Perspective on the use of animals in research

(by drugmonkey) May 09 2013

We were just discussing the closure of the New England National Primate Research Center. One of the uncertainties about that decision of Harvard Medical School was where the approximately 2,000 animals of various species were to be placed. 2,000. Remember that now. Some of the news reporting also referred to the deaths of some of the NENPRC nonhuman primate subjects as a triggering cause for a two year attempt to improve their procedures. These deaths comprised a series of ones and twos going by the available news reporting...perhaps amounting to a dozen or score of animals[ETA 4, see first comment]? We have no information over what timeframe those deaths occurred.

According to the LA Times, Malaysia has culled 97,000 cynomolgous macaques. Last year. The article claims they culled 88,000 of them in the previous year.

The cynomolgous macaque, btw, is a very commonly used species in research laboratories in the US. From Speaking of Research we learn that in 2010 there were about 73,317 nonhuman primates used in 2010. Of all species. This is out of an estimated 25 million vertebrate animals used in research for that year. And remember, for the longer-lived species such as dogs or nonhuman primates, the vast majority of studies use them across multi-year and even multi-decade intervals. So across time the comparison of the yearly use of, say dogs versus mice, tends to overestimate the dogs on a per-individual basis.

We are incredibly parsimonious with the approximately 1% of animals used in research that are cats, dogs or monkeys, the ones usually of greatest concern to the average person. Parsimonious with all of them, in reality. As the Speaking of Research page puts it.

Let us put the number of animals used in perspective. Scientists in the US use approximately 26 million animals in research, of which only around 1 million are not rats/mice/birds/fish. We use fewer animals in research than the number of ducks eaten per year in this country. We consume over 1800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research. We eat over 340 chickens for each animal used in a research facility, and almost 9,000 chickens for every animal used in research covered by the Animal Welfare Act. For every animal used in research, it is estimated that 14 more are killed on our roads.

Malaysia just euthanized (how we don't know but I'm pretty sure IACUC oversight wasn't involved) 185,000 monkeys in the past two years. Why?

Tourists and many Malaysians gather near jungle edges to watch the monkeys, snap photos of them and feed them peanuts and bananas. But the wildlife department, also known as Perhilitan, says the extensive culling was necessary to curb a “pest species” that breeds prolifically, adapts with ease, and ransacks homes for food.

“It is a hard decision, but in order to safeguard the well-being of people and to maintain a stable macaques population … it might be the best option in a short run,” the department said in an email to The Times.

185,000 culled as annoying pests over two years. A problem that may or may not have been increased by tourists. Even if the above stats reflected different individuals in each year, this is about equivalent to the total number of nonhuman primates used in US research laboratories. In fact, the number is likely to be much closer to the annual 73,317 count, given the longevity of the species. And we have no idea when Malaysia will stop culling.

In a related vein the ASPCA says that about 3-4 million companion animals (dogs and cats) are euthanized in shelters in the US annually. Annually. Why? Because nobody wants them. 64,930 dogs and 21,578 cats used in research in 2010. Versus 3-4 million. That's 3,000,000 vs 86,508. Mere inconvenience and irresponsibility versus the advance of knowledge and creation of new medical treatment for humans and animals as well.

The inadvertent deaths of a handful to perhaps a score of monkeys[ETA 4, see first comment] at the NENPRC led to massive shut down of research, a two year reorganization process and ultimately the demise of the Center. The center which made demonstrable advances in AIDS, drug abuse and Parkinson's disease amongst other accomplishments.

At the very least this should give some perspective on how seriously the research enterprise and oversight system takes the humane treatment of research animals. It compares very favorably indeed with how the rest of the world (including the US) treats animals (yes, including companion species).

Share

33 responses so far

Stay in touch with your POs for weird mechanisms

(by drugmonkey) May 09 2013

If you pursue some of the less popular NIH grant mechanisms, for goodness sake keep in touch with the contact PO. Just heard tell of "Oh, we're not going to be funding any of those in the near future". No, there was no NOT issued to warn those who were preparing applications.

ICs can also decide this after you've already submitted your app and let me tell you that is maddening.

Share

7 responses so far

Open Thread

(by drugmonkey) May 08 2013

Entertain me people. I'm begging you.

Share

53 responses so far

NIGMS FY2012 Funding Outcome Data

(by drugmonkey) May 07 2013

h/t PhysioProf

Share

27 responses so far

BRAIN Initiative

(by drugmonkey) May 07 2013

I just watched part of a live stream [current link] of some meeting to brainstorm about what the $100M BRAIN Initiative should be.

What at a disaster.

Bunch of reinforcement that this is all about a bunch of senior dudes (mostly male dewds too) in neuron-recording neuroscience who used to make out like bandits from NIMH support. Now that we've undergone a long slide in funding levels and Insel's push to translational-ize the NIMH portfolio has gained the upper hand...these folks are struggling to get grants. JUST. LIKE. THE. REST. OF. US.

and they can't come up with anything amazing by themselves so they need $100M cash money to build some new recording tools to....you guessed it, record some more neurons.

Outside of the regular grant process because they find it hard to compete these days. JUST. LIKE. THE. REST. OF. US.

I have a proposal. Let's throw down, what, maybe $1M to record symposia and meetings of these people for the next year. Maybe have a few more of these summits. And after all that, if they've come up with some thing that is ACTUALLY NEW AND INTERESTING then and only then do we give them the $99M.

UPDATE: Permalink

Share

30 responses so far

Francis Collins is listening

(by drugmonkey) May 07 2013

He wants to hear about the impact of the sequester on your NIH funded research. Follow the #NIHSequesterImpact tag on the Twitters.

Share

10 responses so far

Thought of the day

(by drugmonkey) May 06 2013

Why the heck am I still getting "please get me out of [insert non Western country here]" postdoc inquiries? Haven't they heard our funding situation is horrible in this country?

Goodness gracious.

Share

11 responses so far

Stupid CV tricks: Does a lack of middle authorships mean you are a jerk?

(by drugmonkey) May 06 2013

Frequently commenter miko offered this up for consideration:

Being only ever first (or last) might make you look independent but also might make you look uncollaborative or, more likely, that no one likes you.

Fascinating remark. Have you ever heard anyone say this for real? Not in terms of mere publication numbers, I've heard that one more than once (as in "Can't you just get on some more papers" from people concerned about a thin publication record from an earlier-career scientist). But in terms of your ability to collaborate productively. Play well with others, so to speak.

I can't really remember hearing this. Mostly people are only mentioning collaborative, middle-author contributions to denigrate the person's level of independence and/or to try to subtract credit from their publication count.

Share

27 responses so far

Rubber....meet the road. NIH Grant edition

(by drugmonkey) May 06 2013

It is all very well to read the tea leaves and to make inferences from what Program Officials are telling you, published paylines, the gossip at writedit's blog and your anguished colleagues.

But nothing like a little judicious searching at RePORTER and / or a review of SILK listings to let you know just what your favorite handful of ICs are up to.

Happy browsing.

Personally, my biggest takeaway is that I should have ignored all the doom and gloom about R21s last year and submitted a few of them.

Share

7 responses so far

Thought of the Day

(by drugmonkey) May 04 2013

Listed-third author gets to refer to it as a second-author-paper when the first two are co-equal first authors, right?

Share

21 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »