More Research Chimpanzees to Be Retired

Paws Up!
To the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for sparing over 400 chimpanzees from further medical research.

The National Institutes of Health are permanently retiring almost all of their 451 research chimpanzees to sanctuaries.

According to a news story , “Almost all of the 451 chimpanzees owned or supported by the National Institutes of Health that are now at research facilities should be permanently retired from research and moved to sanctuaries, with planning for the move to start immediately….”

This is the second time in recent weeks that NIH has announced the retirement of research chimpanzees to sanctuaries.

Take Action: Write a note to the director of the National Institutes of Health thanking his agency for recognizing the need to spare these chimpanzees further time in medical laboratories.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

Air Canada to Stop Shipping Primates to Laboratories

Paws Up!
To the Canadian Transportation Agency for approving a decision that gives Air Canada the right to refuse to ship primates to research laboratories and to Air Canada for heralding the decision.

Air Canada was one of the last major airlines to transport primates for research purposes.

According to a news story, “Air Canada, one of the few major airline companies that still transports primates for research, was given the go-ahead to stop moving macaques and other non-human primates bound for research labs, after a decision today from its regulatory agency, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). The airline applauded the decision and said that, effective December 22, it will require all non-human primate shippers to sign a declaration that the animals are not intended for research or experiments.”

Instead of using animals, many scientists use human and animal cell, tissue, and organ cultures; chemical systems; blood products; sophisticated mathematical and computer simulations; and plastic organ models. Alternatives, such as Eytex Skintex® and epiPack, take the place of harmful tests on animals. Advances in tissue engineering and robotics, bioinformatics, genomics, proteomics, metabonomics, systems biology, and in silico (computer-based) systems offer alternatives to animal use. Animal testing can take months if not years at expenses ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to multi-millions of dollars, whereas computer modeling can take place instantaneously and at far lower costs, especially the cost to the animals and their suffering. In vitro tests involving human cell and tissue cultures are faster, cheaper, and more reliable than animal tests in many instances.

Take Action: Send a note of thanks to both the Canadian Transportation Agency and Air Canada for this landmark decision.

Geoff Hare, Chair and CEO
Canadian Transportation Agency
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N9
Canada

Calin Rovinescu, President & CEO
Air Canada
Air Canada Centre
7373 Côte-Vertu Blvd. West
Saint-Laurent, Quebec H4S 1Z3
Canada

Protect ALL Animals under the Animal Welfare Act

Mice, rats, and birds make up approximately 95 percent of all animals used in research.

The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law that regulates the treatment of animals in a variety of settings from research laboratories to zoos and circuses. In 2002, the Act was amended to remove from protection several species of animals used in laboratory experiments, including rats, mice, and birds. These species make up approximately 95 percent of all animals used in biomedical research laboratories. Recently, HR 6693 was introduced to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide for the protection of birds, rats, and mice, and for other purposes.

Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the protection of all animals used in biomedical research.

Research Chimpanzees Will Be Retired

Paws Up!
To the National Institutes of Health for retiring 106 research chimpanzees to a sanctuary.

According to a news story , “The National Institutes of Health has announced that they will move all 106 of the chimpanzees at the New Iberia Research Center to Chimp Haven, a federal chimpanzee sanctuary in Keithville, La.”

NHES hopes that in the future, all research animals will be retired to sanctuaries.

The move will take place beginning in the new year and continue for several months as the animals will be moved in small groups.

Scientists the world over have learned that tests on one species do not determine how another species will be affected. Today, with advances in tissue engineering and robotics, bioinformatics, genomics, proteomics, metabonomics, systems biology, and in silico (computer-based) system, we have numerous alternatives to animal use. Animal testing can take months if not years at expenses ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to multi-millions of dollars, whereas computer modeling can take place instantaneously and at far lower costs, especially the cost to the animals and their suffering. In vitro tests involving human cell and tissue cultures are faster, cheaper, and more reliable than animal tests in many instances.

Take Action: Write a note to the director of the National Institutes of Health thanking his agency for recognizing the need to spare these chimpanzees further time in a medical laboratory. Urge him and his colleagues to continue to retire laboratory animals while they increase the use of non-animal testing methods.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

New Zealand Dogs and Rats in Danger

Animal testing is no party for the animal.

According to a news story, “Dogs [and rats] will [be] forced to take lethal doses of party pills under a controversial scientific testing method being considered by the Government to determine whether the designer drugs are safe for humans.”

