Tag Archives: Mice

PETA Award to Person Who Perfected Mouse Killing Technology

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently named Dr. Nigel Binns as its Person of the Year. Binns\’ major accomplishment? He developed an extremely effective way to kill mice.

According to a PETA press release,

Unlike cruel poisons, snaps, and glue traps — which can cause mice and rats to suffer in agony for hours or days — the RADAR trap painlessly gasses trapped rodents with carbon dioxide.

Binns is chief biologist for UK pest control company Rentokil. According to a New Scientist story on his trap,

Nigel Binns, Rentokil\’s chief biologist, wanted a trap that would kill only target animals, and do so humanely. It would then alert a pest controller that the trap needed attention. Inside its white plastic enclosure, a pressure pad senses the weight of an animal\’s paw, and closes the door if the footfall matches the weight of a rat or mouse. Squirrels or small rabbits are spared, he says. Gas released from a carbon dioxide capsule then kills the vermin humanely.

Binns tells New Scientist that computer data centers might be one big customer of his trap, since its constant monitoring and instant notification would help reduce rat problems that some data centers have experienced.

Sources:

Builder of more humane mousetrap recognized as PETA\’s \’Person of the Year\’. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2005.

UR r@ is in the trap. New Scientist, November 17, 2005.

Share

Researchers Grow Stem Cells Without Direct Use of Animal Cells

Posted on by
Reply

In March, researchers at the Roslin Institute in Scotland reported they had managed to grow stem cells without directly exposing the stem cells to animal cells, though the stem cells were still indirectly exposed to animal cells.

Until now, embryonic stem cells are grown using mouse feeder cells and in animal growth serum. There is some concern that as long as animal cells are used in the process that there is a risk that an animal virus will be transmitted to human beings who might someday receive stem cell transplants.

The Roslin Institute researchers used human protein laminin and feeder cells taken from human neonatal foreskin cells to provide the nutrients that the embryonic stem cells need.

This process is still not entirely animal-free, however, as the neonatal human foreskin cells are themselves grown in a process which uses animal cells.

Almost certainly at some point embryonic stem cells will be grown end to end in non-animal substrates at which point the animal rights movement will claim that animal research had nothing at all to do with embryonic stem cell research.

Sources:

Human embryonic stem cells grown animal-free. Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, March 17, 2005.

\’Animal free\’ stem cells created. The BBC, March 16, 2005.

Share

OSU Responds to PCRM\’s Claims about Spinal Cord Injury Course

Posted on by
Reply

As I mentioned earlier this year, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filed a complaint with the National Institutes of Health claiming about an NIH-funded class at Ohio State University that trains researchers to injure the spinal cords of mice and rats so the animals can be used in spinal cord research. PCRM claims the course is in violation of the Animal Welfare Act and involves cruelty to animals.

OSU recently responded to an NIH request for a response to PCRM\’s charges.

According to OSU student newspaper The Lantern, PCRM\’s letter claimed that the researchers first performed multiple operations to impair the animals\’ spinal cords and then force them to perform a number of task,

The animals are surely in a large amount of post-operative pain in addition to the complications they might experience as a result of their injury. This OSU course violates efforts designed to avoid or minimize such pain and distress to the animals.

In its response to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, OSU responded that a) the animals undergo only a single major surgery, b) animals are medicated for pain, c) behavioral study of the animals doesn\’t occur until after the animals have recovered from the surgery, and d) the behavioral research does not involve forcing the animals to perform, but rather offers the animal rewards for performing certain tasks.

According to OSU\’s response,

The instructors prepare a cohort of animals with spinal cord injury to train students in the proper conduct of behavioral testing. Testing does not commence until the animals are well recovered from surgery.

In her letter to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, PCRM\’s Kristie Stoick wrote that there are alternatives to using animals for such training purposes,

Alternatives range from shadowing a researcher and the use of simulation and models to videotaped technique demonstrations.

OSU spokesman Earle Holland responded that this is simply not the case, telling The Lantern,

There are no available altenratives for whole organisms. If there were equivalent methods, every researcher would jump at the idea of not using animals. It\’s really ludicrous. It\’s just not true. Researchers would be using them. No one enjoys doing things to animals that are undesirable.

