"Why do I use animals in research" or " Why do I abduct, detain, confine, mutilate, torture and kill animals" by Dr. E. London

Unfortunately for animals used in research Dr. London conducts those sadistic actions without animals expressed consent to participate in her research activities.

The damage inflicted to Dr. London's residence is stupid and reprehensible. Dr. London's fight against addiction to nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs is admirable. Her use of primates and other animals is incomprehensible. Her justifications for use of animals in non-clinical research could not further away from truth.

Further, she deliberately avoids discussion of non-animal research options such as cell cultures, transgenic modeling and human volunteers to name a few.

Human volunteers recruited among prison inmates, well meaning researchers, executives of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies and their respective family members can provide a new dimension to research--subject's reporting, interactive feedback and ability to follow instructions.

Properly designed and conducted human volunteers study, with preference given to aforementioned groups, will reveal human-specific, hence human-relative data.

These (human) studies are much more likely to be conducted in an ethical and cruelty-free manner, with proper consent, compensation (except for inmates), pain relief, psychological counselling and treatment of any and all complications and adverse outcomes. ACLU can monitor compliance.

In her article Dr. London contradicts herself stating that “While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become “addicted” in the same sense that human…” So why torture monkeys and other animals when there are millions of potential human volunteers stupid enough to subject themselves to tobacco and other addictive substances.

Such (human) studies will invariably yield human-specific hence human-relevant information.

Being a child of Holocaust does not give one a license to inflict Holocaust on animals by using them in research. If nothing else it should have made Dr. London more sensitive to the plight of the weak and defenseless.

Without condoning violence in any shape or form I would like to point out that use and abuse of animals is UCLA researchers is funded and promoted by greedy pharmaceutical companies, such as Amgen that is in serious financial straits due to recent changes in reimbursement for its drugs.

In addition to promoting and conducting animal research (Amgen maintains an extensive vivarium where animals are routinely used for research) by UCLA through its clandestine invitation-only seminars promoting animal research (last conducted October 28, 2007) Amgen simultaneously taints the objectivity and validity of researcher conducted by UCLA.

Hiding behind frequently used and abused "unrestricted educational grant" can not fool any one, Hence, Dr. London's acceptance of tobacco company's money seriously jeopardises UCLA's standing as an "independent third party" seeker of truth!?

I challenge UCLA officials, leadership of Amgen, leadership of tobacco companies, and prominent researches to open a productive dialogue with mainstream activist to reduce and finally eliminate use of animals in research ( and related abuse and exploitation) in favor of genetic modeling and/or use of human volunteers.

We are MAD, you decide.

Dr.D.

Practical Alternative to Animal Research, or What Amgen Does Not Want You to Know?

Sporadic displays of animal cruelty by the likes of Michael Vick and Ellen DeGeneres usually get plenty of media coverage and generate necessary public outcry.

However, ongoing acts of animal abuse committed under the auspices of scientific necessity to “ensure and enhance human and animal health and protection of the environment” remain unnoticed by media and general public (1).

The justification used by researchers for use of animal-only model studies can be found in a handout distributed by Dr. Robert F. Phalen(2) during his clandestine lecture at Amgen, Inc. Corporate HQ October 28, 2007:

“…there is no more powerful tool for protecting human health than the combination of well conducted animal experiments and well conducted epidemiological experiments” Rall (1979).

“…a large number of values for man coincided with remarkable accuracy for the 70 kg animal”, Krasovski (1976).

“…these survey results support the value of in vivo toxicology studies to predict for many human toxicities associated with pharmaceuticals…”, Olson et all. (2000).

“…the human genome is remarkably similar to that of evolutionary ancient organism. Thus, the various life forms on earth share much more in common than anyone had previously envisioned”. Ballatori and Vilalobos (2002).

The Society of Toxicology (SOT) claims that research involving laboratory animals is “necessary” and that “research animals must be used in a responsible manner”. Therefore, according to Dr. Phalen, it is “…unethical to block or impede well-designed, humane animal studies”.

Unfortunately for animals, and despite the alleged strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [P.L. 89-544] and the Health Research Extension Act [P.L.99-158] all animal studies in the world are missing a critical component— informed consent.

Interestingly, both the SOT and Dr. Phalen concede that there are major anatomical differences between humans, mammals, and other laboratory animals that might render results obtained from animal studies to be of limited value.

The SOT and most scientists further concede that animal studies proven less than reliable because in addition to anatomical and resulting physiological (functioning) differences, lifespan of laboratory animals is short; human disease models are generally poor; appropriate “metrics” are poorly understood; mass alone is seldom used; dosage comparisons across species are difficult (3); and individual differences are extremely large.

There are many exciting promising ways to conduct laboratory studies without use of laboratory animals.

With the entire sequence of human genome now deciphered, specific human genetic mutations might be induced and quantified in a cell culture; using organism into which human genes have been incorporated (transgenic systems) and many others. Such methods will enable the scientist to use solid experimental evidence to predict human diseases without use and abuse of animals.

Pending development and practical implementation of these technologies, the SOT’s
stated goal “…scientifically-valid research design to reduce, refine or replace the need for laboratory animals” falls short of offering the only logical solution—use of human volunteers with proper informed consent.

With the high and ever-rising costs of “housing” inmates in our jail system ($45,000.00 per inmate per year in California) and a burgeoning prison population, there is an untapped resource of human volunteers who might be willing and ready to redeem themselves by participating in laboratory studies.

Given prisons being a true society reflection, scientists should not have any problems recruiting age, race, size, gender-diverse volunteers willing to contribute.

Accurate human-derived (hence human-relevant) data can rapidly diminish or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals now used and abused to ensure and enhance human health and protection of the environment.

We are MAD, you decide!

Dr.D.
___________________________________________________________________
1. The Society of Toxicology (SOT) 1821 Michael Faraday Dr., Suite 300, Reston, VA 21090;
phone (703) 438-31135; fax (703) 438-3113; sothq@toxicology.org;
http://www.toxicology.org/

2. Robert F. Phalen, PhD, Professor of Community & Environmental Medicine, College of
Medicine, Univ. of California Irvine CA.

3. Jarabek et al., 2005; Kuempel et al., 2006