1.
Endotracheal Intubation
2. Monetary Aspect Of Vivisection
3. Peta
4. Killing Them Softly
5. Modern Dark Ages
6. Secrets of the animal organ lab
7. To be added
8. To be added
9. To be added
1.
Endotracheal Intubation
1. Original Message
From: Iuree @islandnet.com
From: Megan Hartman, People For The Ethical
Treatment of Animals
Sent: 7-25-03
1. The Naval Medical Center, San Diego (NMCSD),
continues to use cats in endotracheal intubation (ETI) training
exercises despite having been provided with detailed information
on the availability of humane and more effective non-animal
teaching methods.
Even when properly anesthetized for veterinary care,
animals may suffer tracheolaryngeal bruising, bleeding,and
scarring, severe pain, and a lingering cough.Improperly
anesthetized animals can and often do suffer at the hands of
inexperienced students during intubation training. In some cases,
animals die from being improperly intubated. Often, animals are
repeatedly intubated in a single session by more than one student
(five students per cat at the NMCSD), increasing the chance of
injury.
Increasingly, medical professionals object to the use ofanimals in
medical training for financial, ethical, and pedagogical reasons.
Cost-effective, anatomically accurate manikins are readily
available for intubation training, as well as for instruction in
many other emergency procedures. These models provide an exact
replica of human anatomy and allow students unlimited opportunity
to practice intubation. An Annals of Emergency Medicine study
detailed the high ETI success rates achieved by paramedics trained
on manikins exclusively, which was 86 percent. The authors
conclude, “Our study supports the concept of using oniy manikins
and didactic sessions for teachingthe skills of ETI to
paramedics.”
Given the costs associated with an animal care and use program,
the use of cats for teaching ETI is expensive and wasteful. An
intubation simulator, such as “Baby Airin” by MPL, Inc., costs
only $362 and lasts for many years. Manikins raise no
issues regarding animal use or mistreatment, and
trainees are uniformly comfortable working with them.
Please ask the NMCSD to end its use of animals in ETI training
exercises:
James A. , lohnson
Rear Admiral, Medical Corps. USN Coin inandcr, Naval Medical
Center. San Diego
—‘480() Rob Wnkon Dr.
S—rn l)ncco (A Q2ISJ
61 9—S ——64(n()
2.
Cost Of Vivisection
Question
Your
literature indicates that the "Federal government is
currently spending over $23,512,631 per day on animals
experiments." I would be grateful for the following answers.
1. The source of this datum.
2. The date.
Answer
The number you mentioned is an estimate. We did an audit of the
NIH website (so obviously this number only deals with NIH
experimentation). We found the number of projects that involve
animals, allowing for overlap by purposely not counting certain
species. We then multiplied the number of projects by an average
grant amount from the NIH website. Then, we divided that
approximation by the number of days in a year. This was based on
fiscal 2001 data.
3• Injecting particles of glass into dogs’ hearts to induce
heart failure.
• Giving dogs a mini-heart attack every two minutes for eight
hours a day for three weeks.
• Shocking dogs’ hearts for 30 minutes straight in order to
cause blood clots.
• Giving newborn pigs brain injuries by using pendulums to
strike metal shafts inserted into their skulls.
• Implanting electrodes into 2-week-old lambs’ hearts and
heads, then keeping them in cages so small that they can’t turn
around or move forward or backward.
4.COLUMN ONE Killing Them Softly
Voluntary reforms in the livestock
industry have changed the way animals are slaughtered. Critics say
needless suffering still exists.
Times Headlines
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff
Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Chained upside
down by their hooves, blood spurting from the jugular, the hogs
were supposed to be dead, or at least unconscious, as the conveyor
belt rolled them along to be gutted.
JBIt
was about forty years ago that I first witnessed hogs suspended
head side down with blood gushing from slit throats, dead or
unconscious, conveyed to the gutters. And then one of the supposed
dead would attempt to change direction, but gravity prevailed.
Now and then, though, one would
rear back and strain to right itself.
JB The dead or unconcious and
kicking would be cut up for human Startherconsumption in minutes.
Well how else can you run a slaughterhouse?
No one made much fuss. The animals
would be sliced for sausage within * minutes. If a few left the
kill floor still aware, still kicking -- well, that was how
slaughterhouses operated.
Then Jim Stonehocker heard a speech
that changed the way his hogs die. A competitor in the meat
business was talking about stewardship -- about how to make good
sausage, and good profits, while treating animals with dignity, so
they die without terror and as much as possible, without pain.
