Resources

USA: List of animal research labs and animals breeders

Animals in labs: USA

Every year over 20 millions animals are killed in US labs.

List of animal research labs:
http://www.scribd.com/full/5688474?access_key=key-ycume39lfodpt5naqfy

List of lab animals breeders:

http://www.scribd.com/full/5688480?access_key=key-1f52vulaw2yfjgf29gl1

These are PDF files to be downloaded and distributed. See what's happening in your town.

Statistical reports

Ireland 2008

Animal Lab Law in EU

European Commission:

Lab animals

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/home_en.htm

REACH

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm

Cosmetics Directive

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/index_en.htm

European Chemicals Agency:

http://echa.europa.eu

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to animal testing

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/index_en.htm

EU bodies

Intergroup for animal welfare
http://www.animalwelfareintergroup.eu

MEPs addresses

Alternatives

http://www.endeuanimaltests.org/introduction.php?lang=en

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) is a small, non-profit center. The center promotes humane science by supporting the creation, development, validation, and use of alternatives to animals in research, product safety testing, and education. People in the center seek to effect change by working with scientists in industry, government, and academia to find new ways to replace animals with non-animal methods, reduce the numbers of animals necessary, or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animals involved.
Baltimore, MD 21202-6709
Articles and publications on their site:
http://caat.jhsph.edu

Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site, was created to serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/

Research Review, November 2008
Implanting computer chips in the brain seems to be the next frontier in treating serious illnesses like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. But is there an ethical cost, asks Sarah Collins
Brain pathologies cost Europe around €390bn to €700bn per year, with 27 per cent of Europeans suffering from various brain diseases, according to François Berger of the French institute for health and medical research, Inserm. The way the brain functions is based on four factors,
says Berger: electrophysiological activity, neurotrophic factors (proteins that govern neurons in the rain), neural stem cells and
networks connecting different brain nuclei. So what if there were some technology that could stimulate or change the superior
functions of the brain, something non-invasive, which could easily access brain areas and had little lasting side effects?
For Berger, the main problem for treating brain disease is accessibility. For example, with diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, it’s not possible to detect the pathology early, and a biopsy is out of the question because sampling tissue is too invasive. A silicon chip could provide mechanistic information in an inaccessible area. Klaus-Michael Weltring of the EU nanotechnology network, Nano2life, says that the benefit of
such technology is that it has better biocompatibility, better targeting, it’s multifunctional and can access brain areas. Also, in vitro toxicity assays have been successful, which means that there is less need to test the technology on animals.
Berger brings up a technique developed by Dr Alim Benabid, a neurosurgeon at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire A.
Michallon in Grenoble in the 1980s: high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN). “Electric stimulus at the highest frequency can inhibit functionality – which is a reversible effect – so it is a functional therapy,” explained Berger at a conference on brain research organised
in the European parliament in October. “But it can have spectacular side effects: involuntary movement and laughter, acute
depression, which are all completely reversed when the treatment stops.” Berger is looking at the use of brain implants for
treatment-resistant depression, compulsions and Parkinson’s disease. A sort of ‘brain pacemaker’ – Activa ® Parkinson’s Control Therapy – developed by the US company Medtronic, has been implanted in 40,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease and tremors since 1995, reveals Berger. According to
Medtronic, Europe approved the technology for the treatment of Parkinson’s in 1998. It effectively stimulates the areas of the brain that cause the debilitating motor problems associated with Parkinson’s.
Where ethical problems really start to crop up is in considering brain implants for completely paralysed patients, or those who have lost cognitive function – for example, Alzheimer’s patients. “This can lead to ethical problems. But this technology is not going to change the way we feel about
informed consent. We always have meetings with patients,” insists Berger. The idea of such an implant is to give completely paralysed patients full mental control of robotic limbs or communication devices, he explains, bringing into play the idea of a brain-machine interface: the way the brain connects with external devices. A node would be inserted into the brain to control external devices, for example, robotic limbs, but this
throws up many problems: at the very least, ethical consequences, and at worst, long-term rejection of the device, admits Berger.
But Weltring asks, “If there are chips in the brain, who controls your body: the chip, you or the doctor? This comes down to the fact that all of a sudden you are not yourself any more.” However, for Berger, there is still a lot more research to be done before we can talk about the ethics of the brain-machine interface; devices can still cause side-effects such as haemorrhages, inflammatory reactions and glial scarring (which occurs after damage to the nervous system). Berger explains, “The complexity of the signal required to make the brain-machine interface work – all this actually has to be detected and analysed to run an external device, and much more research is needed. We are far from being able to replicate in a
machine what’s happening in our brains. As a doctor I have to be strict. There is a lot of work that needs to be supported to make implants more safe.”
A less invasive way to use nanotechnology to help patients with brain pathologies is to employ the idea of the blood-brain barrier. Berger looks at injecting nanoparticles into the blood and using magnetic targeting to activate them to develop nanostimuli. However, there is an issue with biocompatibility here – microelectrodes are connected with the brain via long nanotubes, which can be toxic. And he even talks – although
he labels it science-fiction – about the idea of a new hybrid brain, a highly complex device that mimics brain circuitry. Something along these lines is being developed by Theodore W Berger at the University of Southern California. He is examining the basics for a “chip-assisted hippocampus” (part
of the forebrain), offering a potential remedy for Alzheimer’s and stroke-related language and memory deficits. “Brain stimulation provides a unique opportunity to treat brain pathologies functionally and without lesions. Micro nanotechnologies are enabling technologies decreasing invasiveness,
efficacy and biocompatibility. There is a major perspective for better diagnostics, understanding and therapy at the human-brain interface,” reveals Berger. However, the research is still a long way from being complete, and according to Weltring, will require the concerted efforts of experts
and stakeholders to shift more resources to nanotechnology.

