Stem cell researcher makes paralyzed rats walk

PAUL ELIAS
Associated Press

IRVINE, Calif. - So far, not a single person has been helped by human embryonic stem cells.

But in cramped university labs, a young neurobiologist with movie star good looks, a Carl Sagan-like fondness for the popular media and an entrepeneur's nose for profits is getting tantalizingly close.

Hans Keirstead is making paralyzed rats walk again by injecting them with healthy brain cells sussed from a reddish soup of human embryonic stem cells he and his colleagues have created.

Keirstead hopes to apply his therapy to humans by 2006. If his ambitious timetable keeps to schedule, Keirstead's work will be the first human embryonic stem cell treatment given to humans.

"I have been shocked, thrilled and humbled at the progress that I have made," Keirstead, 37, said in an interview in his University of California-Irvine office, which is dominated by a 4- by 8-foot collage of famous rock stars created by his artist brother. "I just want to see one person who is bettered by something that I created."

Keirstead has been turning stem cells into specialized cells that help the brain's signals traverse the spinal cord. Those new cells have repaired damaged rat spines several weeks after they were injured.

For the last two years, he has shown dramatic video footage of healed rats walking to scientific gatherings and during campaign events to promote California's $3 billion bond measure to fund stem cell work, which passed in November.

Keirstead and his colleagues are continuing to experiment with rats to ensure the injected cells do what they're supposed to without any side effects.

"You don't want toenails growing in the brain," he said.

Meanwhile, Keirstead and his corporate sponsor - Menlo Park-based Geron Corp. - are designing the initial human experiments, which will test for safety and involve just a handful of volunteers. The volunteers likely will be patients who have been recently injured.

Keirstead's work was at first met by derision and disbelief at the Society of Neuroscience's annual meeting in 2002.

"We upset a lot of people," said Dr. Gabriel Nistor, who was the first researcher to join Keirstead's lab five years ago. "No one believed us at first." Keirstead and Nistor were stars at the same gathering in October, and their research will be published next month in a scientific journal.

Kierstead is as close as anyone in the stem cell research world could be to celebrity, and that can be dangerous in a profession noted as much for its petty jealousies of individual fame as it is for scientific breakthroughs. (Sagan, the noted astronomer who for years hosted the PBS series "Cosmos," was denied membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, a slight that his supporters insist was based on his mass appeal).

Reporters have beaten a well-worn path to Keirstead's lab. The fact that he's wealthy only adds to his growing luster.

Keirstead recently sold a biotech company he co-founded, unrelated to his stem cell work, in a deal that could be worth as much as $8 million.

"We all love Hans - for various reasons," giggled Karen Miner, whose advocacy organization helps fund Keirstead's work.

Miner and her colleagues at Research for Cure, based in Escalon in California's Central Valley, have contributed $170,000 over the last four years to the Reeve-Irvine Research Center where Keirstead works. The center is named for its founding donor, actor Christopher Reeve, who died in October of complications related to his paralysis.

"We all feel he is on the cutting edge of spinal cord research," said Miner, 53, who was paralyzed below the neck after an automobile accident 12 years ago. "I have to think it's the most promising thing out there."

She toured Keirstead's labs two years ago and watched once-paralyzed rats walk inside their cages.

"The adrenaline that I felt was almost enough to get me out of the chair," Miner said. "When you are sitting in a wheelchair and see those rats running around, all you can think is, 'I want some of those now.'"

Human embryonic stem cells are created in the first days after conception and are the building blocks of the human body. Scientists believe they will someday be able to coax stem cells to turn into healthy cells to treat a wide range of ailments, including diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injuries. Many social conservatives who believe life begins at conception view the work as immoral because days-old embryos are destroyed during research.

Critics complain privately that Keirstead is beholden to Menlo Park-based Geron, which claims a Microsoft-like grip on any commercial stem cell market that emerges.

Geron funded the work of University of Wisconsin researcher Jamie Thomson, who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998, and the company funds Keirstead's lab at $500,000 a year. Geron owns the commercial rights to any drug Keirstead may develop.

Keirstead doesn't apologize for his funding source, which he said is more generous than he could have expected from the federal government and with fewer research restrictions. He said he's not interested in profits, but rather in speeding the development of new spinal cord treatments.

And he has an answer for those who say he's moving too fast and that his experiments with rats are dangling false hope before the 15,000 people paralyzed in the United States each year.

"This is extremely promising," Keirstead said. "Why the hell would we wait?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIH grants are invaluable for research, but when such grants are not given by the government (because of the rules of embryonic stem cell research), the private sector seems willing to pony up (which is a good thing despite some misgivings).

Either way, hopefully more progress will continue to be made.

Yes, definitely. After all, there is no better research than purposely paralyzing thousands of animals (go look up how this is done) and then trying to heal them. I want progress to be made on paralyzed humans just as much as anyone but not through methods like this.