"I'm always going to have meat
at the center of my plate. I'm always going to wear a leather
belt. But we can treat these animals with more respect," said
Stonehocker, who runs the sausage company Odom's Tennessee Pride.
"In my mind, 'humane slaughter' was an oxymoron. I've had my
awakening."
So have many of his colleagues
across the food industry.
A revolution in livestock handling
in recent years has improved the lives and the deaths of millions
of animals -- most dramatically on the kill floors that handle
cows and pigs, but also in farmyards, hen houses and even
transport trucks.
The reforms are voluntary. Yet they
have gained the momentum to become standard in much of the food
industry. Many restaurants will not buy burger patties from a
slaughterhouse that sends its cows to the kill floor bellowing in
fear. Many supermarkets will not buy eggs from a farmer who cuts
off hens' beaks to stop them from pecking one another.
"Customers used to tell us
what they wanted to eat. Now they tell us how they want it
produced," said Ken Klippen, a vice president of United Egg
Producers, a trade group based in Alpharetta, Ga.
Animal-welfare activists caution
that many cows, pigs and especially chickens still suffer
mightily, trapped in a system that treats animals as commodities
to be pushed through an assembly line from birth to death and onto
the dinner plate as cheaply as possible. They decry such practices
as docking pigs' tails, burning the horns off male cattle and
cramming hens into bare wire cages as barbaric and unnecessary.
Still, they sense the tide is turning.
For the first time since
industrialized farming took hold, they say, animals are * being
viewed as living creatures with wants and needs and fears.
One sign of how attitudes have
shifted: Hundreds of farmers, truck drivers and slaughterhouse
managers recently attended workshops on such topics as
"Inside the Mind of a Steer," "Humane Turkey
Production" and "Creating an Animal Welfare Mind-Set in
Your Company," in a seminar sponsored by the American Meat
Institute.
Another indication: The U.S.
Department of Agriculture plans to hire 50 new inspectors this
year to monitor animal welfare in slaughterhouses. Politicians too
are taking up the issue. In California, the Assembly Agricultural
Committee will vote this week on a bill that would outlaw the
common practice of confining pregnant sows and veal calves in
crates so cramped that they cannot turn around. A similar bill is
pending in New Jersey. Last fall, voters in Florida approved a
ballot measure outlawing sow gestation crates, which farmers use
to shield pigs from the stress of competing with other animals for
food and space.
"There's been a real change in
consciousness," said Bruce Friedrich, a leading organizer
with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
"A phenomenal change,"
agreed Joy Mench, director of the Center for Animal Welfare at UC
Davis.
In part, the reforms are driven by
self-interest. When an animal is bruised, its flesh turns mushy
and must be discarded. Even
stress, especially right before slaughter, can affect the quality
of meat.
As Jim Reeves, a cattle breeder in
Texas, put it: "A
happy animal is going to make a better eating experience for the
public."
So from farm to kill floor,
livestock handlers are increasingly focused on keeping their
charges happy. Premium Standard Farms, a major pork producer based
in Kansas City, Mo., has even begun training its workers to greet
each pig with a gentle pat rather than shoving them out of the way
in the rush to complete daily chores.
"The conditions still may not
be ideal. But [the new attitude toward livestock] will improve the
lives of many, many animals," said Adele Douglass, a farm
expert at the American Humane Assn.
The changing approach to animal
welfare has its roots in a 1996 federal study. The USDA hired
Temple Grandin, an animal scientist at Colorado State University,
to inspect two dozen meat-processing plants across the nation. She
announced her visits in advance. Still, she found suffering that
appalled her.
By federal law, animals are
supposed to be knocked unconscious so they feel no pain before
slaughter. With cows and pigs, that's often accomplished by
shooting a retractable bolt into their brains.
At two-thirds of the beef plants
she inspected, Grandin noted that the bolt guns were not working
or not being used properly. Many cows suffered repeated shots to
the brain -- or remained conscious as they moved down the line to
be dismembered. Grandin found similar failings in one-third of the
pork plants.
Even before they got to the kill
floor, animals were in pain, stumbling on slippery floors and
piling on one another in fear. One plant had to prod 80% of its
hogs with a mild shock to get them walking.
Grandin realized that it was not
enough to tell workers to treat animals humanely. They would need
quantifiable performance standards: Don't prod more than 25% of
pigs. Don't let more than 1% of cattle slip. She set those
benchmarks, based on the highest standards a handler could be
expected to meet day in and day out. Then she trained workers to
measure up.
