Members of Parliament debated the badger cull on Thursday 25 October and voted overwhelmingly, by 147 votes to 28, against it.
The vote followed a five-hour backbench debate on a motion put to MPs by Green MP Caroline Lucas in the House of Commons chamber.
The motion read: That this House notes the e-petition on the planned badger cull, which has gathered more than 150,000 signatures; and calls on the Government to stop the cull and implement the more sustainable and humane solution of both a vaccination programme for badgers and cattle, along with improved testing and biosecurity.
Views for and against a cull of badgers were heard before MPs voted. The motion, calling on the government to stop the cull, attracted the support of 147 MPs, whilst 28 MPs voted against it. A list of Members and how they voted can be found at the end of the transcript of the debate.
Four MPs, Caroline Lucas, Alison McGovern, Henry Smith and Mike Weatherley, had approached the Backbench Business Committee to request the debate after the Stop the Cull e-petition reached the 100,000 signature target required for it to be considered for discussion. The petition has, to date, attracted more than 164,000 signatures.
I am delighted that MPs have voted to defend England’s badgers against the threat of a pointless and unjustified slaughter. The motion gained support from Members of Parliament from all political parties, and I would like to thank them all for showing their support for our beleaguered badgers and for listening to the science, and to the many thousands of supporters of Humane Society International/UK and our TeamBadger coalition partners, who took the time to contact their MPs to express their concerns.
The government has so far refused to listen to experienced scientists, disease experts and tens of thousands of compassionate people opposed to the cull. Surely now it must listen to the will of parliament and abandon its badger cull policy for good.
Licensing farmers and their agents to shoot at badgers in the dark is not a credible bovine TB control strategy fit for the 21st century. We need a modern and humane approach to tackling this disease based on sound science, on cattle and badger vaccination, good farm bio-security and high cattle welfare.
Speaking at the end of the debate DEFRA minister David Heath reiterated the government’s stance and confirmed that it intends for the culls to proceed in summer 2013.
Badgers have been given a stay of execution until next summer. HSI/UK, and our partners in Team Badger, will work hard during that time to ensure that the planned culls are abandoned once and for all.
Mark Jones is executive director of Humane Society International/UK.
Humane Society International
Multiart/iStock.com
Some animal tests take months or years to conduct and analyze (e.g., 4-5 years, in the case of rodent cancer studies), at a cost of hundreds of thousands—and sometimes millions—of dollars per substance examined (e.g., $2 to $4 million per two-species lifetime cancer study).
The inefficiency and exorbitant costs associated with animal testing makes it impossible for regulators to adequately evaluate the potential effects of the more than 100,000 chemicals currently in commerce worldwide, let alone study the effects of myriad combinations of chemicals to which humans and wildlife are exposed, at low doses, every day throughout our lives.
In contrast, computer modeling techniques are lightning-fast, and many cell-based in vitro methods are amenable to “high throughput” automation using robotics—all at a much lower cost than animal tests.
Type of Toxicity
Study Cost ($US)
Genetic toxicity
Chromosome aberration
animal test
$30,000
in vitro test
$20,000
Sister chromatid exchange
animal test
$22,000
in vitro test
$8,000
Unscheduled DNA synthesis
animal test
$32,000
in vitro test
$11,000
Eye irritation/corrosion
Draize rabbit eye test
animal test
$1,800
Bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) test
in vitro test
$1,400
Skin corrosion
Draize rabbit skin test
animal test
$1,800
EpiDerm™ human skin model
in vitro test
$850
CORROSITEX® membrane barrier
in vitro test
$500
Skin sensitisation
Guinea pig maximisation test
animal test
$6,000
Local lymph node assay (LLNA)
reduction alt.