And maybe I'm missing something, but this was news over three years ago.

Different institution and this is current.

Also, and with all due respect for animal rights, I believe this type of research is immently important and valuable. A great majority of medical and scientific breakthrough has come from experimentation with animals.

As someone who has done a bit of research involving animals, it is a necessary sacrifice and when it is done responsibly, I cannot stand in objection to it.

Responsible research
Responsible hunting
Responsible farming
Responsible ranching

It can, and does, happen.

That's very easy for you to say. Would you allow one human being to be paralyzed against their will so that research can be done on stem cells? Yet it's okay if we're talking about thousands of animals. I understand.

I'm all for animal testing. Without it probably both of my parents wouldn't be around today. My dad had open heart surgery in 1959 when it was just being performed. I'm sure there were a few thousand pigs that died because doctors had to practice heart surgery. Today those few thousand pigs probably save tens of thousands of human lives each year.

In 1992, my mom took an experimental chemo drug to help her cancer. So I'm sure there were probably thousands of mice that died. Cancer is the a huge killer in this country. Probably more important than "fighting" terrorism or stopping "suv's" from driving.

Again, I don't want to insult your point of view Stonecrest (and I do respect it), but I agree with zutmon on this and am for research involving animals.

And yes, I believe sacrifices are necessary to advance research, knowledge, medicine, and human beings.

That would be a logical statement except that the animal testing doesn't stop once a "cure" or whatever is discovered. It continues year after year, and it's safe to say that the number of animals that have been killed or harmed greatly outnumbers the number of humans that have benefited.

If we chose to focus on alternatives, we wouldn't still have to use these antiquated research methods that don't even correlate well between animals and humans. There are hundreds of reports showing that there are other methods that are more effective and better than animal testing, scientists are just slow to use them because it's very convenient to just use a bunch of stupid animals.

Tsunami, "making sacrifices" would be your own. I wouldn't consider it making sacrifices when you force it on others that cannot speak out or defend themselves. If I broke the bones in your body so that you became paralyzed in order to do some research, I doubt you would consider it a necessary sacrifice. And don't even get me started on "responsible." On what basis is this "responsible" research? There are a lot of scientists out there that would disagree.

I disagree. You are drawing parallels from animal to human and that does not mean anything in the scientific community. The type of testing done with animals is not conducted on humans and should not be. We are humans looking for cures and scientific advancement for humans. Animals offer an available testing platform in which to conduct. Also, veternarian medicine uses animal testing for the betterment of animals. Such testing is a necessary part of reality.

I would like to read more about research conducted without the use of animal tissue. If you have citations, please post. Pub Med may be a place to look. Also, you seem to downplay the convenience factor, but in reality it is often an expense factor. Alternatives sound nice on paper, but in vivo research is very difficult to simulate, and such simulation is often far beyond what is deemed necessary in research budgets.

Without animal testing, science is hindered. When science is hindered, both animal and human suffer. Simple as that.

And responsibility has a large role in this. I would like to learn more about why you do not think that responsible research can take place, or responsible hunting, farming, ranching, etc. You can even cite instances where abuses have taken place, but there are also many if not more cases where responsible work was done instead.

I respect your views, but I would say that in order to fully support such views you need to forgo medical treatment and most (if not all) medicines in general. Anything less is purely hypocritical.

Further:

Animal testing can be as simple as ringing a bell and feeding a dog in order to understand how animals learn. That's animal testing, which nobody can deny. Some production companies test their products on animals. They have designed a product and want to sell it to the public, but first need to know what will happen if it accidentally gets into someone's eyes. Fortunately, preliminary chemical analysis can be done and many toxic compounds can be recognised before they are tested on animals for skin irritation. We understand this toxicity mostly from previous experience with animal testing. It may have been done in the past, but anyone who relies on this data should at least understand from where it has come.

Another form of testing exists and it is less understood. Drug companies rely heavily on animal testing to develop drugs for humans. Mice and rats are good subjects, but so are rabbits and some other primates. It is so hard to remove animals from this process because animals (or animal tissues) are an integral part of the research process.

Imagine. A Pharmaceutical company has found some interesting protein that is expressed in human cells. How should we study it? Classical pharmacology involves sectioning an animal (sectioning means cutting a dead animal into very thin slices) and then treating those sections with something radioactive that will bind to the novel protein. This something can be an antibody or a nucleic acid probe. The probe is made radioactive so that we can later check where the protein is located in the body. Protein localization gives information about possible function, and this is a very valuable way to start. Without this first piece of information, drug companies would not know how to proceed. Molecular biology once promised to take over and eliminate such strategies, but it has been about ten years since the birth of this science (maybe more) and there is conjecture that molecular biology will be a long time still in reaching maturity as a science that can replace pharmacology. Slicing up animals is simply more revealing.

