[ 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

Neurosurgeon refutes monkey model

Marius Maxwell is an American Board of Neurological Surgery-certified neurosurgeon who was educated at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard universities. He has written an article about deep brain stimulation and Parkinsons disease, refuting the argument that experiments with monkeys has brought about this ‘wonder’ technique. You can read the full article at: www.vero.org.uk/mariusmaxwell.pdf as it’s too long to reproduce here.  Some important extracts: This claim (using primates) is a clear misrepresentation of the historical record which actually shows that neurosurgical experimentation with … human patients, performed decades before the very first description of the MPTP-primate model, has alone led to the present treatment of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease.   …… one can only conclude that primate vivisection has amounted to an expensive, savagely cruel, and scientifically invalid sideshow. The "official" and highly selective primate vivisection-based narrative of deep brain stimulation misleadingly begins with the serendipitous discovery of symptoms in young drug addicts exposed to the narcotic contaminant MPTP. This gave researchers the idea of seeing whether monkeys would also display Parkinsonian symptoms in response to this toxin and indeed, in 1983 monkeys poisoned with MPTP were found to exhibit similar, albeit temporary, symptoms and the non-human primate model of parkinsonism was born (Burns et al. 1983).   ……the discovery that the implantation of stimulating electrodes in the subthalamic nucleus of humans with Parkinson's reversed many of the disease's most crippling symptoms (Benabid 1987; Limousin 1995). In this way, we are repeatedly told, deep brain stimulation was created by the endeavours of monkey researchers. The general public is served a compelling tale of successful medical research borne on the back of primate misery….. But what will they say when they find out that the importance of the subthalamic nucleus to the treatment of Parkinson's disease had in fact been known more than 30 years before by neurosurgeons who employed this knowledge to successfully treat hundreds of human patients? How will they react when they discover that deep brain stimulation has been used since the 1940s, and that early implanted stimulators were used in human patients with Parkinson's and other movement disorders years before the first ever description of the MPTP-primate model? Hundreds of monkeys have been experimented on, countless "peer-reviewed" articles have been written, and a vast archive of monkey "data" has been accumulated….. but deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease developed without this. Benabid, knowing of the importance of the subthalamic nucleus to Parkinson's disease from the surgical studies of 1963 and subsequently, together with the more recent data of deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders, took the logical ….  next step by reporting the benefit of stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in 1995 in a series of patients (Limousin et al.1995). The oft-parroted claim that "the MPTP monkey model demonstrated the pivotal role of the subthalamic nucleus in the mechanisms central to Parkinson's disease" is therefore clearly false. Furthermore, it does a grave disservice to the memory of the many real pioneers of neurosurgery by co-opting their repeated demonstration of the very same, decades before. It is as if they have been quietly airbrushed from the pages of history. Most importantly, the rapid and reversible MPTP-induced parkinsonian state in monkeys bears little relation to the slowly progressive and irreversible Parkinson's disease, which is unique to humans. None other than the late Nobel Laureate Francis Crick was also a harsh critic of the experimental use of primates in the neurosciences. Crick argued for the development of new and forward-looking techniques to study the human brain. Persistent support for the non-human primate MPTP model of Parkinson's can only serve further to neglect and impoverish the demonstrably scientific and productive avenues of the clinical neurosciences…….. The predictable consequences of maintaining the status quo will be further obfuscation and delay in the discovery of a definitive treatment for Parkinson's disease.

