ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
BRED TO SUFFER - Full report
The full version of the Bred to Suffer report is available in its entirety below.
We humans suffer from a multitude of diseases and disabilities; some inherited, some induced by our lifestyle or environment, some acquired through infection and others just appearing spontaneously or through accident or injury.
The major causes of premature death in the western world are often called 'diseases of civilisation'; meaning that they are attributable to our modern lifestyle of poor diet, lack of exercise and environmental pollution. The 'big three' are heart disease, cancer and stroke.
The major causes of death in the 'developing world' are still infectious diseases and malnutrition; both being a consequence of poverty and inadequate living conditions, including lack of food and clean water.
In the west we no longer suffer (in such numbers) from diseases of poverty,
such as TB, cholera, typhoid, diphtheria and dysentery, thanks entirely to improvements
in our housing, sewerage, water supply and diet.
Sadly, though, we seem to prefer to become ill and then look to high-tech
medicine for a cure. There is no shortage of patients to study and learn from,
but in a catastrophic neglect of reason, we turn to animals for answers instead.
Forgetting the biochemical and physiological differences between animals and
ourselves, which have led to so many drug disasters,
Which diseases?
Animals are used to mimic aspects of heart disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, AIDS, depression - in fact there is a 'model' for almost every conceivable human ailment.
Do animals naturally suffer from any of these diseases?
Not in any comparable way to humans. They are susceptible to various cancers
but their tumours are different from ours in many important respects. According
to Nobel laureate Renato Dulbecco, 'If we wish to understand human cancer, the
[research] effort should be made in humans because the genetic control seems
to be different in different species.'
So how is disease induced in animals?
Animals are either physically or chemically damaged to produce some of the symptoms of the disease or, increasingly, they are specifically bred with a genetic defect which causes them to display one or more characteristics of the disease. Usually this involves 'knocking out' a gene, or inserting one from a human or another animal: the resulting animal is thus 'transgenic'. We will begin by looking at physically-induced models and then go on to consider transgenic models and the particular problems they face.
Physical/chemical manipulation
Heart disease
The most common cause of heart disease in people is atherosclerosis (cholesterol deposition on artery walls). This leads to bottlenecks in blood flow, thereby restricting oxygen supply, raising blood pressure and, ultimately, culminating in a heart attack.
Dogs are often the model of choice for research into heart disease although
'it is virtually impossible, for example, to produce atherosclerosis in a dog'
even when vast amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat are added to their diet.
Congestive heart failure is a gradually worsening disorder in humans. It is
rapidly and artificially induced in dogs by giving them a series of heart attacks
(by electrical over-stimulation) until their heart muscle is significantly weakened.
Then they are given another heart attack to see if they respond differently
from healthy dogs, who are also made to suffer an induced heart attack.
Dogs are also used to investigate changes in blood pressure, for example in
experiments at Leeds University in 1998 where the blood of nine dogs was circulated
out of their opened chests, so that the pressure could be rapidly altered.
The British Heart Foundation is also trialing drugs to prolong the survival
of bypasses, which often succumb to a build-up of scar tissue, causing their
eventual failure. These experiments are conducted on human veins in culture,
yielding results that will be directly applicable to patients. Perversely, the
same researchers are also performing major bypass surgery on pigs to test the
drugs' effectiveness, but the biochemical mechanisms involved have been shown
to be quite different in pigs.
Of course, a great deal of heart disease is avoidable and the money spent on
such expensive treatments as bypass surgery would be far more profitably invested
in strategies such as health and nutrition education. According to the National
Heart Forum, if current knowledge were put into effective policy action, death
and disability from avoidable coronary heart disease among people under 65 could
be virtually eliminated. 'Inaction now creates a public health time bomb for
future generations.'
Stroke
Naturally occurring strokes are extremely rare in animals. In humans, strokes are 'brain attacks', much like heart attacks, where blood vessels in the brain become blocked by a clot or an atherosclerotic plaque (cholesterol build-up). The cause is usually high blood pressure (also high cholesterol, diabetes and smoking) and it takes years or decades to develop.
Artificial strokes are induced in cats by blocking arteries in their brains,
At London's Guy's, King's College and St. Thomas' Hospitals School of Medicine,
five squirrel monkeys and eight cats were subjected to open-skull experiments
for over five hours, under very low-level anaesthesia, to investigate a phenomenon
that has been observed in animal models of strokes but that probably does not
even occur in humans. The researchers found such confusing variation, they concluded
that it is unsurprising that clinical trials of stroke medications based on
animal models 'should have proved unsuccessful to date'.
The damage caused by a stroke can be reduced if treatment is received quickly
enough, and MRI scanners are proving invaluable in locating the damage so that
it can be treated. All the currently accepted treatments, such as anti-clotting
medications, have been identified in people, while animal experiments have an
abysmal record in predicting useful treatments. For example, barbiturates protect
monkeys, dogs, rabbits and gerbils against the effects of a stroke but have
no protective effect in humans.
Again, prevention is far more valuable than cure, and most strokes could be
avoided by improvements in diet and exercise. In fact, it has been calculated
that the incidence of strokes could be cut by 39% by a daily reduction of 3
grams of salt in an individual's diet.
Cancer
There are over 200 different cancers in humans, many of which have been 'replicated' in animals by exposing them to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation, onco-viruses or by injecting them directly with tumour cells or inserting some of the genes involved.
But, even in supposedly equivalent cancers, there are major differences between species that invalidate the models. For example, colon cancer affects the large intestine in humans but the small intestine in rats. These tumours do not spread in rats but kill them by obstructing the colon. In humans they kill by metastasizing (spreading) to other places in the body. These are dramatic differences, which negate the worth of any treatments or cures found to be effective in animals.
In fact it is true to say that the lack of success in finding treatments for
cancer in humans is because the research effort has been concentrated in animals.
Thomas E. Wagner, senior scientist at Ohio University's Edison Biotechnology
Institute, remarked: 'God knows we've cured mice of all sorts of tumours. But
that isn't medical research.'
Over a quarter of a million animals were used for cancer research in Britain
in 2000. Ninety six per cent were mice; the others were rats, guinea pigs, hamsters,
rabbits, dogs, pigs and sheep. The Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer
Research Fund (now merged as Cancer Research UK) together with the Medical Research
Council fund much of the research. Even the UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer
Research (the umbrella organisation distributing funds to the research charities)
admits that 'animals with local or disseminated tumours are likely to suffer
pain and/or distress'.
