill was still at the draft stage, BfR lobbied for the use of new toxicological approaches that, according to its calculations, would reduce from 45m to 7.5m the number of experimental animals needed over the next 15 years to satisfy the preconditions envisaged by REACH. The REACH regulation explicitly states that animal experiments should be replaced wherever possible by modern test methods that do not involve animals. Where this is not possible, the number of animals used should be cut to a minimum.  Now BfR is turning its attention specifically to reproductive toxicity testing. According to the European Commission, around 70% of all experimental animals are used to test chemicals for their reprotoxic effects. This is also where around 70% of animal testing costs are incurred, particularly when evaluating substances for impairment of fertility and reproductive ability. The reason for this heavy burden is that REACH prescribes a 2-generation reproductive toxicity treatment in rats - in accordance with Test Guideline 416 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) guidelines for the testing of chemicals - as the standard procedure for chemicals with production volumes of more than 1,000 tonnes. At present, this means around 3,000 animals are needed to test a single substance. What BfR advocates instead is a “graduated procedure” in which the basic reprotoxicity test would be limited to one generation of animal. “There is growing evidence that the examination of only one generation hardly leads to any loss of information of relevance for assessment,” it maintains. The agency has therefore submitted a proposal to the OECD for “an improved one-generation test” that it says would spare around 1,400 laboratory animals for each substance tested. With an estimated 2,000 chemicals slated for reproductive toxicity testing over the next 3 years under REACH, this would add up to a 2.8 million reduction in the number of animals used. If the initiative - which is supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - is successful, the updated basic test could be in use within the REACH framework by 2009, BfR predicts. Preliminary work for a single-generation test in a graduated programme of pesticide testing has already been undertaken by the non-profit International Life Sciences Institute’s (ILSI) Health & Environmental Sciences Institute in the US.

Germany – vivisector’s licence refused
A German professor has had his licence application to experiment on primates rejected by the licensing authority on the grounds that it would be unethical to conduct such research. Animal-rights activists in the state of Bremen have been campaigning against the macaque experiments of Andreas Kreiter, a neuroscientist working at the University of Bremen, for several years. Mr. Kreiter has responded by condemning the decision commenting that it is unacceptable political interference with his freedom to conduct research. This decision follows widespread criticism of such research within scientific and political circles and the media in Germany. Bremen’s parliament last month asked the state government not to re-approve Kreiter’s experiments from the end of 2008, when his licence is due for renewal. In a similar move the German licensing authority has also rejected proposed primate experiments due to be conducted at Humboldt University in Berlin by Alexander Thiele, who is a brain researcher at Newcastle University in the UK and who had been offered a professorship at Humboldt, which he subsequently had to turn down when the type of experiments that he would have been involved in were rejected by the licensing authority. The experiments include the conditioning of primates to sit within a small cage. This is usually achieved by depriving them of food and water until they enter the cage. Once thirst has accustomed them to entering the cage, their head is clamped in a rigid position, the top of their skull is opened up and electrodes are inserted into their brains for scanning purposes. They are then subjected to touch tests, in which they are placed before a monitor and required to identify certain objects shown on the screen in order to get food rewards. These tests can last up to 6 hours at a time and are repeated several times per week. Some brain researchers claim that such research causes the animals no pain. Indeed Professor John Stein a vivisector at Oxford University frequently comments that the primates he experiments on feel no pain as the brain has no nerve receptors. However such claims are an attempt by vivisectors to try and justify what they do and it is known that the after affects of opening the skull to insert electrodes are extremely painful to the primates involved. Also the fact that the primates are immobilised for hours at a time and often kept in isolation inevitably causes them distress. Studies carried out with human volunteers at the University of Marburg have shown that within 20 minutes of having their heads fixed with no possibility of movement the volunteers begged to have the clamps removed as the total immobility was unbearable.

L’Oréal to use human tissue
L’Oreal has received approval in Europe to replace animal testing with tests done on engineered human tissue. Observers say it takes the entire world of cosmetic marketers closer to a universal definition of “cruelty free.” The process—the L’Oréal Episkin model, administered by a subsidiary called SkinEthic—uses a human epidermis reconstructed on collagen and is available to the entire cosmetic industry. “More than 20 years of research on skin reconstruction have been recognised,” the company said, in announcing that it had won the approval of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. “It is a great step towards the elimination of animal use,” enabling “the replacement of animal tests for skin-irritancy of 10,000 substances.”  While L’Oreal and other European companies—where consumers are typically more concerned about environmental issues—are on the cutting edge, in the US “cruelty free” continues to be a marketing phrase that is virtually meaningless, says the Food & Drug Administration. “There are no legal definitions for the terms ‘cruelty free’ or ‘not tested on animals.’” A company can label a product as “cruelty free” simply because it has outsourced its animal testing, bought raw materials from a supplier who tests products on animals, or uses ingredients that were tested on animals years ago. For full story: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=60040 

Australia: Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) staged a demonstration outside a Body Shop store in Melbourne’s central business district, saying the store’s new owner - cosmetic giant L’Oreal - continued to use animal-tested ingredients. Using a megaphone and handing out graphic images, the 2 dozen members lined up outside the store urging shoppers to avoid supporting a company that tested on thousands of animals every year. “We want people to know that every time they make a purchase at The Body Shop, they may in fact be financially supporting animal tests,” ALV spokesman Noah Hannibal said.

