GUEST POST: Transparency in Animal Research

A report recently published by a Canadian university has disclosed a sobering statistic regarding animal testing. In an effort to bring a sense of transparency to the controversial practice of using animals for research purposes, the University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed that more than 200,000 animals¹ were used for experimentation and testing in 2010. The disclosure is the first of its kind in Canada, a country where federal law requires animal testing prior to conducting human clinical trials for new therapies. Animal rights activists have been alarmed by this number, but in context it is actually quite low, and indicative of humane testing practices at UBC.4

Human society is largely reliant on animals for a number of different things: food, companionship, entertainment, transportation, and as beasts of burden. The heated debate that surrounds the use of animals as test subjects for biomedical research has come under more scrutiny than other uses, mostly due to a sketchy ethical history. Early biomedical and even psychological studies on animals would have been considered quite cruel by today's standards, and would never have passed current regulations. Regulation in animal testing is a relatively new concept, as is animal cruelty legislation in general, and should be viewed as a sign of modernization.

Today, the research community is well aware that cruelty has no place in laboratories, and consequently scientists and technicians practice the utmost care in their research efforts in order to protect lab animals from unnecessary suffering. Whenever possible the three Rs of animal research are observed: replacement with non-animal testing methods wherever possible, reduction of the number of animals necessary wherever possible, and refinement before the animal testing stage to minimize the need for multiple experiments.

Government regulations in many countries have legalized the use of animals for the purpose of testing toxicity levels in products such as medications, vaccines, household cleaners, pesticides, and others before human use. However, the use of animals in cosmetic testing is more of a gray area, and regulation varies widely from country to country. Many argue that animals should not be used for testing of cosmetic and make-up products, which are not necessary to ensure the health of human beings. The United Kingdom seems to be at the forefront in this regard, with government initiatives such as the Animal Procedures Committee, and even there animal testing is growing more acceptable², so long as anti-cruelty measures are observed.

In the case of UBC, while 200,000 may look like a big number, the break down shows very little in the way of cruelty or even discomfort. All of those animals were carefully reviewed to make sure their treatment was humane, and 68 percent of them were classified as receiving minor or no discomfort during the testing process. “Minor” discomfort ranges from receiving a shot to small surgical procedures no more painful or cruel than spaying or neutering. Mammals other than rodents make up less than two percent of the total animals involved, with rodents and fish heading up the list. Animals involved in invasive procedures were appropriately anesthetized, and treated with the same level of care that humans receive while undergoing surgery. Before any study can use animals in an experiment, they have to go through several levels of review and approval, and all studies are subject to annual reviews and spot-checks to ensure that all cruelty regulations are obeyed. In short, animal research is not the haphazard institution that many animal rights groups would have you believe, and UBC is hoping its transparency will help rectify that misconception.

The fact is, there is no replacement for animal testing when it comes to medical research. Even the most modern advances³ in computer and cellular technology do not come close to the complexity of living organisms. The University of British Columbia has made it clear that their researchers are committed to affording the most humane conditions possible for the animals they use in biomedical research. The current trend among humans to live healthier and longer lives is evidence that it is working, and will lead to better, more accurate animal testing in the future. The humane treatment of animals in research labs must prevail in order to guarantee the survival of our own species, and transparency is essential to keeping it humane.

¹http://www.animalresearch.ubc.ca/

²http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/of-mice-and-medicine-in-defence-of-animal-experiments-2372843.html

³http://www.animalresearch.ubc.ca/_assets/pdf/ubc_ethical_research_20101130.pdf

⁴ www.phds.org

 

Guest post written by Brittany Lyons. Brittany aspires to be a psychology professor, but decided to take some time off from grad school to help people learn to navigate the academic lifestyle. She currently lives in Spokane, Washington, where she spends her time reading science fiction and walking her dog.

Guest Post: University Research. What They Do and Why It Matters.

Animal research. It puts into one’s mind white lab coats, goggles, test tubes, and white mice. But in reality, there’s a world of research going on every day in our universities, and much of it concerns the animals we eat. From establishing new protocols for food safety to finding new ways to keep our beef less expensive, universities across the country are conducting diverse field and laboratory research to keep our animals healthy and productive. 

Pennsylvania State University’s Research and Extension office has not only provided excellent usable data for dairy producers in particular, but has also utilized their extension services to make that information available to small farmers. A big portion of their research has focused on comparing feeding methods in dairy calves, which has great financial impact for any milk producer small or large. Some of the most significant losses in milk production occur due to calf mortality rates and speed of development. These studies were proposed to find ways to limit that loss, and are built on results that are published in Israel, the United Kingdom, and other areas of the world to ensure that every farmer has access to the entire world’s knowledge.

Looking at another faucet of food production, the Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center (EOARC) is currently working hard to not only discover more efficient methods of raising beef cattle, but also promote their welfare.

“The long-term goal of our research program is to elaborate strategies that prevent stress-related illnesses elicited by routine cattle management procedures and, consequently, promote cattle welfare and productivity.”(Cooke, 2011)

Several current studies in progress at the EOARC are doing just that. From finding ways to make transport and handling less stressful to suggesting new business practices that make production more efficient, the EOARC promotes welfare by working with cattle producers and identifying financial benefits associated with welfare. Research at the center sponsored by Oregon State University also takes place at many other stations and environments across the state, and all of them collaborate to find the best ways to utilize the unique resources in Oregon and beyond.

Across the country, there are animal scientists working in locations just like those in Oregon and Pennsylvania, and all of them are constantly reviewing the research that’s been completed, and finding new questions to answer. Funding these projects has made the systems we use today possible, and makes the daunting task of affordably feeding the world a reality.

Guest post written by Austin J. Bouck. Austin is a student at Oregon State University studying Animal Science with a focus in pre-veterinary medicine. He is currently interning at the Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center in Burns, Oregon. You can read more of his animal science research posts on his blog, Animal Science Review.

Mandatory Indentification of Sheep and Goats in Pennsylvania

Scrapie is a fatal disease of the central nervous system of sheep and goats. It is characterized by the formation of holes in the cells of the brain. Scrapie causes the loss of nervous system functions. Symptoms include weight loss, biting at legs or body, tremors, star gazing, uncoordinated hind leg movement, falling, stumbling, wool pulling, and death.

Since 2000, sixteen flocks have been in infected and seventy five flocks were exposed to scrapie in Pennsylvania. Each year, the presence of scrapie costs US producers between $20-$25 million dollars. Scrapie tags are necessary to trace scrapie positive animals back to their original flock to help prevent this fatal disease from spreading. Since January 1, 2009, scrapie identification of all sheep and goats is mandatory. It is now illegal to transport sheep and goats without official scrapie identification. This includes lambs born in Pennsylvania as well as imported animals.

People transporting sheep and goats without official scrapie identification may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. You may obtain your FREE USDA issued ear tags and ear tag applicator by calling the United States Department of Agriculture- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at 1-866-873-2824.

Consumers find grass-fed beef acceptable

A recent study by Penn State University showed that most consumers find grass fed beef more acceptable in taste and tenderness. Grass fed beef has an advantage over grain finished beef because of the increased amount of omega-3 fat content.

Producers should look into ways to produce more grass fed beef. Grass fed cattle must be on a high quality forage diet to finish at 18 months of age or less. The study found that finishing productive, healthy cattle on pastures for 120 days is very important to consumer acceptance of the product rather than frame size or how fat the animal is... Read the whole article at the Penn State University