For example, researchers are currently subjecting hairless mice to restraint
under a sun-lamp three times a week for several months at a time so they can
measure the development of skin tumours with or without olive oil application
to their sore skin, to see if olive oil can protect them against skin cancer.
When it comes to curing these experimental tumours, the animal models turn
out to be of little value. For every 30-40 drugs effective in treating mice
with cancer, only one is effective in people.
Cancer research is especially sensitive to differences in physiology between
humans and other animals. Many animals, particularly rats and mice, synthesize
within their bodies approximately 100 times the recommended daily allowance
for humans of Vitamin C, which is believed to help the body ward off cancer.
Indeed, animal responses to human carcinogens are so different from ours that
it took 50 years to induce lung cancer in laboratory animals forced to breathe
tobacco smoke,
'While conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances
in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance
either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer.'
We know that 80-90% of cancers are preventable and yet, instead of investing seriously in preventive measures, we continue to fund research into animal cancers which will never have any relevance for the human animal and its unique diseases.
AIDS
Tens of thousands of primates and other animals, notably cats, have been consumed in AIDS research over the past 20 years. This is despite the fact that infecting animals, even chimpanzees, with HIV does not produce an equivalent disease to human AIDS.
The immune systems of different primate species are so diverse that data from
one species does not even translate to another species, much less to humans.
'SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) in monkeys is not the same as HIV in humans.'
Everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned from studying people
with the disease, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood
cells, which is where the virus operates and, therefore, where it needs to be
studied. 'It is now clear... that a strategy for an effective HIV vaccine can
be devised only with a thorough understanding of the biology of HIV and the
immunopathogenesis of AIDS.'
According to Dr Ray Greek, President of Americans For Medical Advancement,
'Far too frequently animal models have been used to develop vaccines that are
effective in laboratory animals but are ineffective, or worse, harmful in humans.
AIDS is a terrible illness, and research money and personnel need to be directed
toward methodologies that are viable. Using an archaic methodology like animal
models to combat a 21st century disease is more than foolish, it is immoral.'
Arthritis
In arthritis research, animals are injected in their joints (with collagen or various other substances) to produce the painful swellings and destruction of cartilage and bone that is characteristic of the disease. The usual subjects are rats, mice and rabbits, but sheep and dogs are used too. The extent of swelling (e.g. of a paw or knee) and its temperature are monitored. The degree of pain is also measured by various assays, including the speed of response to noxious pressure, a needle or hot-plate applied to a paw.
Because the idea is to find drugs to relieve the pain or swelling, the animals are force-fed these candidate substances. Alternatively, they are injected into their spine or swollen joint. After weeks of such misery, the animals are killed to assess the effectiveness of the treatment.
For example, scientists at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology in London
operated on beagles to surgically induce symptoms of osteoarthritis, which was
then allowed to develop for six months until the dogs were killed for analysis
of their cartilage.
Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease whereby the body's own immune
system attacks cartilage and bone cells. Recent research has shown that the
biochemical mechanisms involved are quite different in rats from those in people,
meaning that the rat 'model' is not suitable.
Diabetes
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease appearing in childhood, which necessitates insulin injections up to four times a day for life.
Rodent 'models' of the disease are produced by injecting the animals with a
chemical called streptozotocin, which damages the insulin-producing cells in
their pancreas. But 'diabetic' rats and mice bear little relation to humans
with diabetes, in that they do not require insulin to survive. Some 'models'
do not even have raised levels of glucose in their blood - a hallmark of the
human disease. Regardless, many researchers are studying numerous animal models,
even while acknowledging that 'they differ markedly from the human disease'.
There are long-term complications in diabetes, including cataract formation, leading to blindness - itself the subject of further study in animals. The Royal National Institute for the Blind used to fund such research but now only conducts human-based research; an acknowledgement of the invalidity of the animal 'models'.
The more common Type 2 diabetes usually affects overweight people later in
life. Dramatic improvements in their condition can be made through dietary control
and exercise, which can also significantly reduce the chances of getting the
disease in the first place. Its incidence is projected to double
in the next ten years, so the need for preventive strategies is urgent. Sadly,
research into these important factors has been neglected in favour of the search
for treatments effective in animals. One such medication, Rezulin, was launched
onto the market in 1997 after its success in treating 'diabetic' animals, only
to be withdrawn three years later when it was found to cause liver failure and
had killed 391 people.
Brain disorders
Neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases are particularly amenable to study in conscious human patients using non-invasive scanning techniques such as MRI, PET and CAT scans. These remarkable techniques are able to show the healthy or diseased brain (or other organs) in action while performing a variety of cognitive tasks. Donated brain tissue from patients who have died, but wanted to help research into the condition they suffered, is also extremely useful to researchers. The Humane Research Trust funds work using human neural cell cultures at the Cambridge Brain Bank at Addenbrooke's Hospital.
Despite these technological advances, animal models of ageing and associated neurological disorders are a large and rapidly growing area of research worldwide. The following experiment is a recent example from Japan:
In order to test a theory that chewing may help prevent short-term memory loss
in old age, researchers extracted the molar teeth from mice who had already
been engineered to develop signs of human ageing, such as hair loss, cataracts
and failing memory.
At Cambridge University, marmosets were repeatedly injected into the brain
(ten times) with destructive, seizure-causing chemicals. Then they were injected
with drugs that made them spin uncontrollably in their cages, up to 300 times
in an hour. They were also timed while they bit sticky labels from their feet,
or reached for objects with one arm plastered to their side. The researchers
claim their intentions were to advance treatment of Huntington's Disease, even
while admitting that the brain damage they inflicted 'did not replicate the
pathology or the symptoms of Huntington's Disease'.
Marmosets are also popular in 'Parkinson's research' even though their brains
do not develop Lewy bodies, a generally recognised marker for the disease in
humans. At Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Biomedical Sciences in London,
18 marmosets were brain-damaged to 'mimic' Parkinson's Disease and then treated
with a range of drugs, which elicited reactions opposite to those produced in
rats. The researchers admitted 'the reason for this conflicting result is unclear'.
One thing we can be sure about is that the causes, progression and manifestation of neurological ailments in humans are far too complex and multifarious to model in animals in such a crude and barbaric fashion.
Recent epidemiological studies suggest a link between Alzheimer's disease and
consumption of dairy products.
Mental illness
Mental illness is perhaps even more complex than age-related neurological degeneration; being extremely variable between individuals in both cause and presentation.