Later, once a potential drug has been found (I skipped a big part, but let me know if you are interested.) The company must now determine how much must be injested for the positive effect of the drug to be felt. The company must also know how much of the drug is required to kill the subject. If this margin is too narrow, the drug will carry a high risk of overdose. An internet search for "LD50" and "therapeutic index" returned many sites that you may find interesting.

A large drug company has access to information on more than a thousand proteins and uses animal testing to determine which way to develop. This second part of the testing process is closer to the comon idea of animal testing, but it should be noted that every year drug companies must decide which compounds to develop. The monetary requirements are astounding, and animal testing helps to make a more informed decision.

Another side of animal testing:



THE TROJAN HORSE OF ANIMAL PROTECTIONISM
by Patrick H. Cleveland, Ph.D.,
President, CFAAR/San Diego 12/09/1992

MEDICAL MIRACLES AT RISK

The children of this country need to know the facts and opinions about animal research in a truly balanced and unbiased format. This is a complex and controversial subject that only a few teachers are trained to handle. The scientific community is concerned that our children are being misinformed about this Important area of medical research. A chilling indication of how misinformed they are came in a 1991 Gallup poll demonstrating 67% of American teenagers "support animal rights" including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. They appear to be unaware of the serious consequences of such a ban. This is a science education issue of great importance. How well today's students understand It will affect the fate of millions in the next century through education, regulatory and political processes.

THE TROJAN HORSE

A number of blatant animal rights groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have developed propaganda programs aimed at school children. However, for the most part they have not been accepted into school curricula because the teachers can recognize this as an extreme position. A far more dangerous assault has been launched on the classroom by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) under the Trojan Horse of environmentalism, saving endangered species and "animal protectionism". This camouflaged assault is welcomed through the front doors of the schools by many unsuspecting environmentally conscious teachers and administrators as it is proffered by an established group that is well respected for it's previous work in animal welfare - HSUS. In fact the state of California recently incorporated lessons from HSUS's educational program for school children into the state's new environmental education curriculum guide. HSUS with it's 1.3 million members calls it's self the nations largest animal protection organization. Few people know that HSUS's animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says It is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have had that philosophy since 1990.(l)

In recent years HSUS elected to call themselves "animal protectionists" to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberatlon Front (ALF) and PETA have brought to animal rights causes. They stress an environmental theme in their "Kids in Nature's Defense" newsletter which was sent last October to over 2 million students in every elementary school in the USA. They also sent The HSUS Student Action Guide to promote activism by forming Earth-animal-protection clubs. Some of these clubs target animal research. HSUS is also influencing other well respected educational resources such the 9 million circulation _Weekly Reader_ and it's companion for middle schools, _Current Science_.

WEEKLY READER
The April 10, 1992 second grade edition of the _Weekly Reader_ published a very biased and misleading debate on "Should Animals be Used to Test New Medicines". The editor of that edition acknowledged that he was an "animal protectionist". Even after being notified of the unbalanced presentation of facts, the October 23, 1992 _Weekly Reader_ senior edition (6th grade) and the October30, 1992 _Current Science_ again contributed to misinformation about animal research by omitting arguments and facts and leading children to accept the misguided position of "animal protectionism".

THE FALSE MIDDLE GROUND

The Weekly Reader/Current Science used the common advocacy technique of posing the two extremes of the argument (pro-animal research vs. PETA) and then led their young readers to the supposed `middle ground" of animal protectionism. This is a technique that HSUS has used before. Sandra Bressler The Executive Director of the California Biomedical Research Association has charged that HSUS is a "false moderate" that attempts to establish a "middle ground that is much closer to animal liberation philosophy than would other wise appear."(2) Just what does animal protectionism mean?

WHAT IS PROTECTIONISM?

Animal protectionists such as HSUS believe in the same animal rights philosophy of moral equality between humans and animals and they share the same goal of working for the abolition of animal research as does PETA and the terrorist ALF. What separates these groups are the tactics they use and the time table set for accomplishing that goal. It's like the difference between a mugger and a con man. They each will rob you they use different tactics, have different time tables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken. the tactics and time table of the protectionists appear moderate when compared to tactics of confrontation and demands for immediate abolition by PETA. But then again PETA appears moderate when compared to the terrorism of the ALF.