Nepal’s monkey exports on hold – by court order

On 23^rd  Jan a Public Interest Litigation, (PIL), petition against Nepal's monkey farming was filed at the Supreme Court of Nepal. We are elated to announce that the action was not only sanctioned by the court, but it has been placed on the court's "priority list" due to the "seriousness" of the case! A temporary injunction has been granted, so no monkeys will be exported before the case is heard, and the responsible parties were given just 35 days, (until 27^th Feb), to respond in writing to justify their actions. Named as defendants in the case are the Prime Minister and the President of Nepal, monkey farmers and the responsible Minister. The Supreme Court judges will now ask the awkward questions about how this law was conceived, who is responsible and how such a corrupt law was enacted. The Judges will then be left to decide whether monkey farming is in the Nepalese "Public Interest". Some of the most senior judges in the Nepalese legal system will be examining the Wildlife Farming Act, asking awkward questions of those involved in the monkey farming, (including Nepal's most senior politicians), and exposing the scandal in public view for all to see! We believe that we have a very strong case to stop the monkey farming, and at this stage Nepal's Supreme Court appears to agree. So far the actions of the democratically elected government of Nepal, whom we had hoped would stop the monkey farming, have been utterly disgraceful. Government backed militias have even viciously assaulted journalists in an 'orgy of violence' for writing 'unfavourable stories' about the government. Aside from the overwhelming evidence before the court, we still need YOU to take action for Nepal's monkeys to keep the pressure on Nepal's government and tourism industries to show the court that the loss in tourism will be greater than any gain from monkey farming! Things are about to get rather uncomfortable for the Nepalese government, as questions are asked about private decisions that stink of corruption.... Remember the government aren't obliged to defend the monkey farming in court, so let's make them think twice about offering a defence to the indefensible!!!  Now, more than ever, YOUR actions count....It's time to take to the streets again in solidarity with the Nepalese people resisting these vile exports, for the sake of the monkeys. We need you back at the Embassies and Consulates; we need you to put as much pressure on them as you can in the next days so that we leave the Monkey Farmers defending themselves without government support! We truly are on the border of a historic victory for the monkeys, which will resonate around the globe and set an example to other monkey exporting nations, as well as the monkey abusers themselves! Gateway2Hell Campaign

MPs demand action on safety testing of medicines

A cross-party group of MPs launched the Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill 2009, to tackle the escalating problem of adverse drug reactions, which hospitalise 1m Britons and cost the NHS £2 billion every year. Currently, animal tests are the major safety screen before drugs are tested in humans for the first time in clinical trials. However, safety tests in monkeys led to the Northwick Park clinical trial disaster in 2006 and, according to a new paper in Molecular Pharmaceutics, safety tests in rats and mice led to the thalidomide tragedy 50 years ago. Ironically, today's legal requirement for animal tests was intended to prevent another thalidomide: yet the Vioxx painkiller tragedy dwarfed thalidomide many times over, despite appearing to be safe - even cardioprotective - in animal tests. Many studies have shown that animal tests – even in dogs and monkeys – are no more predictive for humans than tossing a coin (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008; 101: 95, BMJ 2007; 334: 197). An array of technologies is now available to test the safety of medicines in a human context. Leading scientists agree that the best model for human drug development is human beings. Astonishingly, the effectiveness of animal testing has never been compared with these newer methods, despite the fact that all 4 inquiries into animal testing in recent years called for an assessment of the value of animal tests. The Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill calls for an unprecedented comparison of animal tests with human biology-based methods: an idea strongly backed by MPs. 250 MPs signed EDM 92 in its support in 2006. ‘There is a great variety of impressive technologies to assess drugs in humans: the species in question. They deserve to be given a fair trial against animal tests, to find out whether they could do a better job of protecting patients' - co-sponsor of the Bill, Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour), Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, member of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and skills, the all-Party Parliamentary Patient Safety Group and many other science and health groups. ‘This comparison is an idea whose time has come. If animal tests could be replaced to benefit drug safety, who could fail to be happy?’ – co-sponsor of the Bill, David Amess MP (Conservative). 'It is astonishing that animal testing has never been scientifically evaluated. The process is long overdue’ - co-sponsor of the Bill, Mike Hancock CBE MP (Liberal Democrat).

Support revision of EU directive

Animal experiments in Europe come under Directive 86/609/EEC: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdf (a
“Directive” sets provisions that EU countries must include in their own laws.  After 20 years, the EU law that governs animal testing across Europe and the UK is being revised. In Nov 2008, the EC published a proposed new law intended to control animal experiments across the 27 countries of the EU. The proposal will now spend many months being considered by MEPs and EU governments before being finalised. The politicians can change the proposal for better or worse so we need your help urgently to get the best possible outcome for animals before it becomes law. The latest expose from inside HLS from 2007 - 2008, inside their primate units at Huntingdon show once again, that legislation is failing lab animals, not just primates. 12m non-human animals are used and killed in laboratories across Europe each year and this law will be partly critical in deciding what can and will happen to tens of millions of animals in the years after it is introduced. Groups and individuals will continue to work for the end of all experiments but the next few months give us all an opportunity to make a small difference to the lives of those who will be imprisoned, fearful and suffering in laboratories for years to come. Our opponents are strong and they're already acting to water this directive down (see www.ebra.org and their "points for concern" on that page). The more of us who campaign effectively and intelligently for the animals over this, the better chance we stand of helping. ACTION  Please write to MEPs in your area to urge them to support the amendments to help animals. A letter is much more powerful to write in your own words, telling your representative(s) about your own beliefs and experiences and has less chance of being blocked or ignored. Find your MEP and write to them: http://www.writetothem.com/