Through years of drug testing on animals, scientists the world over have learned that tests on one species do not determine how the tested product will affect another species. Each species reacts differently to substances and the reactions may be different for different ages and sexes of the animals tested. The test subjects’ nutritional status may also affect test results. Stress affects the outcomes of these tests, and most of the test subjects are under routine stress both from the unnatural environment in which they live and the way they are handled in the laboratory, not to mention the stress brought about by the actual tests themselves. In addition, substances once proven safe for human use following animal testing include asbestos, cigarette smoke, and DDT. Eventually, these substances were proven harmful to humans. Other examples of animal testing that did not detect harm to humans include tests in rats and rabbits that failed to identify the developmentally toxic effects of PCBs, ACE-inhibiting drugs, tetracycline, diethylstilboestrol (DES), and other drugs.

Advances in tissue engineering and robotics, bioinformatics, genomics, proteomics, metabonomics, systems biology, and in silico (computer-based) systems offer alternatives to animal use. Animal testing can take months if not years at expenses ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to multi-millions of dollars, whereas computer modeling can take place instantaneously and at far lower costs, especially the cost to the animals and their suffering. In vitro tests involving human cell and tissue cultures are faster, cheaper, and more reliable than animal tests in many instances. Many companies are changing to nonanimal alternatives.

For these reasons, testing novel recreational drugs called party pills on dogs and rats may not prove they are safe for human beings. Using non-animal testing methods may prove far more successful without the inordinate pain and suffering and loss of life current methods would incur.

Please write New Zealand’s prime minister and minister of health urging them to reconsider testing these drugs on animals. The time has come when we can no longer subject innocent animals to the pain and suffering associated with biomedical research and testing, which is often unnecessary and costly when compared with other non-animal techniques.

Right Honorable John Key
Prime Minister
Honorable Tony Ryall
Minister of Health
Care Distribution Services
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160
New Zealand

When you think about it…companion animals forced to live in extreme conditions need loving homes.

Beagles should not be used for product testing, but you can help by giving one a home.

Think about beagles used in laboratory experiments, or greyhounds forced to race. Puppy mill dogs come to mind also. All of these animals and many more live under extreme and often abusive, painful, and fear inducing circumstances. How do they fair when they are removed from those situations and placed in loving, permanent homes?

Some of the animals who are liberated from laboratories, race tracks, or mills need time to be rehabilitated before they are placed in forever homes. Rescue groups and sanctuaries around the country work tirelessly to help these animals overcome their past experiences. Some animals may need extended stays in foster care as they become accustomed to life outside their previous confinement. Others are ready within just a few short weeks to be adopted.

The overriding consideration on the part of anyone considering adopting an animal who has lived under extreme circumstances is patience. Patience as the animal learns what a home is, what stairs are, how grass feels under his or her paws. Patience when the animal becomes agitated at what we consider the normal sights, sounds, and smells of our home and neighborhood. Patience at what we might consider aberrant behavior, such excessive licking, salivating, or circling. Over time, many of these animals begin to relax in their new environment; begin to trust that they will not be hurt; begin to live a normal life.

Additional animals who may need rehoming after their experiences, especially in laboratories, are birds, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats, and mice. Of course, this begs the question, should we be testing on animals?

When you think about it…regardless of where a companion animal started his or her life, a loving and safe home is best.

Scottish Scientists Seek Breakthrough in Medical Testing

Paws Up!
To scientists at the Heriot-Watt University for their work in creating an artificial human liver for drug testing.

According to a news article, “Scientists at Heriot-Watt University are working towards creating the world’s first artificial human livers for drug testing to drastically cut the number of live animals used and get life-saving medicines into the clinic faster.”

Rats, rabbits, dogs, and other animals suffer when used for testing.

By advancing work such as being done at the Heriot-Watt University, fewer laboratory animals will find themselves being used as test subjects. In addition, “If successful, this technology will enable drug developers to test using human organ models at a much earlier stage. It should highlight drug failures well before they reach the clinic and help target resources towards the most promising new drug candidates.”

Take Action: Send a note of thanks to the university expressing your appreciation of the work the university’s scientists are doing to improve human health while at the same time reducing pain and suffering on other animals.

Professor Steve Chapman
Principal and Vice-Chancellor
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, Scotland
UK EH14 4AS
enquiries@hw.ac.uk

Portugal Poised to Save Lab Animals

Paws Up!
To a team of researchers at the Centre for Neuroscience and the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Portugal, who are working to reduce the need for animals in cosmetic skin tests.