In its letter, OSU wrote that it formed a subcommittee of its Institutional Laboratory Animal Care and Use Committee that investigated the course and considered the possibility of non-animal alternatives,

By properly training new researchers in the current best practices, the potential for poorly performed experiments will be less, thereby allowing refinement and/or reduction of animal numbers. The investigators (and) instructors pride themselves on the high level of care given to the animals and are dedicated to teaching others to deal with their subjects carefully, compassionately, and to respect both animal and human life.

OSU is currently awaiting a response from the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare.

Source:

OSU denies animal cruelty complaints. Susan Kehoe, The Lantern (Ohio State University), February 28, 2005.

Share

Study Suggests It May Be Possible to Transplant Animal Embryonic Stem Cells to Grow New Human Organs

Posted on by
Reply

In a study published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science published the results of their experiments in implanting embyronic stem cells from pigs into mice.

The researchers wanted to establish at what point it was best to implant the embryonic stem cells, so it took stem cells from varying stages of development of the pig embryo, and implanted them in the liver, pancreas and lungs of immune-deficient mice.

The researchers discovered that transplanting embyronic stem cells at too early or too late a stage would not result in new cell growth, but that if transplanted during the correct window of opportunity, the pig stem cells did lead to cell growth in the mice. Dr. Bernard Herring, at the Diabetes Institute for Immunology and Transplantation at the University of Minnesota, told National Geographic News,

What he [lead researcher Yair Reisner] has shown is that there\’s a window of opportunity . If you obtain this tissue at a very defined point in time, then you can see development into islets [portions of the pancreas that secrete hormones like insulin] without risks such as teratoma formation. That\’s clearly something that makes us feel very strongly that this could be a real opportunity, one that can be translated into tangible benefits much faster than other technologies.

In a statement about the research, Reisner said,

Considering the ethical issues associated with human embryonic stem cells or with precursor tissue obtained from human abortions, we believe that the use of embryonic pig tissue could afford a more simple solution to the shortage of organs.

This finding helps explain, in part, why previous efforts to transplant pig embryonic stem cells failed, since previous research had harvested the cells at a much later gestational age than what Reisner\’s study found was optimal.

Of course there are still a number of major hurdles to overcome before such technologies could be used in human beings even if researchers figure out how to make embryonic stem cells produce cells in human beings, including producing pigs free of viruses that could possibly infect human beings and avoiding an immune response to the transplant of such cells.

Sources:

Pig Stem Cells to Be Used to Grow Human Organs? Stefan Lovgren, National Geographic News, February 15, 2005.

New Organs Could Come from Pig Embryos – Study. Reuters, February 14, 2005.

Share

Canadian Researchers Isolate Stem Cells in Brain Tumors

Posted on by
Reply

Canadian scientists recently published the results of their research identifying stem cells in brain tumors that keep the tumor growing. The research was published in the Nov. 18 issue of Nature.

It was already known that breast cancer and leukemia use stem cells to quickly grow and regenerate when they are threatened with destruction, but the finding that brain tumors also utilize stem cells suggests that this is a common mechanism used by cancerous tumors.

Researchers first isolated stem cells from other cells in cancerous human tumors. They did this by extracting cells in the tumors that were producing a protein commonly found on the surface of other stem cells. They then injected 100 of these cells into mice.

Sixteen of the 19 mice injected with these cells developed cancerous brain tumors. This is the first time that researchers have demonstrated that such cells can indeed cause cancer itself.

According to Nature,

Moreover, the cancer stem cells grew into tumors that behaved similarly to those in the patients from which they came, resembling glioblastomas and medulloblastomas, for example. This suggests that mice tumors will be a good way to study the human disease.

Sources:

Stem Cells Feed Brain Tumors. Kristen Philipkoski, Wired, November 17, 2004.

Stem cells home in on brain cancer. Jim Giles, Nature, October 25, 2004.

Share

Animal Liberation Front Claims Responsibility for University of Iowa Attack

Posted on by
1

The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility this week for extensive damage at a University of Iowa animal laboratory on November 14.

In a lengthy e-mail communique, the Animal Liberation Front said,

The Animal Liberation Front is claiming responsibility for the liberation of 401 animals from the University of Iowa in the early hours of November 14th, 2004. All animals on the third floor of the UI psychology department — 88 mice and 313 rats — were removed, examined and treated by a sympathetic veterinarian, and placed in loving homes.

Additionally, two animal labs and three vivisector\’s offices were entered and all contents relating to animal research were destroyed.

