Changing Animal Rights Tactics and What It Means For Today's Researchers

[neuronline_admin]

Tune into this webinar, featuring three experts with unique perspectives, to learn about the progression of animal models, including discussions of improved treatment; successes of regulation, including APHIS regulations and the three Rs; and the current status of animal rights.

Link back to webinar

[mmsanch]

Hello, everyone! I recently moderated a webinar, Changing Animal Rights Tactics and What It Means for Today’s Researchers, featuring animal research experts Tom Holder and Dario Ringach.

We received a lot of great questions. Because we didn’t have time to answer all of them during the webinar, Dario and Tom will answer them below.

You can watch the full webinar here and review the full discussion below. Make sure to post your own questions and responses, too. For additional related reading, check out A Guide to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee by Sari Izenwasser, and find even more content on Animals in Research here on Neuronline.

[dario1]

How often and how systematically should we speak about animal research to undergraduate students?

I’d say to point out every time there is a fact in a textbook or in class discussion that resulted from the use of animals in research. For example, most undergrads seem to know that neurons communicate with spikes, but how do we know that? What species were used in discovering this fact and why? Emphasizing how is that the use of animals contributed to today’s knowledge is critical.

Communications departments frequently face choices that relate to the concept of “openness” you’ve mentioned, such as whether and how to mention the animals in the press release or show them in photo and video materials released about the work. Where would you draw the line? 100 percent openness?

There are many ways in which communications departments can increase openness showing how animals are treated and why are they being used. Here is one example from one of our colleagues at Cedars-Sinai. In contrast, here is a poor example where one could have highlighted that advances were due to the result of the use of mice in research. As it turns out, Herceptin is a humanized, mouse antibody. It would be a step forward if every breast cancer patient knew this. I feel physicians should put more effort to explain their patients where the treatments and cures they receive come from. Alternatively, see this bill introduced by Robert Winston in the UK to ensure such information is easily accessible to the public.

What if the increased openness backfires?

As a matter of principle, publicly funded research ought to be open to the public. When the public and the press perceive a tendency towards secrecy, they rapidly conclude that the work is likely something they would disapprove of. To increase the public trust, scientists need to explain why the work is important, why there are presently no alternatives, and that the studies are highly regulated. If, in the end, a well-informed public decides the work is not ethically acceptable, then as scientists whose work is funded by the public, we must accept such a resolution.

I feel it is especially hard to communicate my research for two main reasons: 1) It is primate research, and 2) it is basic research not dealing directly on health or fighting diseases. What advice do you have?

NIH and scientists in general should try to do more to explain to members of Congress why basic science is critical to the advancement of knowledge and progress, from abstract mathematics to work with non-human primates (NHPs). Unfortunately, there is much work to be done in this area. Here is a good response to a recent attack by Congress on basic research. This blurb was written by Isaac Asimov as the introduction of a book that resulted in Congress attacking NSF-funded research. These are just two examples of how to respond effectively. In the case of NHPs, one can easily point out to advances in deep brain stimulation or neuro-prosthetics. Such work would not have been possible without substantial basic research in NHPs.

Considering that many people have legitimate concerns about the use of animals in laboratories and considering that the number of animals used in U.S. laboratories continues to increase, what common ground can scientists find to earnestly reduce animal use?

The fact that the public has legitimate concerns does not necessarily mean scientists have to respond by reducing the use of animals in research. Concerns can be addressed, and I suspect, a lot of people would benefit from understanding better the reasons for the work and the regulations in place. The public should also know that part of NIH’s research portfolio aims to develop alternatives to the use of animals in research and/or toxicology testing. There is a separate group of people that see the work as ethically unjustified. I think scientists should engage on such ethical debate as well.

Are the ethics of animal testing changing with time to meet the demands of the public? How do you envision ethics changing in the future?

Ethical boundaries are dynamic. Some work that is being done today may be acceptable to the majority of the public, but perhaps it will not be so in the future. To render an informed ethical judgement, the public needs to understand why scientists think the work is needed, and what it would mean for medical progress if it were to stop. If animal rights activists are the only voice the public hears about — if Disney movies are the only place the public learns about “animal cognition” — then we can expect the ethical boundaries to continue shrinking and putting increased pressure on NIH research directions and funding.

Why aren’t there more documentaries highlighting animal research on public television to spread the word to the general public?

I think it is probably because scientists are hesitant to highlight such work. Consider the recent series by Charlie Rose on the brain. The number of times the use of animals in research is mentioned is negligible compared to the possibilities this opportunity presented to highlight the work and explain it to the public by some of the top scientists in the field.

Do you think it is ethically valid to scale the measure of suffering according to the mental capacity of the species/individuals that participate in research?

What kind of suffering? Physical? Psychological? Yes, I believe that a child who understands their mother is dying from cancer suffers in ways a mouse in a similar situation does not. Thus, certain kinds of suffering depends on cognitive capacity, and that must be taken into account. A summary of my views on these issues can be found here.

