The just-published paper below is the first of a series of
papers attacking key foundations of vivisection from a scientific angle,
to be published in international scientific journals and presented at
scientific conferences; namely, that animal 'models' are predictive for
humans, and that the animals used do not suffer unduly. The papers are
damning in their results and once published will represent some of the
most valuable scientific evidence against vivisection gathered to date.
The 1st paper below demonstrates conclusively that animals subject to
routine laboratory procedures such as handling, blood draws and orogastric
gavaging in all cases and the wide range of species examined suffer marked
physiological stress likely to cause psychological distress and distort
experimental results (decreasing their reliability), and further, that the
animals do not readily habituate to these stressors over time. People
wishing a copy of this 1st published paper are welcome to email me
privately. The editorial referred to raises points that were all addressed
in the paper and merely reflect the lack of rigour and bias of the
editors. Andrew Knight
+++
A new report published in Contemporary Topics in
Laboratory Animal Science finds that mice, rats, rabbits, beagles, geese,
and other animals all show measurable physiological stress responses to
routine laboratory procedures that have been up until now viewed as
relatively benign. The review focused on three commonly performed
procedures: handling, blood collection and force-feeding. Independent of
the invasive experiments themselves, these daily routines can cause an
animal to experience elevated bloodstream concentrations of corticosterone,
prolactin, glucose, and epinephrine, all indicators of stress.
The paper generated considerable controversy in the
vivisection community during its peer review. After the editor had
accepted it for publication, the AALAS (American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science—which publishes the journal) executive committee
intervened, resulting in the editor’s resignation in protest, and a
publication delay of five months. An editorial from the committee
published in the same issue insinuates that the paper is biased and that
it lacks rigor.
Balcombe JP, Barnard N, Sandusky C. 2004 Laboratory
routines cause animal stress. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal
Science. 43(6): 42-51.
Go on to National Bird
Day, January 5
Return to 26 December 2004 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