These are:

4th Floor – Spence Labs:
Vivisector Ed Wasserman\’s lab entered. Dozens of computers and devices used in experiments on live pigeons were destroyed.

Basement – Spence Labs:
Lab of vivisector Mark Blumburg and others entered. Surgical equipment and small animal stereotaxic devices, as well as \”shock boxes\” and other instruments of torture destroyed.

4th Floor – Seashore Hall
Primate researcher Joshua Rodefer\’s office entered. Computer discs, hard .drives, paperwork and photos showing Rodefer\’s work confining drug addicted primates in small glass boxes removed. The remaining paperwork detailing his monstrous work addicting primates and rats to narcotics was soaked in acid and the computer destroyed.

1st Floor – Seashore Hall
Primate researcher Amy Poremba\’s office entered. Computers destroyed, documents removed, and the remainder soaked in acid.

This raid was carried out to halt the barbaric research of the UI Psychology Department\’s 7 primary animal researchers: Professors Poremba, Freeman, Blumburg, Johnson, Robinson, Rodefer and Wasserman.

This was not thoughtless vandalism but a methodical effort to cripple the UI psychology department\’s animal research. Only equipment in rooms where animals were confined and tortured were targeted. Only computers belonging to or used in the work of vivisectors were destroyed. Only documents of animal researchers waere doused in acid. The acid a deliberately chosen paper dissolving agent. Our goal is total abolition of all animal exploitation. Achieved in the short term by delivering the 401 animals from UI\’s chamber of hell. And in the extended term by shutting down the labs through the erasing of research and equipment used in the barbaric practice of vivisection. The entire raid was a careful and deliberate 5-pronged assault on UI\’s animal research.

Behind the laboratory doors we found drug addicted rats, rats subjected to stress experiments involving loud noise, rats undergoing thirst experiments, unanesthetized rats with protruding surgical staples and oozing wounds, and mice and rats affixed with grotesque head implants. Inside the labs of UI\’s Psych Department, we found a bloody torture chamber showcasing the cruelest whims of our earth\’s sickest minds. Professors Freeman, Poremba, Rodefer, Johnson, Robinson, Blumburg, and Wasserman are monsters. Tonight 401 animals are spared their reach.

Our deepest sadness is reserved for the animals on the 4th Floor kept from our arms, those we were unable to save, including hundreds of mice and rats, pigeons, guinea pigs, and 8 primates.

No animals were released into the wild. All 401 were placed in comfortable, loving homes.

No mention was made in the e-mail about the animals which University of Iowa researcher Mark Blumberg said had ended up being drowned at the laboratory as a result of the attack. There\’s also something a bit fishy about the claim that the activists were able to house all of those animals humanely. As Wayne Stollings points out in this site\’s discussion forum,

If you take this article as a base the minimum (outdated) laboratory requirement for this group would be 21910 sq in for the rats and 1320 sq in for the mice for a total minimum area of 23230 sq in or 161.3 sq ft. or about a 13ft X 13ft room. If you take the UK minimum for rats . . . of 700 cm2 X 18 cm (108.5 sq inches) you have 219100 cm2 or 33960 sq in or 236 sq ft. as a laboratory minimum. The on line cage calculator for pets gives 225 sq in for rats and 36 sq in for the mice for 70425 sq in and 3168 sq in respectively for a total of 73593 sq in or 511 sq ft, the size of a typical apartment. Given, you can stack the cages to halve the square footage needed, you then have to be more careful in the care as the higher cages may get hotter than the lower ones. So how many people do you believe gave up entire rooms in their homes for these rats?

University of Iowa President David Skorton released a statement in response to ALF\’s statement that read,

Today we have learned that anonymous members of the Animal Liberation Front are claiming responsibility for the violent attacks on laboratories and offices in Seashore Hall and Spence Laboratories on our campus on Sunday, Nov. 14. We have shared that message with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and hope that it will help in the effort to solve this criminal case.

Reasonable people do not resort to violence and vandalism and then follow those acts with further threats of violence. Reasonable people can and do disagree about when and how using animals in research is appropriate ethically and/or scientifically. But make no mistake: the message from the perpetrators of this crime, which identifies not only the home addresses of our researchers, but also names family members, can have no other purpose than to intimidate. But we will not be bullied. I have directed our University of Iowa Police Department to work with other law enforcement agencies to take action to help ensure the safety of our faculty, staff, students and their families. Just as importantly, we will take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the laboratories and offices of our colleagues who have dedicated their lives to the discovery of new knowledge.

