ANIMAL AID AWARDS
FOR MAD SCIENCE 1998
Inevitably the most secret use of animals is in
military research. Nevertheless, occasional scientific articles do reveal the
pain, suffering and death which is inseparable from such experiments. Recently
compiled evidence shows that animals have been exposed to mustard gas and forced
to breathe a toxic poison related to phosgene. Others have been shot or subjected
to blast injuries. A special gas chamber has even been devised for exposing
animals to airborne pathogens. These examples are listed below.
 Despite
public concern, Porton's use of animals is increasing. In 1992, 4,500 "procedures"
were carried out on animals. In the 1996 figures the total was 11,221. It has
also been revealed that six of the licences held by Porton to experiment on
animals are in the "substantial" category, in other words, the greatest
level of pain that can legally be inflicted.
Despite this, MoD documents and other disclosures reveal that many of these
animals die not only cruelly but in vain. Results vary according to the species
of animals chosen, so the findings can hardly be applied to human beings! For
instance, Porton scientists found species differences during research into antidotes
to the nerve gas soman. (Ref 1)
Recent MoD documents reveal that animal experiments are a planned part of investigations
into Gulf War syndrome, with monkeys to be used by Porton Down and rat experiments
contracted out. These animals are paying the price of incompetence by the MoD
who failed to keep proper records of treatments and vaccinations by individual
Gulf troops. However, the MoD acknowledges that animal experiments to test a
suspect vaccine combination used in the Gulf war gave conflicting results, proving
toxic to mice but harmless to guinea pigs. (Ref 2)
Other animal tests, conducted in America, found that a combination of a nerve
gas antidote and an insect repellent did produce nerve damage but the US Department
of Defence states that "Based on a study of hens or rats, it would be impossible
to say whether this combination of chemicals explains the causes of undiagnosed
illness reported by Gulf War veterans". (Ref 3) So
even official sources doubt the results of animal experiments.
Porton's research into plague has also been undermined by species differences.
In 1996 they reported animal tests with bubonic and pneumonic plague bacteria.
They found that a modified, mutant form of the bacteria, which was being used
for vaccine studies had a totally different reaction in mice and guinea pigs.
(Ref 4) In guinea pigs, the modified bacteria proved harmless
and actually protected the animals against infection by plague. In contrast,
it proved fatal to mice. And Porton scientists experimenting with sulphur mustard
acknowledge that "it is now quite clear that cutaneous response to challenge
[with mustard gas] varies from species to species". (Ref
5)
With such an unreliable method, any success in, say, developing antidotes must
ultimately be attributed to Porton's human volunteer programme.
 Apart
from the horrific experiments and misleading results, there is another scandal
at Porton Down. Many of the animals bred by Porton (rats, mice, pigs and monkeys)
are deemed surplus to requirements and killed without ever being used for experiments.
In response to parliamentary questions, the MoD has stated that between 1990
and 1997, 17,219 mice bred by Porton were used for experiments but another 29,922
were "culled" as surplus! 25,895 rats were subjected to tests and
a further 45,817 destroyed without use. During the same period, 1,210 Porton-bred
monkeys were experimented upon.
The usual defence of military experiments on animals is that they are of a
defensive nature, to protect our troops. But once a weapon is fully understood
and antidotes developed, it can then be used against others. It is also necessary
to fully investigate the offensive capabilities of a weapon before an antidote
can be devised. In both cases "defensive" research becomes offensive
and it is impossible to distinguish the two. Whatever the semantics, animals
continue to suffer and die.
Sources
1) Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, 1983, vol. 35,
427-433
2) Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning, MoD, 1997,
July 14
3) New Scientist, 1995, April 22, 5
4) Microbiology, 1996, vol. 142, 1847-1853
5) International Journal of Experimental Pathology, 1997,
vol. 78, 9-20
[DERA = Defence Evaluation & Research Agency]
Example 1, DERA, Porton.
Sulphur mustard and minipigs.
 Adult
female Yucatan minipigs were dosed with mustard gas to investigate effects on
the skin. The scientists at DERA acknowledge that mustard gas is a potent blistering
chemical warfare agent "whose biological effects in man have been well
documented". Nevertheless, they claim that research has been hampered by
the lack of a suitable "animal model" which accurately responds like
people, since "it is now quite clear that the cutaneous response to challenge
[with mustard gas] varies from species to species".
