AR 101

ALF and NIO team up

fbresearch — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:22:32 +0000

The people behind the ALF Press Office and the Negotiation Is Over blog must be getting really frustrated, because they have teamed up to form yet ANOTHER organization – this one dedicated to countering the great pro-research materials that FBR and other groups have developed. Here is the missive that was cross-posted on the ALF website and the NIO website:

Dr. Steven Best, Philosopher
Dr. Jerry Vlasak, NAALPO Press Officer
Jason Miller, Thomas Paine’s Corner, NAALPO Press Officer
Camille Marino, Negotiation Is Over

In January 2006, 16-year-old Laurie Pycroft formed the “Pro-Test” movement in the UK to rally public support for vivisection in the face of vocal animal rights opposition. The group’s young spokesperson, Tom Holder, came to the US in 2008, funded by a vivisection industry front group, to start Speaking of Research, a “media” network that promotes animal “research.” In March 2009, Dr. David Jentsch founded a Pro-Test chapter at UCLA and, with Holder’s support, a new movement of aggressive vivisector- activists was born.

Deploring the research community’s inadequate response to aggressive anti-vivisection campaigns, Pro-Test activists advocate fearless defense of their agenda and have initiated a new offensive in the ongoing science wars. In alliance with the Americans for Medical Progress, a vivisection industry front group, and with the aid of a million dollar bankroll, Pro-Test forces have rallied their base, organized spirited protests, spread their message through newspapers ad and billboards, and promoted disinformation generally.

While the Pro-Test movement is still small, it must not be underestimated. In the 1980s the animal rights movement thought it had shut down the fur industry, only to witness its vigorous resurgence a decade later; anti-vivisectionists must not make the same mistake and need to attack every new tactic and campaign, every novel threat. In October 2009, amidst a glaring neglect of critical attention two leading total liberation blogs, Thomas Paine’s Corner (TPC) and Negotiation Is Over (NIO), joined forces with Dr. Steven Best and the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO) to create the Alliance for Progressive Science (APS).

APS was formed to attack Pro-Test on both scientific and ethical grounds. APS exposes the powerful economic interests driving the vivisection complex and 17th century research paradigms, during a 21st century era of advanced nutritional science and hundreds of sophisticated technological alternatives to nonhuman animal research and testing. Through the concept of “progress,” APS emphasizes both the moral bankruptcy of vivisection and its antiquated and unscientific nature, combating the stereotype of animal rights as “anti-scientific” and “anti-progress.”

APS champions a new research paradigm that is “progressive” in its embrace of animal rights and development of new technologies that promise qualitative leaps in science and medicine. APS emphasizes that the vivisection industry, not the animal rights community, is the true terrorist menace and the real obstacle to moral and technological progress, in that it clings tortures and kills up to 100 million nonhuman animals a year, it operates with fallacious research models, it prostitutes science and the public interest to profit and the capitalist interests of pharmaceutical corporations.

To maintain critical focus on the new propaganda tactics of the vivisection industry, NIO is establishing a network of bloggers committed to publishing regular articles on the Pro-Test propaganda front to advance a new model of science, medicine, and progress. We urge fellow activists to join us; to become regular readers of NIO and TPC; to follow our reporting on Pro-Test tactics and campaigns; to research, write, and publish on our pages your own essays; and to advance a new concept and practice of science and medicine that relegates vivisection to its rightful place – in the dustbin of history.

APS does not compete with, but rather compliments, existing anti-vivisection activism. APS seeks to put down the new tactical fronts and propaganda efforts designed to erase two centuries of anti-vivisection activism and to expand the vivisection industry and Big Pharma to unprecedented levels of killing, influence, and profit. Please review our upcoming website and more detailed statement of purpose in our critical manifesto for a progressive science. We look forward to your thoughts and hope we can work together to stop Pro-Test, abolish vivisection, and take the giant strides in science and medicine that the vivisection industry, universities, pharmaceutical corporations, and government so effectively blocks.

Coming soon: www.allianceforprogressivescience.org

ResearchSaves campaign media coverage

fbresearch — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:04 +0000

The ResearchSaves national campaign was featured on the front page of the Sunday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. This is excellent earned media coverage. Jim Spencer, the staff writer who wrote this story, did a phenomenal job with the piece. Very seldom do we see the depth and comprehensive nature of biomedical research reporting as we did with Spencer’s piece. If you like the story please drop Jim a note at jim.spencer@startribune.com.

