On 15 August 2008, Animal Aid issued the following statement:

Researchers condemn animal tests as unreliable    Scientists have spoken out against the reliability of animal tests in two separate instances this week.    Leading pain experts have published a paper calling for a greater focus on high-tech, non-animal research to help people suffering from chronic pain. Thousands of experiments, which deliberately inflict pain on conscious animals, are conducted every year worldwide, yet, according to the experts, ‘animal models of pain are simplistic and fail to replicate the multi-dimensional experience of human pain with its complex genetic, biological and psychological aspects’. Instead of animal tests, they advocate the use of powerful brain imaging techniques, such as MRI scans, to study the effects of pain and pain relief in the human brain.    In a separate instance, dermatology experts warned that new research linking skin moisturisers to cancer should be viewed with caution because of important differences between mice and humans. According to David Leffell, of Yale School of Medicine, the skin of mice is much thinner, so we cannot conclude that the same effects would be noted in humans. Jonathan Rees, professor of dermatology at Edinburgh University, echoed this view, stating: ‘Studies of mouse skin cancer have contributed little to our understanding of human skin cancer.’

On 13 August, the BUAV issued the following press release (pdf format) regarding new research which shows the global number of animals currently used in experimentation:

New research reveals 115 million animals subjected to experiments worldwide. Almost double the official number of animals could be involved in UK tests.    Almost double the official number of animals could be involved in UK tests An estimated 115 million animals are used in laboratory experiments around the world each year, according to the first ever statistical analysis of global animal testing published this week in the journal ATLA [1].    Authors from the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) warn that even this massive figure is likely to be an underestimate due to the way figures are compiled, and they have issued a joint call for the missing millions [2] of lab animals to be accounted for.    The 115 million total was reached using a starting point of 50 million animals from countries that publish official figures. However, despite widespread public and political interest in animal research worldwide, only 21% of countries actually collect data on their national animal experiments. So, a statistical model was developed based on animal research publication rates for countries with no official data, which added 8 million animals from 142 countries.    Also included were those animals used in laboratories but excluded from most statistics, such as genetically modified animals bred to maintain colonies, animals killed as surplus to requirements and those killed for tissue samples. These were estimated to add a staggering 57 million to the global total, bringing it to 115 million.    The extraordinary lack of official figures for the majority of countries is a major cause for concern. For those countries that do record statistics, there are also unacceptable crucial omissions. For example in Britain, animals killed as surplus or for their tissues are not counted. If they were, the Home Office's official figure of just under three million animals would increase to over 5 million animals [3]. In the USA, even basic accurate recording would increase official statistics of just over one million animals to a shocking 34 million, because they currently exclude 93% of animals used – all birds, rats, mice, fish, amphibians and reptiles.    The BUAV and the Dr Hadwen Trust say "It is shocking that so few countries consider it important even to count the number of animals suffering in their laboratories. It is impossible to have a clear and honest debate about the role of animal experiments in the 21st century when the official number of animals involved is outrageously underestimated. It means that a huge amount of animal suffering is simply being ignored, and efforts to replace animal research with more modern techniques are being hampered. Vivisection is considered one of the most controversial uses of animals, so it’s about time that governments around the world, including our own, brought the truth into the open."    For further information contact Anna Bragga 020 7619 6963 / 24 hr mobile 07850 510 955, email: anna.bragga@buav.org Notes for Editors: ATLA Authors: Dr Katy Taylor, Scientific Co-ordinator for the BUAV Nicky Gordon, Science Communications Officer for the Dr Hadwen Trust Dr Gill Langley, Science Director for the Dr Hadwen Trust Wendy Higgins, Communications Director for the Dr Hadwen Trust Dr Katy Taylor from the BUAV, and Nicky Gordon from the Dr Hadwen Trust are available for interview. Please contact the relevant press office. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has been campaigning for over 100 years to achieve a world where nobody wants or believes we need to experiment on animals. We are committed to achieving our aims through reliable and reasoned evidence-based debate. We are proudly non-violent and respect the quality of life for all – animals and people. www.buav.org. Contact: Anna Bragga 020 7619 6963 / 24 hr mobile 07850 510 955. Email: anna.bragga@buav.org The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity funding exclusively non-animal techniques to replace animal experiments. www.drhadwentrust.org and www.scienceroom.org Contact: Communications Director Wendy Higgins 24hr mobile 07989 972423 Email: wendy@drhadwentrust.org [1] Taylor K., Gordon N., Langley G., Higgins W. (2008) Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(3). In Press – A PDF of the paper is available on request. [2] Of the 37 countries which publish data, only one included statistics on animals killed as surplus to requirements, and one official survey of surplus animals was found; only two countries included GM animals used to maintain a breeding colony and only six countries included animals killed for their tissues. Using the available data, the authors calculated that if added to the totals, these missing categories would increase numbers by the following range: GM: 0.7%–33.7%; surplus: 38.2%–80.3% and tissue: 2.4%–50.1%. [3] Based on the UK’s own estimate of the percentage of surplus animals (80.3%), plus our estimate for the number of animals used for tissues and biological products (21.1%) we estimate that the UK currently does not record nearly 3 million laboratory animals and that the ‘true’ estimate may be an effective doubling (from their published figure in 2005 of 2.8 million animals) to 5.6 million animals if these were to be included.