If researchers believe animals are capable of experiencing the same kind of
complex emotional stresses as people, they should not be experimenting on them
in the first place. Yet this is indeed the basic premise of such wilfully cruel
experiments as separating young animals, including primates,
For example, rat pups were removed (temporarily) from their mothers at the
age of nine days and then subjected to sudden loud noises for the next three
months to assess their 'startle response' with or without anti-psychotic drugs.
Anxiety disorders have been 'modelled' in rats at Nottingham University by
rearing them in isolation and then monitoring how readily and aggressively they
fight when brought together.
Many animals, particularly monkeys, have been deliberately brain-damaged over
the years to monitor the effects on their behaviour and mental state. Many psychology
researchers themselves have asked questions such as 'is the infliction of so
much pain and terror warrantable?'
For example, MIND has been conducting a fascinating 'food and mood' project,
Brain injury
There is, unfortunately, no shortage of human accident victims whose brains could be studied - with their consent - during recovery or after death. Yet healthy animals are still subjected to deliberate brain damage, despite important differences between species that render extrapolation to humans invalid.
Monkeys and baboons are traditionally the subjects of brain injury research.
Until they were exposed by animal rights campaigners, researchers at the University
of Pennsylvania were strapping baboons into crash-simulation devices designed
to inflict brain damage by forces of up to 3,000gs. They did not administer
any anaesthetic, and they were filmed wilfully tormenting the animals before
removing their brains for analysis.
More recent research includes deliberately brain-damaging newborn and juvenile
piglets, in order to show that the extent of injury can be dependent on age.
Monkeys at Oxford University were brain-damaged to assess the effect on their
emotion and motivation. This was measured by depriving them of food and then
placing food in front of them, but out of reach. The animals resorted to biting
their own limbs.
Others had parts of their brains' visual cortex removed and were then tested
at various times for their visual abilities over the next nine years,
until they had all died.
The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research is funding other research at Oxford University using an innovative technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This temporarily disrupts the functioning of the brain in human volunteers, allowing scientifically valid study of the human brain itself.
Spinal injury
If the spinal cord is severed in an accident, the result is usually permanent paralysis of that part of the body below the point of injury. Scientists have always believed that nerve cells are unable to regenerate, but tests to challenge this assumption have been carried out in animals, which involve deliberately cutting or crushing their spinal cords.
For example, researchers trained monkeys to switch off electric shocks to their
legs when they became too painful. Then they cut their spinal cords and continued
to give them electric shocks for months to see if they recovered any
feeling in their legs or reflex ability to avoid pain.
New research suggests the possibility that spinal damage could be repaired by injecting neural stem cells into the spinal cord or cerebro-spinal fluid. Many hundreds of sport- or road-accident victims are willing to be 'test beds' for this new technique. However, the experiments are, instead, being carried out on animals. As a consequence, when the time comes for the first human patient to be treated, we will still have no idea whether the procedure will be safe and effective in people, even if it was in animals.
Rats and mice have their spinal cords cut right through, causing their back
legs to be paralysed, and are then injected with stem cells into the spine.
Pain
Pain in humans is a subjective experience whose assessment and treatment can be complex but, in general, most people can tell a doctor where and how much something hurts. This is clearly not possible for animals, in whom the measurement of pain must rely on other indicators, such as attempted movement away from a painful stimulus. In fact, the quantification of pain in laboratory animals is the subject of a huge literature, which recognises the highly subjective nature of the whole pain assessment process. Some people simply do not recognise the symptoms of distress and, of course, there is no way of telling if an animal feels nauseous or dizzy or has a headache or double vision.There is a range of pain assessment tests employed in laboratories that would
not be out of place in a medieval torture chamber. These include the 'mouse
writhing test', induced by injecting acetic acid into the stomach, the 'tail-clip
assay', the 'paw-licking response' to wounds induced by injections of formalin,
the 'rat tail-flick response' to intense heat or the 'hot-plate response' and,
of course, electric-shock avoidance responses. Scientists in Japan are investigating
pain transmission in cats by administering electric shocks to their canine tooth
pulp and recording the impulses generated in the spinal column.
Scientists have discovered that subjecting rats to persistent pain when they
are pups makes them more sensitive to pain in later life;
Epilepsy
Scientists have devised around 50 methods to induce epileptic fits in mice,
rats, baboons and other animals. These include the use of electric shocks, chemical
treatments and exposure to flashing strobe lights. At Porton Down, guinea-pigs
had holes drilled in their heads and electrodes and probes implanted into their
brains, in order to monitor cerebrospinal fluid and electrical activity during
the course of chemically-induced seizures.
Meanwhile, other researchers are using a non-invasive brain scanner called MEG (magneto-encephalography) to study patients with light-sensitive epilepsy, one of the commonest forms of epilepsy affecting children.
Anti-epileptic drugs are now being developed rationally, through molecular
biological techniques that allow molecules to be designed to bind to specific
targets in the human brain. Potentially effective new products developed by
these techniques are, however, likely to be derailed by the requirement for
animal testing. This is because 'unfortunately, many anti-epileptic drugs show
marked pharmacological differences between animals and man'.
The director of a leading epilepsy research facility in Europe said, 'As a
scientist, I am of the opinion that animal experiments bring no progress in
the diagnosis and therapy of epilepsies. I have a well-founded suspicion that
similar facts apply in other areas of medicine.'
Epilepsy is twice as prevalent in the 'developing' as in the 'developed' world,
where it is often caused by tapeworm larvae infecting the central nervous system.
Incidence of epilepsy here could be halved by improvements in basic healthcare,
but that is not a research priority.
Blindness and deafness
Blindness and deafness are inextricably related to the development and functioning of the brain, the mechanisms and intricacies of which, in humans, are unique to humans. New brain-scanning techniques are increasingly valuable in pinpointing damage and the related brain areas involved. However, animals, particularly cats, have been deliberately blinded and deafened in pointless attempts to model the human afflictions:
Researchers deafened 3-6 month old kittens with chemicals before implanting
electrodes in their inner ears and electrically stimulating their auditory system
for several weeks. The animals were then killed to examine their brain-stem
for any signs of response to the electrical stimulation.
Cats and monkeys have had their eyelids stitched shut, their optic nerves or
optic lobes of the brain removed, polystyrene beads injected into their eyes,
and have been reared in total darkness. Concerning a series of such experiments
using two species of macaque monkey, in whom the results were quite different,
the British Institute of Medical Ethics concluded that 'neither can serve as
an animal model for human myopia, because there is no way to decide which, if
either, mechanism is similar to the human'.