Cambridge University withholds primate information
Cambridge University is refusing to give information on primate research to an animal rights group because they fear it would spark further threats to their staff. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has lodged a complaint with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act commissioner after universities refused to give a summary of their current primate research and the number of primates they had used over the past 2 years. But Cambridge University said their FOI officer carried out a risk assessment and decided that releasing the information would create a significant safety threat to university staff and their families as well as students. The spokesman said: “Although they did not request the researchers’ names, by providing them with the information there would be a distinct possibility they could find out the researchers’ names and make threats.” The BUAV has also lodged complaints against Oxford University, King’s College London, University College London, Manchester and Nottingham universities, who also refused to give information on their primate research under Section 38 of the FOI Act, which allows public authorities to withhold information if its disclosure would represent a risk to the health and safety of individuals. The BUAV claims abusive messages to staff involved in animal testing has dramatically decreased. Michelle Thew, chief executive of the BUAV, said the universities were trying to control debate on animal experiments. “Faced with this stonewalling, organisations such as the BUAV feel they have no option but to undertake undercover investigations to expose the truth about animal experiments.”

Breast cancer in a test tube
UK researchers have developed a 3-dimensional model of human breast cancer in the laboratory. The model, which includes normal cells and tumour cells, should help experts understand how breast cancer develops in the early stages. And it may replace the need for experiments in animals, the team at Queen Mary, University of London said. Mouse models of cancer differ from the human condition, and there has been a growing interest in developing alternatives. Nicky Gordon, science officer at the Dr Hadwen Trust, who funded the research said: “With breast cancer, there is an urgent need to move away from animal research models because their similarity to human cancer can be so poor. “Unreliable research costs valuable time, money and lives - animal as well as human - so we are delighted that our 3-dimensional breast cancer model is looking so promising. Breast cancer research is often conducted in mice, with up to 400 mice used in a series of tests. Each animal is likely to endure up to 8 separate tumour implants followed by painful drug injections into the abdomen, and distressing, serial ‘harvesting’ of subsequent tumours. As well as causing suffering, these mouse experiments are potentially misleading, meaning a human–based research approach is vital to improve accuracy.

At the National Cancer Institute of Canada 31 cancer drugs were tested and it was found that the in vitro cell line and human xenograft models may be useful in predicting the Phase II clinical trial performance of cancer drugs. The tests using mice were not.

Government told ‘withdraw rabbit eye tests’
New test-tube methods to replace painful and out-dated skin and eye tests on rabbits were approved on 27^th April by the scientific advisory committee of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which is composed of nominees from the EU Member States, industry, academia and animal welfare. The role of ECVAM, which is based at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre is to replace, refine and reduce methods of animal testing for cosmetics, drugs and chemicals.  2 of the methods will replace painful skin irritation tests in rabbits, which currently use around 20,000 animals each year in Europe. 2 other approved methods will replace the most severe rabbit eye irritancy tests used by the cosmetics and household products industry. They will also replace many rabbit eye tests for thousands of industrial chemicals that will be assessed for safety under the new REACH chemicals legislation. This research by Dr Hadwen Trust-funded scientists in the 1970s and ‘80s made a major contribution to the non-animal methods now widely used instead of rabbits. The annual number of rabbits used in Britain for eye irritation tests has decreased by 94% over the past 20 years, saving tens of thousands of rabbits from painful eye tests.  It was a Dr Hadwen Trust scientist whose research has led to one of these tests - the BCOP assay - being approved.  The BCOP assay is the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay, It uses isolated bovine corneas, a slaughterhouse by-product, instead of living rabbits. The charity is now calling on the UK government to make an urgent response by immediately withdrawing all licences to perform the animal tests to be replaced. As well as causing animal suffering, the traditional eye and skin tests are notoriously unreliable, based on subjective judgements by scientists and using rabbits whose skin and eyes do not react in the same ways as those of humans. The Trust will also be calling on the European Commission and the UK to massively increase the R&D budget for non-animal methods so that we can realise the scientific, economic and animal welfare advantages that they bring without having to wait decades for them to be developed and approved. Also approved by the ECVAM committee was a test strategy for skin allergy, which will also cut animal use by half, saving up to 240,000 mice in the implementation of the REACH legislation.

