11/17/11

Yates Wants to Experiment on Shelter/Pound Animals


A new article has surfaced about class B animal dealers ("random source" animal dealers who have often been under fire for stealing animals and selling them to laboratories). Yates says he used them in earlier research of his. The article mentions that he is now working to also include animals from shelters in his research. As if homeless pets already don't have it difficult enough, Yates would like to operate on their brains and put them through more hell for his interests.

Let us remember that NO ANIMAL regardless of pet status or species deserves to spend a life of suffering in a laboratory. Yates' abuse of cats is equally abhorrent as his use of rats. Neither cats nor rats deserve to be viewed as objects rather than living beings. Using and promoting the use of random source, possibly stolen, pets in research is obviously worth noting as well. And with the already short time animals have in kill shelters and pounds (24 hours to a week depending on location) we can guarantee that time would become shorter if research interests and money became more involved.

The article quotes a "Larry Yates" but there is no Larry Yates doing research on cats at Pitt. Only Bill Yates does this and is using a different name for some reason... See article below:

There was a time when it was common for dogs and other pets to be stolen or sold by pounds to dealers who put them into monstrous holding kennels before reselling them to scientific researchers.

Those practices have dwindled in the four decades since outrage from the well-publicized plight of a few dogs brought about the nation's first federal law to protect animals used in biomedical research in 1966.

At the heart of the Animal Welfare Act was concern that pets might be stolen or otherwise acquired by dealers and quickly sold to labs with no chance for rescue or adoption, and that animals bound for research would be badly cared for.

That was the saga of Pepper, a beloved Dalmatian stolen in 1965 from her Pennsylvania home and killed in an experiment at a Manhattan hospital before her family could track her down.

Her story, reported in Sports Illustrated and a photo exposé in Life Magazine of the awful conditions endured by dogs collected for research at a Pennsylvania kennel with the headline "Concentration Camp for Dogs," rallied congressional support to protect at least some species of research animals.

Today, the overwhelming number of all animals used in research — including dogs and cats — are specifically bred for that purpose. Most medical experiments use animals that are standardized and often genetically modified to mimic some human disease or condition.

Only about 0.05 percent of all animals used in biomedical research are dogs and cats, but that total is still more than 90,000 animals a year — with an estimated 3,000 or so collected by a dwindling number of "random-source" dealers.

There are still experiments where scientists say a few stray or donated dogs or cats are needed.

"There are certain diseases and conditions, arthritis or metabolic disorders, for instance, where you need to study an older animal. But hardly any breeders keep an animal beyond six months," said Dr. Larry Yates, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh who used random-source cats in his early work, but no longer does. [emphasis ours] He also served on a National Academies of Science committee that examined the secondary market for research animals in a report issued last year.

Although regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 10 or so random source or "Class B" dealers still operating have come under heavy criticism from inspectors, congressional investigators and animal protection groups in recent years for problems ranging from poor animal care to sloppy record-keeping intended to ensure no stolen animals are used in labs.

"The government inspectors are still spending a huge amount of time to manage this small group of dealers, and we have to wonder about the institutions that are still supporting this practice," said Sue Leary, president of the American Anti-Vivisection Society.

Just in March, one of the dealers, a kennel near Shippensburg, Pa., [this "kennel" is still open but is hopefully going downhill] was charged by federal prosecutors with illegally buying hundreds of dogs from small breeders in at least 10 states for $50 to $75 an animal, giving them false documentation and veterinary certificates and then reselling them to researchers for hundreds of dollars each.

Aside from the dealers, research institutions in 33 states may negotiate with local pounds to acquire animals. In Minnesota and Oklahoma, state law allows researchers to demand that animals be turned over to them. Utah lawmakers just abolished such a requirement.

Sixteen states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have laws that forbid pounds to turn over animals to research.

In the remaining states, pound and shelter policy is dictated by county or city government, not the states. In California, however, all counties have policies banning the sale or donation of animals for research.

Animal protection advocates in many areas have challenged city and county agreements to sell animals to labs, but say these arrangements still bring in about a quarter of all the dogs and cats used annually in research.

J.R. Haywood, a researcher and vice president for regulatory affairs at Michigan State University in Lansing, who works with rats and baboons in his own diabetes research, still supports continued access to pound animals, although he concedes that the dealers have proved a poor source. He noted the practice has "about disappeared in Michigan" although there is no statewide ban on the practice.