Animal protectionists don't angrily demonstrate, they don't demand an immediate halt to all animal research, they have an Installment plan time table. This year to eliminate primate research, then cats and dogs, then all animals but rats and mice. Their arguments con the public about the necessity of basic research, about the capability of so called alternatives to animals. (Even the most sophisticated technology still cannot mimic the complicated interactions among cells, tissues and organs that occur In humans and animals.) They distort good judgment by selectively focusing on research that easily arouses emotion. They target non-life saving research as they push toward the abolition of all animal research as fast as societal attitudes will allow. They say they will allow animal research if it is absolutely necessary to save human life. But who determines which situations are "absolutely necessary." In the protectionist view, those situations are few in number as they see the life saving argument as but a method to phase out animal research. They are blind to the human suffering and death their actions will bring. They are willing to force the rest of society to suffer the consequences of their "higher moral ethic" but they are not willing to acknowledge or accept responsibility for those consequences.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Recently HSUS President John Hoyt and Board of Directors member Robert P. Welbom enunciated HSUS's calculating tactics and the necessity for hiding their views on abolition of animal research from the public. The following quotes are from presentations to animal rights groups.

Hoyt - "In the early stages of the advent of the philosophy of animal rights, it appeared that established groups such as the HSUS and newly emerging groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could make common cause on most Issues mutually supporting each other's actions and endeavors. ...until, sadly, it became apparent to us and others that the motives and ambitions of the leaders of this endeavor were seriously flawed. ... there has evolved over the past few years a fairly radical difference in the tactics,... Some animal rights groups tend to be confrontational and demonstrative, sometimes resulting in the destruction of property, personal intimidation and, on rare occasions, violence. This is not to say that the rights of animals should be either ignored or minimized as a meaningful and vital philosophy. Indeed, it must not be. But what needs to be said, and understood, Is that those who seek to codify the rights of animals in law or custom are but a small minority ...Do we then imagine, even for one brief moment, that a government -- our government --which declines to sign a magna carta on behalf of children....will be moved to do our bidding to stop the use of animals for research or prohibit their use for food? ... I hardly think so.... ... nor do we believe that the American public will in any large measure be responsive to those groups advocating such abolition"(3)

Welborn - "I question the moral propriety of causing animals to suffer for the purpose of testing products intended for humans or for dealing with human maladies. ... Many people, of course, experience great sorrow when working for animal protection and wish for a complete cessation of animal use and abuse, But if we engage in public discourse on behalf of animal protection and hope to be effective, we must deal with the prevailing human attitudes and laws."(4)

HSUS Vice President for Lab Animals, Martin Stephens was more direct. In an unguarded moment, Katie McCabe documented his views in an unchallenged segment of "Beyond Cruelty."(5) "Yet the Society's leadership is dominated by animal- rightists. Its official spokesperson on the lab-animal Issue, veterinarian Martin Stephens, personally espouses abolitionism. "I myself am an anti-vivisectionist, but I wouldn't impose that view on people now"'. (6)

Katie McCabe also documented in "Who will live and who will die?" previous HSUS Vice President for Lab Animals McArdle's, detailed instructions on how to hide their agenda.
"Acknowledging the limited appeal of an uncompromising vegetarian philosophy", McArdle advised delegates at the 1984 HSUS convention to `avoid the words "animal rights" and "anti-vivisection." They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of the animals."(7)

HIDDEN AGENDA
These quotes leave no question about the animal rights philosophy and true goals of the animal protectionists and their intent to disguise their abolitionist goals. Was the _Weekly Reader/Current Science_ Management aware of that agenda? Were the teachers who used the _Weekly Reader/Current Science_ aware? Were the students aware?

NOT AN EXTREME

Pro-animal research is not an extreme position. The vast majority of researchers take their stewardship over animals very seriously and they conduct their animal experiments humanely and with great sensitivity. They insure that animals don't suffer needlessly, they take good care of the animals and are governed by more strict regulations and oversight than any other profession that uses animals. They are continually reviewed by local state and federal agencies. The approval process for animal experimentation is very thorough and is designed to insure the use of the fewest animals possible and that animals are only used because there is no other choice. Researchers occupy the true middle ground.

ABOLITION IN DISGUISE

The _Weekly Reader's_ statement that the pro-research and PeTA positions are "disparate points of view" and indicating that "many people" are animal protectionists, pushes young readers into the "Maybe" false middle ground. Neither the _Weekly Reader_ nor _Current Science_ brought up a single argument against that "middle ground". Arguments such as what are the consequences, who determines if research is necessary, and the fact that very few if any individual expenments can "promise" life saving results. Science just doesn't work that way. Scientists of many different fields work collectively for many years on a common life threatening problem. They can't individually promise or guarantee life saving results. Animal protectionists' conception of how science Is done demonstrates their fuzzy thinking and naivete. Science builds brick by brick upon the knowledge gained in the past. The day of the isolated researcher making swift life saving breakthroughs are long since gone, Putting "life saving" limitations on scientists would also prohibit all basic science research using animals, and all animal research on problems of human suffering. Lets recognize the protectionist limitation to life saving research for what it is: a call for the abolition of all animal research In disguise.