All of the 'disease models' described above are created in a crude and artificial
manner that renders them invalid for comparison with the naturally occurring
disorder in humans. Indeed, the Medical Research Modernisation Committee analysed
ten animal models of human illness and found 'little, if any, contribution towards
the treatment of patients'.
Transgenic animal disease models
Animals have been genetically manipulated to model all of the diseases mentioned above and many more. In fact many scientists think that animals can now be engineered to represent practically any human complaint simply by adding or disabling bits of DNA.
Numbers rocketing
Many species of animals are used in this research. But mice are the favourite
(at present) and their usage is rocketing - up by 960% over the past 10 years,
with this rate of increase predicted to continue for the foreseeable future.
Transgenic mice are popular for reasons of cost and convenience. But many scientists
view them as an intermediate step on the path to creating transgenic primates
and other 'higher' mammals, which would supposedly make better 'models' of human
diseases. The first GM monkey, ANDi, has already been produced in America
Sheep, cattle, pigs and chickens have all been genetically modified to increase their production of milk and meat, which is already beyond the limits their bodies can bear without damage. They have also been engineered to secrete therapeutic protein products (which could be obtained more safely and cheaply from transgenic micro-organisms or plants) for human medicine; a process called 'gene pharming'. These abuses are outside of the scope of this report, but see 'The Gene and the Stable Door' - a Compassion in World Farming Trust report (2002), available at www.ciwf.co.uk.
Suffering at every step: creation of transgenic animals
In order to create a new strain of transgenic mice, young females are injected with powerful hormones to make them superovulate. After mating, they are killed to extract the embryos, which are microinjected with the foreign DNA. These altered embryos are then surgically implanted into many surrogate mothers, who have also been hormone-injected to assist implantation and who will later be killed before or after giving birth. Many of the resulting baby mice are malformed and die before or shortly after birth. The surviving babies have to be tested to see if they have the new gene: this can be done by saliva or faecal sampling but is more often conducted by cutting off the tips of their tails or a notch from their ears.
Massive failure rate: millions of animals killed as 'rubbish'
Only 1-10% of the baby mice will have successfully incorporated the new gene.
The other 90-99% will be destroyed as 'failures'. This translates into so much
killing that many of the animal technicians responsible for killing all the
'waste' animals find it traumatic and are left feeling 'physically and emotionally
exhausted'.
Multiple misery
A gene is not a unit, but part of an integrated system. When introduced into
a foreign environment it may take effect in the wrong tissue, switch on at the
wrong time, or be uncontrolled in its effects and inflict damage on non-target
organs or tissues. As a consequence there is always a likelihood that the animals
will suffer unpredicted side effects in addition to the intended suffering resulting
from their designer disease. For example, 'giant' mice were given a human growth
hormone gene to make them bigger than normal. But they also suffered unplanned-for
liver and kidney damage, grossly deformed hearts, spleens and genitalia, together
with high infant mortality and a shortened life-span.
Often, scientists create a 'model' by removing or disabling a gene. The resulting
animals are called 'knockouts'. The effects cannot be predicted in advance.
Researchers can guess, for example, that knocking out a receptor gene for thrombin
(a blood-clotting enzyme) in mice will affect their control of blood coagulation.
But only by creating the animals can they discover that such a deletion causes
half of the altered embryos to bleed from multiple sites so that they die in
the womb.
Models of dubious value
Just as physically damaging animals results in poor 'models' of human disease, human conditions cannot be replicated in mice simply by giving them a human gene or two.
For example, none of the current 'cystic fibrosis' mouse strains accurately
models the human condition, in which the major symptoms are excess mucus in
the lungs, leading to lung infections. The mice, in contrast, suffer principally
from bowel disorders and are clearly not a very helpful model of the disease.
In another ludicrous study, researchers (including Professor Colin Blakemore)
at Oxford University have observed that mice with the 'Huntington gene' stay
healthier for longer if they have interesting things to explore in their cages.
This leads them to claim that a busy lifestyle may help to delay the onset of
Huntington's disease.
Arthritis researchers have found that deleting a certain gene in mice causes
them to suffer painful bony spurs in their joints, which they hope will help
in producing a cure for the disease.
As already discussed, many human cancers have been 'replicated' in animals
by inserting some of the genes involved. 'One might expect that these animals
would mimic human symptoms, not just the genetic mutations. In fact, that is
usually the exception, not the rule.'
Even the industry's own Lab Animal magazine stated, 'Mice are actually poor
models of the majority of human cancers.'
In reality, each kind of cancer seems to demand its own treatment. For example,
chronic myeloid leukaemia can often be successfully treated by selectively blocking
an enzyme responsible for causing the defect. Researchers isolated this enzyme
and a drug to inhibit it (Gleevec) was engineered, using in vitro and computer-modelling
technologies in a process called 'structure-activity analysis'. Gleevec has
been tested, approved and found to be effective without causing the side effects
usually associated with chemotherapy. 'This is what cancer research has been
waiting for', enthused Dr Brian J. Druker of Oregon Health Sciences University.
'It is the beginning of a whole new era in cancer therapeutics. If we understand
the critical abnormalities that drive a cancer, we can target the cancer with
an effective and non-toxic therapy.'
Fundamental flaw
The whole concept of modelling diseases on the basis of their genetic component
alone is fundamentally flawed. There is indeed a genetic element to our susceptibility
to many diseases, but our genes are not an automatic ticket to illness or health.
In all the fanfare about the sequencing of the human genome, their contribution
has been massively exaggerated. Other factors such as diet, lifestyle and environmental
pollution are far more important in determining whether or not we will succumb
to a particular disease at a particular time. Most of us are carrying the genes
for a variety of serious diseases but are not suffering from them. This is because
these 'disease genes' are not switched on unless triggered through, for instance,
exposure to cigarette smoke, a high-fat diet or some other environmental risk
factor. Even if one identical twin suffers from a particular disease, the other
twin usually does not,
And a mouse with a gene for a human disease is still a mouse, whose 30,000
or so other genes will affect the expression and behaviour of the gene in question.
The gene will perform in a completely different way in the mouse from the way
it is expressed in its natural human environment. As Philip Abelson, editor
of the prestigious journal Science commented, 'Are humans to be regarded as
behaving biochemically like huge, obese, inbred, cancer-prone rodents?'
Even when scientists think they have a 'good model' it is difficult to determine
how much its attributes are due to its genes or to environmental factors. Wildly
differing results have been found to occur in different laboratories using the
same strains of animal in the same procedures.