Herbal Essences – lies & deceit

One of the most revealing aspects of Herbal Essences' behaviour is their lack of openness and honesty about their animal testing. They know that most people are disgusted by gratuitous cruelty to animals, but instead of changing their ways, Herbal Essences try to mislead consumers. We've now uncovered a glaring example of their deceit. We launched the campaign last July when we revealed that Herbal Essences have poisoned and killed over a thousand mothers and their baby animals to re-test a chemical already in use by humans for decades (butylparaben). With a damaged reputation and collapsing sales, Herbal Essences tried to play the blame game and claimed that they did the test at the request of European regulators. However, Uncaged can now reveal that this is just more deceptive spin from Herbal Essences’ increasingly desperate PR department. We lodged a freedom of information request with the EC for any evidence of a request to Herbal Essences or any other cosmetics company for more test data on butylparaben. The earliest document disclosed was from 2005. But the animal test was written up and published in 2004! We also asked P&G, Herbal Essences’ parent company, for any documents to substantiate their excuses. They refused. Instead, their PR spokeswoman repeated the claim that the test was conducted at the request of the EC’s ‘Scientific Committee on Consumer Products’. But this Committee didn’t even come into existence until autumn 2004, several months after the animal test took place. This incident is just typical of how, in reality, Herbal Essences treat both animals and the public with utter contempt. It’s about time Herbal Essences showed some respect and stopped insulting people’s intelligence. That's why it's so important that the law forces these companies to be transparent about their animal testing practices. Lobby your MP to sign Early Day Motion 137 which calls on the Government to publish details of the animal testing behind cosmetics products.

The weakness of animal testing

New research appears to get to the root of the problem with thalidomide. A team led by Dr Jurgen Knobloch of the University of Cologne in Germany has shown that the drug generates huge quantities of so-called superoxide – roughly speaking, a toxic form of oxygen molecule, which is able to damage growing cells. The team has also found that mice cells produce much higher levels of glutathione than human cells – a compound which mops up the superoxide, and thus prevents thalidomide from wreaking its damage. Reporting their findings in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, the real significance of this new research is more basic and far-reaching. It provides further evidence for something which should surprise no one: animals are not humans, and differ in ways that are hard to predict. Defenders of animal testing have a ready response to those who question the practice. Virtually every medical achievement of the last century, they argue, has depended on the use of animals in some way. And in the case of drug testing, it is undoubtedly true. Every life-saving drug developed over the last few decades has involved the use of animals. But that is because it is mandatory. Crediting animals for their role in such breakthroughs makes no more sense than hailing the wearing of lab coats by the scientists involved. As they always wear them, it is hardly a surprise that lab coats are in evidence when breakthroughs are made. To assess the real value of animals (or lab coats) in drug testing, focusing on success stories alone is not enough. It is crucial to know how and why such tests fail to predict what happens in humans. That can happen in 2 ways: firstly, where animals fail to warn of real toxic effects in humans – as in thalidomide – and secondly, where they give false alarms, with the animals falling victim to drugs that would be fine in humans. After decades of drugs trials, it is pretty clear that animals fail in the first way all too often. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, for every 100 pharmaceuticals that successfully pass animal safety testing, 92 fail in human trials. Gauging the flip side – how often animals wrongly predict harm in drugs that would be safe in humans – is more difficult, not least because such drugs are not allowed to progress to human trials. The truth is, no one has any idea how many wonder drugs are being missed because they failed spurious safety tests involving animals. Even so, any vet can reel off a list of human medicines that will do animals serious harm, from antidepressants and cold cures to cancer treatments and even aspirin. There is an obvious rejoinder to all this, of course: for all their failings, there is still no reliable alternative to the use of animals. To judge by an international conference held last week at the Royal Society in London, it is an argument fast becoming unsustainable. Organised by the UK-based Safer Medicines Trust, it highlighted progress in a host of techniques which allow drugs to be tested directly on human cells. And in stark contrast to animal testing, a genuine effort is being made to gauge just how reliable such tests are in predicting the effect of the drugs in patients. It will be some years yet before such techniques become the standard means of assessing new drugs. Until then, we can only hope that the lottery of animal tests does not lead to another medical disaster on the scale of thalidomide. Robert Matthews, Visiting Reader in Science at Aston University, Birmingham. Edited from The National. 30 Nov