THIS HORSE BRINGS DEATH

Those that use the Trojan Horse of "animal protectionism" to abolish animal research, do a great disservice to patients suffering from the hundreds of diseases we are still trying to cure. Those patients are important - more important than animals. There is a fundamental difference between respect and consideration for animals (welfare) and granting them equal moral rights, just as there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals. Animal protectionism works to blur that difference through anthropomorphism and brainwashing our children. The protectionist's con man efforts in the schools have gone largely unnoticed as scientists have been diverted by the PETA and ALF mugging. Scientists should turn their attention to the schools so our children and their teachers clearly understand these differences and the very real human and animal suffering and death consequences that will accompany the granting of rights to animals.

TELL YOUR TEACHER

Take this article to your childrens' teachers and principals, they need to see what is in the belly of this Trojan Horse.
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
COALITION FOR ANIMALS AND ANIMAL RESEARCH/San Diego
CFAAR/San Diego is a non-profit, pro animal research group of San Diego County physicians, Veterinarians, Scientists, students, research staff and concerned citizens, who are interested in educating the public about the use of animals in research and teaching and about the regulations that govern the humane treatment of research animals.
Permission to reproduce all or part of this article is freely granted on the condition that credit is given to CFAAR/San Diego.
REFERENCES
HSUS; "A Discussion ...Rights for Animals", HSUS pamphlet, 1990.
Bressler, Sandra; "Beware False Moderates", Letter to The Scientist, 10/12/1992.
Hoyt, John A.; "Animals It's Their World Too", Report of the President 1990, HSUS Annual Membership Meeting 10/27/1990.
Welbom, Robert F.; "The Potential for the Institutional Animal Committee", HSUS News Spring 1992.
McCabe, Katie; Personal communication 11/10/1992.
McCabe, Katie; "Beyond Cruelty", The Washingtonian, Volume 25, No. 5, February,1990.
7. McCabe, Katie; "Who Will Live and Who Will Die?", The Washingtonian, Volume 21, No.11, August 1986.

BBC Science and News:

Key Points
More than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2002. This number has halved in the last 30 years

Around the world, animals are used to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs

British law requires that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent

UK regulations are considered some of the most rigorous in the world - the Animals Act of 1986 insists that no animal experiments be conducted if there is a realistic alternative

Almost every medical treatment you use has been tested on animals. Animals were also used to develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery

Here is an alternative listing from BBC and a piece on responsible animal research.

What Are The Alternatives?

The 'Three Rs'
In 1959, British zoologist William M. S. Russell and microbiologist Rex L. Burch published "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique", in which they put forth the 'three Rs of animal research':
# Replacement - use alternative methods, e.g. testing on cell cultures (in vitro)
# Reduction - use statistics to reduce the number of animals that must be used for each experiment
# Refinement - improve the experiment to reduce animal suffering

Paying for alternatives
Humanitarian organisations and governments have funded studies into alternative methods since the 1960s. For the past 15 years, Germany has given £4.2 million a year in research grants, while the Netherlands spends £1.4 million a year. It is estimated that the total spent by the UK government is in the region of £2 million a year. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods was set up in 1992 by the European Commission, and contributes £6.3 million annually. EU regulations state that researchers must assess the pain that an animal may feel during an experiment, and justify its suffering by what the research can achieve.

Reducing deaths...
In the past, the toxicity of a new substance was measured by an 'LD50' (lethal dose 50%) test. This test required up to 200 rats, dogs or other animals to be force-fed different amounts of the substance, to determine the dose that would kill exactly half that group of animals.



Rat examination


Recent changes in protocol have put a ban on the LD50 test, save in exceptional circumstances. In addition, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that if a substance kills the first three animals it is tested on, further trials are unnecessary.

...by using statistics
A vaccine is only considered effective if at least 80% of the vaccinated animals survive after being exposed to a particular disease. However, the disease must also kill 80% of a control group not protected by the vaccine. Using statistical methods, Coenraad Hendriksen of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands has developed a method to test diphtheria and tetanus vaccines that only requires measuring the level of antibodies in an animal.

Apart from greatly reducing their suffering, it also uses half the number of animals. Other statistical techniques can use patient data to understand how a disease spreads, without testing it on animals.

...using fewer mammals
Horst Spielmann of ZEBET, the German centre for animal testing alternatives, has surveyed decades of industry data on pesticides. He concluded that if mice and rats prove sensitive to a chemical, it does not have to undergo further tests on dogs. Spielmann anticipates that 70% of dog tests can now be dispensed with.

There is a general effort by researchers to use lab animals that are less likely to suffer the sensations of pain or discomfort. In Canada, many studies have replaced mammals with fish, and now researchers are even trying to use bacteria in tests instead of rats.

