AnimalRights.Net

Sometimes-Ray Greek collaborator Pandora Pound was the lead author on a paper with that provocative title published by in the February 28th edition of the British Medical Journal. The correct answer, of course, is that it is all around us but that Pound, et al. choose to ignore it.

In the paper, Pound and her co-authors write,

We searched Medline to identify published systematic reviews of animal experiments (see bmj.com for the search strategy). The search identified 277 possible papers, of which 22 were reports of systematic reviews. We are also aware of one recently published study and two unpublished studies, bringing the total to 25. Three further studies are in progress (M Macleod, personal communication).

Seven of the 25 papers were systematic reviews of animal studies that had been conducted to find out how the animal research had informed the clinical research. Two of these reported on the same group of studies, giving six reviews in this category. A further 10 papers were systematic reviews of animal studies conducted to assess the evidence for proceeding to clinical trials or to establish an evidence base.w1-w10 Eight systematically reviewed both the animal and human studies in a particular field, again before clinical trials had taken place.w11-w18 We focus on the six studies in the first category because these shed the most light on the contribution that animal research makes to clinical medicine.

Each of the six studies is then examined and offered up as a criticism of animal research,

An unpublished study by Ciccone and Candelise systematically reviewed randomised controlled experiments of animal stroke models that compared the effects of thrombolytic drugs with placebo or open control.17 The background to the study was the finding that clinical trials of thrombolysis for acute stroke had found a substantial excess risk of intracranial haemorrhage that had not been predicted by individual animal studies. When the animal data were pooled, a significant difference was found in the rate of intracranial haemorrhage between animals in the control and treatment groups.

But, as Colin Blakemore and Tony Peatfield note in a letter to the BMJ, Pound, et al appear to have misinterpreted their own findings,

The authors identified 277 reviews of animal experiments but described just six systematic reviews, conducted to discover whether animal research had informed particular clinical studies. Far from providing evidence that animal research doesn’t work, five reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested. But the clinical work was started before proper assessment of the animal studies.

It is imperative that animal research is properly evaluated before the results are transferred to medical practice. The relevant ethics committees and regulatory authorities should have identified that these clinical trials were based on inadequate analysis of animal experiments. The animal studies were not at fault.

Pound et al did not even consider the importance of animal studies for basic medical research. They ignored research on normal life processes and the natural history of disease, not to mention safety testing. All these make essential contributions to the development of new therapies for humans (and animals). Much of this work is required by law.

Some of the authors have called publicly for a “moratorium” on animal research.2 This is totally unjustified by their results.

In a comment on the paper posted on the BMJ’s web site, Blakemore put this more bluntly,

Pound et al. used a Medline search to identify 277 reviews of animal experiments but they chose to describe just six systematic reviews conducted to discover whether animal research had informed particular clinical studies. One pointed out that there is no simple animal analogue of the established relationship between social status and coronary heart disease in humans. This is hardly surprising in view of the complexities of human society, which have no clear parallel in animal hierarchies. The other five papers all described clinical trials that had apparently been started without full analysis of prior animal studies or even in parallel with animal work. In each case the putative therapy turned out to have no benefit and subsequent systematic review showed that animal research revealed exactly the same problems. Far from providing evidence that animal research doesn’t work, these studies revealed excellent agreement between animal results and clinical experience.

Unfortunately, as several posts to the BMJ site predicted would happen, mainstream news outlets picked up on Pound’s paper as suggesting a serious scientific controversy over whether animal research has benefited human health. The BBC, for example, ran coverage of the study on its website under the headline, “Scientists doubt animal research” and absurdly claimed that,

In reaching their conclusions, the London team [Pound, et al] carried out a systematic review of all animal experiments which purported to have clinical relevance to humans.

Even Pound, et al didn’t make that claim, which would be all but impossible to accomplish. Rather, they looked at the small number of studies that reviewed specific animal research, and then apparently cherry-picked just six of those studies to examine closer.

Sources:

Scientists doubt animal research. The BBC, February 27, 2004.

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts. British Medical Journal, 2004;328:514-517 (28 February).

Missing evidence that animal research benefits humans. Colin Blakemore and Tony Peatfield, BMJ 2004;328:1017-1018 (24 April).