At a time like this, when one of our core values is being questioned, it must be said that the University of Iowa is committed to the pursuit and discovery of knowledge that contributes to society\’s general welfare.

The knowledge gained from biological research involving animals has come to be valued highly by society because it promotes the health and well-being of humans and animals. The majority of Americans endorse the use of animals to advance medicine and science when there are no non-animal alternatives, and when it is done in an ethical and humane way.

When the use of animals is necessary, the University of Iowa does everything in its power to ensure animal well-being and responsible animal care and use. The University Animal Care and Use Committee is charged with reviewing and approving all University activities related to the care and use of animals in research. In addition, caretakers under the close supervision of veterinary staff provide husbandry to the animals every day.

I call on our entire University to reach out to the members of our community who have been directly attacked, as well as those who have been cut off from their work and forced into temporary quarters by these unconscionable acts.

In closing, I want to strongly reiterate what I said previously: We will
emerge from this incident with an even stronger commitment to continue our scholarly and creative endeavors.

Of course not everyone within academia thinks terrorists are such a bad thing. The Iowa City Press-Citizen quoted University of Texas-El Paso philosophy chair as saying,

They [ALF] want every researcher to know no one is safe from attack. What (researchers) do to animals is not just a threat, it\’s a threat that\’s carried out.

One of the odd upshots of the ALF attack is that it has apparently created a chilling effect among local animal rights activists. A newly formed group, Citizens for Animal Rights of Eastern-Iowa, had been planning protests at the University of Iowa, but now its president, Kira Pfeifle, is not so sure they\’re gong to go ahead with the protests,

I\’m afraid to do it now. I don\’t want my members to get investigated.

Sources:

Animal groups worry about effects. Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2004.

FBI investigates university vandalism. KWWL, November 16, 2004.

ALF says vandals likely its members. Mike McWilliams, Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 18, 2004.

Skorton responds to ALF claim. Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 18, 2004.

Share

New Drug Tackles Gleevec Resistance in Mice — May Help Leukemia Patience

Posted on by
Reply

An article published in the July 16 issue of Science reports on efforts to find a compound that can reduce or eliminate resistance to a treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

According to the National Institutes of Health, CML is \”a cancer of blood cells, characterized by replacement of the bone marrow with malignant, leukemic cells.\” CML is a genetic disease in which chromosome translocation causes an enzyme to signal for the body to produce excessive levels of white blood cells.

CML, however, is one of the few cancers that has an effective treatment. A drug called Gleevec was created specifically to interfere with the enzyme, thus stopping the overproduction of white blood cells.

There\’s just one problem — there are a number of known genetic mutations which cause Gleevec to fail to work. For individuals with those particular mutations, Gleevec will not work.

Which is where a group of researchers from Howard Hughes Medical Institute, UCLA\’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and Bristol-Myers Squibb enter with research on a compound called BMS-354825. BMS-354825 is a compound designed to have the same effect as Gleevec while sidestepping that compound\’s vulnerability to a number of genetic mutations.

In the Science article, HHMI investigator Charles Sawyers reports that the results of mice studies demonstrate that BMS-354825 virtually stopped CML in mice who have genetic mutations similar to those that cause Gleevec resistance in human beings. The researchers also demonstrated that BMS-354825 inhibits the production of diseased bone marrow progenitor cells in cultured human bone marrow cells taken from patients who are resistant to Gleevec.

Clinical research of BMS-354825 is still years away, and any number of problems could prevent the drug from being as effective in human beings as it is in mice. Still it is important to note that Gleevec, which has extended the lives of so many of those afflicted with CML, was the product of animal research as well.

In 1990, researchers at a number of laboratories demonstrated with a mice model of the disease that it was caused by a defective protein, BCR-ABL. In 1996, researchers demonstrated that Gleevec inhibited the growth of cells that expressed BCR-ABL in mice and later that it eradicated CML tumors in nude mice. In addition, pre-clinical toxicology testing in animals indicated the drug was safe enough to proceed with clinical trials.

Source:

New drug shows promise against Gleevec resistance in mice. Press Release, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, July 15, 2004.