Also, many thinks to both Dick Bianco at the University of Minnesota for opening his lab to the media and FBR’s Director of Media for helping to get this story out.

Here is the link to the print story:

Here is the link to the video story on the Star Tribune’s website. This is a GREAT segment:

The October tracking poll has public support for animals in research measured at 60.8%. Our TV ads are achieving about 1 million TV household impressions every day and we currently have 170 billboards up across the country.

If you haven’t done so recently, please check out the campaign website at www.ResearchSaves.org.

Animal Research For The Win…Again!

fbresearch — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:10:53 +0000

Once again, the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology goes to researchers who worked with animals. This makes 10 for 10 in the past 10 years, I believe. Take note, those who believe that animal research is only something in the past and we don’t need it anymore.

Here’s a good selection of stories about this year’s winners:

NIH Grantees Win 2009 Nobel Prize In Physiology Or Medicine For Telomere Research

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is shared by three grantees of the National Institutes of Health. Their discoveries added a new dimension to the scientific community’s understanding of the cell, shed light on disease mechanisms, and introduced new directions for the development of potential new therapies. National Institutes of Health, 10/6.

UCSF Colleagues Commend Blackburn’s Nobel Prize-Winning Research

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded today to UCSF’s Elizabeth Blackburn, PhD., recognizes the importance of the most fundamental kind of basic biological science. UCSF, 10/5.

Curiosity Earns Biologist Top Honor

Elizabeth Blackburn was curious. She wanted to know what was at the end of a chromosome – and with the help of some pond scum, she found the answer, a discovery that earned her the Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday. San Francisco Chronicle, 10/6.

JHU Professor Shares In Nobel Prize

On behalf of all of us, and more than 120,000 Johns Hopkins alumni, we add our congratulations to those pouring in from around the world for Carol Greider, who today was named co-winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Johns Hopkins University, 10/5.

A Step Toward Curing Cancer

Discoveries by Nobel laureate Carol W. Greider and her colleagues have led to advances toward potential cures or treatments for certain types of cancer, and for a growing list of diseases rooted in malfunctions of the DNA-protecting enzyme, called telomerase, that she discovered. Baltimore Sun, 10/6.

Telomerase Work Wins Szostak Nobel Prize In Medicine

Jack Szostak, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), has won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for pioneering work in the discovery of telomerase, an enzyme that protects chromosomes from degrading. Harvard Medical School, 10/5.

Boston Geneticist Shares Nobel

A Boston scientist was awarded a share of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine yesterday for helping to unravel a fundamental conundrum in genetics – work that began with yeast and an organism found in pond scum but three decades later is having implications for cancer and aging research. Boston Globe, 10/6.

and finally,

More than a Nobel cause

Our view: A prize-winning effort underscores the importance of basic research. Baltimore Sun, 10/6.

Disgusting

fbresearch — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:34:20 +0000

I got an email the other day from the Animal Liberation Front. Well, technically, their “press office” since that shields them from any responsibility of their heinous actions. Anyway, the subject line of the email says

Two Animal Abusers at Yale University Stop Torturing Animals

Of course, they are referring to the poor woman who was murdered and the man who is accused of murdering her.

Disgusting. Just because you have the freedom of speech to say horrible things like that doesn’t mean you should.

What is animal research?

fbresearch — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:36:55 +0000

Everyone has their own ideas when they hear the terms animal research or animal testing.

I think most people think of old photos of monkeys with attachments on their head, or testing cosmetics on rabbits or something. Neither of which is really correct or relevant in today’s modern age of science.

One of the things that I love about my work is that the animal research stories that I find are so diverse. There are two stories in the news today that illustrate what I like so much about this field.

The first story, from the Wall Street Journal, is about targeting cancer with bee venom. The second story, from the Vancouver Sun, is about helping those with spinal cord injuries with the aid of geckos. You know, like the Geico gecko?

Who here doesn’t want to find a cure for cancer or spinal cord injury? Raise your hand. Yeah, thought not.

They are both fascinating stories. Stories that the general public deserves to know more about, but unfortunately, all they ever hear about are the made-up horror stories from the animal extremists who oppose animal research in any way, shape or form.

Larry’s story

fbresearch — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:38:36 +0000

FBR is pleased to announce our newest TV spot called “Larry’s Story.” We’d like to give you a first look at it before we start airing it nationally as part of our ResearchSaves campaign.