...using cell cultures
In the 1970s, the Netherlands used 5,000 monkeys a year to make polio vaccines. Now kidney cell cultures from just 10 monkeys provide enough vaccine for everyone in the country. Hormones or vaccines manufactured in cell cultures are also purer than those made within the animals themselves. This further reduces the need for animal tests to check the safety of the vaccines.

...using synthetic membranes
The Department of Transportation became the first US agency to accept tests for skin corrosivity conducted on artificially-grown cells in 1993. The traditional test simply measured how far a corrosive substance ate into an anaesthetised rabbit's shaved back. Instead, the replacement uses reconstructed human skin, or a synthetic material called 'Corrositex'. Similar solutions are being developed for many other types of experiments which currently use animals.


Scans can replace
animal tests


...using new technologies
New scanning technologies (such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging) can help doctors learn about disease from human patients without the need for invasive surgery, or animal testing.

Similarly, autopsies and cell culture studies can reveal a great deal of information without having to simulate the disease in a lab animal. Computer models have also been developed that simulate an animal's response, removing the need for live animal tests.

In the future
Animal researchers say that it will be impossible to eliminate all animal tests. But most scientists accept that it is extremely important to minimise the suffering of laboratory animals, and to use as few animals as possible.

I agree with the last piece I posted.

I am for responsible research involving animals.

But I also recognize that animal research is invaluble and should be done unless there is truly an effective alternative.

As of yet, there are not for many things and because of that, it needs to be done.

It is necessary for now.

[back on topic]

This is good news.

Pub Med Abstract on Responsible Animal Research:

Improving design and analysis of research: lessons from clinical research.

Altman DG.

Cancer Research UK/NHS Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

There is a clear need to optimise the use of animals in research and to ensure that the studies that are done make a worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge. Research that has an inappropriate study design, or is improperly analysed or interpreted, may mislead and is not defensible. Published reviews of the quality of design and analysis in clinical studies are used to see what lessons can be drawn in respect of animal research. The need for clear and full reporting of research is discussed.



Altern Lab Anim. 2004 Sep;32 Suppl 2:1-4. Related Articles, Links

Reduction through education: the insight of a trainer.

van der Valk J, van Zutphen BF.

Netherlands Centre for Alternatives (NCA), Department of Animals, Science and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.166, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.

One of the articles contained within European Council Directive 86/609/EEC states that "Persons who carry out experiments or take part in them, and persons who take care of animals used for experiments, including duties of a supervisory nature, shall have appropriate training". In effect, this article stipulates that only competent individuals are allowed to work with laboratory animals. At least three groups of individuals can be identified with different responsibilities toward experimental animals: animal technicians, scientists, and veterinarians/animal welfare officers. The responsibilities and duties of the individuals within each of these categories differ. This paper focuses on the training of scientists. The scientist designs, and often also performs, animal experiments. Therefore, scientists must be educated to develop an attitude of respect toward laboratory animals, and must be trained so that, if an experiment must be performed with animals, it is designed according to the highest possible scientific and ethical standards. In The Netherlands, the law stipulates that scientists intending to work with animals must have completed a course in laboratory animal science. This compulsory course started in 1986. The Department of Laboratory Animal Science at Utrecht University is responsible for the national coordination of this course. Participants must have an academic degree (at the level of MSc) in one of the biomedical sciences, such as biology, medicine or veterinary medicine. Although the course is an intensive 3-week, 120-hour long course, which covers both technical and ethical aspects of laboratory animal experimentation, it cannot provide full competence. It is designed to provide sufficient basic training and knowledge to enable students to design animal experiments, and to develop an attitude that will be conducive to the implementation of the Three Rs. However, full competence will always require further training that can only be acquired as a result of practical experience gained while working in the field of laboratory animal research. Evaluations subsequent to the course have revealed that more than 98% of the students regard the course as indispensable for all scientists working in a research area where animal experiments are performed. They agree that the course not only contributes to the quality of experiments and to the welfare of animals, but also to a decrease in the number of animals used in experiments.

Here is a supporting argument for Stonecrest

ALTEX. 2004;21 Suppl 1:33-7. Related Articles, Links

Alternatives to animal experimentation in biomedical education.

Gruber FP, Dewhurst DG.

FFVFF, CH-Zuerich.

In education, it is important that students are not put in a position in which they are forced to participate in animal experiments or to use dead animals, killed especially for such purposes. Continued use of animal experiments to demonstrate known facts or teach skills which can be taught using non-animal methods evidences only a lack of sensitivity towards students who still maintain respect for life. In countries where animal testing in education is reduced to close to zero, there is no evidence that the students who are being trained are less capable or qualified. There are sufficient alternatives available at relatively low-cost and with proven educational efficacy to allow the vast majority of students who study biomedical science courses to qualify without using animal experiments. However, in many universities across Europe, there is still a resistance to adoption of such methods amongst faculty. The global situation is probably worse with animals still being used in high school teaching in some countries such as the USA.