In February, Chiron Corporation was granted an injunction in Great Britain that establishes exclusions zones around both company property and employees homes where animal rights activist may not protest. The ban was extended in March and mirrors similar legal orders that are designed to protect Huntingdon Life Sciences and companies associated with it.

The ban protects about 900 Chiron staff members throughout Great Britain. Chiron’s lawyer told the court that 20 activists had “invaded” the company’s Liverpool site on January 20.

Sources:

Protesters banned at staff homes. The BBC, February 9, 2004.

Drugs firm granted protection from protesters. Ananova, February 2004.

Animal rights ban at plant. Neil Hodgson, Liverpool Daily Post, March 10, 2004.

Here’s the full text of a notice that Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs posted on its website in February in its continued harassment of David Hall and company.

SNGP New Target – Calor Gas

Calor Gas supply the Halls with gas for use in their central heating systems. With winter well underway it is time to freeze the killers out and ensure Calor Gas sever all ties with this animal killing family.

We need to remind the Halls (as if they could have forgotten!) that anyone who has anything to do with them will have to face the anger of the animal rights movement and we need to show Calor Gas that those who deal with the business or personal life of animal killers such as the Halls will not be allowed to do so any longer.

Contact Calor Gas TODAY and let them know what you think of them dealing with a family that sends animals to torture and death in laboratories and breaks the necks of guinea pigs with their own bare hands!

Email them, phone them, fax them, write to them, and organize demonstrations against them — whatever you do do it loud and proud safe in the knowledge that you are hammering another nail into the coffin of the vile vivisection business of the Hall family.

Source:

SNGP New Target- Calor Gas. Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs, February 2004.

The Oxford Student quoted an unidentified Animal Liberation Front source as saying that in the wake of the failure of a new Cambridge-affiliated primate laboratory, that activists would likely turn to targeting a new animal facility that Oxford University is currently building.

The Oxford Student reported that the unnamed ALF source told it,

. . . new animal facilities proposed at Oxford would be seen as a legitimate target for ALF members. [Possible actions could] range from smashing windows with rocks to arson attacks against entire departments.

The Oxford Student also quoted National Anti-Vivisection Society campaigns director Tim Phillips as saying,

Oxford is practically the UK’s capital [sic] of animal suffering. We’ve placed people undercover in some of these laboratories and found appalling instances of animal suffering — animals being dropped on the floor, technicians laughing as they smash animals to death against benchtops, and gross overcrowding.

An Oxford spokesperson told the Oxford Student,

We have had protests in the past, and we’ve dealt with them. We are confident we can do the same again. We’re not extending our research — we are simply building a new facility for housing animals.

Source:

Capital of Suffering. Ella Davies, Oxford Student, February 12, 2004.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals overstepped its bounds quite a bit in arguing that prejudicial evidence about Jayson Williams killing his dog should have been allowed in Williams’ manslaughter trial.

For those not following this case, Williams is a former National Basketball Association star who is charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of a limousine driver who drove Williams and his party to Williams’ mansion in February 2002. According to witnesses, Williams was showing off a shotgun to guests when the gun discharged while aimed at limousine driver Costas Christoffi. In addition to manslaughter, Williams is charged with trying to cover-up the crime including asking guests to lie to police about the circumstances of the shooting.

Testimony at his trial portrayed Williams as a depraved individual. According to one witness, for example, while Christoffi lay wounded and dying, Williams pressed the shotgun into his hands in order to set up a defense that Christoffi had accidentally shot himself.

That testimony was allowed in, but testimony about an alleged incident in 2001 was excluded as prejudicial. Williams’ former teammate Dwayne Schintzius claimed that in 2001, Williams bet him $100 that he could not get one of Williams’ guard dogs out of the house and onto the porch. According to Schintzius, when he returned a few minutes later with the dog, Williams went into the house and returned with a rifle. He then shot and killed the dog and threatened Schintzius with the gun.

After hearing Schintzius’ claims with the jury in recess, Judge Edward Coleman ruled that Schintzius’ testimony would be overly prejudicial and refused to allow the jury to hear testimony about the alleged incident. The judge apparently agreed with Williams’ defense attorney that putting Schintzius on the stand was simply “a strategic attempt by the prosecution to smear Mr. Williams in the eyes of the jury and deny him a fair trial.”