Larry’s story is true. He is a research scientist who works with knockout mice to find new treatments for the number one cause of death in America – heart disease.

This isn’t just a job for Larry – it’s a purposeful calling. Larry’s dad died of a heart attack when Larry was just 25. That tragic event made Larry want to be a heart disease research scientist. Then just last year, Larry had life-saving triple coronary bypass surgery himself. Larry works with mice in his research because he wants to beat heart disease for his family and for yours.

Please take 60 seconds and watch Larry’s Story

Don’t make me call George Lazenby

fbresearch — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:05:34 +0000

Roger Moore on why he won’t speak to anyone (even his friends) if they eat foie gras

Something tells me the feeling is mutual.

Great support

fbresearch — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:10:24 +0000

There have been some incredibly touching and supportive posts over at the ResearchSaves website. Here are some of my personal favorites.

My uncle died of juvenile diabetes at the age of 42. My sister, 25, has juvenile diabetes and has since age 6. This disease is something people like my sister Jennifer battle with everyday of their lives. I would not wish this disease on ANYONE. My family prays everyday for these researchers and for a cure. It scares Jennifer and I both that if we were to have kids that our children could potentially have this disease due to the fact that it runs in our family. Actually, Jennifer is not sure if she can have kids because of the kidney damage she has due to problems with the disease during her childhood. Imagine the stress this puts on her and her new husband.

Three years ago I started working within in the research industry. At first it was unsettling to know that animals were being tested on. Then I visited a university were innovative research was being done for Juvenile Diabetes, and all the uneasiness was gone. I came home spreading the news to family of how impressed I was with the care of the animals, and how excited I was to hear first-hand of work being done there for Juvenile Diabetes. This really gave my sister HOPE which she desperately needs. HOPE keeps her going each day, and these researchers give her HOPE for not only her but her future nieces and nephews and maybe even her children.

I have been involved in research involving rats and mice for the last decade and have progressed from a student volunteer, to a graduate student, and am now a postdoctoral researcher. I have been thoroughly involved with animal care and handling, and have also been involved with countless surgical procedures as well. I can attest that EVERY aspect of animal involvement is carefully evaluated, as laboratories are required to abide by stringent standards that are approved by animal care and research committees designated by the university. A laboratory cannot function without first meeting all of the established animal care guidelines. My personal involvement has allowed me to experience the meticulous training that one is required to complete prior to ANY involvement with animals, regardless of their position within the laboratory. Even student volunteers are required to undergo hours of training and are also required to receive a number of certifications prior to any involvement in animal experimentation. These are directed at educating the individual to provide a comfortable and humane environment for the animal, and ensure that these animals will receive adequate care to eliminate the pain and distress that may be associated with a given task. In addition, these certifications of adequate training are very strictly monitored by each laboratory, and are required of all individuals (even those not directly participating in the handling of animals). Individuals that are new to a laboratory are also required to receive new certifications, regardless of their previous experience and/or level of position. It should also be noted that pain or distress to the animal will actually decrease the validity of the experimental findings, and thus, from both the animal care and experimental perspectives, there is no room for error in the humane care of laboratory animals.

I was also a vet tech for private practice who then transferred into research. What a different experience. I got tired of having people leave with horribly ill animals that they couldn’t pay for care, or medicine, or euthanasia. They would take them home to let them die. Wow. I never did the same in research. We treated those animals much more compassionately than most private individuals would treat their pets.

The dogs we housed for research were adopted and we had a very successful program while I worked there. But the kicker was when I realized that the dogs at work interacted with people almost four full hours of every day. Caretakers playing with them, techs handling them, and random people coming through for a pet and maybe a treat (they tended to get chubby if we left cookies out – because that many people came through). On the converse, I worked 50-60 hour weeks and my own Lab only saw me when I let him out to pee and on the weekends.

Please don’t encourage people to make blanket judgments about the industry, it doesn’t just hurt the animals but those of us who put our hearts and time into making their lives as rich and rewarding as possible.