PMID: 15586256 [PubMed - in process]

Example research using animals:

Intrapleural injection of transforming growth factor-beta antibody inhibits pleural fibrosis in empyema.

Kunz CR, Jadus MR, Kukes GD, Kramer F, Nguyen VN, Sasse SA.

Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Long Beach Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, 5901 East Seventh St (11-111P), Long Beach, CA 90822, USA.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta is a cytokine that has been demonstrated to be an important modulator of inflammation and angiogenesis, as well as a potent stimulator of pleural fluid production and fibrosis. We previously demonstrated that rising levels of pleural fluid TGF-beta(1) correlate with pleural fibrosis in experimental empyema in rabbits. In this study, our hypothesis is that neutralization of TGF-beta with an intrapleural injection of a monoclonal antibody to TGF-beta will decrease pleural fibrosis in empyema. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Nineteen rabbits. INTERVENTIONS: An empyema was induced in 19 rabbits by intrapleural injection of Pasteurella multocida. A panspecific monoclonal antibody to TGF-beta was injected into the pleural space on 2 subsequent concurrent days in nine rabbits. Ten rabbits received intrapleural injections of bacteria alone and served as controls. All animals were then killed on day 6. Immunohistochemistry, using the antibody to TGF-beta, was performed on pleural tissue specimens from the control rabbits. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry revealed localization of TGF-beta to macrophages in the exudative material and the visceral pleura. After injection of the antibody to TGF-beta, the amount of purulent, exudative material in the pleural space of the nine experimental animals was markedly decreased at autopsy on day 6, relative to control animals. All markers of empyema and pleural fibrosis were also significantly decreased in the rabbits receiving intrapleural anti-TGF-beta. CONCLUSIONS: TGF-beta localizes to macrophages in experimental empyema. Early intrapleural injection of an antibody to TGF-beta inhibits empyema formation and significantly decreases pleural fibrosis in experimental empyema.

I agree that this is very good news. Hopefully some significant gains can be made very soon.

Now onto the animal testing thing for a second. This is something I've battled with for a while now. I'm definitely a proponent of animal rights, and am usually outspoken on the topic. But given the fact that my father has Alzheimers, and that both of his parents had it, I'm pretty sure it's innevitable that I'll have it in oh, 40 years or so. So as much as I want to protect the rights of animals, I also don't want to lose my mind in 40 years either.

A Piece of Compromise for both StoneC and I

(when there are alternatives, use them. When there are not, you must test on animals).

Animal Experimentation

“Experiments are performed on animals that inflict severe pain without the remotest prospect of significant benefits for humans or any other animals.” —Peter Singer “Virtually every medical innovation of the last century—and especially the last four decades—has been based to a significant extent upon the results of animal experimentation.” —William Raub

Public support for animal experimentation has declined steadily over the past fifty years. In 1949, 85 percent of the people in the United States were in favor of vivisection. By 1985, only 63 percent supported animal testing, by 1988 only 53 percent, and finally, in 1990, less than 50 percent of those polled were in favor of it. Although these statistics indicate a steady downward trend in approval ratings over the last half-century, an examination of the history of animal experimentation shows that such trends have traditionally been transient. In fact, views on vivisection have fluctuated wildly over the years.

Throughout history, scientists have alternated between using human and animal models for medical research. As early as 370 B.C., the Greek physician Hippocrates used human cadavers to study disease processes. However, by the second century, Roman physician Galen responded to growing religious admonitions against human autopsy by turning to the practice of vivisection. Religious opposition against experimenting on human cadavers remained entrenched until the Renaissance, when Belgium physician Vesalius began once again to use humans in research. Religious leaders condemned Vesalius as a heretic, but when the emerging scientific community backed Vesalius, he was eventually exonerated. Vesalius’s methods remained dominant until the mid-1800s, when a French physiologist named Claude Bernard reinstated ani- mal experimentation. Bernard convinced the scientific community that theories of human diseases must be validated using animal models. From Bernard’s time until the present, animal experimentation has been the preferred method of studying human diseases.

Vivisection in the United States became entrenched during and after World War II. During the war, scientists used animals to study the effects of explosives and munitions. In the decade after, government research institutes began expanding their animal experimentation programs and universities began to secure large grants for projects involving animal testing. In 1951, legislation introduced by then-Senator Hubert Humphrey guaranteed that the trend in favor of vivisection would continue.

Humphrey’s bill mandated that most drugs require prescriptions. Whereas before, patients could go directly to their local druggist to obtain medicines, now patients had to go through doctors. Companies that manufactured drugs began to encourage doctors to prescribe their brand of medications, and in order to make those medications available as quickly and safely as possible, the drug companies relied increasingly on animals to test them. In 1961, the U.S. government mandated that all new drugs had to be tested on animals before they could go to clinical trial.