In July 2008, the Antidote Europe CEO gave the following answer in response to a question, often raised about vivisection:

Reply    I have been reading that testing on animals is wrong. If animals are not used, what live thing is to be used? Please don't tell me computer programs and bacteria, as this is only good for training purposes.    Are you also against human trials for the medicine? Why aren't you volunteering to be a test subject since you are so against animal testing? I am hearing many pro/con arguments but no one has a solution. RLS    As a veterinary surgeon, I would not test drugs for parrots on racehorses. I would test them on parrots - who are already sick - not healthy ones. Here is a very brief description of the process of drug discovery.    Medical drugs can come from many sources, including fungi and plants. I would begin by looking for any interesting pharmacological activity in plants, fungi, soil samples, etc., using high throughput screening techniques (HTS), in which the new compound is compared to already known pharmacologically active chemicals. This science is already well established and is referred to as "Quantitative structure activity relationships" (QSAR). No animal experiments are involved.    Next, I would test the drug on parrot cells, obtained from ethically sourced, donated tissue - e.g. from medical biopsies (in the case of human medicine, it is possible today to obtain ethically sourced cells of just about any of the 230 different cell types in the human body). Obviously, the most important cell types that will be used will include liver, kidney, nerve cells, intestine and so on.    Using single cells can provide some idea of how safe, or how toxic, the experimental drug is to those cells. Watch this short video clip.    The next stage would be to mimic the entire organ, which can be done using organ slices, before going on to test the drug on an interactive multi-organ system. This can be achieved today using a lab-on-a-chip and microfluidics. The drug is introduced at one end, into the first compartment, which will consist of say, gut cells. From there, the drug and its break-down products (metabolites) will pass on to the next compartment, consisting of liver cells, and so on - through blood cells, kidney cells and possibly other types of cells as well (of the species in question).    Is this system perfect ? No, but it represents good science, insofar as it is species specific (i.e. it uses parrot cells to study parrot body reactions), and does not involve deliberately harming or killing any animals.    At this point, if we have exhausted every non-invasive option, we will try our new drug on an already sick parrot who is a suitable candidate for the new drug. In humans, at this stage, a technique called "microdosing" would probably be used. This technique allows researchers to follow the path taken by the drug through the body. The drug is given at such a low dose that adverse effects are highly unlikely.    In the US today, 96% of all medical schools have stopped training students using animals. Even the Advanced Trauma Life Suppport (ATLS) course for surgeons can be taught without using animals. Instead, simulators, mannekins and specially preserved cadavers are used.    This is by no means an exhaustive explanation, but simply an introduction, to show you that there are other ways for medical progress to be made, instead of using animals. In other words, let's have good science, which consists of three things: it should be species specific; it should benefit the individual concerned; and it should be evidence based. Animal research fails on all three counts (see: Perel P et al."Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review) BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE, (Published 15 December 2006)    Medical research will always carry some risk. At present, the choice is between incomplete human data that is relevant, or complete animal data that is irrelevant.    Kind regards,    Andre Menache MRCVS, CEO Antidote Europe July 2008 www.antidote-europe.org

July 2008. Once again, pro-vivisectionist assurances are shown to be worthless:

         Animal Aid: 'New Labour betrays laboratory animals: experiments up by 23%'
         BUAV: 'Animal testing increases for the sixth consecutive year'

         The BUAV Press Release (pdf format) of 21 July 2008 is available for reading here.

May 2008. On 22 May 2008, NEAVS included the following report on its website: '25,000+ Primates Imported to U.S. in 2007: China leads monkey export market'

April 2008. The NAVS (UK) website now includes the article 'Kick animal testing out of the house' (pdf format).

New articles produced during February 2008, include the following:
  NAVS (UK): 'Europe moves closer to ban on use of apes and wild caught monkeys in experiments'
         Animal Aid: 'Animal testing: an historic breakthrough'

Despite the many assurances and promises made that animal experimentation would be reduced, the EU animal experiment statistics show there was an increase in the total number of animals used. The number in 2005 increased to 12.1 million, a 3.2 per cent increase over and above the added numbers from the inclusion of 10 new member states in the 2005 report. The BUAV report regarding this subject can be found here 'BUAV: Report on new EU statistics'.

In January 2008, the SHAC website included images and film related to the liberation of rabbits from a UK laboratory breeder.
Furthermore, the NAVS (US) website included two new articles:
        (a) 'NJ ban on animal testing becomes law'
        (b) 'Killing of dogs in training of doctors to end'

In December 2007, Animal Aid reported that 'New undercover video footage once again exposes the appalling abuse to which animals are subjected in government-sanctioned research laboratories. Although filmed in Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science, equivalent ‘procedures’ are carried out in Britain and other ‘advanced’ facilities around the world'.
Details, and video footage may be found here: 'Animal rights group to challenge monkey experiments in court'

On 6 December 2007, NAVS released the following statement:

In view of the current media-driven hysteria regarding supposed animal rights 'terrorism', the following article is both useful and relevant: Scientific Terrorism, by Scott C. Tips.

Useful articles currently on the Web include:
   * Animal Aid: 'Chimpanzee research is flawed, says scientific study'.
   * NAVS (UK): Primate experiments: The facts.
   * NAVS (UK): Parkinson’s Disease: Cutting through the myths.
   * NAVS (UK): Back inside the Institute of Neurology.
   * Europeans for Medical Progress: Film: Safer Medicines.

From Dusk til Dawn. An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement. 'Starting with a brief but not exhaustive summary of the early history of the movement, From Dusk til Dawn is primarily the personal perspective of former ALF activist Keith Mann on the direct action wing of the Animal Liberation Movement, which began to burgeon in the 1960s.
The book takes you on tour with the ALF as activists carry out raids, and allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the thinking and motivation of some of the people who work within ALF cells or alone - those who go out of their way to break the law of the land. Mann lays before you his personal view in a collection of stories that will in turn move, shock, entertain and enlighten'.    Further details from here

The Animal Aid website includes a list of its excellent 'Mad Science Awards'. The list can be read here. The awards, and full details of each one, are available for 2001 to 2007 inclusive.

Regards,

Webmaster. 25 August 2008