And without a doubt, my favorite:

I have always loved animals, and spent many years hating research and those conducting it. After going through an almost routine pregnancy, I gave birth to a full-term little girl via emergency c-section. There was only one problem, she was still born. I left the hospital with no baby!
There were no answers given to me as to why-she was perfect in every way on autopsy. It turns out the problem was me, I found that out when I was 8 months pregnant with my son and a non-stress test showed he was not doing well. Another emergency c-section, and my son was born ALIVE! He was not out of the woods, premature, and unable to maintain his body temperature, poked and proded and tests run to find out what was wrong. When the discovery was made, it was a default in my placenta that caused my children’s hearts to “work harder” to receive the required nourishment while I was pregnant. I got to take my son home with me and he is a completely normal young man now!
Just a few short years ago, the diagnositc testing done on me to determine he needed to be born did not exist, certainly the testing done on him after birth were not available. If I had been born in my grandparents era, I would most likely never have delivered a living child!!
My marriage ended shortly after my son was born so I returned to college to get a degree in Veterinary Technology, a long time dream to work in this field. As a single mom, I had to find a job with benefits and good pay, that was in research.
I got a job working with a Veterinary Cardiologist who was the only person in the world doing a type of surgery on dogs with a heart arrythmia and saving their lives! She would get PET animals, cure the heart problem and return the pet to the owner to live a completly normal and long life! (without her, they would have died before being 3 years of age). The information gained from the surgery was then used to help children with the same problem.
I later worked with a child cardiologist studying ways to correct heart problems in utero in babies.
People ask me how could you, an animal lover do this job? I always tell them, in my job, you want someone who loves animals. If you love animals, you make sure they are treated with the utmost care and compassion! If you do not love animals, you do not do this job because it requires too much attention to detail as the animals are expensive as is the process of the research! There were many days I cried because we lost one of our animal subjects, I felt the loss! Anytime that an animal could be adopted out, it was!
Why do I support research? Because, if I can prevent just one mother from leaving the hospital after giving birth with no baby, or worse, burying her child, then my life has been worth while. I know what it feels like to leave a maturnity ward without the baby you planned for, hoped for, wanted, loved. I know what it feels like to watch them put dirt on top of your baby’s casket while you go home to the empty cradle. I don’t wish anyone that type of pain!

Keep these statements in mind when you’re thinking about animal research. It’s very easy to listen to PETA and other animal rights groups who say that animal research is pointless, but when you listen to the actual researchers, vet techs, and caretakers, you see the real picture. I know we’re not going to change the mind of the 10% of the population that is hardcore opposed to animal research, but for that vast middle ground, there is hope.

If you’re a researcher and have a story to share, please share it on the ResearchSaves website. We’re all in this together.

ResearchSaves

fbresearch — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:46:10 +0000

The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) conducted a national poll in December 2008 to identify public support for animals used in biomedical research. The poll results served as a warning to the research community (you) that if we didn’t start taking our messages to the American public then support for animal research would fall below 50% by August 20, 2010 (8twenty10). So, we launched a one-year national public outreach campaign on August 20, 2009 under the brand of Research Saves.

Thus far, we have run 707 TV spots on more than 30 national television networks and have achieved 16,110,093 TV household impressions.

Viewers of these commercials are encouraged to visit the www.ResearchSaves.org website and post their comments. As you might expect, the animal rights advocates are posting their rants. While we may never persuade the extreme animal rights movement to moderate their views, we do want to reach the vast American “middle” that is undecided.

There are three things you can do to help us:

1) Log on to ResearchSaves.org frequently and post your opinions. Unless the opposition blogs are vulgar, profane or threatening, we intend to leave them up and we need you to bring common sense and research expertise to the debate.

2) We are in pre-production for our next issue of our new magazine called, ResearchSaves. Send us previously printed and cleared human interest stories about scientists working with animals to discover breakthroughs for diseases and conditions. Each article should be written for a general public audience and should include photos. These stories are re-printed “as is” and will not be edited. Your writers and institutions will receive all bylines and credits.

3) Finally, we need your donations. We’re asking EVERY person working in, studying for, or generally supporting the biomedical research industry to donate $20.10 to this national public outreach campaign.

Please get involved in this national campaign now. We can make a difference!

Curly or straight?

fbresearch — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:38:50 +0000

When people think about animal research, they always think of the worst possible scenario. They think of pain and torture. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just not true.

Here’s a great example of that: scientists recently studied dogs to figure out how they get curly or straight fur. No pain. No torture. Just another side to animal research.

What’s the point, you ask? Well, as the researcher in the article points out, they “would now like to know how these genes exert these effects and whether they are at work in other species. That’s a logical next step, says Acland: ‘Once you have a candidate gene in one species, it’s easier to ask if it’s involved in [a different] species.’”