Monkey research 'can be improved'

27 July 2011 Last updated at 12:02 GMT By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News No clear medical benefits have emerged from nearly 10% of research projects involving monkeys A review of the use of monkeys in UK medical research says the practice should continue and finds the current work to be generally of good quality.

But the independent report voiced concern that no clear scientific, medical or social benefits had emerged from nearly one in 10 projects.

It also said that in a minority of experiments, the justification for using monkeys was "not compelling".

The review was led by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson.

The current president of the Zoological Society of London was commissioned by the main bodies that fund medical research in Britain.

They wanted him to assess whether the studies on non-human primates (NHPs) were necessary, high-quality and yielded significant advances in medical science.

Animal welfare groups opposed to experimentation on monkeys called again for the practice to be banned outright. They described Prof Bateson's review a "chilling insight into primate research".

Brain studies

Although the proportion of monkeys used in research compared with other animals is low, less than 0.1%, there is concern that they suffer more than other species during experimentation, and so should only be used if those studies are expected to yield important medical benefits and if there is no other way of carrying out the research.

The review suggested that this standard might not have been achieved in all cases. "Not everything is rosy in the garden," Prof Bateson told reporters.

He reviewed experiments on monkeys carried out between January 1997 and December 2006. Just under 3,000 animals were used in experiments in that period.

Continue reading the main story

Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit of research on monkeys”

End Quote Prof Patrick Bateson Report Author The bulk of the research focused on neuroscience. Research on great apes is not permitted in the UK and so monkeys provide the next best animal models to study the human brain.

Researchers often cite the widespread prevalence of neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as a justification for research in this area.

However, Prof Bateson said that the "size of the problem should not be accepted as the sole justification for individual areas of research".

He added: "Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit (of research on monkeys). Instead, statements should be based on the actual scientific basis for funding decisions."

Considerable suffering

Prof Bateson and his team looked at 31 neuroscience studies. Half of the experiments involved considerable animal suffering. These were assessed as having a high scientific value.

Monkeys provide the best animal model for study of brain disorders

But in most cases, according to Prof Bateson, there was "little direct evidence of medical benefit". He did concede, though, that there might not have been sufficient time for the advances gained in scientific understanding to be translated into new drugs or treatments.

The report recommends a body to be set up to assess whether commissioned research will lead to improvements in healthcare.

Prof Bateson's review found a few instances of research that caused a high degree of suffering, but was not judged to be the highest-quality science.

One example was of UK-funded research on reproduction carried out overseas.

It involved performing a hysterectomy in which the mother and its foetus were, in the words of the review, "compromised". The study was undertaken to train students and repeated a study that had been carried out a decade earlier.

According to Prof Bateson, "it is not acceptable knowingly to fund work outside the UK that would not be legally responsible or ethically acceptable in the UK".

Continue reading the main story

Despite the use of peer review to assess whether projects we fund are worth doing, it is inevitable that some of it does not work out”

End Quote Medical Research Council The report also said scientists had a "moral responsibility" to publish all their results on experiments involving monkeys even if they were not positive or not deemed interesting.

Research results are often not published when the experiments do not yield positive results, but Prof Bateson's point is that because some of these details are not put in the public domain, it could lead to other researchers repeating the experiments and so causing unnecessary suffering.

Strengthened procedures

Responding to the report, the Medical Research Council (MRC) said: "Despite the use of peer review to assess whether projects we fund are worth doing, it is inevitable that some of it does not work out."

The MRC added that it would continue to work to ensure all grants using non-human primates made clear the expected scientific, medical or social benefit, and that if these benefits were not realised, the reasons why should be explored to ensure lessons were learnt for the future.

In a joint statement, the main funders of monkey research in the UK - the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Biological and Biotechnology Research Council - said improvements to procedures had already been made.

"We have strengthened our procedures for assessing all grant applications requesting use of [monkeys], cats, dogs and equines," their statement read.

"These applications are now reviewed by the independent National Centre for the Refinement, Reduction and Replacement of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).

"Any concerns are explored with the applicants, and funding is not awarded unless these are properly addressed. We will continue to work with the NC3Rs to ensure that all research we fund using NHPs is assessed appropriately and the research undertaken is of the highest standard in terms of science and animal welfare."

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection said primate research was a blind alley that had no merit.

Chief Executive Michelle Thew said: "This report is a chilling insight into primate research in the UK. Regulations to protect primates are failing.

"It is shocking that 25 years after legislation was introduced to give primates special protection, many experiments are being carried out that have a devastating impact on them with little or no human benefit. The only measure that would completely protect primates, and ensure more productive medical research, is an outright ban."

In general, the number of animal experiments carried out in the UK rose by 3% last year, according to government figures.

Just over 3.7 million scientific experiments on animals were started in Great Britain in 2010, an increase of 105,000 on the previous year.