$3,000
Phototoxicity
Rat phototoxicity test
animal test
$11,500
3T3 neutral red uptake test
in vitro test
$1,300
Embryotoxicity
Rat developmental toxicity test
animal test
$50,000
Rat limb bud test
in vitro test
$15,000
Non-genotoxic cancer risk
Rat 24-month cancer bioassay
animal test
$700,000
Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation test
in vitro test
$22,000
Pyrogenicity
Rabbit pyrogen test
animal test
$475-$990
Limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL)
1st gen in vitro
$85-$160
Human blood method (Endosafe-IPT)
2nd gen in vitro
$83-$100
Estrogen hormone interactions
Rat uterotrophic assay (OVX)
animal test
$29,600
Subcellular receptor-binding assay
in vitro test
$7,200
Androgen hormone interactions
Rat Hershberger assay
animal test
$37,000
Subcellular receptor-binding assay
in vitro test
$7,300
Charles River Laboratories. CRL Price List. Wilmington, MA: CRL (2006).
Corvi R (ECVAM), personal communication.
Derelanko MJ & Hollinger MA (Eds.). Handbook of Toxicology, Second Ed. Washington, DC: CRC Press (2002).
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee. EDSTAC Final Report. Washington, DC: US EPA (1998).
Institute for In Vitro Sciences. IIVS Price List. Gaithersburg, MD: IIVS (2007).
Stott W (Dow Chemical), personal communication.
Webb S (Proctor & Gamble), personal communication.
Humane Society International helps country's only official rescue center return animals to the wild
Humane Society International
by Karen E. Lange
The man with the plastic mesh bag is looking for a sale. Hanging out in the well-worn dirt strip on the edge of one of Managua’s main intersections, he eyes each vehicle, searching for customers—or police. He’s surrounded by other vendors, shirts hung with multiple pairs of cheap sunglasses, wrists with plastic bags full of remotes, windshield wipers, and phone chargers. Several hold sticks on which perch little chocoyos—parakeets—with clipped wings. Whenever a driver or passenger shows a flicker of interest, the sellers move casually out into traffic—private vehicles for the wealthy few and exuberantly decorated public buses, many of them castoff yellow school buses from the United States. Now the man with the bag spots a possibility. The passengers in an SUV have been asking to see a lapa, or scarlet macaw, one of the biggest and brightest of the birds in Nicaragua’s forests, but also among the rarest and most protected—far too valuable to display by the roadside. He hustles to the car and tells the driver to go through the intersection and pull over just past a gas station.
Leaning in through the front passenger window of the parked SUV, he offers the people inside a lapa. “I can get it for you tomorrow.” But they want to see something now. So he returns with the bag. From inside he draws a red-lored Amazon: a green parrot with a band of crimson above the nose. More common and less expensive than a scarlet macaw, it still belongs to a species scientists are considering listing as threatened. The bird blinks in the sudden mid-afternoon light and flaps its wings. The man keeps a tight grip, though it’s a baby, with feathers still growing in. Born about six months earlier in the forest, in the cavity of a tree trunk, the bird was taken from the nest by a poacher who climbed or cut the tree. Then it was dosed with rum or Valium, placed in the bottom of a bag or basket, and kept quiet beneath a damp towel for the trip to Managua.
Desperate poachers are robbing Nicaragua’s forests of their diversity.
Down in the dark of the bag the man has brought over, two more pairs of eyes look up. The people in the SUV want to see these birds, too. Reluctantly (they won’t bring as much money), the man brings them out. These are orange-chinned parakeets, smaller, around 4 months old. Feeling his way toward a sale, the man makes up a story. “They’re a family. These are the babies. You can have them all for $130.”
The people in the SUV are still undecided, so the man tries once more. “I can get you as many as you need,” he says, which is true—all he has to do is go to a holding center in the capital where birds from rural areas are kept as inventory. “Just tell me what you want.”
So goes the slow, steady depletion of wildlife from Nicaragua’s forests, and from those in the rest of Central America—especially the raucous, vibrantly plumed, highly intelligent parrots. Nicaragua is the poorest nation in Central America and the second poorest in the Western Hemisphere, with limited funds for law enforcement and limited economic opportunities to draw people away from the wildlife trade. And there’s a long tradition here of taking animals from the forests to keep as pets. Around Managua, furtively but persistently, vendors sell the country’s wild birds and other animals. Along the highways, too, in roadside markets the government despairs of stopping, parrots and parakeets and the occasional monkey are offered as pets; bunches of iguanas, hung upside down by their tails with their mouths sewn shut so they can’t bite, are sold for meat. Traders who travel to the farming frontier, at the forest’s edge, exchange food and other goods for wildlife, then smuggle the animals to roadside sellers or back to the capital. For every bird who appears live for sale, an estimated three have died—from dehydration, suffocation, hypothermia, starvation, injury, or stress.