Pseudoscience
Some of the most despicable abuses of GM animals are 'behavioural experiments', where they are subjected to psychological torture with the excuse that this will usefully inform us about human psychological conditions. While all human disease research employing animal 'models' is pseudoscience, the following examples surely could not be publicly justified by even the staunchest supporter of animal research.
Scientists have bred strains of rats who are good or bad at swimming when forced
to do so. They have found that amphetamines make the good swimmers better but
have little effect on the poor swimmers. When they are killed and analysed,
it appears that there is a difference in their dopamine metabolism. The scientists
conclude, as a result, that the poor-swimming rats will be a useful model for
depressed people.
An American research team claims they have engineered mice to be more intelligent
and have better memories. The 'evidence' for this claim is that the mice in
question are better at learning to avoid electric shocks and also lick deliberately-inflicted
wounds for longer.
One research team found that mice with a gene for Alzheimer's Disease 'exhibit
severe hypoglycaemia and death following food restriction or restraint stress'
Transgenic animals also used to test poisons and carcinogens
Transgenic rats and mice are used in toxicity tests, for example to measure
the carcinogenic (cancer-causing) potential of various chemicals. The animals
are designed to be genetically susceptible to cancer and it is claimed that
this is beneficial to animal welfare because the tests should be less prolonged
and use fewer animals than the traditional 'chronic rodent bioassay', which
consumes 400-500 animals per compound. However, human hazard would be better
predicted by using human cells. 'Toxicogenomics' (or pharmacogenetics) is a
new technique using DNA arrays: tiny glass plates or 'chips' covered with a
matrix of DNA fragments are washed over with fluorescent 'probes' that can detect
which fragments have been affected by the substance in question. Thousands of
chips can be processed in a matter of hours. The results are more accurate and
sensitive than animal tests and (when human DNA is used) are directly relevant
to humans.
Legal protection inadequate
Having read this far, it will be apparent that no laboratory animals are properly protected under the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. But there are certain problems unique to GM animals, which require changes in the law to afford them due consideration. This is, not least, because their use, certainly on its current scale, was not foreseen when that legislation was introduced. Even the Home Office recognised this inadequacy and, in 1999, published guidance notes for project licence applicants intending to create or use GM animals. These notes stipulate, for example, that mice should be at least five weeks old before they can be superovulated by repeat hormone injections - a week after which they will be killed for egg/embryo harvesting. The notes also specify a maximum of 0.5cm tail-tip removal, or a maximum 15% of total blood volume removal by tail-bleeding for DNA-typing. However, DNA can be typed by faecal or saliva-sampling: clearly these more humane methods should be mandatory. The massive wastage of animals as 'failures' should be prohibited. There are methods (including breeding from homozygous lines and ensuring more accurately targeted transgene insertion) that achieve much greater levels of success and these should be mandatory. Equally significant is that the Home Office notes still classify the production and maintenance of GM animals as 'mild' severity procedures. Yet, as we have seen, the consequences of transgenesis cannot be predicted and often seriously compromise the welfare of the resulting animals.
Ethical, moral and religious concerns
Altering the genetic material of animals raises a whole host of ethical, moral and religious questions. As the controversy over GM crops has shown, many people are deeply disturbed by the notion of humans 'playing God' with the fundamentals of life itself.
- Changing the genetic make-up of an animal compromises its essential nature and fails to respect its unique identity. To many people it is also indefinably 'un-natural'.
- Deliberately designing animals to suffer, as disease models inevitably do, is morally repugnant.
- GM animals are more than likely to suffer in unexpected ways as well as in the ways intended by their manipulators. Altering animals' genes without knowing the consequent harm they will suffer raises fresh ethical problems.
- Because researchers want to protect their 'inventions', each of many thousands of GM animal strains are 'owned' by private patent-holders, who sell them as just so much laboratory equipment. The very idea of patenting life, particularly sentient life, is abhorrent to many.
- A moral dilemma that applies equally to all animal research is this: who
are we to decide whether the potential benefits to mankind outweigh the costs
to the animals? This 'dilemma' should be resolved, however, when policy-makers
understand that the oft-quoted 'potential benefits' are much more usually
potential harms to human beings themselves, from bogus and misleading animal
results. As leading surgeon Moneim Fadali states, 'conclusions drawn from
animal research are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient.'
(99)
Conclusion
A fatal mistake
Using animals as model humans is absolutely unscientific. It contravenes the
fundamental principles of evolutionary biology, which posit that species adapt
to diverse niches in varied and unrelated ways, thus precluding the extrapolation
of data from one to another. This is fully explained by Drs. Ray and Jean Greek
in their books Specious Science (Continuum 2002) and Sacred Cows and Golden
Geese (Continuum 2000) - both highly recommended reading. The consequence of
our continued use of animals in this manner is to put all of our lives at risk.
In the words of Dr Irwin Bross, former Director of the largest cancer research
institute in the world, 'the moral is that animal model systems not only kill
animals, they also kill humans.'
In fact, adverse reactions to animal-modelled medicines are now the fourth
largest cause of death in America, accounting for two million people being hospitalised
every year - 100,000 of whom die.
If it is so harmful to us, why does animal experimentation continue? One reason
is simply the momentum of convention - it has been happening for a long time,
many careers have been built upon it and, with little scientific dispute until
recently, it has become deeply ingrained. 'Sadly, young doctors must say nothing,
at least in public, about the abuse of laboratory animals, for fear of jeopardising
their career prospects.'
But the main reason is money. The vested interests intent on maintaining the
very profitable status quo are an immensely powerful lobby. The pharmaceutical
industry in Europe alone will be worth over $100 billion by 2005.
Homo sapiens: a much better model
Proponents of animal experiments claim that medical progress would cease without them. In reality, precisely the opposite would be the case, with immeasurable benefits flowing from the development and application of superior non-animal techniques, a wealth of which we already have at our disposal. The truth is, enormous improvements have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases, thanks to advances in technology that have nothing to do with animal experimentation. The arsenal of medical tools and techniques available today includes ultrasound, arterial catheters, lasers, electron microscopes, pacemakers, electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, laparoscopic surgery, bone and joint replacements, artificial organs and much more.
MRI, CAT and PET scanners, for example, allow detailed analysis of the
brains and other organs of conscious patients without surgery or even discomfort.