Oxford lab opens

The controversial new animal research facility in Oxford has opened in secret with hundreds of mice moved to the completed building last week, it was revealed today, 11^th Nov. The University of Oxford said the process of rehousing thousands of animals - including monkeys, mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils, fish, frogs and ferrets - into its new Biomedical Sciences Building would take until the middle of next year. Officials told a press conference in London that construction of the new facility, in South Parks Road, had been finished after a 2-year delay following an “unlawful campaign of intimidation” by animal rights fanatics. (!!!)  The security costs of constructing and now running the building as an animal research lab were not yet known, the university officials admitted. However, they said the Government (that’s us, the taxpayers!) had agreed to pick up the tab for everything but the “core” cost of the development. University Registrar Julie Maxton said: “…….It aims to provide new advances in life saving medicine and we will only be using animals when no other technique can be used.” Dr Maxton said once fully operational the Biomedical Sciences Building would support medical research into many “conditions of concern”, including HIV, stroke, heart attacks, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. (all the things where animal testing has failed) Officials said there would be no increase in animals used by the university and 98% of the animals held would be rodents - mostly mice. All the animals used in the experiments are eventually killed.  The University refused to give out details of security measures put in place to protect the building but said safety concerns had been a “major consideration” in its design and construction.  It added: “We believe the security planning we have in place will allow the building to function as a normal research facility, albeit one with careful security measures.” Michelle Thew, chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: "Like the majority of the British public, I want to live in a world where no one wants or believes it's necessary to test on animals. It is therefore depressing that, in a collective failure of imagination, our leading institutions are choosing to repeat the failed patterns of the past."

The University of Oxford is seeking a permanent exclusion zone around its animal research laboratory.  A temporary injunction already in place restricts people from demonstrating within a certain radius of its Biomedical Sciences Building but the university wants to make this permanent at a court hearing scheduled for next year.

The media, including the BBC, were their usual biased selves. Paxman on Newsnight interviewed Michelle Thew and Tipu Aziz.  He aggressively went for Michelle, asking if she was a scientist, and to her credit she totally ignored the question (asked twice in the space of a few minutes) and got on with giving some facts.  Sadly she didn’t say: "If you wanted a scientific person from the anti-viv side why didn't you get one in the studio as there are plenty out there, or are you just worried that their knowledge may discredit the BBC pro-viv line?"  Aziz was, as usual, allowed to get away with his lies, claiming that deep brain stimulation was perfected by him using monkeys, whereas it was discovered by chance by a French doctor using a ‘last resort’ human patient. 

Veteran politician Tony Benn joined animal rights campaigners for a peaceful protest against Oxford University’s new animal experiment laboratory.  The former Labour MP and political campaigner spent 30 minutes talking to members of campaign group Voice for Ethical Research at Oxford (Vero).  Mr Benn, 83, said: “I have always been a believer in animal rights. There is now a lot of strong evidence that animal testing is not necessary, and could be done in a different way.”  The socialist joined animal rights campaigner Sir David Madden outside Nuffield College, in New Road. Campaigners wore academic dress to highlight the support they claimed to have from within the university, for their call to end the use of animals in medical research at the institution. 

Nepalese and Cambodian  monkeys

For more information and how you can take action on the campaign to save Nepal's monkeys from vivisection, see the Gateway to Hell website: www.gatewaytohell.net/ The US laboratory where Nepal's monkeys will be sent, the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SFBR), has a terrible record of animal treatment. Last year they even unlawfully dissected a monkey whilst it was still alive, which is one of the most shocking breaches of American animal welfare laws of recent years. You can read all about the SFBR and their abuse of monkeys here: www.all-creatures.org/saen/tx/res-fr-tx-swf.html  The American funded breeding farm at Lele is now well established, with around 100 babies who will soon also be sent to American laboratories, and this vile farm must be closed.  You can watch video footage of the Lele monkey farm here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0uGqiJnbe30  The Working Policy on Wild Animal Farming, Breeding and Research (2003) which permits this farm is contrary to the Wildlife Protection Act 1976 and its introduction under King Gyandendra's rule was highly suspicious! The law claims to be intended to conserve wildlife and improve the living circumstances of the local population, however there are no plans to reintroduce the monkeys who have been bred into the wild, they will instead be sent to American research laboratories, and the local population sees no benefit from either the farm or the exports! A copy of the Working Policy on Wild Animal Farming, Breeding and Research (2003) can be found here: www.dnpwc.gov.np/Wildlife%20Farming.pdf