For every bird who appears live for sale, an estimated three have died from dehydration, suffocation, hypothermia, starvation, injury, or stress.
“I’m overwhelmed by a growing frustration and helplessness,” says Martin Lezama-López, an ornithologist whose work on parrot populations helped get tougher laws passed in Nicaragua. “Each day it becomes clearer that there is a demand for these birds. This demand hasn’t changed in decades, despite many environmental campaigns in support of nature.”
Largely invisible within Nicaragua, a wider international trade also drains wildlife from forests such as the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve in the north and the Indio Maiz Biological Reserve in the southeast. Animals are smuggled out of the country despite restrictions on wild bird imports imposed by the United States in 1992 and a European Union ban enacted in 2007, and after Nicaragua in 2005 eliminated quotas that for decades had allowed the export of limited numbers of less threatened birds, reptiles, and amphibians—up to 10,000 parrots and parakeets a year.
An untold number of animals illegally depart the country on flights, hidden in false-bottomed suitcases or lengths of PVC pipe taped to passengers’ bodies like drugs. Others trickle across Nicaragua’s borders via the Pan-American Highway into Honduras or Costa Rica. Often they end up in El Salvador, which has few forests and little wildlife left but serves as a major transshipment point for traffickers. From there, animals are sent to the United States, Europe, and Japan, where the most sought-after parrots can each bring $1,000, $2,000, or more. Andrés Gómez Palacios, deputy commissioner of the Nicaraguan police’s Division of Economic Investigations, says people from outside the country place orders and the animals are delivered to them through networks that reach the most remote communities.
“It is not only one person,” he says. “It is groups. It is many, many people.”
HSI is helping to re-write pesticide testing regulations around the world
Humane Society International
HSI has helped put an end to 12-month pesticide-poisoning tests using dogs in Europe and the United States. Shutterstock
Rabbit “lethal dose” (LD50) skin tests on the way out in Europe thanks to HSI. Photobucket
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies consume between 1,300 and 2,600 mother and baby rats per chemical tested. Photobucket
Pesticides, from weed killers and rat poison to insect repellant and cleansers that claim to “kill germs,” are among the most heavily animal-tested products in existence. Government regulations sometimes require dozens of different animal-poisoning tests to assess the safety of a single new pesticide to market.
Some tests use thousands of animals at a time, while others are repeated two or even three times using different animal species and/or routes of chemical administration (e.g., oral force-feeding, forced inhalation and skin application). This means terrible suffering and death for upwards of 10,000 of rabbits, rodents, birds, fish, and even dogs, for every new pesticide.
HSI’s Science Team is working around the globe in cooperation with companies and government authorities to replace outdated pesticide testing requirements with the latest “3R best practices”—tests that replace, reduce or refine animal use while continuing to protect human health and the environment from toxic hazards—and we’re making unprecedented progress.
Europe leads the way
Between 2009 and 2012, HSI led a successful scientific lobbying campaign in Europe to dramatically reduce animal testing requirements for biocides (non-food pesticides) and plant protection products (food-use pesticides). EU directives governing these product sectors were adopted in 1991 and 1998, respectively, making them 15-20 years out of date with 3R best practices. But when the new EU biocides regulation was published in June 2012, more than 80 technical amendments proposed by HSI’s Science Team had been taken up. Collectively, these amendments have the potential to reduce the number of animals used to test a new biocidal active substance by an unprecedented 40 to 50 percent compared to previous requirements—making this the largest one-time regulatory animal test reduction ever achieved.
The process for revising EU testing requirements for food-use pesticides is also nearing completition, with many of the same HSI-promoted 3R best practices having been taken up.