Scanning techniques are becoming ever more sophisticated, one impressive new
advance being voxel-based morphometric analysis (VBM). 'This is the first opportunity
to link brain development and function with the actions of a specific gene',
said a leading neurologist. 'The technique will allow accurate measurement of
neurological disease progression and the effects of drug therapy.' (109)
New tissue and organ culture techniques provide human material for analysing
disease processes and testing new therapies. At a stroke, interspecies differences
that have plagued biomedical research for decades are eliminated. After all,
'the only universal model for a human is other humans.' (110)
British pharmaceutical company Pharmagene tests drugs exclusively on human tissue
with the philosophy, 'If you have information on human genes, what's the point
of going back to animals?' (111)
Computer modelling is a sophisticated way to analyse and design the
molecular structure of drugs to target specific receptors. For example, the
protease inhibitors given to patients with HIV were designed by computer and
tested in human tissue cultures and mathematical and computer models, bypassing
animal tests because of the urgent need. (112)
In 1997, Hoffman La Roche had a new heart drug approved on the strength of data
from a virtual heart because the animal data was inconclusive. Research teams
around the world are working on a 'virtual human', (113)
which is designed to predict drug metabolism and metabolite interaction with
any given organ - information that animal models will never be able to provide.
Autopsy studies are immensely valuable: 'Virtually the whole of modern
medical knowledge was created through the study of autopsies.' (114)
There is still much more to be learned.
Clinical (patient) research and clinical trials of drugs and other therapies
are very powerful tools, shaping treatment decisions for individual patients
and advancing the standards of medical care. So long as they are conducted responsibly
they can make enormous contributions to medical progress. Sadly, money taints
this process too, prompting 13 of the world's leading medical journals to speak
out against corruption of trials by the pharmaceutical industry (and government).
(115) Richard Horton, Editor
of the Lancet, said, 'We are all completely fed up with being manipulated by
the industry... Research papers are now used more as a marketing exercise than
as scientific reports'. (116)
But it is imperative that new treatments and medications are tested carefully
on patients and volunteers to establish efficacy and safety, after all the in
vitro and other tests have been conducted to ensure minimum possible risk. Clinical
trials would be safer for participants if the animal testing stage was removed.
'It is impossible to establish the reliability of animal data until humans have
been exposed.' (117)
Technological improvements continue to be made, and provide potential
for substantial medical advancement. At the technological cutting edge, claims
are made that human stem cells may be able to repair and even replace damaged
organs in the future. (118) It
is also predicted that genetic screening could allow medicines to be better
tailored to individual patients, thus potentially eliminating many harmful side-effects
responsible for so many deaths as described above. (119)
Advocates also say that such screening programmes will encourage people with
particular disease risks to adopt preventive health strategies. Time will tell
if these promises translate into genuine and lasting benefits. Recent years
have also seen the public turn increasingly to non-allopathic therapies, based
on a holistic model of health and disease, whereby the focus is on strengthening
and nourishing the body's immune defences rather than making a 'self-destructive'
high tech war on pathogens, tumours and the like.
Disease prevention offers the greatest hope for the 'big three' killers
- heart disease, cancer and strokes. All the evidence for the major risk factors
(smoking, high-fat diets, lack of exercise, etc.) has come from epidemiological
(population) studies of people and their lifestyles. Prevention is always better
than cure, and as far as illnesses such as AIDS are concerned, 'prevention is
not just better than cure - it is the only cure.' (120)
Epidemiology has taught us how the AIDS virus is transmitted and how we may
combat it. Combined with genetic, clinical and in vitro research, epidemiology
is a very powerful tool whose scope is unlimited. The animal model, by contrast,
is 'an archaic paradigm whose scope peaked 100 years ago. It must be replaced
if we expect to improve the quality of human life.' (121)
Thanks to advances in molecular biology and other technologies, and also to
a greater appreciation of the holistic, integrated nature of humans and their
diseases, we may be entering a new phase of medical advancement. But as long
as animal research is involved in any way, it will continue to de-rail progress
as it has done so often and with such devastating consequences in the past.
References:
1. T McKeown, The Role of Medicine, Blackwell
1979
2. The Lancet, 12th August 1978 p354-55
3. CS Muir and DM Parkin, British Medical Journal, 5th Jan 1985
p5-6
4. Committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, Department
of Health, 1998
5. Thalidomide, a tranquiliser pronounced safe by animal tests,
caused terrible deformities in over 10,000 children born to mothers
prescribed the drug in the 60's. Opren, an arthritis medicine
marketed in 1980 after safety tests on monkeys and other animals,
was withdrawn in 1982 after it had killed 61 people and caused
over 3,500 severe reactions. Rezulin, prescribed to diabetics
until March 2000, killed 391 people and necessitated many more
liver transplants; an effect not demonstrated in animals. There
are many, many more examples: see www.curedisease.net
for further information.