The BUAV has obtained shocking never-seen-before footage of the trapping of wild long tailed macaque monkeys in Cambodia destined for factory farms supplying the international research industry, flouting international conventions. Appallingly, the monkeys were even hunted inside a nature reserve in Cambodia — supposedly a place of safety. The hunters used catapults and beat the tree trunks with oars to scare the monkeys out of the trees and drive them into nets. Then screaming in terror, or rigid with fear, these highly intelligent creatures were grabbed by their tails, stuffed into bags and stored in the bottom of a boat before being sold to a dealer of a monkey farm. Thousands more are raised on monkey farms in conditions so far removed from nature that they are traumatized for life. While the long-tailed macaque is not endangered, the group says the unregulated trade is already having an effect on population numbers and leading to a degrading of Cambodia's jungles. "People around the world will be shocked by the findings of the investigation and to learn of the suffering inflicted on Cambodia's monkeys," said Michelle Thew, chief executive of the organisation. "At a time when there is growing international concern over the plight of primates, we urge the Cambodian government to protect its indigenous macaque population." Apart from humans, the macaque is the world's most widespread primate and includes 22 species ranging from Africa to Japan. They are highly intelligent and adapt well to living in urban areas where they frequently earn a love-hate relationship with locals on account of their mischievous ways. The report says nearly 10,000 monkeys were exported from Cambodia last year -- mostly to laboratories and primate dealers in the U.S. and China. International conventions discourage the use of captured wild animals for research, preferring second-generation breeding stock instead, but BUAV says this is widely ignored in Cambodia. The report said as many as 8 out of 10 macaques trapped in the wild died before reaching the laboratory as a result of poor treatment, handling or trauma. The BUAV has called on the Cambodian government to better regulate the industry and to ban the capture of wild animals. It also urges the U.S. and EU to prohibit imports of captured wild animals and to press for better conditions at monkey breeding centres.

Waste of money claim as animal rights trial folds

The trial of 2 animal rights protesters who refused to give their names and addresses to police has collapsed. Tom Harris of Gosport, and a 17-year-old girl from Fareham, were arrested at Halloween last year for failing to give their names and addresses to a constable as they took part in a demonstration outside Wickham Labs, in Wickham, near Fareham. The prosecution has now come under fire for being a massive waste of taxpayers cash and police time. The police are entitled to demand a person's name and address but only if officers believe they are carrying out antisocial behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The case at Portsmouth Magistrates Court was dismissed ½ way through the planned 3-day trial because magistrates said there was insufficient evidence. An inspector, 3 sergeants, a police constable, a PCSO, a special constable, and a resident living opposite the labs were all called to give evidence in a bid to prove the case. No other arrests were made during the evening protest, which included up to 8 activists in fancy dress chanting slogans through a megaphone. Mr Harris said: 'Justice has been done. It has been an absolute waste of money, it hasn't been in the public interest, and it has been an affront to our right to protest and freedom of assembly.' He added they were intending to file a civil case against the police. Inspector Jim Pegler, for Winchester East, said: 'A balance must be struck between the right of people to protest and the rights of the community to enjoy a peaceful existence. 'This protest was taking place at 8pm, 10 metres from residents' homes and officers received reports that young children were being scared and kept awake by protesters wearing masks and using a megaphone. 'Police officers at the protest therefore had reasonable grounds to suspect that anti-social behaviour was taking place, following the complaints from members of the public.' Cate Clark, spokeswoman for the CPS, said the case had been reviewed and experienced prosecutors had decided there was 'a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest'. Plenty of police resources for Animal rights protests!

Wickham demo

Around 100 animal rights protesters marched through Wickham on 20^th Sept to protest against Wickham Laboratories. The group included members of Stop Wickham Animal Testing SWAT) and animal rights activists from all over the country. Around 60 police were deployed to oversee the peaceful, but loud march, which started in Mill Lane and ended in the Square for speeches. Yet again police refused to close the road for the march despite doing so for other processions. After the speeches people gathered outside the lab for poems and a 2 minute silence to reflect on the animals suffering inside this prison – owned by a man who calls himself a vet, William Cartmell. Police were quick to try and disperse everyone after the allotted 15 minutes but there was a short sit-down in protest. One person was arrested. The march then moved slowly back through the village square to the car park. Acting Chief Inspector Darren Murphy, based at Havant, was in charge of policing the march. He said: "There are some points that can be worked on for next year, like how long we allow the protesters to remain in the road and review the conditions we can impose. Having spoken to the organiser of the event, I think she is more open to dialogue than perhaps they have been in the past."