Share

Removal of Protein in Mice Prevents Lupus-Like Condition

Posted on by
Reply

A study published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine finds that removing an immune system signaling protein in mice prevented the animals from developing a lupus-like condition.

In this particular animal model of lupus, the mice are exposes to pristane which causes a lupus-like condition in the animals. Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the National Institutes of Health created a genetically modified line of mice that lacked SLAM-associated protein (SAP). Both previous animal and human studies have suggested that SAP plays an important role in lupus.

The modified mice did not develop the lupus-like condition when exposed to pristane, but otherwise their immune system was not seriously compromised. In a press release announcing the publication of the group\’s findings, lead researcher Stanford Peng said,

What\’s perhaps most exciting is that normal immune system functions were still largely intact in the experimental mice that lacked SAP. Other immune system proteins are potential targets for new autoimmune disease treatments, but they all affect large portions of the immune system, making weakened immune function a potential side effect of any new drug. Targeting SAP for treatment may avoid that risk.

The lack of SAP appears to interfere with communication between immune system T and B cells. That finding in itself could provide important new information about the immune system according to Peng,

We know a lot of molecules that are important to the activation of T and B cells, but we have never understood what was important for their interaction. SAP may give us an important first insight into how these interactions occur.

Peng now plans to test how the genetically modified mice fare in other mouse models of lupus.

Source:

Lack of immune system protein prevents lupus-like condition in mice. Press Release, Washington University School of Medicine, July 8, 2004.

Share

Growing Teeth Artificially in Mice and Rats

Posted on by
Reply

In the July issue of the Journal of Dental Research, two teams of researchers reported advances in artificially growing teeth in rats and mice.

In the case of mice, researchers at King\’s College in London took stem cells from mice and got them to form tooth material. They then transplanted the proto-teeth into the mouths of mice where the teeth continued to grow.

Meanwhile, researchers at the Forsyth Institute in Boston started with cells taken from the early tooth structures in rats. They then transplanted the cells into a scaffolding in rats where the cells continued to grow and form tooth material.

Dr. Anthony J. Smith, editor of the Journal of Dental Research, wrote in an editorial accompanying the articles,

The future for regenerative and tissue-engineering applications to dentistry is one with immense potential, capable of bringing quantum advances in treatment for our patients. . . . These observations offer very exciting opportunities for replacement of natural teeth damaged through disease or trauma . . .

Source:

Research focuses on growing new teeth. Merritt McKinney, Reuters, July 5, 2004.

Share

European Patent Office Upholds Mouse Patent

Posted on by
Reply

In July the European Patent Office upheld Harvard University\’s patent on a genetically altered mouse. The EPO did modify the patent so that it applied only to \”transgenic mice\” rather than the original language of the patent which covered \”transgenic rodents.\”

In a press release announcing the decision, the EPO said,

As a result of an appeal decision, European patent EP 0 169 672, better-known as the “Oncomouse” patent, has been further restricted.

In 1985 the President and Fellows of Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, applied for a European patent entitled “Method for producing transgenic animals”. The patent was granted in May 1992 in respect of “non-human mammalian animals” for eleven member states of the European Patent Organisation.

Seventeen oppositions against the patent, filed in 1992 and 1993, led to the decision in November 2001 to maintain the patent in respect of “transgenic rodents”. Several appeals against that decision lodged in March 2003 were heard by the Technical Board of Appeal which decided to restrict the patent further to “transgenic mice”.

Greenpeace and a number of other organizations had filed the challenges, seeking to have the EPO overturn the validity of patenting animals altogether. Jan Creamer of Great Britain\’s National Anti-Vivisection Society said of the ruling,

. . .patenting life should be wrong. You\’re not producing a product that will make a difference.

Harvard University\’s Philip Leder, who was one of the co-creator\’s of the Oncomouse, disagreed, telling The Scientist,

This is the organism that has the greatest utility. I\’m pleased to have the matter resolved.

Dupont, which holds the licensing rights to the mouse, has issued 170 licenses for academic research on the mouse. It charges licensing fees for commercial uses of the patented mouse.

Source:

EPO restricts OncoMouse patent. Paula Park, The Scientist, July 26, 2004.

Technical Board of Appeal restricts “Oncomouse” patent. Press Release, European Patent Office, July 6, 2004.

Europe upholds Harvard Mouse patent. Associated Press, July 7, 2004.

Share