SeeMyScience: On the Topic of Animal Testing

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to participate in the “I’m A Scientist, Get me out of here” program, in which students from around Australia ask a variety of scientists questions about every topic imaginable, from what the universe is made of, to what subjects we studied at school. We had some fantastic questions, including one in particular that highlighted one of the most controversial issues in medical science: 

“What do you feel about using animals in experiments and testing experiments on them?”

Animal testing is a loaded topic, and not often spoken about, because scientists often fear the backlash that comes from people who do not understand or approve of what it is we do. As part of this series, I felt it would be appropriate to reproduce my response to this important question, in order to help explain what goes into the development of treatments for some of our most debilitating diseases.

"[This is a question] that is discussed a lot by scientists, particularly in medical research. This is going to be a very long answer, but it is a very big issue! First up, I will be honest: I agree with animal testing in medical research, but not for cosmetics. Now, let’s go in to a bit more detail about why I have these opinions. Let’s start with medical research. I’m going to use drug development as an example, because it’s what I’m familiar with, but this could apply to any disease.

"When a scientist comes up with a new idea for a drug that helps treat cancer, we can’t just take that drug and immediately start using it on people. We don’t know what dose to use, if it will actually cause more harm than not taking the drug, if it will make the cancer get larger, how it interacts with all of our organs. Some new drugs might cause people to have heart failure, or injure their brain, cause birth defects, or just make them feel really sad. In extreme cases, they might even die, so as you can see, we don’t want to go testing things on people straight away. So, where do we start? Hint: It’s not actually with animals!

"Once we’ve done lots of reading about this compound, and figured out how we think it will work, we can do things like run it through a computer simulation. These programs can be quite complex, and give you lots of data about how the body MIGHT react to the drug. This step can rule out lots of drugs, when the computer reminds the scientist that Drug X actually acts on nerve Y in a bad way, so it gets ditched. Even if our drug passes this step, the computer doesn’t know everything about how the human body works (even we don’t!), or how the drug might react with environmental factors. So, after we have gained insight from our computer program, we take it to cell models.

"There are all different kinds of cells we grow in the lab, which can represent all different tissues and diseases. The first thing we do is figure out how much of our drug will cause the cells to die. We then work backwards, using lots of different dilutions to figure out the minimum amount of drug we need to have an effect on the cells. Think of it like making up cordial. We know that straight cordial doesn’t taste very good, but not enough cordial just tastes like water, so we want to get just the right amount to taste good! Once we find this level, we can study the cells to see how they react to the drug. This might be changes in the way they look, what genes they are producing, how well their enzymes are working. We can make sure it is having the effect on the cells we think it is supposed to, or figure out why it is having ones we don’t know about. We do all the same tests in different types of cells, to see what effect it will have on different tissues. This step can take a very long time, and even more drugs never make it past this stage, because they simply do the wrong thing, or are too toxic.

"So, our drug has passed cell culture testing, we think it’s pretty safe, we know how much we need to use, and we’re ready to stick it into a human! NO WAY! We know it’s not killing off the cells in culture, but those are just cells. The body is made up of organs, and blood, and enzymes, all of which can take a drug and change it. This is called bio-metabolism, and some of the products can be quite poisonous. Unfortunately, cell models can only recreate these conditions to a small extent, and we certainly can’t replicate our complex organs in a petri-dish. Without knowing what it will do when it’s taken into our livers, kidneys, brains, etc., wouldn’t you rather have more information? This is where animals come in.

"The only way we can know how a drug will react in complex systems is to place it into a complex system. We want it to be comparable to humans, so we need an animal that has similar genes, organs, and biological processes to us, which can have the same diseases as humans have. In many cases, the closest animals are mice. I’ve already talked a little bit about how mice relate to the human body here.

"Before we work with animals, we have to be very sure that our drug is going to work, and that it is going to be safe. We have to do a lot of math to make sure that we use as few animals as possible, but enough that our results will be meaningful. Even before we see the animals, we have to talk to other scientists, vets, and people from the community, to figure out if this research is going to help people, if we are doing the right thing, a process known as ethics approval. We have to make sure that our animals are going to be under as little stress as possible, that we can reduce stress if we have to, and that we are not going to put the animals in pain. Only after we are very sure of all these things do we ever test on animals.