Fruit flies for testing drugs

Scots scientists devised a technique for testing drug treatments on fruit flies. Using methods that sound more like science fiction than science fact, the researchers have found a way to inject fruit flies with the genes of humans and jellyfish to make them accurate (!!) testers for human treatments for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. The scientists at Brainwave Discovery Limited say their breakthrough will provide an alternative to experiments on mice, knocking millions of pounds off the drug testing process, and allowing a dramatic increase in the number of pharmaceuticals entering trials. Good news for fruit flies with Alzheimers or Parkinsons – more false hopes for humans

A comparison of almost 3,000 research papers published over 30 years in major biomedical journals has found a 30% decline in the number of studies using animals. The analysis, by Dr. Hans-Erik Carlsson and colleagues at Sweden's Uppsala University, also showed use of alternative testing methods.

Pig hearts versus artificial hearts

Vivisection directive on hold again

The European Commission has postponed yet again revision of Directive 86/609/EEC – the 20-year-old legislation governing the use of animals in experiments. An announcement on Fri 12^th Sept promised the long-awaited publication was just a few days away, but it has now been dropped from the agenda. Let the Commission know how disappointed you are by its continued failure to improve the protection of laboratory animals in Europe. E-mail Stavros Dimas, Commissioner for the Environment, and urge him to publish the proposed revision of Directive 86/609/EEC immediately. stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu Reacting to the Commission's decision, vice-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on Animal Welfare and UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas commented: "It is unacceptable that the European Commission continues to sit on its hands and block improved standards of animal protection. The animal experiments directive is completely out of date - over 20 years old. "Currently over 10m animals are used in experiments in the EU each year, and hundreds of thousands of animals currently receive no protection at all. The Commission has been promising to update the animal experiments directive for years, with publication of the legislative proposal originally expected in 2007. "Since then, the dossier has stumbled at every hurdle.  Further delay is simply unacceptable. Urgent action is needed to protect both human health and animals by replacing out-dated, cruel and often misleading animal experiments with up-to-date, non-animal alternatives. "In order to respond to public opinion, the Commission must improve standards of animal protection, and increase transparency and accountability in the revision of this Directive. Dr Lucas concluded: "In May this year, renowned bioethicist and primatologist Jane Goodall presented a 150,000 signature petition to the European Parliament calling for an improved strategy for the use of animals in experiments. The Commission has regrettably chosen to ignore public opinion and shelve proposals once again."