Through our network of country offices, HSI is now working to extend the animal-saving achievements made in Europe to other key global markets. In India, we’re working to revise legislation dating back to the 1970s and bring both data requirements and test guidelines into the 21st century. In the United States, HSI and others have already made some progress convincing the Environmental Protection Agency to take up a number of animal reduction measures.
Rats squeezed into full-body restraint tubes during an inhalation toxicity test. NIEHS
Rabbit “lethal dose” skin tests cause needless suffering. Photobucket
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies consume between 1,300 and 2,600 mother and baby rats per chemical tested. Photobucket
An estimated 100,000 chemicals are marketed globally, with hundreds more new chemicals being introduced each year. Most are plastics and related polymers, while a smaller proportion include cleansers, paints, adhesives, lubricants, industrial solvents and a variety of short-lived by-products or “intermediates.” Some are kept tightly contained in closed systems and never released into the environment, while others may be marketed in high volumes and/or used as ingredients in products to which human beings and the environment may be exposed (e.g., cosmetics and household cleaning products, plastic packaging, and gasoline. Recently implemented laws in Europe, China and elsewhere are requiring companies to produce large quantities of test data, which could mean suffering and death for tens of millions of animals.
Within REACH
Europe’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) regulation of 2007 imposes escalating information (testing) requirements according to the volume in which a chemical is manufactured or imported each year. Estimates of potential new animal testing under REACH range from 9 million to as many as 45 million.
At the same time, REACH includes a number of strict measures aimed at avoiding new animal testing. One of these directs the European Commission, “as soon as possible” after a suitable animal testing alternative becomes available, to initiate proceedings to amend REACH testing requirements “so as to replace, reduce or refine animal testing.” Yet despite the availability of many such new and validated alternative test methods since 2007, no action has yet been taken to revise REACH testing requirements.
HSI has submitted a comprehensive proposal to the European Commission calling for major revisions to REACH data requirements to reflect scientific progress and minimize new animal testing to the maximum possible extent.TAKE ACTION »
The benefits of today’s health research are becoming harder to see
Humane Society International
Basic and applied biological research is responsible for the greatest proportion of animal use in laboratory experiments, accounting for approximately three-quarters of the estimated 115+ million annual total worldwide. Attempts to model human diseases in other animal species—whether to study the pathophysiology of a disorder or to develop and test the effectiveness of new candidate drugs or other therapies—are strongly represented in this area of research, and associated with many of the most severe experiments in terms of animal pain and suffering. Yet trying to mirror human diseases by artificially creating symptoms in animals such as mice, rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys has major scientific limitations. Very often the symptoms and responses to potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those of human patients.
Harnessing opportunities in non-animal asthma research for a 21st-century science
Drug Discovery Today, Volume 16, pages 914-27, November 2011 Gemma L Buckland
The incidence of asthma is on the increase and calls for research are growing, yet asthma is a disease that scientists are still trying to come to grips with. Asthma research has relied heavily on animal use; however, in light of increasingly robust in vitro and computational models and the need to more fully incorporate the ‘Three Rs’ principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, is it time to reassess the asthma research paradigm? Progress in non-animal research techniques is reaching a level where commitment and integration are necessary.READ MORE »
Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?
PLoS Medicine, Volume 7, page 514, March 2010 H Bart van der Worp, David W Howells, Emily S Sena, et al.