According to a news story, “A team of researchers…developed a groundbreaking test for the detection of chemical allergen cutaneous (skin sensitization assessment), which will significantly reduce testing animals in the cosmetics industry.”

New technology could make the testing of makeup and other cosmetics safe and humane.

“The test, called Sensitiser Predictor, has already been awarded several national and international awards, apart from ‘giving a response to the legislative imposition of the European Union to abolish the use of animals in product testing of the cosmetics industry, it is a much faster method than those in use today which resort to animal testing (mice), it is more economical and capable of being used on a large scale’, explains the researcher, Teresa Cruz Rosete.”

According to Dr. John Pippin, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “It’s especially inhumane and especially indefensible [to use live animals] when there are alternatives in hand which not only would spare the animals the trauma of going through this but also would provide a better educational experience.” NHES agrees.

Take Action: Write a note of thanks to the two organizations that are responsible for this breakthrough.

Catarina Resende de Oliveira, President
Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology
Department of Zoology
University of Coimbra
3004-517 Coimbra – Portugal
E-mail: info@cnc.uc.pt

Dr. Francisco Veiga, Director
University of Coimbra
Faculty of Pharmacy
Pólo III – Pólo das Ciências da Saúde
Azinhaga de Santa Comba
3000-354 Coimbra – Portugal
E-mail: ffuc@ff.uc.pt

Carriers Commit to Compassion

The more these carrier companies realize the harm that animals are subjected to during shipment, the more likely they are to change.

Paws Up!

To FedEx and UPS for their decisions to discontinue shipping specific species of animals destined for research laboratories.

According to a news article, FedEx and UPS have joined other carriers, including airlines, in declining to ship mammals and nonhuman primates destined for research laboratories. “For researchers who rely on lab animals shipped from distant sources, and for the companies that breed them, the options are narrowing again.”

Live animal transports are often thought of when we consider farmed animals being shipped to slaughter houses. But literally billions of animals are shipped around the world for any number of purposes—to appear in shows and other forms of entertainment, to be sent to zoos and aquariums, to wind up in research laboratories, and, of course, to be slaughtered.

The more the various transport companies realize the harm they are involved in by sending these animals to, in many cases, certain death, and in most other cases lives made miserable by their incarceration in cages, the more these companies will opt out of the live animal transport business and opt into the business of being compassionate carriers.

Take Action: Send a note of thanks to both FedEx and UPS for their decisions to opt out of shipping specific species of animals destined for research laboratories. Encourage them to opt out of shipping any live animals who will wind up in biomedical research laboratories.

Frederick W. Smith
Chairman, President, and CEO
FedEx Corporation
942 South Shady Grove Road
Memphis, TN 38119

D. Scott Davis, CEO
United Parcel Services, Inc.
55 Glenlake Parkway Northeast
Atlanta, GA 30328

 

Students Get a Choice

With all the teaching tools of modern technology, classroom dissection is not only cruel but unnecessary and outdated.

Paws Up!

To the District of Columbia for allowing students to opt out of classroom dissection on animals.

The Office of the Superintendent of Education issued a new policy allowing students to opt out of classroom dissection on animals.

According to the policy, “Although schools and teachers are free to use dissection as a part of their lesson plan, students who do not wish to dissect an animal for moral or religious reasons can be provided with an alternative lesson that accomplishes the same level of mastery. Alternatives to animal dissection may include web-based dissection, plastic or clay model dissection, videos/films, books, transparencies and any other activities crafted by educators that address the same standard(s).”

While no one will deny that science classes are important for our students, do our animals have to attend school, too? Science classes that dissect or otherwise use animals may be teaching important critical problem solving skills; yet, at the same time, they may be inadvertently teaching a lack of reverence and respect for all life. Because they dissect animals in school laboratories, some students may be learning that nonhuman animals are nothing more than tools to advance their knowledge. Is that what we want our science classes teaching our children?

Take Action: Residents of the District of Columbia, send a thank-you note to the superintendent supporting her decision to issue this policy. Residents of other jurisdictions, if your state does not have a student-choice policy, please contact your state superintendent of education and urge your state follow Washington, DC, in issuing one.

Hosanna Mahaley Jones
State Superintendent
Office of the State Superintendent
of the District of Columbia
810 1st Street NE, 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20002