In 1992 the researchers reported effects of mustard gas on rabbits. Now they
decided to repeat the experiments with a different animal model, the Yucatan
minipig. Four animals were used. Their skin was shaved under anaesthetic, and
then mustard gas vapour applied. The animals were killed up to 24 hours later
when tissue analysis revealed blistering with severe damage to the epidermis.
Although the pig was chosen because "its skin has a number of similarities
to human skin", there were still differences to the wounds found in people.
(Reference: R. F. R. Brown & P. Rice, International Journal of Experimental
Pathology, 1997, vol. 78, 9-20)
Example 2, DERA, Porton.
Poison gas and rats.
Further experiments are reported with the poison gas PFIB (perfluorisobutene)
which produces lung damage similar to that caused by the well known chemical
warfare agent phosgene. It is also known as a mask-breaker, in that it allows
other chemicals to pass through gas masks. In the latest report, rats were placed
in an exposure chamber and made to breath the toxic gas. Some of the animals
had earlier been dosed with a chemical called N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as part
of ongoing research into antidotes. (Other scientists report that NAC protects
rabbits against phosgene). Rats receiving no antidote showed "signs of
toxicity" (difficulty breathing - respiratory distress - according to earlier
experiments) between 4-9 hours after exposure and 14 out of 22 animals died.
Earlier experiments by DERA, reported in 1991, used injections of NAC as an
antidote. This time the rats were dosed orally.
(Reference: A. F. Lailey, Human & Experimental Toxicology, 1997, vol. 16, 212-216)
Example 3, Chemical & Biological Defence Est., Porton.
Pigs shot.
 Experiments
were carried out on animals to investigate wounds which commonly arise during
modern warfare such as those caused by mortars and high explosive shells. 28
pigs were shot with a "fragment-simulating projectile" made of stainless
steel and fired from a smooth-bore barrel. The wounds were inflicted to the
right back leg, the shot being fired through several layers of "clothing".
Although anaesthetised whilst being shot, the animals were then allowed to recover
consciousness. They were monitored for up to 7 days for investigation of the
injuries.
The scientists conclude that "The injuries produced in the animal models
may be regarded as typical of the small-fragment wounds to the soft tissues
that are caused by the new generation of anti-personnel weapons. The fragments
perforated (that is, they produced an exit wound), but had little residual velocity
on exit".
(Reference: G. W. Bowyer et al, Journal of Trauma, 1996, vol. 40, S159-S164)
Example 4, Chemical & Biological Defence Est., Porton.
Pigs subjected to blast injuries.
36 Large White pigs were subjected to blast injuries to investigate protection
measures. The blast was produced by plastic explosives cited less than one metre
from the animal's chest. The anaesthetised pigs were split into four groups
to test different forms of protection. "After exposure to the blast-wave,
animals were resuscitated... returned to the laboratory, wherein anaesthesia
was maintained for 1 hour. The animals were killed by lethal injection of barbiturates
and submitted to post-mortem examination". Some suffered "severe or
very severe blast lung damage", and intestinal injuries.
(Reference: N. P. J. Gripps & G. J. Cooper, Journal of Trauma, 1996, vol. 40,
S206-S211)
In other reports from Porton, scientists have developed a mechanical rig to
simulate the blast wave effect on the lung which can test protective clothing.
Computer modelling is also able, it is said, to simulate the effects of blasts
on the pig's thorax. Final testing of protective clothing, however, is carried
out on live animals, exposed to blast from "a shock tube or bare explosive".
In addition, the use of animals to identify how injuries occur, is said by Porton
to be "critical".
Example 5, DERA, Porton.
Mice paralysed in new torture chamber.
 Scientists
at DERA describe how they designed and built a device for exposing laboratory
animals to airborne pathogens. Animals are put into a box made from aluminium
which has an observation window at the top and airtight door at the front. Animals
are exposed to an aerosol spray of the disease. To illustrate the method, DERA
forced mice to breathe the St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) virus which is mosquito-born.
The highest concentration of virus killed all the animals and of 60 mice infected
with varying amounts of pathogen, 43 died. The scientists describe how "severely
ill mice with signs of severe infection (low mobility, hunched posture and paralysis)
were culled before death to minimise suffering". This is claimed to be
a "humane end point".
In another part of the experiment, designed to obtain infected brain tissue,
baby mice were inoculated with SLE virus directly into the brain. Again, the
scientists describe how "Brains were harvested when the animals developed
signs of paralysis (3-4 days)."
(Reference: R. J. Phillpotts et al, Epidermiology & Infection, 1997, vol. 118,
71-75) |