Although the general public was highly supportive of the biomedical community’s reliance on animal testing after the war, scientists and activists around the world became increasingly concerned about the welfare of the animals involved in such experiments and the validity of the research. In 1959, British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch developed the “3Rs” approach to animal experimentation. Russell and Burch emphasized the importance of reducing the number of animals used in experiments, revising current practices to decrease the suffering of animals, and replacing animals with alternatives—such as the use of human tissue cultures—whenever possible.

Another change in the way that animal experimentation was conducted also occurred as a result of pressure from concerned scientists and activists. In 1966, animal welfare advocates succeeded in getting the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) passed. The AWA governs the way that lab animals are treated and determines which animals will be covered by its protections. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are charged with upholding the act and have provided increased oversight over the animal testing industry.

As animal use in laboratories exploded and concern over animal welfare increased, public opinion about the merits of vivisection began to change. Perhaps one of the most important events in the shift of public opinion was the release in 1975 of the book, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Singer questioned whether the information gathered from animal experimentation justified the amount of suffering imposed on research animals. His message that much of animal research was inhumane and wasteful influenced large sections of the public, and public pressure against animal testing increased. To combat Singer’s negative message, scientists and medical organizations began to publish articles cataloging the many medical discoveries attributed to animal experimentation and to publicize the need for its continuation.

Today, the controversy surrounding animal testing is as vocal as ever. Those who are in favor of animal experimentation believe that animal testing is crucial to battling human diseases. Proponents argue that because animals and humans are biologically similar, findings from experiments on animals can be extrapolated to humans. Supporters also contend that alternatives cannot replace the study of living organisms. Many animal testing advocates base their arguments for vivisection on the claim that God ordained that humans are more important than animals and are entitled to use animals for human benefit.

On the other side of the debate are those who oppose animal experimentation. They believe that animal testing is invalid, unnecessary, and cruel. Opponents of vivisection maintain that animals and humans are different at a cellular level, which means that results derived from animal testing cannot be applied to humans. Those opposed to vivisection argue that alternatives are much faster and more accurate than animal tests. Opponents of animal testing contend that since animals and humans are both capable of suffering, both should be guaranteed the same right to life.

Due to the efforts of animal rights activists, the use of animals in research dropped by 50 percent in the period from 1990 to 2000. Yet support for animal testing from scientists, doctors, and patients remains strong. Experts in both camps continue the debate over vivisection in Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints in the following chapters: Do Animals Have Rights? Is Animal Experimentation Justified? How Should Animal Experimentation Be Conducted? Should Scientists Pursue New Forms of Animal Testing? Underlying all of these questions is the fundamental issue of humanity’s relationship to animals. As feats of genetic engineering such as cloning and other new forms of animal testing become increasingly popular, it is likely that views about the rightness of using animals in medical experiments will shift yet again.

The perceptions of first-year medical students on animal and human experiments in physiology.

Padmavathi R, Maruthy KN, Borghona S, Vaz M.

Department of Physiology, St. John's Medical College, Bangalore.

This study was conducted to ascertain the attitudes of first year medical students to human and animal experimentation, while undergoing a course in Muscle and Nerve experimental Physiology. At the time of administration of the questionnaire, students had been exposed to both human as well as animal experiments. Approximately 81% of the students preferred human experiments (P < 0.05). This preference, however, was related more to the issue of enjoyability rather than the extent to which the experiment contributed to overall understanding and learning. 55% of students identified ethical issues related to laboratory experimentation. Gender and academic performance were not determinants of student's attitude to animal and human experimentation, although ethical insight was. The results suggest that while students recognize the importance and value of animal experiments, they would prefer the introduction of a larger number of human experiments.

Test guideline development and animal welfare: regulatory acceptance of in vitro studies.

Koeter HB.

OECD Environmental Health and Safety Division, Paris, France.

Toxicity studies are necessary in order to be able to identify the potential hazards of chemical interference with human reproduction. Until today, most useful contributions to the assessment of possible human reproductive toxicity are considered to be made by animal studies. The OECD Test Guidelines provide the international standards for safety testing and, consequently, have traditionally focused on animal studies. However, the OECD Member countries consider the welfare of laboratory animals also of importance and are of the opinion that animal welfare considerations should significantly influence the work in the OECD Chemicals Programme. A constant effort is being made to discover alternative testing systems and to achieve their regulatory acceptance. However, activities predominately focus on finding alternatives to existing animal studies, rather than developing nonanimal tests that could contribute significantly to the hazard identification process. An approach based on the selection of endpoints essential for hazard identification that would focus on demonstrating similarities with the "real life" target events is considered likely to achieve regulatory acceptance much earlier than an approach based on high correlations between the alternative method and the existing animal study it is supposed to replace, simply because it is never better than the existing method, but at most "almost as reliable."