What is the best way to reach out to local authorities and the public before criticism arises about your animal research?

The best way is to educate the public about science and the research. Education and public life are an integral part of what it means to be a scientist.

From a communications angle, how do you open the conversation about LAR (live animal research)?

I typically start with vaccinations and how certain diseases that plagued our grandparents are no longer with us. Or how breast cancer used to be a death sentence and it is no longer so, and so on.

What is the primary justification of using purpose-bred animals for research as opposed to animals scheduled to be euthanized in pounds or shelters? It seems ethically less desirable to create an animal through breeding for research.

Known genetic background. Also, one must of course remember Pepper’s story and its influence on the passage of Animal Welfare Act, which you can read on the United States Department of Agriculture’s website.

What are ways to evolve alternatives to animal subjects?

Please see information here provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

[mmsanch]

Here are Tom’s answers to many of your questions:

---

How often and how systematically should we speak about animal research to undergraduate students?

Very quickly. They need to understand that that the research and understanding they rely on in their studies often relies on past animal experiments.

Communications departments frequently face choices that relate to the concept of “openness” you’ve mentioned, such as whether and how to mention the animals in the press release or show them in photo and video materials released about the work. Where would you draw the line? 100 percent openness?

I know one Establishment License Holder that would argue we should invite animal rights activists to travel around to labs whenever they want, because if there is something we wouldn’t want them to see, that suggests we are doing something wrong. While I have some sympathy with that approach, I think animal research can easily be misunderstood and misrepresented, so I think that the research community needs to be as practical as possible while constantly pushing for greater openness.

We should always mention the animals in a press release, not least because it would help stop these terrible headlines of “X cures cancer,” when in fact “X” has reduced the tumors of a mouse with a specific type of cancer. I think we should include pictures because our pictures will be better and more accurate than others. I think we should provide videos. Cambridge University produced a fantastic video of their research recently. Let’s try and tell the public as much as possible while keeping it in context.

What if the increased openness backfires?

There is little evidence that increased openness backfires, but plenty which shows that not being open is harmful for an organization if it is later targeted by activists. Activists tend to pick their targets based on bits of research they find, new buildings being constructed, and species of animals used. They would prefer a quick win, and those that are being open tend not to make attractive targets as they are essentially prepared for a PR battle should it come to that. In the UK, I cannot think of any organization that has been targeted as a result of their openness.

I feel it is especially hard to communicate my research for two main reasons: 1) It is primate research, and 2) it is basic research not dealing directly on health or fighting diseases. What advice do you have?

While primate research is likely to remain the more “controversial end” of research, most of the public can appreciate that primates are used because of their closeness to humans. One of the keys is to relate your research to things people understand: Can you link your research to potentially in the future, helping some condition that people know about?

Here are some good examples of primate research proactively explained: The Ethics of Animal Tests: Inside the Lab Where Marmosets are Given Parkinson’s and Why Oxford Scientists Are Experimenting on Monkeys.

To explain basic research, it is important for people to realize that before you can build a house, you must build a foundation. You could not hope to conduct the complex equations which make Google work before you’ve first understood how basic math and algebra work. Similarly, we cannot hope to get the applied research which helps bring us the clinical and veterinary medicines we rely on before we fully understand how both the human body and the diseases which affect it work.

Considering that many people have legitimate concerns about the use of animals in laboratories and considering that the number of animals used in U.S. laboratories continues to increase, what common ground can scientists find to earnestly reduce animal use?

First, we don’t know if the number of animals used is increasing, since no one is counting rats and mice. The number of animals used under the Animal Welfare Act has been falling steadily for over a decade.

Reduction must be understood as minimizing the use of animals in any study, not necessarily decreasing the overall number (which is a function of the scientific environment of the time). Nonetheless, full embrace of the 3Rs — Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction — is something that both the scientific community and the public can get behind.

Are the ethics of animal testing changing with time to meet the demands of the public? How do you envision ethics changing in the future?

I believe the ethical views of the public are changing, and at different speeds in different countries. The UK banned cosmetic testing in 1998 because of the public move against it, yet China continues to conduct such tests for the goods they sell within China.

Much of the public opposes Great Ape research, and I have no doubt that there will be a big debate over the use of other primates in the future. I also suspect the U.S. will in the future be faced with the European move to cover all vertebrates under animal welfare laws (be it in private institutions or public ones).

The public also want to see greater scrutiny of animal studies and be provided with more information. I believe that openness and transparency will move from being good practice to essential.

Why aren’t there more documentaries highlighting animal research on public television to spread the word to the general public?

I am not sure there is much demand from them. However, even if someone was interested, how many labs would currently give documentary makers unfettered access to those people? As the industry becomes more open, there will be greater opportunity for more news and potentially documentary work to be done in labs.