Move to publicise figures on animal suffering

More information about the level of pain and suffering animals endure during lab experiments should be made public, according to a group of scientists who are advising ministers on how to change regulations governing animal research. They say the change will make animal research in the UK more transparent and lead to improvements in experimental procedures to minimise suffering. "Currently we record all the animals that enter a particular procedure, but we don't record what actually happens to those animals during that procedure," said Prof Dominic Wells, at Imperial College London who was part of the working group that made the recommendations. "We believe it will drive refinement, in other words better welfare for the animals, because if the actual animal experience is being recorded, that will retrospectively allow opportunity to see where refinements could be made and where procedures could be improved." At the moment the institution and each individual project must be licensed by the government. In applying for licences, researchers must predict the level of suffering they are likely to inflict - "mild", "moderate" or "substantial" – and the number of animals involved. This level of suffering must be justified on the likely benefits of the research in terms of progress towards new treatments or better scientific understanding. Currently, fewer than 2% of licenses are characterised as "substantial". The working group, which included members of the Laboratory Animal Science Association and the Animal Procedures Committee, a Home Office advisory body, propose that animal researchers must also record the actual level of suffering that each animal experiences. "That will enable the public to understand the numbers - the degree of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that the animals undergo," Wells said. In a handful of pilot studies of the new reporting system that involved a few hundred animals, the researchers found that licence applicants tended to overestimate the level of harm they expect when applying for licences. That way, if animals end up experiencing more pain the project will not be in breach of its licence. A project can be inspected without warning by the Home Office. "Where we, for instance, have a protocol which is graded of substantial severity, the vast majority of animals don't actually fall within the substantial bracket, they fall within either mild or the moderate bracket," Wells said. The results will form part of annual national statistics on the number of animals used in research. Last year 3.2m procedures were carried out on animals in the UK, the majority (83%) involving rodents. If the recommendations are adopted by the government, in future the figures will also say what proportion of these animals suffered substantially, moderately and mildly. It will also be possible to see whether the number of procedures involving the highest level of suffering is decreasing. There are no plans to make public the levels of suffering experienced by animals at individual institutions. "If we are reporting nationally that 10%, say, of animals are undergoing substantial suffering that might not be palatable to the general public and therefore there will be an onus on scientists to try and reduce the number of substantial procedures," Wells said. Michelle Thew, the chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, welcomed the proposed changes. "The BUAV has long been calling for retrospective assessment and reporting of lab animal suffering so strongly welcomes the recommendations," she said. "However in order for these recommendations to have a meaningful impact on the suffering of animals in our laboratories we must have independent assessment, which also needs to take into account the suffering animals experience during their whole lifetimes as laboratory animals, not just during experiments. Suffering resulting from experiments must be realistically assessed, with the benefit of any doubt given to animals. The current mild, moderate and substantial bands are far too vague." The BUAV does not regard the Home Office inspectors that police the system as sufficiently independent. David Smith, the president of the Laboratory Animal Science Association who chaired the working group said there was a danger that the new reporting measures would add to the bureaucratic burden on scientists in a field that is already filled with red tape. Edited from The Guardian 1 Oct

Fired researcher alleges animal cruelty

A scientist hired last year to do research at a Charles River animal testing facility has filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming he was fired because he opposed what he said was the "cruel and inhumane mistreatment" of animals by lab personnel. Guy Grimsley said that Charles River Laboratories knew he would fight any "unlawful or wrongful animal testing," so they forced him out without explanation. Grimsley, who has a doctorate in pathology and immunology from the University of Western Australia, said he had been recruited by Charles River in 2006, was hired soon after.  But in May 2007, he learned that the lab "planned to conduct experiments involving more severe animal tethering," which officials knew Grimsley would oppose. At the same time, the lab instituted a plan to begin tests on dogs at the facility. Grimsley, born in England, told lab officials that European standards would require that the dogs be "housed in runs rather than cages," but officials ignored his calls and told staff to lie to clients about how the dogs would be kept. Management of CRL was aware that because of his European heritage, plaintiff Grimsley was vehemently opposed to mistreatment of facility animals. Defendant CRL knew that plaintiff Grimsley would not stand by and allow the continued mistreatment of test animals. As a result of that opposition, Grimsley said he was "summarily terminated" in October with no advance notice and despite having received a performance evaluation 3 months before his firing saying his work was "outstanding." His lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees. Charles River has operated a facility in Sparks since 1992, and one in Reno since 2007. It produces products and services for biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the development of drugs. 2 months ago it was learned that 32 monkeys had died in its facility in May because of overheating. Company officials said they have since improved security and training policies to prevent such deaths.  RGI.com 9^th Sept

‘Must read’ article

There is a long but MUST read article on animal researchers and some of their experiments that will completely blow the myth about the whole disgusting process. Some of it makes harrowing reading but if we don’t know that facts we can’t pass them on.  http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=960#more-960Portrait of an Animal Researcher

Chimps & Aids research

NEAVS/Project R&R’s international science team’s most recent paper, "An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research”, has been published in the September issue of the scientific journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA - vol. 36 pp 381-428). The paper investigates how current and past research using chimpanzees to develop and test an AIDS vaccine have failed; illustrates how vaccine responses in chimpanzees are not predictive of responses in humans; and asserts that claims of chimpanzees’ critical role and importance in AIDS vaccine development is without scientific foundation.  The publication comes on the heels of recent vaccine failures in late-stage clinical trials, including one vaccine that appeared to increase vulnerability to HIV infection in human clinical trial participants, though the vaccine had proven safe and effective in tests in nonhuman primates.