Grandin, who is autistic, says she
perceives the world as a series of images, much as a farm animal
would. Crawling through chutes on her knees, she has an uncanny
ability to pick out the mundane sights and sounds that can stress
an animal into hysteria -- the glint of a metal chain, the hiss of
an air vent, the motion of a worker's hard hat bobbing in and out
of view.
To their amazement, producers found
that removing those distractions calmed the livestock. The animals
no longer balked, so their handlers didn't need to swat them on
the rump or zap them with an electric prod to get them moving.
Grandin also urged the installation of non-slip flooring so
livestock wouldn't trip.
After meat producers carried out
her suggestions, Grandin used audits to show them how much they
improved.
Her objective, numbers-based
analysis caught fire in an industry long wary of even discussing
animal welfare.
"We were always concerned that
there could be a lot of subjectivity about *what is humane,"
said Janet Riley, senior vice president of the American Meat
Institute. "But when she said, 'Make sure that less than X
percent of animals slip and fall,' that was real clear. It was a
turning point."
McDonald's hired Grandin in 1997 to
work with its suppliers. Two years later, the fast-food giant
began surprise inspections of its slaughterhouse suppliers -- and
cut ties with those that flunked.
About that time, PETA launched an
intense campaign against McDonald's. Protesters outside Golden
Arches around the world handed out "Unhappy Meals" with
figurines of bloody, butchered animals. McDonald's insists that
PETA's antics were "not a factor." But in the fall of
2000, the chain announced standards for humane treatment of every
animal that produced its nuggets, burgers, eggs and bacon.
PETA followed up with protests
against Burger King, Wendy's and Safeway markets. One after
another, the corporations set tough standards for animal welfare
-- and demanded their suppliers comply.
Grandin was able to measure the
results through nationwide audits she conducts for her private
consulting business. In 1996, just 36% of the beef plants she
inspected effectively knocked their cattle insensible before
slaughter. Last year, 94% got it right. And the changes go beyond
the kill floor.
At the sausage plant here, for
instance, Paul Whitfield now waves a blue flag and clucks "yee-ahhh,
yee, yee!" to get the pigs walking. He no longer uses an
electric prod. "We sure don't have to be as aggressive as
before," he said. "It's a lot less stressful, on us and
on them."
Truck drivers too are adopting
gentler techniques; across the nation, thousands have taken
workshops to certify as humane handlers. They learn how far a
pig's peripheral vision extends, so they know where to stand when
they're trying to get an animal moving. They are taught to avoid
slamming the brakes, because the jolt can knock cattle down. Some
livestock haulers have even started to provide climate control,
misting animals with a cooling spray in hot weather.
Animal-rights activists applaud
such changes. PETA's Friedrich goes as far as to pronounce, with
pride, that "we've achieved societal sea change" in the
treatment of livestock.
Then he rushes to add: "The
level of abuse is still such that it would horrify any
compassionate person."
The egg industry, for instance,
lets producers put an "animal care certified" logo on
packages if they give their hens more cage space, moving from the
standard 48 square inches per bird to 67. Industry backers say
that's all the space a hen needs. But activists point out that 67
square inches is smaller than a piece of paper.
"Those hens can never flap
their wings, never touch earth, never see sunlight," said
Paul Shapiro, who runs an animal-rights group called Compassion
Over Killing. "For the industry to treat this as the end of
the debate is irresponsible."
PETA is especially concerned about
poultry packing plants, which have received less scrutiny than
beef and pork processors though more than 90% of animals killed
for food in this country are chickens.
The standard method for
slaughtering chickens -- at a rate of 11,000 birds an hour --
involves shackling them upside down from a conveyor belt that runs
along the ceiling. Their heads are dunked in a shallow "stun
bath" to anesthetize them. A revolving blade then slices
their necks.
Chicken processors defend their
methods as humane, arguing that it's a lot less traumatic than the
old-fashioned farm-boy method of wringing the bird's neck.
But activists contend that many
chickens are not properly stunned or sliced, and end up boiling to
death in the scalding tank meant to loosen their feathers.
"I've stood there on the kill floor and seen how they look at
you. They try everything in their power to get away. They may not
be able to read and write, but they know what's going on,
"said Virgil Butler, a former employee of a chicken plant in
Arkansas who is working with PETA on a "Kentucky Fried
Cruelty" campaign, featuring a demonic Colonel Sanders
dripping blood.
KFC rejects all allegations of
cruelty. The fast-food chain says it sends inspectors on
unannounced tours of its suppliers to be sure the birds are
"slaughtered quickly and without pain."