"When we are running animal trials, we check our animals every day, sometimes twice a day! We make sure they have enough food and water, that they are socialising with other animals, and that they are comfortable. If we ever see that they are in pain, or stressed, we do everything we can to help the animal. Sometimes we have to give them an injection, or take some blood, just like going to the doctor for a blood test. When we give them our new drug, we keep a close eye on them, and if it looks like it’s having a bad effect, or an effect we weren’t expecting, we stop straight away. And at the end of the study, we put the animals to sleep quietly, so that they don’t feel any pain. Some people are lucky, and don’t have to give their animals drugs. Some people give them different food, and Emma from the Organs Zone gets them to run through mazes to check their memory, or listens to them sing to each other!

"The life of the animals we use in research gives us valuable information that can help us improve or save many human lives. It can be very difficult sometimes, and sad, but we treat the animals with respect, and I thank each for the contribution they are making. We do not let anything go to waste, looking at all of the organs and other tissues, and keeping all the parts we don’t use so that other people can look at the same drug or disease without having to do the experiment all over again with new animals.

"I don’t agree with animal testing of cosmetics for reasons that are linked to those I’ve already spoken about above. A new type of hair dye or eye shadow isn’t going to save lives, or really even make them better. We already know so much about the ingredients in products we use on our bodies, that I don’t see why we should use more animals to test them."

I often speak to people, even within my own family, who are against animal testing. Each has their own particular reason, and discussions can become quite heated. Scientists are often told they are evil, amoral, their lives sometimes even threatened, because we have to use these methods in order to complete our research. We can try to reason and explain, but many of us do not, placing it in the 'too hard' basket. I do not enjoy testing on animals, but I know that in doing so, we may be able to help many people in the future.

Neysa.

SeeMyScience: Explaining Our Published Papers

"You do what now?"

As a scientist, the most frequent comment I get when I tell people what I do is some variation of “I have no idea what that means, but it sounds important”. This was perfectly illustrated recently, in response to a link I posted on Facebook about a paper we published (Pictured Left).

Let’s be honest, many scientists suck at talking about their work in a way that people who are not scientists can understand. Part of this is the way we are trained to write: technical papers for science journal publication. However, as I said in a recent blog post, we need to do better. We need to talk about our science in a way everyone can understand. And it’s about time I put my money where my mouth is.

In the coming weeks, I will be posting a series that looks at the paper our lab group recently published about our work developing a treatment for Cancer Cachexia. In this series, I will be combing through the article, explaining what we do, why we do it, what we learn from the results, and how we decide what to do in the future.

EPA and Oxypurinol Treatment of Cancer Cachexia

• On the Topic of Animal Testing
• What is Cancer Cachexia?
• Why is the Muscle Gone? Altered Pathways in Cancer Cachexia
• Fighting Back - Why EPA & Oxypurinol?
• Growing Cachexia-Causing Cancer Cells
• Explaining treatment groups and ‘interventions
• Weight-loss and Muscle Mass
• What happened with Oxidative Stress?
• Was muscle mass being controlled?
• Putting it All Together
• Where to now?

“See My Science” aims to explain the science done by our group in a manner accessible to the public. The current series focuses on Vaughan VC et al (2012) Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Oxypurinol in the Treatment of Muscle Wasting in a Mouse Model of Cancer Cachexia. PLoS ONE 7(9): e45900. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045900

For the love of science! (Or, why we need science communication)

Science in Australia is often referred to be being "under attack", not only because of the pressures of finding funding and establishing a career, but because there are so many issues where people don't understand the science behind a particular problem. Examples of current issues include genetic modification of food crops, vaccination against disease, and climate change. Despite strong scientific evidence, hundreds of studies, and a general scientific consensus on each of these issues, there are vocal opponents of each. Whilst questions and concerns surrounding each of these issues are valid, there is often strong evidence that can allay these concerns, if only we could communicate the science.