"It is ironic that while researchers have reduced the number of cats and dogs we use by half in the past several decades by changing methods or using other animal models, there are still hundreds of thousands of those animals being sacrificed in pounds every year because no one will adopt them," Haywood said. "Wouldn't it be better if we could learn something from them that would help people and animals from them before they're put to sleep?"

Yates and Haywood said there have been discussions about setting up research consortia to obtain and care for pound animals [emphasis ours], as well as a plan to have the National Institutes of Health establish breeding colonies where dogs and cats could be kept long enough to develop some of the traits that only come with age, but no specific plans have been made.

_________________

9/23/10

Anothony A Grace and Bill J Yates- Distinguished Professors of Fear, Stress, Injury, and Pain


The University of Pittsburgh has recently honored Anthony A Grace with the title of "Distinguished Professor of Neuroscience". You may remember the 'Get to Know Your Local Laboratories' piece on Grace on our page previously. Grace does research in which he deliberately mutilates, injures, freezes, starves, and exploits animals for interest. Grace does what is called "translational basic research" which has been under fire by doctors and scientists for it's lack of applicability to humans [1]. In fact, one meta-analysis of such published research (which doesn't even include things that did not work and were not published) found that "only (0.004%) led to the development of a clinically useful class of drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in the 30 years following their publication of the basic science finding" [2]. We can see given this evidence that not only is Grace's work incredibly cruel, it is also a waste of the tax payer dollars used to fund it.

The University of Pittsburgh, which gets huge amounts of money from such grants, has a history of celebrating those that bring them in. Another distinguished professor is Bill J Yates, whose research involves the cutting of connections in the brains of animals like cats and causing other suffering. It is no wonder that such cruelty and wastefulness continues to occur in Pittsburgh when the Chancellor (who is not a scientist) awards these researchers with distinguished professorships while people doing human research that will actually result in cures struggle to get funded.

Although PAAV has been on hiatus, we felt it important to share this story with any readers of the site. More to come.

[1] Greek & Greek. (2010). Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?
[2] Crowley WF, Jr.: Translation of basic research into useful treatments: how
often does it occur? Am J Med 2003, 114:503-505.

11/22/09

Get to Know Your Local Laboratories: The Bradberry Lab




Images: Monkeys in Drug research studies

The research of Charles W. Bradberry has involved heinous cruelty to animals for decades. His lab is one of the most shocking and cruel in the city. Bradberry's research focuses on addicting animals (mainly monkeys) to cocaine over a period of multiple years, doing studies with water deprivation for days or weeks, cutting open their skulls and implanting devices in their brains, and forcing them to do tasks- often while withdrawing from the drugs they became addicted to. This research is particularly sickening as there is no shortage of human drug addicts willing to participate in this kind of research (whether to do the drugs or to participate in research that could help them kick their habits).
GOVERNMENT GRANTS

Bradberry is funded by at least two government grants: One from the NIAA which is good until August of 2010 and another from the NIDA good until June of 2014. These grants are made up of tax payer dollars and go towards cruel, unneccessary, and misleading research on other animals. Here is where your money has been going recently:

RECENT PUBLISHED RESEARCH

In one study [1], Bradberry and colleagues confined rhesus monkeys to primate restraint chairs and implanted catheters into their backs that would administer cocaine to them. They used these monkeys in this way, allowing them to self-administer IV cocaine in multiple studies for two years. Basically, these moneys were shooting up cocaine for years under the "care" of these researchers, developing addictions to the drug. There is mention that these same animals were being used in other drug studies for up to 4.5 years or more. The monkeys in this study were also deprived of water on many occasions- only being allowed water at their own want during the weekends (only until midday Sunday). This method is used to force monkeys to do tasks on a touch screen because when you are deprived of water for long enough, you will do anything for a drink. The researchers called this a "reward".

These intelligent, sentient animals (often compared to 3-5 year old human children) have spent their lives confined to small cages, addicted to drugs, and/or deprived of water for years upon years, with money granted to these researchers by the state.

In another study [2], female monkeys were used with similar histories of years of cocaine addiction and abuse. These monkeys were restrained to chairs with catheters for cocaine and cocaethylene administration implanted in their backs. These animals' heads were cut open and devices were implanted in their brains to record from their brain cells.

Neither of these articles say what happened to these animals when these studies were finished. They were either killed or still remain behind the walls of Biomedical Science Tower 3, addicted to drugs and alone in cages, waiting for the next abuse to be inflicted upon them.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Charles Bradberry's Work address and contact information:


Office: Biomedical Science Tower 3, Room 4066
3501 5th Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Telephone:412-383-6200
Fax:412-383-6799
E-mail: bradberrycw@upmc.edu

Have information on an animal laboratory that you would like to share? Email us about it. We will protect your privacy.

References
[1] Liu, Heitz, and Bradberry. (2009). A touch screen based Stop Signal Response Task in rhesus monkeys for studying impulsivity associated with chronic cocaine self-administration. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 177, 67–72.
[2] Baeg, Jedema, & Bradberry. (2009). Orbitofrontal and Anterior Cingulate Cortex Neurons Selectively Process Cocaine-Associated Environmental Cues in the Rhesus Monkey. The Journal of Neuroscience. 29(37), 11619 –11627.

10/24/09

Primate Liberation Week Main Action, 10/24/2009

On Saturday, 10/24/2009, we protested animal testing facilities throughout Oakland including Mellon Institute (on 5th and Bellefield) and Biomedical Science Tower 3 (on 5th and Darragh St). We began our protest as a white bloc in front of Mellon institute, chanting and holding signs and banners. We later took to the streets and marched down 5th avenue towards Biomedical Science Tower 3 until we were forced to the sidewalk by police forces. We then finished our march to 5th and Darragh and made our voices heard in front of Biomedical Science Tower 3, running into the streets between lights with signs and banners.

Images of some stages of the protest are below. Note: The first three photos are courtesy of an excellent Pitt News photographer- Deseree Kuzel. The others are from a protester. Thank you to everyone who came out and we hope to see you next time!






_____________________________________






9/13/09

What's New at the Yates Laboratory?


Since our last article about the lab of Bill J. Yates was posted in February of this year, plenty of suffering has been taking place. As a reminder, the Yates lab spends their time vivisecting cats, rats, ferrets, and other animals by implanting apparatuses in their brains and/or giving them brain lesions. The Yates lab is still at it, putting out several publications since that time. Yates also is funded by multiple government grants and has served as the chair of the animal care and use committee for the university, causing many more ethical issues with his research.

RECENT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS

Keep in mind that a small amount of what researchers do actually makes it to publication. We can only imagine what else happens that does not make it into published articles. Here are some of the most recent publications from the Yates Lab (excluding those already discussed in the first entry on Yates.)

In one article [1], Yates and colleagues used 17 very young, female cats (6-12 months of age) and injected the rabies virus into their diaphragms. After survival times ranging from 61.5 to 144 hours following injections of the virus, the animals were killed and had their brains and spinal cords removed. According to the article, only 11 cats gave usable data on the cells they were looking at while the rabies migrated to the brains of the other 6. As is common knowledge, rabies is a very horrible disease.

In another article [2], Yates and colleagues used 17 cats. They gave them brain and skull surgeries to implant neural recording apparatuses in their heads. These extended into their brains. They then stopped the anesthesia but continued the procedures up to one hour before the rest of the experiment. They injected the animals with a chemical that paralyzed them and then recorded from their brain cells. After this, the animals were killed. The amount of fear and distress these animals went through as a result of these procedures is unimaginable.

Another study [3] by the Yates lab, similar to the first we mentioned, used 20 rats. They injected the rats with a cocktail of chemicals and viruses including cholera toxin (which is responsible for the deadly and harmful effects of the disease cholera). The animals were left like this for 7 days before being killed and dissected. In another similar study, the researchers did similar procedures, only on top of the cholera toxin injection, they also used rabies injections. Furthermore, they gave brain lesions (surgically severing connections in the brain) to a portion of the rats [4].

These are just a few examples of the kind of research that the Yates lab is currently doing to feed their research interests.

GOVERNMENT FUNDED GRANTS

Yates is currently funded by at least two National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (composed of tax dollars) including one lasting until 2012 and another expiring in November of this year (2009). The latter sum was granted by the government-run NIH despite the detailing of procedures that will undoubtedly cause discomfort and suffering to animals including but not limited to invasive surgeries, manipulations of respiratory functioning, removal of parts of the inner ear, and studies of vomiting and motion sickness.

QUESTIONABLE AFFILIATIONS

Another important thing to note about Bill Yates is that he served as chair of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) since July 1 of 2004. As chair of the IACUC, it is Yates who makes the call on what kinds of procedures are permissible to do on animals in laboratories at the University of Pittsburgh. This means, he makes the call on the ethics of his own research. Since some animals like rats are not given even the minimal protections offered by the Animal Welfare Act, the University IACUC is responsible for creating those restrictions. It is convenient for researchers using these animals to have another person who profits from their exploitation as the head of the IACUC.

CRUEL COLLEAGUES

Lastly, Yates' colleagues have also made appearances in entries on our site for their cruel and questionable animal research practices. Some of these researchers include Carey Balaban, who does research on nonhuman primates, mice, rats, and chinchillas , and Neeraj Gandhi, who does nonhuman primate research. Animals are exploited and suffer every day in each one of these labs.

We will be taking further action against Yates and his mistreatment of animals and will be keeping a close eye on the Yates lab. We will keep you updated with further information that we receive.

Bill Yates can be contacted at byates@pitt.edu.

Work:

Dr. Bill Yates
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Otolaryngology
Eye and Ear Institute, Rm 519, 203 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

PH: 412-647-9614
FX: 412-647-0108

Have information on an animal laboratory that you would like to share? Email us about it. We will protect your privacy.


References
[1] James H. Lois, Cory D. Rice and Bill J. Yates. (2009). Neural circuits controlling diaphragm function in the cat revealed by transneuronal tracing. J Appl Physiol 106:138-152.
[2] D. M. Miller, et al. (2009).Responses of thoracic spinal interneurons to vestibular stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 195:89–100.
[3] B. Cuccurazzu, F. Deriu, E. Tolu, B. J. Yates, and I. Billig. (2007).A Monosynaptic Pathway Links the Vestibular Nuclei and Masseter Muscle Motoneurons in Rats. Exp Brain Res. 176(4): 665–671.
[4] Lane, et al. (2008). Cervical Prephrenic Interneurons in the Normal and Lesioned Spinal Cord of the Adult Rat. THE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY 511:692–709.

8/17/09

Get to Know Your Local Laboratories: The Lee Lab

Photo: Macaque in a neural recording experiment (Courtesy of Spiegel.de)

The laboratory of Tai Sing Lee imprisons and subjects macaques to the abuses of testing using invasive, surgically implanted brain cell recording devices among other things. Sing's computer science background allows him to also work on the engineering and studying of devices in order to find more ways to use these things on the animals trapped behind the walls of Mellon Institute and animals caged in other laboratories. The animals in studies at the Lee lab are forced to undergo invasive procedures to implant brain cell recording devices in their brains and skulls. These procedures occur on top of the suffering of living their lives alone in laboratory cages. While the brain does not feel pain from the surgeries, the skull and head most definitely do, making these procedures very stressful and painful for the animals.

In one study, the Lee lab gave macaque monkeys surgeries to implant brain cell recording devices in their brains and skulls [1]. They recorded their neural activity while they watched random dots on a screen. This article did not say how long the animals were given to recover, how long they were trained if at all, how they were restrained, or what happened to them after the experiment was finished.

In another study, Lee and colleagues compared two invasive procedures for recording from the brains of both paralyzed macaques and paralyzed cats [2]. Some of the animals had single-unit (which record from one brain cell at a time) devices surgically implanted in their skulls and brains while others had multi-unit devices implanted in their skulls and brains. In this particular study, Sing and colleagues analyzed these cells with the ultimate goal of studying invasive ways to use nonhuman animals in research, rather than to seek alternatives to this research. This publication did not say what happened to the animals when the experiment was finished.

In another experiment, the Lee lab surgically implanted neural recording devices in the skulls and brains of macaque monkeys as well as implanted coils in their eyes. They then had the animals perform various computer tasks which required them to act while their brain activity was being recorded within their heads. This article also did not say how long the animals were given to recover, how long they were trained if at all, how they were restrained, or what happened to them after the experiment was finished.

Tai-Sing Lee can be contacted in the following ways:

Office: Mellon Institute Rm 115, 4400 5th Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Phone: 412-268-1060
Email: tai@cnbc.cmu.edu

Have information on an animal laboratory that you would like to share? Email us about it. We will protect your privacy.


References
[1] JM Samonds, BR Potetz, & TS Lee. (2006). Neurophysiological Evidence of Cooperative Mechanisms for Stereo Computation.
[2] Ryan C. Kelly, Matthew A. Smith, Jason M. Samonds, Adam Kohn, A. B. Bonds, J. Anthony Movshon, & Tai Sing Lee. (2007). Comparison of Recordings from Microelectrode Arrays and Single Electrodes in the Visual Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(2). 261–264.
[3] Matthew A. Smith, Ryan C. Kelly, and Tai Sing Lee. (2007). Dynamics of Response to Perceptual Pop-Out Stimuli in Macaque V1. J Neurophysiol. 98. 3436–3449.

8/7/09

Protest of Animal Suffering at Mellon Institiute

On Saturday, August 16th, we went to Mellon Institute to protest the 13 animal testing facilities that exist inside. Before our arrival, someone notified the University that we would be there, leading the administration to send out a letter telling everyone in the building not to come to work that day. As a result, simply having a presence at this facility may have led to an entire day without procedures and other tortures being performed on the animals imprisoned inside.

There was high traffic as well, leading to many people being exposed to the truths of what goes on within Mellon Institute through viewing our signs and reading out leaflets. We will undoubtedly hold future actions at this facility. Pictures of the protest can be seen below:





Alternatives to Animal Tested Treatments: Depression


One way to boycott the animal testing industry is to boycott, when possible, medications and treatments that are tested on animals. While for some, this is not an option, we would like to offer alternatives to animal tested treatments when they are possible.

Depression

Depression is an increasingly common condition affecting over 18 million Americans. Although there are many different causes and types of depression, common symptoms include chronic sadness, decreased interest or apathy, weight changes, problems falling asleep or oversleeping, agitation and restlessness, fatigue, and feelings of worthlessness.

Standard antidepressant pharmaceutical SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft may have serious risks and have been linked to suicide, violence, psychosis, abnormal bleeding and brain tumors. Unlike these drugs that simply mask the symptoms, natural therapies work to treat both the root cause as well as the effects of depression.

Herbal treatments and lifestyle modification can significantly improve cases of depression without the risk. Exercise, particularly aerobic, releases endorphins and decreases stress hormones. Sunlight aids in the production of serotonin. Diets low in sugar, caffeine, and alcohol have all been shown to alleviate depression.

Alternative therapies such as acupuncture, aromatherapy, hypnosis, massage therapy, meditation, guided imagery, and yoga have proven effective for many. Try any combination of these treatments in addition to some of the following supplements. In case of suicidal thoughts and other more serious symptoms it is important to contact a professional immediately.

St. John’s Wort: As the most widely recognized antidepressant herb, St. John’s Wort has been used in folk medicine for centuries to treat depression, anxiety, and sleeplessness. Numerous studies have shown it to be more powerful than pharmaceuticals with far fewer and less serious side effects. One active compound, hypericin, works to improve anxiety, depression, and feelings of worthlessness. Another compound known as amentoflavone acts on the central nervous system in a way similar to Benzodiazepine drugs, which are commonly used for anxiety and sleeplessness.

Make a tea made by steeping one to two teaspoons of dried herb for ten minutes or take as directed in supplement form. Full effects may take up to four to six weeks. Prolonged use causes sensitivity to sunlight. Do not take if pregnant or on SSRI drugs.

Ginkgo Biloba: This ancient herb is the oldest living tree species and has been used throughout history to treat a wide array of ailments. Although Ginkgo Biloba is not a powerful antidepressant when used alone, is helpful in conjunction with other supplements such as St. John’s Wort. It improves cerebral circulation, memory, and mood which are especially helpful for the elderly who often suffer reduced blood flow. Take 80-120 mg two times daily.

Purslane: Purslane is rich in potassium and magnesium- two minerals that have been shown to have strong antidepressant qualities. Purslane contains up to 16 percent antidepressant compounds on a dry weight basis and is a great source of omega-3 fatty acids which assist with brain function and help ward of depression. What’s even better is that you can find it almost anywhere included the cracks in your sidewalk. Use in cooking or make a purslane salad.