Using the Internet to Research Vivisection

by Jeremy Beckham
Let Live Conference, Portland, OR, June 26-28, 2009
PrimateLabs.com
http://www.primatelabs.com (shameless plug)
PrimateLabs.com is a new website which offers news, commentary, and information on primate vivisection across the country. At the top of the page, one can click “Vivisectors” or “labs” to find vivisectors/labs in their area that use primates. It then lists a basic summary of their research project(s), amount of money received, and contact information. This is a continual work in progress, and it should never be considered an exhaustive list of everyone using primates. If you have any additions or corrections to information, or would like help further researching/understanding a vivisectors’ works, you can email the site at moc.sbaletamirp|ofni#moc.sbaletamirp|ofni. The information on the site is updated regularly. The site also features archived media articles, legal opinions, journal articles, photos, and video.

CRISP – Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects
http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/
CRISP is a database maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that allows you to search all of their currently funded research. Be aware, much of what is on this database is not research on animals. After clicking “Go to CRISP query form,” you can search by name, state, institution, or even search terms relevant to the particular research project; such as “primate” or “dog” or “cat.” Make note of the grant number, specifically the beginning of the grant number where you will find a letter followed by two numbers, of any research project, as this will give you a clue as to what type of grant you are looking at. Here are a few you will see frequently:
R01 – These are grants awarded to an institution to allow a Principal Investigator (PI) to pursue a specific scientific focus or objective. These are the most common
vivisection grants.
P20 – These are grants for large programs at an institution. These provide the institution with resources for several research projects rather than funding a
specific project. These usually fund centers of research.
K## - Any grant that begins with K are to further the career of a scientist or scientist(s). These are often “up and coming” vivisectors. These are new
researchers to the field – often grad students – and represent their gateway into the research (torture) community.
For a full list of types of NIH grant numbers, see http://www.primatelabs.com/grantnumbers.pdf
The Vivisectors’ Websites
Vivisectors often have their own websites hosted by the university that they work for. Often there are more laymen’s descriptions of their research here, and, if you’re really lucky, photos and/or video. Simply google their names to help you find this.
PubMed
http://www.pubmed.gov
PubMed is a searchable database provided by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health containing published medical and scientific journals. In the search field, you can either use topic search terms (“macaque monkey”) or you can search for a researchers’ name. The correct way to search for their name would be to use their last name followed by their first and middle initial. So for me, Jeremy S. Beckham, you would search “Beckham JS.” You can then click a particular paper of theirs, and view an abstract of their paper. In many cases, you can also read the entire paper for free.
Students may be able to use their university library to access journals that others would normally have to pay for. When viewing a paper, look for the “Materials and Methods” section in particular, as this outlines the basics of what they are doing to animals.

USDA/APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) Animal Welfare site
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/index.shtml
Useful documents and forms at the USDA’s website include:
List of all registered research facilities -
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/reports/R_cert_holders.pdf
This shows all laboratories that are inspected by the USDA (all those that have species of animal covered by the AWA – so not mice, rats, birds).
Form 7023http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/7023.shtml
All labs are required by law to submit an annual 7023 form to the USDA. The USDA’s website is not fantastic, however, so they don’t have a report for every
lab for every year. Form 7023 includes a count of all their animals, and a basic accounting for how many animals are being used for breeding and how many are
being used for particularly painful research (Column ‘E’). Remember, however, that under federal law, mice, rats and birds are not ‘animals’ so you won’t see a
count of them and labs that only have these species are invisible to the USDA.
Sometimes, 7023 also contains an attached “approved exceptions” form. These are instances where the lab is violated federal animal welfare law, but it’s A-OK
because their local animal care and use committee gave it a stamp of approval. These forms can be very useful.
Inspection Reports – At one time, you could find inspection reports on the USDA website for many vivisection labs. However, paradoxically, after Obama
issued an order calling for greater transparency and openness in federal agencies, the USDA took down all inspection reports for research facilities. You can still
get these forms if you make a FOIA request for a specific institution or institution(s) with the USDA, but it will take a while. And they may reappear on
their site at some point.
FOIA Information
The USDA website has information on how to file a FOIA request with them. Simply click the link on the right titled “I want to submit a FOIA request.”

O ile nie zaznaczono inaczej, treść tej strony objęta jest licencją Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.