In response, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals issued a press release in February expressing its disappointment at the judge’s decision. According to the ASPCA,

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is shocked by the decision a New Jersey judge has made which bars the submission of evidence that basketball star, Jayson Williams killed his pet Rottweiler at his home in Alexandria, NJ. Williams, who is accused of aggravated manslaughter in the death of Costas Christofi, allegedly shot his pet twice in the head and abdomen just six months prior to the the Christofi shooting.

“There is clearcut evidence which indicates that people who intentionally injure or kill animals are inclined to act violently towards people,” says Dr. Stephanie LaFarge, Director of the ASPCA’s Counseling Services department. “Research has shown that people who are violent toward the family pet as Jayson Williams allegedly was, are more inclined to be violent towards their family and friends.”

What is shocking is that the APSCA would put out such an absurd claim. In fact, it demonstrates exactly why the judge was correct in excluding any evidence about the alleged shooting of the dog — because jurors are likely to jump to the conclusion, as the APSCA apparently has, that if he shot his dog he is “more inclined” to have shot the limousine driver.

Fortunately, in the United States we still judge people based on evidence rather than on studies about possible “inclinations.” The judge in this case was correct — Schintzius’ would have been overly prejudicial and had no business being brought up in his manslaughter trial.

Source:

ASPCA Disappointed at Decision of Judge in the Pretrial Hearing of Jayson Williams. Press Release, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, February 6, 2004.

In January, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front in Great Britain warned that an art gallery might be targeted by the terrorist group over an art exhibit that used fur.

Francis Upritchard, 27, exhibited (I’m not making this up) “shrunken monkey heads constructed from secondhand fur coats” for the re-opening Camden Arts Center.

An unidentified ALF spokesman told the Hampstead & Highgate Express,

The use of any part of any creature for this type of thing is quite unacceptable. The ALF thinks it’s wrong to use any part of any species of animal. Where there is such an exhibition it would be seen as a legitimate target by the ALF. That could entail damage of any part of the building and its contents, so long as no life is endangered.

The re-opening itself went off without any disruption, however, albeit with significantly more police presence than a typical art exhibit.

Source:

ALF threat over real fur art exhibition. Hampstead & Highgate Express, January 23, 2004.

Police out in strength at arts centre opening. Hampstead & Highgate Express, January 30, 2004.

San Diego’s Channel 10 interviewed former Earth Liberation Front spokesman Leslie James Pickering in February in which the apologist for terrorism did an excellent job of summarizing the views of ELF extremists,

Violence is a necessary element of an oppressive struggle.

And certainly the ALF and ELF are nothing if not oppressive.

Pickering added that the goal of ELF activists should be nothing less than the overthrow of the United States government,

I don’t think they’re [ELF extremists] going far enough at all. They’re only part of a larger building revolutionary movement that won’t stop until it has a successful overthrow of this country.

Source:

Former ELF leader defends group’s efforts. TheSanDiegoChannel.Com, February 18, 2004.

In January, the Georgia House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that would provide a constitutional guarantee of the right to fish and hunt in that state.

By a vote of 154-14, the House approved asking voters in November whether the foll0owing should be added to the Georgia constitution,

Paragraph XXVIII. Fishing and hunting. The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.

The proposed ballot measure is now making its way through the Georgia Senate. If it is passed by a supermajority there, then it could go to voters as early as November 2004 where a simple majority vote would result in its adoption.

The full text of the proposed ballot question can be read here.

Source:

Hunting/fishing ‘right’ must be written. Ledger-Enquirer (Georgia), February 8, 2004.

A group calling itself Badgers Unknown put up a web site in March listing the names, addresses and telephone numbers of more than 100 British celebrities that it labelled “bloodsports scum.”

The site urged viewers to take violent action against those on the list, including Guy Ritchie, Sting, Jeremy Irons and others. According to the group’s site,

These people are not immortal and their houses are not fireproof.

Most of those on the list appeared to have gotten there because of their love of angling.

Sources:

Sting on hit list. Zoe Burn, Sunday Sun, March 7, 2004.

Animal sickos: Harm stars. Alistair Taylor, March 8, 2004.