6. Science, 1986 Vol 231 p1055-56
7. WC Roberts, American Journal of Cardiology, 1990 Vol 66 p896
8. SCU Marsch et al, Anaesthetics and Analgesics, 1996 Vol 82
p695-701
9. G Pierpont et al, American J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 2000,
Vol 279:4 H1737-47
10. Takeuchi et al, Circulation, 1998 (19 suppl) II p234-39
11. BJ Noble et al, Experimental Physiology, 1998 Vol 83 p513-22
12. S George et al, Circulation, 2000 Vol 101 p296
13. See National Heart Forum website at www.heartforum.org.uk/young
14. AJ Strong et al, Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 1996
Vol 16 p367-77
15. AJ Strong et al, Stroke 2000 Vol 31, Issue 1, p214-22
16. R Sharpe, Science on Trial, Awareness Books, 1994 p121
17. GH Barnett et al, Stroke, 1986 Vol 17 p884-90
18. DO Wiebers et al, Stroke, 1990 Vol 21 p1-3
19. MR Law et al, British Medical Journal, April 6th 1991 p819-24
20. The Colombus Despatch, March 20th, 1998 (in Sacred Cows and
Golden Geese: the Human Cost of Experiments on Animals, CR Greek,
MD and JS Greek, DVM, Continuum 2002, p142)
21. As quoted in Vivisection Unveiled, Jon Carpenter Publishing,
1997, p47
22. Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia,
UK Co-ordinating Committee
on Cancer Research
23. Ichihashi et al, Journal of Dermatology Science, 2000 Vol
23 Suppl 1(5) pS45
24. DJ Galloway, Cancer Surveys, 1989 Vol 8 p169-88
25. C Dollery in Risk-benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed Cavalla,
1981 p87
26. N Barnard and S Kaufman, Scientific American, February 1997
27. The Lancet, June 25th 1977 p1348-49
28. Testimony before US Congress, 1981 (in Sacred Cows and Golden
Geese, op cit)
29. S Bende, The Scientist, 16th August 1999, Vol 13 (16) p7
30. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 21st September 1997
31. NL Letvin, New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, Vol 329
(19) p1400-1405
32. Monkeying around with their lives, and ours... NAVS USA newsletter
2001, www.navs.org
33. Carney et al, Matrix, 1992 Vol 12 137-147
34. MT Bayliss, Recent Advances in the use of in vitro Techniques,
HRT Conference, 1987
35. ten Bokum et al, J Endocrinol, 1999 Apr, 161:1, 167-75
36. JH McNeill, (Ed) Experimental Models of Diabetes, CRC Press,
1999 p95
37. Los Angeles Times, 20th December 2000
38. Onozuko et al, Behavioural Brain Research, 2000 Vol 108 p145
39. AL Kendall et al, Brain 2000 Vol 123, Part 7, p1442-58
40. Treseder et al, British Journal of Pharmacology, 2000 Vol
129, 1ssue 7, p1355-64
41. HC Hendrie at al, Journal of the American Medical Association,
16th Feb 2001 Vol 285 p739-47
42. New Scientist, 11th November 2000 Vol 168: 2264 p16
43. Medical Research Modernisation Committee, Aping Science (www.mrmcmed.org/ape.html)
44. Ellenbroek et al, Society for Neuroscience Meeting, Nov 2000,
New Orleans (HMS Beagle report)
45. N Wongwitdecha and CA Marsden, Behavioural Brain Research,
1996 Vol75 p27-32
46. New Scientist, Jan 25th 1997 p18
47. A Heim, as quoted in The Cruel Deception, R Sharpe, Thorsons,
1988 p209
48. The Food and Mood Handbook, A. Geary, Thorsons, April 2001
49. Eldrup et al, American J. Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism,
2000 Vol 279:4 E815-22
50. FRAME News No. 7 1985; see The Cruel Deception, op cit, p237
51. W Armstead, American J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 2000 Vol
279:5 H2188-95
52. Stern and Passingham, Behavioural Brain Research, 1996 Vol75
p179-93
53. Johnson and Cowey, Experimental Brain Research 2000, Vol 132,
2 p269-75
54. Vierck et al, Journal of Neuroscience Vol 10 (7) p2077-95
55. N Seppa, Science News, 18th March 2000 Vol 157 (12) p180
56. Kiguchi et al, Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and
Physiology, 2000 Vol 28 (3) p169-75
57. Ruda et al, Science 2000 Vol 289 (5479) p628-30
58. J.Bourne and P. Fosbraey, Journal of Neuroscience Methods,
2000 Vol 99 p85-90
59. RS Fisher, Brain Research Reviews, 1989 Vol 14 p245-78
60. Parham and Bruinvels (eds), Discoveries in Pharmacology Vol
1, Elsevier 1983 p454
61. M Bernhard Rambeck, speech at International Conference in
Zurich, 25th April 1987
62. G.Roman, Neuroepidemiologists of the world unite, World Federation
of Neurology XVII World Congress report, 21st June 2001 (see also
Bulletin WHO Vol 78, no.3, p399-406)
63. Araki et al, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 2000
Vol 122 (3) p425-33
64. Institute of Medical Ethics Bulletin, 1985 Vol 4 p1-2
65. SR Kaufman et al, Perspectives on Medical Research, 1993 Vol
4 p39-51
66. Medical Research Modernisation Committee; A Critical Look
at Animal Research, New York 1990
67. C Blakemore, as quoted in The Guardian, 4th July 2000
68. e.g. www.jaxmice.jax.org
69. The Guardian, 21st August 2000
70. Science Vol 291, p309; Lancet Editorial Vol 357 (9259) March
17th 2001
71. New Scientist, No. 2274, 20th January 2001 p3
72. A Coghlan, New Scientist, 8th May 1999
73. T Poole in Animals, Alternatives and Ethics (eds Zutphen &
Balls) Elsevier, 1997 p277-82
74. C Griffin et al, Science Vol 293 (5535) p1666, 31st August
2001
75. BUAV Campaign Report, Summer 2000
76. JR Dorin et al, Nature, 1992 Vol 359 p211-215
New tissue and organ culture techniques provide human material for analysing
disease processes and testing new therapies. At a stroke, interspecies differences
that have plagued biomedical research for decades are eliminated. After all,
'the only universal model for a human is other humans.'
Computer modelling is a sophisticated way to analyse and design the
molecular structure of drugs to target specific receptors. For example, the
protease inhibitors given to patients with HIV were designed by computer and
tested in human tissue cultures and mathematical and computer models, bypassing
animal tests because of the urgent need.
Autopsy studies are immensely valuable: 'Virtually the whole of modern
medical knowledge was created through the study of autopsies.'
Clinical (patient) research and clinical trials of drugs and other therapies
are very powerful tools, shaping treatment decisions for individual patients
and advancing the standards of medical care. So long as they are conducted responsibly
they can make enormous contributions to medical progress. Sadly, money taints
this process too, prompting 13 of the world's leading medical journals to speak
out against corruption of trials by the pharmaceutical industry (and government).
Technological improvements continue to be made, and provide potential
for substantial medical advancement. At the technological cutting edge, claims
are made that human stem cells may be able to repair and even replace damaged
organs in the future.
Disease prevention offers the greatest hope for the 'big three' killers
- heart disease, cancer and strokes. All the evidence for the major risk factors
(smoking, high-fat diets, lack of exercise, etc.) has come from epidemiological
(population) studies of people and their lifestyles. Prevention is always better
than cure, and as far as illnesses such as AIDS are concerned, 'prevention is
not just better than cure - it is the only cure.'
Thanks to advances in molecular biology and other technologies, and also to a greater appreciation of the holistic, integrated nature of humans and their diseases, we may be entering a new phase of medical advancement. But as long as animal research is involved in any way, it will continue to de-rail progress as it has done so often and with such devastating consequences in the past.
References:
1. T McKeown, The Role of Medicine, Blackwell
1979
2. The Lancet, 12th August 1978 p354-55
3. CS Muir and DM Parkin, British Medical Journal, 5th Jan 1985
p5-6
4. Committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, Department
of Health, 1998
5. Thalidomide, a tranquiliser pronounced safe by animal tests,
caused terrible deformities in over 10,000 children born to mothers
prescribed the drug in the 60's. Opren, an arthritis medicine
marketed in 1980 after safety tests on monkeys and other animals,
was withdrawn in 1982 after it had killed 61 people and caused
over 3,500 severe reactions. Rezulin, prescribed to diabetics
until March 2000, killed 391 people and necessitated many more
liver transplants; an effect not demonstrated in animals. There
are many, many more examples: see www.curedisease.net
for further information.
