Where do I stand on the issues of animal research.

I am a relatively new, at least publicly, opponent of animal research.

First, and foremost, I unconditionally condemn violence in any shape or form against individuals, organizations and/or their property. Further, I believe that attacks on researchers and their institution by some radical groups seriously undermines their own credibility as well as the legitimacy of mainstream organizations.

Hence, I am not and will never be associated with any individuals, groups and/or organizations that either commit, promote or condone violence as means to achieve their goals.

Second, my objections to animal research are purely scientific since animal-based research is foundationally flawed. Data obtained from animal research data can not be extrapolated to manufacture human-relevant information. There are numerous viable alternatives to produce human-specific data without the use and abuse of animals.

In additional to cell preparations, transgenic modeling, and live human volunteers (please see my early postings on the issue), yet another alternative to using ill-suited animal models could be the use of aborted fetuses and tissues and organs from recently deceased humans.

Fetuses aborted during the first trimester (legally one can do it only up to 10 weeks) provide a representative sample of tissues needed for the study of most biological processes.

I am referring only to fetuses that are already legally aborted. I will neither condone nor condemn legal abortion or legality of abortion.

Organs and tissues could be "kept alive" in recently deceased humans and then used for the studies of toxicity mechanisms.

For example: instead of sacrificing 40-50 rats and "blending" their livers to study the toxicity of alcohol, one can use the liver of a car-crash victim for the same purpose but with better results that are actually applicable to human physiology and relevant to studies of human disease model.

Despite my personal and professional objections to tactics and actions sometimes employed by the Animal Liberation Movement, and my disagreement with the published statements of its Press Officer Dr. Jerry Vlasak, I felt compelled to object to Los Angeles Times Editorial policies and actions and its childish mistreatment of Jerry Vlasak, MD, FACS.

Here is a copy of my "surprisingly" unpublished letter to the Editors of LA Times of November 2, 2007:

"Editors,

When the only paper in Los Angeles market decides to take a position on animal research (or any other issue) instead of reporting, and decides to suppress opposing views of similarly qualified professionals it should not be surprised with its shrinking circulation and profits.

LA Times made an editorial decision to condone animal testing and to deprive its readership from any formation about many scientifically valid ways to rapidly diminish and/or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals.

Your publication of Dr. Vlasak's letter with the intentional omission of his professional titles and affiliations does not limit his credibility but does place the shame on you. Not extending this common courtesy to Dr. Vlasak while affording it to all other authors again proves your bias and, in fact diminishes your paper credibility and will hopefully result in further financial losses for the paper.

Intelligent compassionate people of LA enabled by the Internet will find the truth and spread the word."

We are MAD, you decide!

Dr.D.

P.S. Making a Difference! (MAD)

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