Latest news with #MarcBekoff
Washington Post
14-04-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
The costs of cutting canine testing
Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff called for a moratorium on federal funding of and an eventual ban on research using dogs in their March 26 Wednesday Opinion essay, 'This is no way to treat a best friend.' Public support for research on companion animals has historically been mixed, but that's probably because of a misunderstanding about research with dogs. Though dogs represent less than 1 percent of animals used in science, their contributions have an outsize impact on human and pet lives. In fact, 18 Nobel laureates worked with dogs for their research. The field of human and canine comparative oncology, in which researchers study the similarities of cancers in humans and pets, is in its infancy. Many cancers present in similar ways in dogs and humans, including bone, prostate, breast, skin, and head and neck. Research with dogs has also contributed to scientists' understanding of cardiovascular diseases. Cardiac pacemakers and stents, developed with the help of dogs, are also placed in pet dogs with heart disease. Some of the most prescribed drugs and medical devices have been developed with dogs and also benefit dogs, including lisinopril, glucometers and blood pressure monitors. And, dogs were instrumental test subjects in the early experiments that led to the discovery of insulin. Not only did this work save the lives of countless diabetic humans over the past century, but it also benefited diabetic dogs. Scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians are committed to advancing knowledge and improving both human and animal health while upholding the highest standards of care. These professionals replace dogs with other research models whenever scientifically possible. But in many areas of research, including comparative oncology, using dogs is necessary. When considering the ethical implications of conducting research with dogs, we should also consider the ethical implications of depriving millions of animal and human patients of treatments if a moratorium on canine research is put in place. Instead of painting a target on the backs of scientists who work with dogs to advance knowledge and treatments, we should understand and respect the necessity of their work for the sake of human and animal health. Matthew R. Bailey, Washington The writer is president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research. Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff painted a deeply troubling picture of animal testing. But the truth is more balanced: Goodall and Bekoff omitted critical context about why animal research occurs and how these animals are cared for. The American public benefits from animal testing as many researchers seek treatments for diseases that affect both humans and pets. The decision to use dogs is not made lightly, and they are used only when no other species can answer the proposed research questions. Though most dogs that are used as research subjects must ultimately be humanely euthanized, their contributions allow scientists to gather critical data that leads to lifesaving treatments and cures. Honoring these animals means ensuring their time in research is as comfortable as possible and recognizing the lasting impact they have on future generations. The public deserves a more realistic outlook on the challenges we face in medicine and the resources we need to address them in the safest, most effective and timeliest ways possible. The assertion that dogs are 'routinely mutilated' is not true. Studies must be necessary, ethical and conducted with the highest standards of care. Ethics committees composed of veterinarians and nonscientists assess the scientific justifications for using animals while governing the veterinary oversight needed to uphold their health and care. This includes using analgesics, anesthetics and tranquilizers whenever possible to minimize and alleviate discomfort. Researchers are committed to considering alternatives to animals such as computer modeling, cell cultures and artificial intelligence. Welfare violations of any kind are taken seriously and warrant thorough review. But when these deplorable incidents occur, they do not represent the practices and beliefs of the broader biomedical research community, which remains committed to the people and animals in its care. Sweeping decisions to eliminate certain species in research would be irresponsible and shortsighted, as this work not only improves animal health but also holds promise for millions of Americans. Discussions about animal research should be grounded in a complete understanding of both ethical considerations and the medical advances it allows. We owe it to the public — and to the animals — to ensure the conversation is driven by facts and realistic expectations rather than emotion and examples devoid of context. Eliminating studies on dogs might seem like a noble goal, but we must ask: What is the cost? Naomi Charalambakis, Washington The writer is a neuroscientist and is director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress. I was so grateful as I read Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff's essay detailing the cruel treatment of dogs in some U.S. laboratories. Most of us feel immense compassion for dogs, but let's also remember that other animals used in testing are just as sentient. Many animals, however, are still used for trivial purposes, including testing household products such as oven cleaner. Let's end product testing on animals now, and work to phase out medical testing on animals in favor of more ethical methods. Karen Dawn, Santa Barbara, California The writer is founder and director of DawnWatch, an animal advocacy organization. Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Matt Pottinger, in their March 25 Tuesday Opinion essay, 'R&D funding isn't a gift to academia,' were right to call for renewed federal investment in science and technology. Public funding for research and development is not a charitable gesture. It's the beating heart of U.S. technological leadership. History proves this. The internet wasn't invented in a garage; it was born out of the Defense Department's ARPANET, a Cold War-era federal project designed to secure military communications. As Mariana Mazzucato wrote in her book 'The Entrepreneurial State,' nearly every component of the iPhone, including GPS, touch-screen and voice-recognition software, was made possible by decades of public investment. Yet we've allowed a dangerous myth to take root: that only private markets innovate. In fact, private capital rarely steps in until the government has de-risked basic science. As Annie Jacobsen documented in her book 'The Pentagon's Brain,' the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested in ideas far too speculative for the private sector. Today, as China escalates its own R&D investment, the stakes are no longer just economic. This is about national security. Science and innovation aren't luxuries; they're important tools in our arsenal. If we want to stay ahead, we must fund bold, mission-driven science and ensure that the American people, who foot the bill, share in the rewards. That means not just commercialization but also reinvestment in public goods. Let's stop pretending R&D is a handout. It's a strategy, and it's one we pioneered. Joseph Frusci, New York What happened to President Donald Trump's visionary commitment to ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic? Hundreds of the foremost HIV scholars around the country recently received letters terminating their research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health. And NIH funding for the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network, which since 2001 has focused on preventing HIV among adolescents and saving children living with HIV, was also abruptly terminated. Many of the termination letters noted that 'so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion ('DEI') studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans. Therefore, it is the policy of NIH not to prioritize such research programs.' The Trump administration is also considering closing the Division of HIV Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which funds more than $1 billion in lifesaving programs around the country. Thousands of federal public health workers recently had their employment abruptly terminated or reassigned, many of them in the HIV field. HHS also announced its intention to remove all current members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, which provides the presidents' policy counsel about HIV issues. This is all a major reversal from Trump's 2019 State of the Union address, in which he announced a goal of ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. The programs that followed Trump's strategy worked. More people have access to HIV prevention and treatment than at any time in history. HIV infections are down overall, with approximately 32,000 new HIV infections in 2022, which is a 12 percent decline from 2018. Trump's plan compelled government agencies to coordinate with churches, nonprofit organizations and researchers to ensure that everyone has access to the HIV prevention and care services they need. Thanks to NIH research investments, most HIV cases can now be both prevented and treated with as little as one pill a day. One big public health challenge is delivering lifesaving medications to the people who need them most. This is easier said than done and requires important research in real-world clinical settings. Our approach to engaging and retaining Black men in HIV prevention services has proved highly effective in pilot studies and was cited as an evidence-based best-practice intervention by the CDC in 2023. However, our larger study exploring how to scale that successful program to clinics across the United States, including in the Deep South, was terminated last month. Many people need help accessing lifesaving medications, transportation to their appointments, and special support to pay for and adhere to their HIV medications. Thanks to Trump's 2019 plan to end the HIV epidemic, for the first time, most people who needed HIV medications could get them at no or low cost, even in rural communities. Red states benefited handsomely from this initiative, which pumped millions of dollars of resources into rural communities with high HIV rates, few physicians and few clinics. Our own research with African American clergy in the South demonstrated that this strategy really works. Mr. President, you had an incredible plan to end the HIV epidemic. It saved lives. Please bring it back. Amy Nunn and Philip A. Chan, Providence, Rhode Island Amy Nunn is a professor of public health at Brown University and is chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Public Health Institute. Philip A. Chan is an associate professor of medicine and public health at Brown, chief medical officer of the Rhode Island Public Health Institute and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Do you have a grievance with our grammar? Are you irked with our omissions? Do you crave different coverage? Or do you just wonder how The Post does our work? You're in luck. On April 23 at 1 p.m., the letters team will be answering your questions in a live chat, so submit them now for the best chance of a detailed answer:
Washington Post
24-03-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
End experiments on dogs
Marc Bekoff is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of 'Dogs Demystified: An A-to-Z Guide to All Things Canine.' Jane Goodall, an ethologist and conservationist, is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute. Every year, more than 40,000 dogs, mostly beagles, are used in research in the United States. They are often used in painful and deadly tests, and laws to protect them are minimal. We should end this betrayal of man's best friend. It's important to understand what dogs can go through even before they reach a lab. On Jan. 9, a judge in Dane County, Wisconsin, ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of criminal animal cruelty at Ridglan Farms, which sits just outside Madison. Ridglan is one of only two large U.S. 'purpose breeders' of beagles for experimentation. Ridglan has been in business since 1966 and holds about 3,000 beagles in huge, industrial sheds. It also has an atrocious record on animal welfare. Last month, the district attorney of La Crosse County was selected to begin the investigation. As the court's order details, inspections by state and federal regulatory bodies have documented deficient housing, untreated injuries and unsanitary conditions at Ridglan for years. In June, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection conducted a regular inspection there; because it found violations, the department conducted a follow-up inspection in September — and found more. The reports documented dogs limping with untreated foot injuries, lack of positive human contact and socialization, excrement in cages and accumulating on floors, 'stagnant pools of moisture,' and exhaust fans 'coated with organic material, restricting air movement.' Government inspectors have allowed Ridglan to agree to rectify such issues — only to have the company commit them again. Those and other violations were detailed in October at an all-day evidentiary hearing in the case seeking a special prosecutor. (One of us, Marc Bekoff, testified in the proceeding.) What we see, on videos captured by activists who entered Ridglan and rescued three dogs and in the inspection reports, is dogs suffering extreme psychological distress. An attorney for Ridglan did not respond to a request for comment for this op-ed. The company previously told a local TV station that it 'is subject to extensive state and federal regulations that govern its operations and [that it] takes compliance with those regulations seriously.' Ridglan is not an outlier. In 2022, federal agents raided what was at the time another large U.S. dog experimentation breeding facility, Envigo. The feds seized more than 100 dogs in urgent need of care. Envigo later reached an agreement with the Justice Department to close its U.S. facility and adopt out more than 4,000 beagles. In June, Envigo was ordered to pay the largest fine in history for animal welfare violations: $35 million. With this dramatic closure, only Ridglan and a much larger breeder, Marshall Farms in Upstate New York, remain. The latter holds approximately 18,000 dogs. Dogs from such 'purpose bred' facilities can cost more than $1,000. Dogs in the experimentation industry are routinely mutilated. Sometimes their vocal cords are cut so that their barking will not disturb animal experimenters. One of the most egregious revelations to emerge from Ridglan is its practice of 'cherry-eye removal' surgery. Current and former Ridglan employees say these have for years routinely been conducted by non-veterinarians and without supervision. The dogs are restrained while an overgrown gland is crudely cut off the dog's eye, with little — and, often, no — anesthesia, pain relief, bleeding control or after care. Removing this gland leaves dogs with permanently painful dry eyes. What awaits dogs when they arrive at a laboratory is often worse. They are used in all sorts of lab experiments: to test drugs, pesticides and medical devices, for example. Some are specially bred to have diseases or operated on to give them the symptoms of diseases. A common technique for toxicology testing is 'oral gavage,' in which a tube is shoved down dogs' throats and they are forced to ingest substances. Dogs rarely make it out of a lab alive. In the past decade, dogs purchased from Ridglan have been subjected to hour-long strokes, killing several and leaving the rest with severe brain damage; injured to simulate a rotator cuff injury; and sickened with a high-potency sweetener. All of the dogs used in these experiments were killed, either in the experiments themselves or afterward. All of these tests are legal. The Animal Welfare Act, which regulates both labs and breeders such as Ridglan, places no restrictions on experimental design or purpose, no matter how painful or trivial. If researchers claim that their experimental objectives require them to violate standards that the AWA covers, such as providing adequate food, water or exercise, they may lawfully do so. Even these requirements are limited. For example, under the AWA, dog cages need to be only six inches longer and taller than the dog's full body length and height; doubling this space eliminates the requirement to ever allow the dogs outside the cage. At October's Ridglan evidentiary hearing, one witness testified that, when he worked there, the dogs never went outside and were only let out of their cages to be transported to a lab. And these minimal protections are inadequately enforced. Multiple audits by the Agriculture Department's inspector general have found that enforcement of federal animal welfare laws is 'basically meaningless' and 'ineffective.' In October 2018, The Post reported that during the first three quarters of that year the federal government had filed a single administrative complaint. In February, USDA's inspector general released an audit of dog-breeding facilities. It found that a whopping 80 percent of audited breeders had not fully corrected previous AWA noncompliances, that 'inconsistent and untimely inspections' by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may have contributed to the problem, and that the service had not promptly responded to complaints — all of which 'poses a threat to the safety and well-being of the animals.' It does not have to be this way. Since 1979, the number of dogs used in experiments has been reduced by 80 percent, and Americans are increasingly opposed to the use of animals in medical testing. In 2015, the United States ended all federal funding for experimentation on chimpanzees, which effectively stopped the practice. We can end what we're doing to dogs, too. For thousands of years, humans have selectively bred dogs to be loyal to us and need our care. To use them in deadly and painful experiments is a profound betrayal of trust. Thousands of dogs are trapped in breeding facilities and labs. With an immediate moratorium on federal funding for experiments on dogs, and ultimately a ban on dog experiments, we can end this situation and begin to provide those dogs with the loving homes they deserve.