Animal experiments have contributed much to our understanding of mechanisms of disease, but their value in predicting the effectiveness of treatment strategies in clinical trials has remained controversial. In fact, clinical trials are essential because animal studies do not predict with sufficient certainty what will happen in humans. In a review of animal studies published in seven leading scientific jour- nals of high impact, about one-third of the studies translated at the level of human randomised trials, and one-tenth of the interventions, were subsequently approved for use in patients. However, these were studies of high impact (median citation count, 889), and less frequently cited animal research probably has a lower likelihood of translation to the clinic.READ MORE »
Experimental allergic encephalomyelitis: A misleading model of Multiple Sclerosis
Annals of Neurology, Volume 58, page 939-45, 2005 Subramaniam Sriram and Israel Steiner
Despite many years of intensive research, multiple sclerosis (MS) defies understanding and treatment remains subopti- mal. The prevailing hypothesis is that MS is immune mediated and that experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a suitable model to elucidate pathogenesis and devise therapy. This review examines critically the validity that EAE is an adequate and useful animal model of MS and finds credible evidence lacking. EAE represents more a model of acute central nervous system inflammation than the counterpart of MS. We propose to reconsider the utilization of EAE, especially when this model is used to define therapy. This will also force us to examine MS without the restraints imposed by EAE, as to what it is, rather than what it looks like.READ MORE »
In search of a depressed mouse: utility of models for studying depression-related behavior in genetically modified mice
Molecular Psychiatry, Volume 9, page 326-57, 2004 JF Cryan and C Mombereau
The ability to modify mice genetically has been one of the major breakthroughs in modern medical science affecting every discipline including psychiatry. … In this review, we will focus on the utility of current models (eg forced swim test, tail suspension test, olfactory bulbectomy, learned helplessness, chronic mild stress, drug-withdrawal-induced anhedonia) and research strategies aimed at investigating novel targets relevant to depression in the mouse. We will focus on key questions that are considered relevant for examining the utility of such models. Further, we describe other avenues of research that may give clues as to whether indeed a genetically modified animal has alterations relevant to clinical depression.READ MORE »
Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
British Medical Journal, Volume 328, page 514, February 2004 Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Michael B Bracken, Ian Roberts
Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews
Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific) contribution remains uncertain. Anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims are often used as justification—for example, statements that the need for animal research is “self evident” or that “Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time.” Such statements are an inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and future research are needed.READ MORE »
Humane Society International
Only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning their use of animals for testing and research, but it is estimated that more than 115 million animals—including mice, rats, birds, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, farm animals, dogs, cats, and non-human primates—are used and/or killed in laboratory experiments each year around the world.
Official animal use statistics are currently available only for the following countries:
The term “animal testing” refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals. All procedures, even those classified as “mild,” have the potential to cause the animals physical as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in subsequent experiments. Here is a selection of common animal procedures:
Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc.
Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death
Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes
Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification
Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination
Prolonged periods of physical restraint
Food and water deprivation
Surgical procedures followed by recovery
Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing
Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment
Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming
Other manipulations to create “animal models” of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression
Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means
What types of animals are used?
Many different species are used around the world, but the most common include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, and non-human primates (monkeys, and in some countries, chimpanzees). Video: Watch what scientists have to say about alternatives to animal testing.
It is estimated that more than 115 million animals worldwide are used in laboratory experiments every year. But because only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for testing and research, the precise number is unknown. For example, in the United States, up to 90 percent of the animals used in laboratories (purpose-bred rats, mice and birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates) are excluded from the official statistics, meaning that figures published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are no doubt a substantial underestimate.
Within the European Union, more than 12 million animals are used each year, with France, Germany and the United Kingdom being the top three animal using countries. British statistics reflect the use of more than 3 million animals each year, but this number does not include animals bred for research but killed as “surplus” without being used for specific experimental procedures. Although these animals still endure the stresses and deprivation of life in the sterile laboratory environment, their lives are not recorded in official statistics. HSI believes that complete transparency about animal use is vital and that all animals bred, used or killed for the research industry should be included in official figures. See some animal use statistics.
What’s wrong with animal testing?
For nearly a century, drug and chemical safety assessments have been based on laboratory testing involving rodents, rabbits, dogs, and other animals. Aside from the ethical issues they pose—inflicting both physical pain as well as psychological distress and suffering on large numbers of sentient creatures—animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions. Similarly, health scientists are increasingly questioning the relevance of research aimed at “modelling” human diseases in the laboratory by artificially creating symptoms in other animal species.
Trying to mirror human diseases or toxicity by artificially creating symptoms in mice, dogs or monkeys has major scientific limitations that cannot be overcome. Very often the symptoms and responses to potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those of human patients. As a consequence, nine out of every 10 candidate medicines that appear safe and effective in animal studies fail when given to humans. Drug failures and research that never delivers because of irrelevant animal models not only delay medical progress, but also waste resources and risk the health and safety of volunteers in clinical trials.
What’s the alternative?