KFC does not send inspectors to
poultry farms.
In general, farms, ranches and
feedlots have been slower than slaughterhouses to adopt
humane-handling practices. The delay can be attributed in part to
scale: It's much easier to implement reform in 800 meat-packing
plants than on 900,000 cattle ranches. "We have ranches in
every state, in every climate, with [dozens] of different breeds.
It's a real challenge to put together guidelines that are
appropriate for all that diversity," said Gary Weber,
executive director of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn.
There have been a few notable
reforms. McDonald's, Burger King and other chains have forced
their egg suppliers to end the practice of starving the hens for
several days each year to boost egg production. The restaurants
are trying to prod pork producers to stop confining pregnant sows
in cramped "gestation crates" to eliminate the stress of
competing for food. They're pushing for an end to the tradition of
branding cattle with hot irons.
But the powerful groups that
represent farmers and ranchers have deflected some of the pressure
by insisting that any reform be based on science, not sentiment.
They argue there's no scientific
proof that chickens need sunlight or that pregnant sows need space
to move. They complain that activists are inappropriately treating
livestock like pets when they call for poultry to be given toys to
ease the boredom of confinement, or calves to be given painkillers
before castration.
And they point out that many
reforms have unintended consequences. Activists call for an end to
the practice of cutting off pigs' tails. Farmers respond that the
animals will then suffer painful bites on the tail from other
pigs. Activists demand a layer of dirt in stalls so pigs can root.
Farmers respond that dirt can harbor dangerous parasites, while a
concrete floor does not.
"We fully recognize that we
have an ethical obligation to the animals we raise and slaughter,
but we have to be wary of rushing to judgment about what is or not
humane," said Charlie Arnot, a vice president for pork
producer Premium Standard Farms. "Striking a balance between
what can be supported by science and what the activists want will
be a real challenge."
Back at the slaughterhouse in
Little Rock, plant manager Jim McConnell says he may have found
that balance.
Just a few years ago, he said, he
thought nothing of letting hogs sit for hours in the trailers that
transported them, stifling in summer, freezing in winter. Those
that arrived too lame to walk were dragged across the yard. Those
that balked at the steep ramp to the holding pens were shocked
with prods.
And yes, some pigs "came back
to life" after they were supposed to be insensible. A few
even staggered off the conveyor belt and charged at the kill floor
workers.
"We thought abuse was someone
beating an animal," McConnell said. "We didn't realize.
We didn't know."
Odom's Tennessee Pride does things
differently now. Hogs are unloaded as soon as they arrive, into
cool pens with long troughs of water. If they can't walk, they are
euthanized on the spot. "There has been a cultural change
here," said production manager Leonardo Ruiz.
On the kill floor, workers no
longer shoot the hogs in the brain with retractable bolts.
Instead, they clap a harness over the animal's head and back and
deliver an electric charge. A computerized display lets them know
if they're getting a "good stun" or if they need to
reposition the harness.
Some hogs squeal when the stun is
applied. Others jerk. All go rigid in seconds as the electrical
impulse induces cardiac arrest. When the harness is lifted, the
animals slump, flaccid and unblinking, and roll down onto a
conveyor belt. A second worker checks for signs of consciousness
and then quickly slits the throat.
Everyone on the kill floor knows
they could be fired if they let a hog suffer.
"They're good animals,"
worker Lionel Allen said. "We try to treat them right."
If you want other stories on this
topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Click here for article licensing
and reprint options
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
By visiting this site, you are
agreeing to our Terms of Service.
Privacy Policy
5. Vivisection
December
17, 2002
Use of animals in medical research
From Mr Thomas Bromley
Sir, While every effort to find
alternatives to animals in medical research should be encouraged
(letters, November 28, December 5 and 10) I believe that the
campaigns of anti-vivisection groups are often unrealistic.
The scientific community wouldn’t
use animals if it wasn’t necessary.
Our main concern should be for our
fellow human beings and understanding complex brain disorders such
as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s. The use of primates
does require extra justification but they have already helped us
to improve human health, which should be our priority.
Yours sincerely,
THOMAS BROMLEY
(Executive Secretary)
Seriously Ill for Medical Research
PO Box 504,
Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2LU.
December 11.
From Dr Ray Greek
Sir, As a physician, I must
disagree with Dr Mark Matfield (letter, December 5). Both medical
advances cited by him are, in my view, due to non-animal research
methods. The polio vaccine was made possible by Dr John F. Enders
inventing a technique to grow the polio virus in culture, and it
is well known that results from monkey experimentation misled
researchers, thus delaying this important advance for more than 40
years. The brain “pacemaker” for Parkinson’s is due to
advances in technology.