View the original article here

Links 'key to forensic research'

4 July 2011 Last updated at 16:52 GMT By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News Website The FSS has been a major contributor to research and development in forensic science Universities can help form the core of a research and development hub for forensic science in the UK, a Home Office review has suggested.

The report recommended improved links between those engaged in forensic research and those who used it.

The review followed the government's decision to wind down the Forensic Science Service, which analyses crime scene evidence in England and Wales.

But one expert said devolving research to universities would not work.

The review also encompasses the roles played in research by government labs and private forensic providers.

The Silverman Review came to light last week, on the same day that MPs published the findings of an inquiry that criticised the government's plans for shutting down the Forensic Science Service, or FSS. The report has now become available on the internet.

The FSS had an international reputation for innovation in forensic science, and many experts have voiced dismay over the likely effect of the closure on UK R&D. Sir Alec Jeffreys, who helped pioneer the technique of genetic fingerprinting, called the move "potentially disastrous".

In the review, its author Dr Bernard Silverman, who is chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, wrote: "With better co-ordination and linkages, paying attention not only to making new developments but also to their validation and communication, the energy and commitment in the area has the potential to drive innovation more effectively."

It added: "It is not appropriate or even possible to take a top-down approach to this essential communication aspect of research and development; rather it is incumbent upon all involved to be particularly aware of this need and to build on the formal and informal networks that already exist."

Funding sources

The review outlines a range of university research areas relevant to forensic science, but notes that "the difficulty, or perceived difficulty" of obtaining funding for forensic research was a recurrent theme in submissions to the review from academic institutions.

Continue reading the main story

To be useful [as a forensic researcher] you need to be part of a caseworking laboratory because the two feed off each other”

End Quote Professor Peter Gill University of Oslo It recommends that consideration be given to making forensic science a strategic research priority for the research councils, which fund academic research in the UK. It added: "In the first instance, the Home Office should facilitate contacts between Research Councils UK and academics, industry and end users to explore this possibility in detail."

The review says that one of the major means for funding research in universities - the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF) - contains provisions to encourage research of "social, economic or cultural impact or benefit", which could include forensic research.

Dr Silverman also points out that the existing framework agreement used by police to procure forensic services sets out a requirement for private providers to carry out R&D.

But last week, an inquiry carried out by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee described UK forensic R&D as "not healthy" and called for a new national research budget for forensic science.

It said the Home Office had not consulted Dr Silverman over the decision and that the government had not considered enough evidence before coming to its conclusion. The committee added that the chief scientific adviser's satisfaction at his exclusion from the decision-making process was "unacceptable".

Speaking to BBC News last week, forensic scientist Professor Peter Gill, at the University of Strathclyde and the University of Oslo, warned that simply devolving the responsibility for research to universities was unlikely to work.

He said: "To be useful [as a forensic researcher] you need to be part of a caseworking laboratory because the two feed off each other. You develop the method and then there is a way to implement them into casework, which is a joint collaboration between caseworkers and researchers.

"If you separate the research out it would not work properly. You have to have the right environment."

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

View the original article here

Brain research 'funding crisis'

13 June 2011 Last updated at 23:37 GMT Scientists fear the cost of getting drugs to the market place is holding back brain research Scientists say research into mental illnesses such as depression is facing a funding crisis.

They warn that new treatments will be delayed and that the next generation of neuroscience researchers will not be trained.

A report by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology said private companies were pulling out due to the challenge of bringing drugs to market.

It called for more investment and changes to the way trials take place.

The report was the result of a summit of more than 60 representatives of governments, universities, the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups.

Higher failure rate

It said up to 80% of funding for brain research in Europe had traditionally come from the private sector. However, pharmaceutical companies were retreating from the field because of the cost of bringing drugs as far as the consumer.

The report said it took much longer to develop drugs for mental illness - 13 years on average. Those drugs had a higher failure rate and were harder to get licensed for use, it said.

Only one new anti-depressant has been approved in Europe, agomelatine, in the past 10 years.

Professor Guy Goodwin, from the University of Oxford, said a lack of funding could lead to a "generational crisis" in neuroscience research and training.

He said there should be more public money invested in brain research: "The cost and burden are really quite high, yet research attracts disproportionately low investment.

"Public investment in research should be somehow related to the burden of the disease."

The report suggested ways of encouraging more people to invest, such as increasing the patent length for psychiatric drugs - making them more profitable.

A European "medicines chest" was also suggested. Pharmaceutical companies would donate drugs they were no longer using for research, which could then be used by other organisations.

The report suggested that drugs discarded for treating Alzheimer's disease, for example, could be used in research for psychiatric disorders.

Professor David Nutt, of Imperial College London, described the current situation as "madness".

He said: "With Europe's extraordinary tradition in neuroscience innovation relying so heavily on private-sector investment, the consequences for the region's research base and public-health agenda are of major concern."

View the original article here