If lack of human relevance is the fatal flaw of “animal models,” then a switch to human-relevant research tools is the logical solution. The National Research Council in the United States has expressed its vision of “a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines”, and science leaders around the world have echoed this view.
The sequencing of the human genome and birth of functional genomics, the explosive growth of computer power and computational biology, and high-speed robot automation of cell-based (in vitro) screening systems, to name a few, has sparked a quiet revolution in biology. Together, these innovations have produced new tools and ways of thinking that can help uncover exactly how chemicals and drugs disrupt normal processes in the human body at the level of cells and molecules. From there, scientists can use computers to interpret and integrate this information with data from human and population-level studies. The resulting predictions regarding human safety and risk are potentially more relevant to people in the real world than animal tests.
But that’s just the beginning. The wider field of human health research could benefit from a similar shift in paradigm. Many disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research. Some 300 million people currently suffer from asthma, yet only two types of treatment have become available in the last 50 years. More than a thousand potential drugs for stroke have been tested in animals, but only one of these has proved effective in patients. And it’s the same story with many other major human illnesses. A large-scale re-investment in human-based (not mouse or dog or monkey) research aimed at understanding how disruptions of normal human biological functions at the levels of genes, proteins and cell and tissue interactions lead to illness in our species could advance the effective treatment or prevention of many key health-related societal challenges of our time.
Modern non-animal techniques are already reducing and superseding experiments on animals, and in European Union, the “3Rs” principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments is a legal requirement. In most other parts of the world there is currently no such legal imperative, leaving scientists free to use animals even where non-animal approaches are available.
If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?
Despite this growing evidence that it is time for a change, effecting that change within a scientific community that has relied for decades on animal models as the “default method” for testing and research takes time and perseverance. Old habits die hard, and globally there is still a lack of knowledge of and expertise in cutting-edge non-animal techniques.
But with HSI’s help, change is happening. We are leading efforts globally to encourage scientists, companies and policy-makers to transition away from animal use in favour of 21st century methods. Our work brings together experts from around the globe to share knowledge and best practice, improving the quality of research by replacing animals in the laboratory.
Are animal experiments needed for medical progress?
It is often argued that because animal experiments have been used for centuries, and medical progress has been made in that time, animal experiments must be necessary. But this is missing the point. History is full of examples of flawed or basic practices and ideas that were once considered state-of-the-art, only to be superseded years later by something far more sophisticated and successful. In the early 1900’s, the Wright brothers’ invention of the airplane was truly innovative for its time, but more than a century later, technology has advanced so much that when compared to the modern jumbo jet those early flying machines seem quaint and even absurd. Those early ideas are part of aviation history, but no-one would seriously argue that they represent the cutting-edge of design or human achievement. So it is with laboratory research. Animal experiments are part of medical history, but history is where they belong. Compared to today’s potential to understand the basis of human disease at cellular and molecular levels, experimenting on live animals seems positively primitive. So if we want better quality medical research, safer more effective pharmaceuticals and cures to human diseases, we need to turn the page in the history books and embrace the new chapter—21st century science.
Independent scientific reviews demonstrate that research using animals correlates very poorly to real human patients. In fact, the data show that animal studies fail to predict real human outcomes in 50 to 99.7 percent of cases. This is mainly because other species seldom naturally suffer from the same diseases as found in humans. Animal experiments rely on often uniquely human conditions being artificially induced in non-human species. While on a superficial level they may share similar symptoms, fundamental differences in genetics, physiology and biochemistry can result in wildly different reactions to both the illness and potential treatments. For some areas of disease research, overreliance on animal models may well have delayed medical progress rather than advanced it. By contrast, many non-animal replacement methods such as cell-based studies, silicon chip biosensors, and computational systems biology models, can provide faster and more human-relevant answers to medical and chemical safety questions that animal experiments cannot match.
“The claim that animal experimentation is essential to medical development is not supported by proper, scientific evidence but by opinion and anecdote. Systematic reviews of its effectiveness don’t support the claims made on its behalf” (Pandora Pound et al. British Medical Journal 328, 514-7, 2004).