Just because animals are used in
drug development, which for safety purposes is a legal rather than
scientific requirement, doesn’t mean that they are essential to
the advance of modern-day medicine.
Yours faithfully,
RAY GREEK
(Medical Director),
Europeans For Medical Advancement,
PO Box 38604, London W13 0YR.
efma@curedisease.net
December 11.
5. Our
Modern Dark Ages
<http://www.peta.org/>
<http://www.peta.org/>
Hundreds of
Thousands of Animals Killed Annually in Cruel Military Experiments
News
programs have been airing ghastly video footage from Afghanistan
that shows dogs dying agonizing deaths in al Qaeda military
experiments. One tape shows a dog trapped in a room with vapor
rising. The dog begins licking his chops (increased saliva is one
of the first signs of poisoning), loses control of his
hindquarters, and is eventually seen lying on his back, moaning.
However, these cruel experiments are nothing new-nor are they
confined to Afghanistan. The war on animals is an international
one. All images below are from footage of
Israeli tests on dogs.* From
Tel Aviv to Tehran to Texas, dogs and other animals are being
poisoned and otherwise tortured in chemical, biological, and
conventional warfare experiments. PETA has equally barbaric,
secretly shot footage, from 1977, of Israeli soldiers injecting-
and killing-dogs with what appear to be nerve agents. No matter
where you stand on international conflicts, it is a painful fact
that the Israeli army has also blown up unanesthetized pigs with
Scud missile explosives and conducted other painful experiments on
dogs, monkeys, doves, mice, toads, and guinea pigs. An article in
the March 17, 2000, issue of Ha'aretz, Israel’s most
respected daily newspaper, reported that experiments carried out
by the Israel Defense Forces on animals were so horrific that the
soldiers forced to conduct the experiments had to seek
psychological counseling. The United States military has a long
history of conducting cruel animal experiments.
Uncounted
Casualties Each year, at least 320,000 primates, dogs,
pigs, goats, sheep, rabbits, cats, and other animals are hurt and
killed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in experiments that
rank among the most painful conducted in this country. Because
these figures don’t include experiments that were contracted out
to non-governmental laboratories or the many sheep, goats, and
pigs often shot in wound experiments, the total number of animal
victims is actually much higher. The cost to taxpayers for these
military experiments is estimated to be in excess of $100 million
annually.
Top
Secret Military testing is classified “Top Secret,” and
it is very hard to get information about it. From published
research, we do know that armed forces facilities all over the
United States test all manner of weaponry on animals, from Soviet
AK-47 rifles to biological and chemical warfare agents to nuclear
blasts. Military experiments can be acutely painful, repetitive,
costly, and unreliable, and they are particularly wasteful because
most of the effects they study can be, or have already been,
observed in humans or because the results cannot be extrapolated
to human experience.
Sample
Experiments Burns and Blasts: As far back as in
1946, near the Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific, 4,000 sheep,
goats, and other animals loaded onto a boat and set adrift were
killed or severely burned by an atomic blast detonated above them.
The military nicknamed the experiment “The Atomic Ark.” At the
Army’s Fort Sam Houston, live rats were immersed in boiling
water for 10 seconds, and a group of them were then infected on
parts of their burned bodies. In 1987, at the Naval Medical
Institute in Maryland, rats’ backs were shaved, covered with
ethanol, and then “flamed” for 10 seconds. In 1988, at
Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, sheep were placed in a
loose net sling against a reflecting plate, and an explosive
device was detonated 19 meters away. In two of the experiments, 48
sheep were blasted: the first group to test the value of a vest
worn during the blast, and the second to see if chemical markers
would aid in the diagnosis of blast injury (they did not).
Radiation: At the
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Maryland, nine
rhesus monkeys were strapped in chairs and exposed to total-body
irradiation. Within two hours, six of the nine were vomiting,
hypersalivating, and chewing. In another experiment, 17 beagles
were exposed to total-body irradiation, studied for one to seven
days, and then killed. The experimenter concluded that radiation
affects the gall bladder. At Brooks Air Force Base in Texas,
rhesus monkeys were strapped to a B-52 flight simulator (the
“Primate Equilibrium Platform”). After being prodded with
painful electric shocks to learn to “fly” the device, the
monkeys were irradiated with gamma rays to see if they could hold
out “for the 10 hours it would take to bomb an imaginary
Moscow.” Those hit with the heaviest doses vomited violently and
became extremely lethargic before being killed. Diseases: To
evaluate the effect of temperature on the transmission of the
Dengue 2 virus, a mosquito-transmitted disease that causes fever,
muscle pain, and rash, experiments conducted by the U.S. Army at
Fort Detrick, Maryland, involved shaving the stomachs of adult
rhesus monkeys and then attaching cartons of mosquitoes to their
bodies to allow the mosquitoes to feed. Experimenters at Fort
Detrich have also invented a rabbit restraining device that
consists of a small cage that pins the rabbits down with steel
rods while mosquitoes feast on their bodies.