6. Science, 1986 Vol 231 p1055-56
7. WC Roberts, American Journal of Cardiology, 1990 Vol 66 p896
8. SCU Marsch et al, Anaesthetics and Analgesics, 1996 Vol 82
p695-701
9. G Pierpont et al, American J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 2000,
Vol 279:4 H1737-47
10. Takeuchi et al, Circulation, 1998 (19 suppl) II p234-39
11. BJ Noble et al, Experimental Physiology, 1998 Vol 83 p513-22
12. S George et al, Circulation, 2000 Vol 101 p296
13. See National Heart Forum website at www.heartforum.org.uk/young
14. AJ Strong et al, Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 1996
Vol 16 p367-77
15. AJ Strong et al, Stroke 2000 Vol 31, Issue 1, p214-22
16. R Sharpe, Science on Trial, Awareness Books, 1994 p121
17. GH Barnett et al, Stroke, 1986 Vol 17 p884-90
18. DO Wiebers et al, Stroke, 1990 Vol 21 p1-3
19. MR Law et al, British Medical Journal, April 6th 1991 p819-24
20. The Colombus Despatch, March 20th, 1998 (in Sacred Cows and
Golden Geese: the Human Cost of Experiments on Animals, CR Greek,
MD and JS Greek, DVM, Continuum 2002, p142)
21. As quoted in Vivisection Unveiled, Jon Carpenter Publishing,
1997, p47
22. Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia,
UK Co-ordinating Committee
on Cancer Research
23. Ichihashi et al, Journal of Dermatology Science, 2000 Vol
23 Suppl 1(5) pS45
24. DJ Galloway, Cancer Surveys, 1989 Vol 8 p169-88
25. C Dollery in Risk-benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed Cavalla,
1981 p87
26. N Barnard and S Kaufman, Scientific American, February 1997
27. The Lancet, June 25th 1977 p1348-49
28. Testimony before US Congress, 1981 (in Sacred Cows and Golden
Geese, op cit)
29. S Bende, The Scientist, 16th August 1999, Vol 13 (16) p7
30. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 21st September 1997
31. NL Letvin, New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, Vol 329
(19) p1400-1405
32. Monkeying around with their lives, and ours... NAVS USA newsletter
2001, www.navs.org
33. Carney et al, Matrix, 1992 Vol 12 137-147
34. MT Bayliss, Recent Advances in the use of in vitro Techniques,
HRT Conference, 1987
35. ten Bokum et al, J Endocrinol, 1999 Apr, 161:1, 167-75
36. JH McNeill, (Ed) Experimental Models of Diabetes, CRC Press,
1999 p95
37. Los Angeles Times, 20th December 2000
38. Onozuko et al, Behavioural Brain Research, 2000 Vol 108 p145
39. AL Kendall et al, Brain 2000 Vol 123, Part 7, p1442-58
40. Treseder et al, British Journal of Pharmacology, 2000 Vol
129, 1ssue 7, p1355-64
41. HC Hendrie at al, Journal of the American Medical Association,
16th Feb 2001 Vol 285 p739-47
42. New Scientist, 11th November 2000 Vol 168: 2264 p16
43. Medical Research Modernisation Committee, Aping Science (www.mrmcmed.org/ape.html)
44. Ellenbroek et al, Society for Neuroscience Meeting, Nov 2000,
New Orleans (HMS Beagle report)
45. N Wongwitdecha and CA Marsden, Behavioural Brain Research,
1996 Vol75 p27-32
46. New Scientist, Jan 25th 1997 p18
47. A Heim, as quoted in The Cruel Deception, R Sharpe, Thorsons,
1988 p209
48. The Food and Mood Handbook, A. Geary, Thorsons, April 2001
49. Eldrup et al, American J. Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism,
2000 Vol 279:4 E815-22
50. FRAME News No. 7 1985; see The Cruel Deception, op cit, p237
51. W Armstead, American J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 2000 Vol
279:5 H2188-95
52. Stern and Passingham, Behavioural Brain Research, 1996 Vol75
p179-93
53. Johnson and Cowey, Experimental Brain Research 2000, Vol 132,
2 p269-75
54. Vierck et al, Journal of Neuroscience Vol 10 (7) p2077-95
55. N Seppa, Science News, 18th March 2000 Vol 157 (12) p180
56. Kiguchi et al, Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and
Physiology, 2000 Vol 28 (3) p169-75
57. Ruda et al, Science 2000 Vol 289 (5479) p628-30
58. J.Bourne and P. Fosbraey, Journal of Neuroscience Methods,
2000 Vol 99 p85-90
59. RS Fisher, Brain Research Reviews, 1989 Vol 14 p245-78
60. Parham and Bruinvels (eds), Discoveries in Pharmacology Vol
1, Elsevier 1983 p454
61. M Bernhard Rambeck, speech at International Conference in
Zurich, 25th April 1987
62. G.Roman, Neuroepidemiologists of the world unite, World Federation
of Neurology XVII World Congress report, 21st June 2001 (see also
Bulletin WHO Vol 78, no.3, p399-406)
63. Araki et al, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 2000
Vol 122 (3) p425-33
64. Institute of Medical Ethics Bulletin, 1985 Vol 4 p1-2
65. SR Kaufman et al, Perspectives on Medical Research, 1993 Vol
4 p39-51
66. Medical Research Modernisation Committee; A Critical Look
at Animal Research, New York 1990
67. C Blakemore, as quoted in The Guardian, 4th July 2000
68. e.g. www.jaxmice.jax.org
69. The Guardian, 21st August 2000
70. Science Vol 291, p309; Lancet Editorial Vol 357 (9259) March
17th 2001
71. New Scientist, No. 2274, 20th January 2001 p3
72. A Coghlan, New Scientist, 8th May 1999
73. T Poole in Animals, Alternatives and Ethics (eds Zutphen &
Balls) Elsevier, 1997 p277-82
74. C Griffin et al, Science Vol 293 (5535) p1666, 31st August
2001
75. BUAV Campaign Report, Summer 2000
76. JR Dorin et al, Nature, 1992 Vol 359 p211-215
Send this page to a friend
Read about how we treat your data: privacy policy.