Science is a mystery to most people. Perhaps that is because it is never explained in terms that are easily understandable, because people have never learnt how to think scientifically, or because science in something that only super smart, lab-coated scientists do, a job as cloaked in secrets, mystery and bafflement as that of wizards or solicitors. Science never makes the headlines unless it is controversial, dangerous, or about to cure us of a disease. Of course, once you read past the headline, the message is usually less spectacular than first claimed, but people often don't know how much to believe, and take stories at face value. We can tell people that our work is important, but this means nothing if they do not understand how that work is important. I strongly believe that we need people that can reach out and fill that gap, retrieving science from complex, jargon-filled journals and hyperbolic news articles, and presenting it in a way that is accurate and easy to understand for everyone. We need to demystify the science.

By talking to school students about our science, we can begin to challenge those perceptions of science as being like some secret society. By showing students how science can relate to their day-to-day life, introducing them to science in a way that is interesting and approachable, we can begin to foster a higher level of scientific literacy in Australia. By taking the time to talk to our political representatives, explaining our projects and their implications for society, the effect of see-saw policies on the ability to conduct our research, we can begin to move toward sustainable, proactive science policy that will benefit not only Australia, but the international community. By engaging with the media, communicating with journalists about our work, learning to write for a broader audience, and changing the habit of portraying every scientist as wearing a labcoat whilst gazing meaningfully at vials, we can engage with our audience, and open dialogue with those that will eventually benefit from our work: the community.

The way we as scientists communicate with the public needs to evolve. Science for scientists is no longer a viable strategy, and simply causes more confusion in our already conflicted society. We need to learn to explain our science to anyone who has an interest, and attempt to encourage those who don't. We need to use whatever resources are open to us, be it newspaper, blog, Twitter, podcast, or the local pub. We need to write, we need to talk, but most importantly, we need to listen. 

We need to take science to the people.

Neysa xo

New On The Scene: There There

There is something special about the Geelong CBD early on a Spring Saturday. There's a strange hush on the streets, soft golden light filtering around buildings, a complete absence of shoppers and traffic. It was one of my favourite times when I was living in the apartment, a time to get up, go for a walk through the dappled light of Johnson Park, catch a quiet coffee before the rush of Saturday brunch business.

I was up early for a train to Melbourne, planning to have brunch in the city before an early afternoon flight to Canberra for the Science Pathways forum at the Australian Academy of Science. I was taking my time walking along Malop St, planning to stop in at Mr Hyde, when the doorway of the old 2-Faces caught my eye.

A table with two chairs on the sidewalk, a table set up across the beautiful old doorway, and in pride of place, a small shiny coffee machine and grinder, glinting in the sun. I couldn't resist, as my curiosity took my feet across the road to check out what is soon-to-be Geelong's newest eatery and bar, There There.

The two guys were friendly, happy to talk about their plans while pulling my Coffee Cartel long black (which was excellent), sitting on the steps and making the most of the warm morning sun. Their enthusiasm is evident and, with little more than a "Cool, new venue!", I'm offered a first look at the reworked interior, that whilst still devoid of furniture, feels much lighter and brighter than the previous incarnation. The beautifully crafted wooden bar is an immediate stand-out, vast potential evident, while the narrow blonde floorboards lead the eye further into depths still to be explored. The new owners are both chefs by trade, with fine dining pedigrees, interested in high-quality food, with an emphasis on casual sharing-style menu. As my guide put it, somewhere you can meet up with friends, sample your way through the menu, and have a few drinks.

This new venue could give Mr Hyde a run for the money, jumping into a space that the beautiful old bank has previously dominated. It will be interesting to see if they fill the void that Mr Hyde has recently created with the shift to afternoon openings and closing of BoxOffice, and whether the new kids in town will take it to the experienced cocktail crew. Mr Hyde has had to battle the 'expensive' tag that the opulent interior has, perhaps unfairly, been lumped with, and it will be interesting to see if the lads at There There battle the same stigma given the reputation of the building's previous occupant.

Neysa xo