Wound Labs: The
Department of Defense has operated “wound labs” since 1957. At
these sites, conscious or semiconscious animals are suspended from
slings and shot with high-powered weapons to inflict battle-like
injuries for military surgical practice. In 1983, in response to
public pressure, Congress limited the use of dogs in these labs,
but countless goats, pigs, and sheep are still being shot, and at
least one laboratory continues to shoot cats. At the Army's Fort
Sam Houston “Goat Lab,” goats are hung upside down and shot in
their hind legs. After physicians practice excising the wounds,
any goat who survives is killed. In 1992 and again in 1994,
doctors with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
testified before Congress on military animal use and worked with
the General Accounting Office in an investigation of Michael
Carey’s experiments at Louisiana State University. Carey shot
700 restrained cats in the head to “model” human injuries. As
a result of the investigation, Carey’s cat-shooting experiments
were halted. Other forms of military experiments include
subjecting animals to decompression sickness, weightlessness,
drugs and alcohol, smoke inhalation, and pure oxygen inhalation.
Animal
Intelligence The armed forces
conscript various animals into intelligence and combat service,
sending them on “missions” that endanger their lives and
well-being. The Marine Corps teaches dogs “mauling, snarling,
sniffing, and other suitable skills” needed to search for bombs
and drugs. A series of Navy tests of underwater explosives in the
Chesapeake Bay in 1987 killed more than 3,000 fish, and habitats
for hundreds of species have been destroyed by nuclear tests in
the South Pacific and the American Southwest.
Military
Reform The military’s tracking
system lists approximately 725 military experiments using animals.
Such tests are as misleading as they are cruel. Animals often
respond to chemical agents and antidotes differently than humans.
A rat’s respiratory system differs greatly from that of a human,
and rats are more susceptible to toxins because they are unable to
vomit. Mice have a genetic tendency to develop lung tumors,
rendering much of the research on physiological effects of
exposure invalid. Regarding skin tests, a U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services report said, “Since laboratory animals
have fur and do not have sweat glands on most of their body, they
do not provide optimal models for dermal exposure.” According to
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, mustard gas,
first used in World War I, continues to be a favorite agent for
Department of Defense animal experimenters. Yet, good treatments
are already available and are easy to use. Military personnel
receive a “Mark I Kit” with two self-injectable antidotes to
the gas: atropine, which counteracts the effects, and pralidoxime
chloride, which binds the nerve agent so it can be cleared from
the body. Preventive drugs, such as benactyzine, oximes, aprophen,
and physostigmine, are also commonly used. Little about these
treatments has changed in the last 35 years, yet military
experimenters continue to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars
for animal tests with the agent. Under the banner of defense use,
animals have been used to test bullet trajectories when blocks of
gel are better, as they allow military weapons experts to
permanently freeze the bullet trail, something that doesn’t
happen with a sheep or dog; they’ve even been put in slings and
shot so that medics could practice cutting away dying tissue, when
there are far superior ways to train medics.
Innocent Victims Animals
don’t wage wars; why should they suffer because humans do? All
nations must reject chemical and biological weapons tests on
animals. It makes no difference to the dog writhing in convulsions
whether the man administering the poison gas was Afghan, Israeli,
or American. All citizens of the world should come together for
the peaceful purpose of condemning and demanding an end to this
form of terrorism on innocent animals.
You Can Help In
1993, the General Accounting Office (GAO) began an investigation
of the military’s animal experimentation program. Ask your
Congressional representatives to contact the GAO and express
support for a thorough and complete investigation. If you don’t
know their contact information, please call the Congressional
Switchboard at 202-225-3121, provide your state or zip code, and
ask to be transferred to their offices or click
here to obtain the information through a Web page
<http://cw2k.capweb.net/petaziphouseandsenate/>.