Sequani demo report

Over 200 activists gathered for the Carnival Against Vivisection in Ledbury, Herefordshire, on 6^th Sept. The protest was focused on the Sequani vivisection labs, where demonstrations are held every week by the Stop Sequani campaign. The carnival was also a response to the ever-increasing repression of the animal rights movement. Sequani has become the latest private company to make use of the state's willingness to protect corporations against dissent at all costs. Earlier this year, Sean Kirtley was sentenced to 4½ years in prison following a 5-month trial for 'conspiring to interfere with an animal research establishment' under Section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). The trial had been subject to a media gagging order. During the proceedings, it was admitted by prosecution witnesses that Sean had been peaceful during demonstrations. The height of the charges against him were that he had allegedly uploaded material to the Stop Sequani Animal Torture website, sent text messages and made phone calls related to (lawful) protests at the lab. Sean will be appealing the charges in November. The Carnival Against Vivisection sought to highlight the significance of Sean's conviction for anti-corporate dissent in the UK and to call for Sean's release. Prior to the demonstration, the police had contacted campaigners looking for 'organisers'. Campaigners pointed out that anyone coming forward as an 'organiser' might suffer the same fate as Sean. A participant from the Western Animal Rights Network (WARN) said, "The carnival was the biggest animal rights demonstration there has been in Ledbury. Police originally tried to stop the march by using Section 12 of the Public Order Act but, in the end, it was easier for them to just let the March go ahead." FIT (the video police) were kept at bay by Fitwatch. Hundreds of leaflets were given out.  Some locals went on the march and voiced support. There was an impromptu demo at Sequani clinical.  The Ledbury hunt was sabbed prior to the demo. It was made clear to Sequani, police and government that imprisoning fellow activists for peaceful protest will not frighten off other activists from their duties towards animals or to the notion of a right to protest. Afterwards A Foie Gras demo' took place in Worcester A shift change at Cargill/Sun Valley, in Hereford (a chicken abattoir which supplies Mc Donalds) was disrupted as security refused to let workers in and they drove around aimlessly for an hour. The notorious Bobby Roberts Circus (due to start performances tomorrow night at Hereford race course) had their posters rearranged. The police have conceded (in private to various activists) that we outwitted them despite being equal in number. There were 5 arrests with the last arrestee taken home at 22.30.

Inside Sequani: In June this year Sequani Limited in Ledbury invited a group of students from Newent Community School on a guided tour of the labs as part of an ethics lesson.  One of the students described the filthy and dilapidated condition of the buildings, the dirty, urine and faeces covered floors of the dog, rabbit and pig unit. The young beagle puppies who had just arrived were lively and barking when they entered but the older dogs were silent and terrified. Staff were wary of answering any awkward questions. So much for a ‘strictly regulated’ industry!

Cancer research failure

Newsweek, 6^th Sept ran an article “We fought cancer…. And cancer won”, showing how clinical and in vitro research, not animal experiments, have impacted cancer. And  showing the National Cancer Institute and funding bodies, and indeed many scientists in  general, for what they are....ladder-climbing, publication hungry  egotists - or blinkered - or both! In the 1970s cancer scientists discovered cancer viruses that alter DNA in animals and thought this would also apply to humans.  Apart from the papilloma virus causing cervical cancer this doesn’t apply to other human cancers. They then discovered human genes that mutate and that triggered lots of research papers but it’s common for grants, awards and professorships and papers in leading journals not to help a single patient. For other diseases 20% of new compounds are approved as drugs but for cancer only 8% are. A widely discussed article in Fortune magazine laid the blame for the lack of progress on the use of rats and mice. So Newsweek looked at a few studies to see why the mice lived and the humans didn’t. When the first cancer causing gene was discovered in 1982 scientists implanted human cancer into mice and used a drug that prevents the gene from functioning. It worked on mice but not on humans. They then tried a new compound that melts cancers away – again it worked in mice but not humans. The whole micro-environment of a mouse’s body is so different and this affects prognosis and survival. Another difference is that the cancers didn’t metastasise in mice and it is these cells that kill 90% of humans. Yet right into the 1990s scientists weren’t even looking at that aspect and continued to use the animal model. The article also mentions that only ‘safe’ research is encouraged and funded rather than innovative research. Funding doesn’t look at preventing cancer, at keeping cells normal, but goes into curing cancer as that’s where the money is. As one oncologist said: “It’s not as sexy to look at broccoli and how it helps prevent colon cancer.  And you can’t patent broccoli.”  Hugely edited by me but well worth a full read.

The APE team would like to remind you that Maria Daines' rock
song "Monkey In A Cage" is available for downloading.
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
 

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.

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 2007 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.

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 2007 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!!!

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
The Home Office. 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.

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

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

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.

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

[ 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 13 December 2008