Humane Society International
As soon as the rescue team entered the premises, they were confronted with the sad reality of the animals being kept there. HSI/Cynthia Dent
A few animals, such as the one pictured here, doubled as fight/guard dogs. HSI/Cynthia Dent
The animals were kept in cramped, makeshift enclosures. HSI/Cynthia Dent
The dogs had to endure unsanitary conditions. HSI/Cynthia Dent
The dogs lacked the most basic care, including access to food and water. HSI/Cynthia Dent
Police officers helped secure the premises during the raid. HSI/Cynthia Dent
Many of the rescued dogs showed scars and injuries consistent with dog fighting. HSI/Cynthia Dent
Due to their aggressive behavior, several dogs had to be sedated before they could be moved. HSI/Cynthia Dent
HSI will contribute to the continued care and eventual rehabilitation of the rescued dogs. HSI/Cynthia Dent
Humane Society International’s Latin America office has been working with the Costa Rica government to crack down on illegal dogfighting industry in that country. On October 10, 2012, HSI staff worked with local police and officials to rescue 28 dogs from a breeding facility. The following is a firsthand account by Cynthia Dent, Director of HSI/LA, of the raid:
“When entering the property, we were overwhelmed by the intense smell of ammonia as well as the incessant and desperate barking of nearly 30 dogs. The animals were chained up in filthy makeshift enclosures by an underground breeder, who was allegedly selling dogs into the dogfighting industry.
Among the dogs we rescued were six American Staffordshire puppies, estimated to be about two weeks old. Many other American Staffordshires and two hybrid breeds – Mayday and Barracuda – indicated that the dogfighting industry in Costa Rica has become more complex than was initially thought.
Sadly, the dogs also had scars consistent with fighting. The team found training materials for dog fighting on the premises.
We were there for the entire day, removing the beleaguered and in many cases aggressive dogs from their miserable conditions. We sedated several of the dogs so that we could handle them properly and then relocated them to a safe place.
The animals will be evaluated and hopefully will then start the rehabilitation process, leading to eventual placement with families who can care for them properly.”
This is the most recent effort in HSI/Latin America’s partnership with the Costa Rican government to eradicate this inhumane industry. Earlier this month, HSI trained more than 100 people, including government representatives of the different regions of the country and police officers, on the appropriate handling of these animals and the evidence that should be confiscated at each raid.
HSI/Latin America is partnering with American Stafford Costa Rica to oversee the care and rehabilitation of the confiscated dogs, when possible, which will lead to their placement with carefully selected people who can continue to care for these animals.
Throughout 2012, we have had a success rate of rehabilitating 90 percent of all confiscated dogs.
In conjunction with the trainings, HSI/Latin America has provided equipment to the government and American Stafford Costa Rica to continue investigating this cruel practice and to aid in rescuing these dogs to provide them with an alternate way of life.
And we are working with the government on new legislation which would make the penalties for dogfighting more severe and require jail time for those caught in the act of dogfighting.
Humane Society International
Humane Society International/Latin America works with Costa Rican law enforcement to investigate acts of animal cruelty, especially dogfighting cases. Since early 2012, the Department of Animal Health in the Ministry of Agriculture has been targeting the dogfighting industry in Costa Rica.
While dog and cockfighting is illegal in Costa Rica, it is widespread and often accompanied by the presence of illegal drugs, gambling and firearms. The raids conducted by the Costa Rican government have uncovered a large industry that focuses its efforts on promoting and continuing the cruel and illegal practice of dogfighting.
Many illegal breeding facilities have been uncovered during investigations of the dogfighting industry, where dogs of various breeds and often “important” bloodlines are bred so that their offspring can be sold into the painful world of dogfighting. These breeding facilities are often cramped and unhygienic, and many of these animals will go for long periods of time without seeing the light of day.
Additionally, because these dogs are used for illegal fighting, they often don’t have access to veterinarians as their owners are hoping to avoid detection. This further increases these animals’ susceptibility to disease, malnutrition and other ailments resulting from inadequate medical care.
Live in Costa Rica (or the U.S.)? You may earn a reward for reporting dogfighting activity via our tip lines.