Please also ask them to urge the DoD to implement alternatives to
live-animal experiments. Please contact President George W. Bush
and demand an immediate end to U.S. military experiments on
animals: The Honorable George W. Bush The White House 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC
Go to: Guardian Unlimited homeUK news World
news----------------------Archive
Home UK news International
Politics Business Comment Leaders Focus
Exposed: secrets of the
animal organ lab
Scientists' success in
Cambridgeshire could have saved thousands of lives. But they
failed, animals suffered and the truth was covered up, reports
Mark Townsend
Sunday April 20, 2003
The Observer
Amid the rolling fields of
Cambridgeshire stands a sprawling complex, protected by barbed
wire and an army of security guards. Beyond the wire is a maze of
laboratories where scientists work to find cures for the suffering
of mankind.
This is Europe's largest
animal research centre, the mysterious Government-sanctioned
Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) laboratory. Exact details of the
experiments on animals have remained fiercely guarded secrets.
Until now.
Today The Observer can
expose the previously hidden world of vivisection. A huge volume
of confidential documents - the largest-ever set of data
concerning animal experiments in the UK - has finally been
released following the defeat earlier this month of an injunction
imposed by drug companies 30 months ago. These documents chart the
race to supply an unlimited supply of animal organs in a bid to
save the lives of thousands of Britons.
The quest for a successful
programme of xenotransplantation - in which genetically modified
animal organs are used within humans - remains the scientific
equivalent of the holy grail. The rewards for success will be
huge: analysts predict that a market worth £6 billion a year
awaits the first firm which can prevent the rejection of such
organs when used in humans.
Little wonder that
scientists, giant drug companies and Government Ministers have
been committed to pouring millions of pounds into the HLS
programme. So has it been worth it?
To the dismay of animal
rights activists, the documents reveal how primates were used in
the search for a solution to the chronic global shortage of human
organs for transplant. Baboons were transported from the African
savannahs to die in steel cages the size of toilet cubicles. The
documents show that a quarter of the primates died from 'technical
failures'.
*Researchers describe how
monkeys and baboons died in fits of vomiting and diarrhoea.
Symptoms included violent spasms, bloody discharges, grinding
teeth and uncontrollable, manic eye movements. Other animals
retreated within themselves, lying still in their cages until put
of their misery.
Baboon W201m died of a
stroke after two days of suffering from limb spasms and paralysis.
Baboon W205m was 'sacrificed' after 21 days. A genetically
modified pig's heart had been welded to the vital arteries within
its neck. Researchers noted the heart was swelling way beyond its
natural size. Strange yellow fluid was seen seeping from the
organ.
Others never even made it
to HLS, suffering painful deaths en route. Faxes from global
wildlife dealers reveal how at least 50 baboons were taken from
the African plains for the experiments. In one shipment the
creatures spent 34 hours in cramped transport crates - 10 hours
longer than approved by the Home Office, which chose not to take
any action.
In another shipment, three
monkeys were found dead with blood oozing from their nostrils at a
Paris airport. The animals had not been able to turn and lie down
naturally.
The Government's
involvement in the xenotransplantation programme - the most
high-profile animal experimentation ever conducted in Britain - is
made clear in the documents, along with its failure to adequately
regulate a project that the Home Office believed would deliver
major benefits to society.
Many of the 1,274 pages of
documents reveal a litany of failings that will serve to ignite
further controversy over HLS, which last week won a
ground-breaking injunction preventing animal protesters getting
close to employees' homes. Fundamental questions over the value of
vivisection itself will also be asked.
*The papers reveal
attempts to bury the true extent of animal suffering from
experiments conducted at the HLS laboratories between 1994 and
2000. Serious incidents of unlicensed animals suffering were not
adequately investigated and regulations were not enforced
properly.
Breaches of the law even
went unpunished in some cases, with the Home Office limiting
itself to letters of 'admonishment'. One previously confidential
paper reveals how the Home Office worked with Imutran - the former
British subsidiary of multi-million drug giant Novartis, which was
in control of the programme - to underestimate the suffering
caused by the most severe experiments.
An Imutran report states:
'The Home Office will attempt to get the kidney transplants
classified as "moderate", ensuring that it is easier for
Imutran to receive a licence and ignoring the "severe"
nature of these programmes.'
The truth of what has been
happening at HLS can now be revealed because of a historic legal
victory. The verdict represents an extraordinary triumph for a
Sheffield-based animal rights group, Uncaged Campaigns, which
defeated the injunction imposed by Imutran and Novartis to
suppress the release of the documents. The group successfully
argued that the issue was one of overwhelming public interest on a
highly sensitive area of policy.
