World Day for Laboratory Animals 24 April 2008

Institutional intimidation, and the suppression of scientific inquiry

The formidable forces that have conspired to present the animal research debate to an unsuspecting public as ‘scientists versus terrorists’ have very nearly succeeded in their mission. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of protest against animal experiments is lawful and peaceful. However, animal researchers know full well that as long as the debate is seen in the public eye as a purely ethical one, they can rest assured that their work and their livelihood will continue to enjoy unwavering government support and public funding.

Potentially the biggest challenge to animal research is ironically, not from without, but from within their own establishment. If it ‘takes a thief to catch a thief’, then it takes a scientist to catch out another scientist. This thesis is supported by testimonies from researchers who have been the victims of bullying or other tactics of intimidation by their peers or by their institutions (see examples below). Further evidence has unwittingly been provided by the Research Defence Society (RDS), an industry funded lobby group whose raison d’etre is to actively defend and promote animal research.

In its most recent publication (News, spring 2008) the results of their recent survey are revealed, in which an obviously irate respondent asked the RDS to ‘stop pretending that all research is absolutely vital and productive’. Realising they had overstepped the mark, the RDS quickly instituted damage control in the next line of the article by stating that, ‘We agree that a more sophisticated debate about both the advantages and limitations of animal models is overdue’.

This then raises the immediate question, ‘how should such a debate be encouraged?’ Once again, the RDS kindly provide the answer, by proclaiming their ‘commitment to open, honest and transparent dialogue’ and accepting that ‘receiving robust, critical feedback and engaging in discussion is essential to scientific endeavour, and to progressing the ethical debate about animal research’.

How does all of this prose and commendable intention translate into realpolitik?

Consider the following actual case histories and judge for yourselves. Some are the result of misdirected, but telling emails, whilst others are overtly sinister.

1. Simon Festing, a non-practising medical doctor and executive director of the RDS, called on the chief editor of a journal to retract a pair of articles he (Festing) felt were motivated by antivivisection philosophy, not science, stating, "We would like to state our deep concern that your journal is becoming a vehicle for extreme antivivisection propaganda”. The two papers in question were both published in 2005 and authored by Jarrod Bailey PhD. Both papers contained over 200 references between them. Festing’s concern was that the peer review process was biased because of the personal leanings of some of the individuals on the review panel. But what does that say about the other 99 per cent of review panels, whose members have personal leanings in exactly the opposite direction? Festing clearly wants to have his cake and eat it... and subsequently tried to discredit Bailey by contacting several members of staff at his university, including previous colleagues and even the Pro Vice Chancellor, in an attempt to have Bailey sacked.

2. Most animal researchers refuse to participate in public debates, ostensibly on the grounds that they feel their personal safety will be threatened. Fair enough, you might think, but why do they also refuse to debate a fellow scientist, when the venue suggested to them is the safe haven of their own university lecture hall and the audience is composed solely of their own students? What do these researchers have to fear? The answer is found in the following email message, inadvertently sent to the wrong recipient: In the email, which was seen by The Argus, Brighton university registrar Christine Moon wrote: "We have a policy which permits relative freedom of expression, debate etc but I agree with you that we don't really want this. Especially as there are sensitivities in Brighton." It ended: "I'll think about a polite way to decline!"

3. The Oxford Student paper was shown a confidential email written by independent analyst and neurologist Dr Malcolm Macleod. The email was intended for a colleague, but was sent to animal rights group Animal Aid inadvertently, which had contacted Macleod. The email asked MacLeod to analyse the application of monkey experiments conducted by Professor Tipu Aziz. Aziz, an outspoken advocate of animal testing (including cosmetic testing on animals), helped develop Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and his team used primates to test the procedure. It is often used as an example of the need for animal research. In the leaked email, MacLeod revealed that he thought DBS was an "area of weakness often trumpeted as a success, but which in reality is probably a failure". He appealed to his colleague for "advice, please", accusing Animal Aid of having "stirred things up before". He then proposed to either "avoid, play a straight bat or price [himself] out of the market". MacLeod, while admitting that the email was sent in error, has stood by his decision not to conduct the review. He said, "I was not comfortable taking part in a study which was motivated by a desire to undermine Aziz." Although he was unwilling to undertake the study, MacLeod revealed that he believed Aziz's research not to be the miracle cure it has been described as, stating, "My own experience shows that, except in a small minority of cases, there is uncertainty in the evidence for the clinical efficacy of DBS."

4. An animal researcher, who was a recipient of an Animal Aid Mad Science Award, failed in his attempt to get Animal Aid’s scientific consultant, Andre Menache, struck off the register of veterinary surgeons. The complaint against Menache came from Dr Paul Hocking, who received his Mad Science Award in 2005 for causing deliberate and severe joint pain in chickens while testing anti-inflammatory drugs. He asked for Menache to be struck off, claiming that he had made ‘derogatory’ and ‘intimidating’ comments about Hocking’s research.

Animal Aid’s legal team argued that the criticism of the research - which had been published in a veterinary journal - while robust, was not threatening or personally directed at Hocking. This contrasted with Hocking’s letter of complaint to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which accused Menache - an experienced veterinary surgeon, a holder of scientific degrees from two leading universities, and an author of articles published in numerous scientific journals - of having ‘no understanding of the basis for sound scientific research’.

5. Attempts to stifle genuine academic freedom are not just a UK phenomenon. At the prestigious University of Davis in California, Professor Nedim Buyukmihci was the only faculty member to challenge the established practice of using dogs and cats purchased from local shelters for research and practice surgery. Beginning in the early 1980s, Buyukmihci began testifying at public hearings that animal shelters should stop selling adoptable animals to UC Davis's vet school. His colleagues shunned and ostracized him. As the debate escalated and Buyukmihci refused to back down, the administration tried to fire him. He further angered administrators by offering his students the option of practicing on dead animals or animals that really needed the surgery. "Taking that position was one of the most harmful situations in terms of my career," Buyukmihci said. However, over the past two decades many US veterinary schools have adopted alternatives to harming and killing animals for surgery training and other veterinary procedures.

6. Twenty five years ago in the US, if a university student refused to participate in an animal dissection, it could have meant failing a subject as a punishment. Today, the situation is very different. Out of a total of 154 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the US, 146 have completely stopped using animals in the teaching curriculum. This trend is also apparent in advanced medical education, where live animals have been replaced in more than 90 per cent of programs with the TraumaMan simulator and human cadavers for training physicians and other medical personnel in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Although it is not front page news, this trend is a tacit admission by the governing bodies of the finest teaching establishments in the US that medical graduates who are not exposed to animal experiments are at least as competent as those who still choose to study animals. In fact, scientific studies have since affirmed the superior or equivalent efficacy of non animal methods in imparting knowledge or surgical skills.

What does all this say about genuine freedom of expression and academic freedom, and what does this have to do with animal research? To begin with, we now live in a culture that refers to relative freedom of expression, which sounds rather Orwellian. Academic freedom would appear to apply only to those who conduct animal experiments, judging by the ease with which project licences for basic research are granted by the UK Home Office for repetitive animal studies, irrespective of their contribution to human or veterinary medicine. On the rare occasion where a scientist or researcher is courageous enough to speak out against animal experiments, that person is immediately repressed by their peers, their academic establishment, or groups such as the RDS.

This behaviour illustrates in no uncertain terms what it is that the animal research establishment fears most – dissidents within its ranks – which is why they will use intimidatory tactics to prevent any open scientific debate on the subject. So who are the real terrorists?

[‘Terrorism: a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals’]