Sussex University – Violence Free Science 
A demonstration was held in Library Square at the University of Sussex on 9^th May to protest at their use of animals in repetitive research.  Questions have been asked in Parliament by Norman Baker MP about the use of animals in universities around the country.  After a talk given by scientific advisor Colleen McDuling, a molecular biochemist, we marched around the science blocks distributing leaflets.  The demonstration was attended by BBC South today and the local paper, The Argus, and both reported the event. All experimental procedures have been found from the University’s own research papers. It must be noted that these are published papers deemed as “successful” experiments - there are many experiments that are not published in the public domain. Sussex University has continually denied claims made about vivisection on campus. However, their own research papers detail everything, from the experimental procedures themselves to breeding genetically modified animals. Not only is the evidence quite clear, but these are all current papers, most of which have been conducted in the last few years. Experimental procedure injecting baby mice with stress inducing Ethanol, then snapping their necks. Mice aged 8 weeks are injected with Ethanol. This is a form of alcohol and is induces stress, as the document itself states: “Ethanol invokes a stress response”. The mice are compared to groups of mice left untreated. At the end of the experiment, all the mice have their necks snapped - including those who have not even had anything injected into them: “all animals were killed by cervical dislocation, their brains were removed...”. Although this is a legal way of killing mice in laboratories, it is unacceptable. Research funded by: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council under their Neurone initiative (Grant number NEU15438). Our Conclusion: Serious questions raised over what this study actually proves. Not only is the whole procedure seemingly irrelevant, the results are not applicable to human studies in any form. As stated by Colleen McDuling BSc (Med) (Hons) (Pharmacology), MSc (Med. Sci.) (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry): “research should be species-specific and directed at the species for which it is designed. One cannot safely apply data from one species to another, and especially not from rodents to humans”.  Experimental procedure involving cutting the skulls of 2 to 14-day old chicks – this was to study stiffness of hair bundles.  The experimenters quoted a long list of references to similar experiments dating back to 1985. Experimental procedure making rats addicted to alcohol, electrocuted, then shipped to Berlin for further experiments.  Fear conditioning was impaired in young human binge drinkers. The psychology department used rats to study fear reactions to noise stimuli while under the influence of alcohol or alcohol withdrawal. Experimental procedure funded by the British Heart Foundation, inducing heat stroke in rabbits.  Here again a reference was given in the list of an experiment reported in 1998. Still, it’s another grant! Experimental procedure involving the drilling of holes into the ears of Guinea Pigs - here they quote experiments dating back to 1970 and a long list of references to the same type of experiments.  OK, another grant! Experimental procedure using voles caught from the wild and kept in solitary confinement; inducing obesity in rats; starving and inducing anxiety in mice; inserting electrodes into the brains of bats and a Sussex researcher travelled to Japan to experiment on Chimpanzees. You can view the scientific papers if you log on to www.violencefreescience.org

Resources for fighting vivisection

Fighting animal experimentation is not easy.  It takes a serious commitment, and a significant amount of time.  But the most important part is starting out. First, you need to get some general information.  What happens during an animal experiment?  What animals are used?  How much does it cost?  What labs use animals? If you want to know if a lab in our area uses animals look at: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-fr.html If you want to know what happens in an animal experiment, specifically a primate experiment look at: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-fr-ca-ucd-p.html If you want to get more detailed information try: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles.html If you want to get access to fact sheets to distribute to the public: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/fact.html If you want to research labs: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-useful.html  Between labs and dealers over 120,000 primates are imprisoned every year for animal experimentation.  Similarly, over 100,000 dogs are imprisoned in labs and dealers.  Thousands of cats, rabbits guinea pigs, hamsters, and hundreds of thousands of rats, mice, and many other species suffer and die every year. We must speak for them, no one else will. Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T., Exec Dir, SAEN

CLOSE HARLAN UK
-------
Wickham – Greet the workers on the 1st and 3rd Friday each month from 4 – 6pm at Wickham research labs in Hampshire. Tel: 023 9258 8516 for further details.
-----
If you want to join the picket at PHILIP HOCKLEY'S FUR SHOP in LONDON call 0845 458 4775 or 07796 774 200
--------
Fur Free London Campaign. Pickets every Sat, 12 noon to 4pm. Call 0171 278 3068 to confirm time and venue.
-------
 

[ HOME ] [ NEWS ] [ EVENTS ] [ GENERAL ] [ HUNTING ] [ FARMING ] [ VIVISECTION ] [ LINKS ] [ CONTACT US ]

The Shoreham Protester, 7 Stoneham Road, Hove, BN3 5HJ, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)1273 885750. Email: shoreham.protester@ntlworld.com

Last Updated 27 May 2008