Dan Lyons has spent the
past two-and-a-half years battling against some of Britain's most
powerful lawyers, including those who represented Hollywood couple
Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas against Hello! magazine.
Lyons said: 'This is a
tragic scandal of historic proportions. Ultimately, the appalling
failure of government in its most fundamental duty - to enforce
the law - is unmasked. By trying to cover up their failings, the
Government has gambled that their shameful behaviour would remain
hidden. They have lost.'
*For the scientists
involved, the failure of the project to overcome the human body's
natural rejection of foreign organs such as hearts and kidneys is
the real tragedy. Last year 6,482 people in Britain alone were
waiting for transplants. Of these, 414 died while waiting for
organs to become available.
Novartis yesterday
defended its role at HLS by arguing that developing new cures for
humans invariably meant experimenting on live animals.
The documents refer to the
transplanting of genetically modified pigs' hearts and kidneys
into monkeys. Throughout the Nineties, Imutran claimed it was on
the cusp of solving the crucial issue of organ rejection, which
has prevented trials on humans. In 1995 it told the world it would
be ready to start transplanting pig hearts into humans within a
year. Yet the documents clearly show that the company's
xenotransplantation programme has come nowhere near to fulfilling
its promises.
Imutran finally left the
HLS site in 2000 - and then won an injunction to prevent details
of the failed xenotransplantation project coming to light.
An internal inquiry
recorded that Imutran and the Home Office admitted that the crates
breached size and ventilation regulations. Elsewhere, government
officials reassured Imutran on several occasions that a crucial
meeting to discuss new licence applications would be a
'rubber-stamping' exercise.
Other striking findings
reveal that the Government approved Imutran's xenotransplanation
experiments with the intention of using sick babies as the first
trial patients for animal heart transplants.
Some of the research was
personally authorised by Ministers, who have rejected calls for an
independent judicial inquiry.
*In total, the documents
reveal at least 520 errors and omissions in the Imutran research.
These include organ weights not being recorded, a quadruple
overdose, conflicting pathology reports and re-use of animals. One
primate was killed when a swab was left inside it.
Rather than admit defeat,
however, Imutran - now defunct - made a number of inaccurate
claims regarding the success of experiments, effectively
exaggerating the results of its tests to increase the likelihood
of new licences being granted.
A Novartis spokesman
admitted that Imutran had reported 'several significant' mistakes
to the Home Office but said the company was committed to ensuring
similar mistakes would never be repeated. And the company remains
convinced that its quest to solve the world's organ shortage will
one day be realised.
Three centuries searching
for the holy grail
The strange history of
animal-to-human transplants, known as xenotransplantation, goes
back to 1682, when the bone from a dog was used to repair the
skull of an injured Russian aristocrat. It worked.
Heart transplant pioneer
Christian Barnard did experimental work on baboons' hearts in
South Africa in the Sixties.
In 1963, surgeon Thomas
Starzl grafted baboon kidneys into six patients. They survived
between 19 and 98 days.
The advent of cyclosporin,
an immunosuppressant drug, gave researchers a greater chance of
success. In 1977 a 25-year-old woman was given a baboon heart in
South Africa. This worked for six hours.
In 1984, a newborn baby
received a baboon heart in California. She lived 20 days.
Nine years later, baboon
bone marrow and a kidney transplant was carried out in Pittsburgh,
US. The patient died after 26 days.
In 1997, Dolly the Sheep
was cloned in Scotland, raising the prospect of cloned animals
providing organs for people.
Scientists realised the
risk that viruses from an animal could be transmitted to people.
The Government announced it was regulating xenotransplantation.
The prospect of the
biotech companies earning millions from xenotransplantation began
to diminish. Companies such as PPL Therapeutics reported losses.
In 2002, science turned to
stem cell research. These cells can be engineered to grow new
organs with the right genetic make-up, instead of needing animal
organs.
Useful links
Diaries of Despair report
- Uncaged Campaigns Animals in scientific procedures - Home Office
Related stories
01.03.2003: Campaigners force auditors to quit animal testing firm
20.02.2003: Auditors under fire over animal right
11.02.2003: Cambridge cleared of animal cruelty charges
20.01.2003: Government backs vivisection
18.12.2002: Lifeline for Huntingdon
24.01.2002: Bioscience company ceases London trading
19.10.2001: Huntingdon Life finds a friend
16.10.2001: Millionaire backs Huntingdon move
03.07.2001: Bank staff fear protests after Huntingdon move
02.07.2001: Bank of last resort
27.04.2001: Biotechs target activists