Siberian Ginseng: Generally speaking, species of ginseng are known as adaptogens, which are substances that assist the body in adapting to external physical stresses. For a depressed person ginseng works to balance the levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine. It also acts as an MOA inhibitor. Take 400mg three times daily.

Licorice: Eight different compounds in licorice are MAO Inhibitors, which have shown to have powerful antidepressant affects. Drink up to (but not exceeding) three cups of licorice tea daily. In some cases long term use could cause headache, lethargy, water retention, loss of potassium, and high blood pressure.
Rosemary: This herb is useful as a spice in cooking and also in aromatherapy in a sleep pillow or herbal baths. Rosemary stimulates positive energy and has an uplifting effect. Brew a tea with some valerian before sleep and keep some dried rosemary nearby.

Ginger: Ginger has a reliable reputation as an effective treatment for both anxiety and depression. Use it in cooking or drink a ginger tea daily. It has also been shown to prevent many types of cancer and help with inflammation and sinuses.
B Vitamins: A deficiency in B vitamins can lead to depression caused by low neurotransmitter levels. The top B vitamin food sources are sunflower seeds, black beans, watercress and soybeans. Good sources of folate include pinto beans, navy beans, asparagus, spinach, broccoli, okra and Brussels sprouts. High levels of B6 occur in cauliflower, watercress, spinach, bananas, okra, onions, broccoli, squash, kale, kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, peas and radishes. Supplementation with Spirulina and blue green algae is recommended for an increase in dietary B12.

8/1/09

Get to Know your Local Laboratories: The Sommer Lab

Photo: Monkey in a primate restraint chair. Courtesy of Dean Conger: Corbis.

Marc A. Sommer's laboratory resides behind the virtually windowless walls of Mellon Institute in Oakland and focuses on studying vision in monkeys using very invasive methods. Sommer does this research with funding from at least three NIH grants composed of tax dollars [1]. Conveniently, Sommer is also a staff member at NIH. Mellon Institute has multiple researchers doing this same research on imprisoned animals, including the Olson lab and the Colby lab. Similar to these researchers who have already made appearances on the PAAV lab list, the Sommer lab forces monkeys to undergo intensive surgeries to implant machinery in their brains, skulls, and eyes in order to monitor them, but Sommer's research often takes the invasiveness a step further.

In one study, Sommer and colleagues forced rhesus monkeys to undergo intensive surgeries to implant recording devices in their skulls and brains. They then activated and deactivated brain cells using even more invasive methods. They would physically stimulate the neurons inside the brain to carry signals in opposite directions from what is natural and then would deactivate them by physically injecting them with muscimol, a mushroom extract known to have multiple effects on the brain. They concluded that their research opened the door for more research like this on imprisoned animals using other brain cells. [2]

In another study, Sommer's lab gave monkeys surgeries to implant screws in their skulls to be attached to a head restraint chair, neural recording devices in their brains, and coils in their eyes. They then taught the monkeys an eye movement task and restrained them to chairs by their heads to measure their brain cell activity and eye movements during these tasks. [3]

In another study, the Sommer lab again gave monkeys intensive surgeries to implant neural recording devices in their brains and coils in their eyes. The monkeys were then fixed to primate restraint chairs so that their eye movements could be monitored during tasks. [4]

None of these articles mention what happened to the monkeys when the experiments were finished.

These are only a few of Sommer's recently published studies. Animals who think and feel with the intelligence of human children are currently imprisoned in his laboratory to suffer and be caused pain for the interest of the researchers.


Marc A Sommer can be contacted in the following ways:

Office: 115 Mellon Institute, 4400 5th Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 Telephone:412-268-4486
Fax:412-268-5060

E-mail:
masommer@pitt.edu

Have information on an animal laboratory that you would like to share? Email us about it. We will protect your privacy.


References
[1] NIH Grants: 1R01EY017592-01, 5R01EY017592-03, 5R01EY017592-02
[2] Sommer & Wurtz. (2006). Influence of the thalamus on spatial visual processing
in frontal cortex.
Nature, 444.
[3] Mayo & Sommer. (2008). Neuronal Adaptation Caused by Sequential Visual Stimulation in the Frontal Eye Field.
J Neurophysiol, 100.
[4] Crapse & Sommer. (2009). Frontal Eye Field Neurons with Spatial Representations
Predicted by Their Subcortical Input. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(16). 5308 –5318.

7/20/09

Get to Know Your Local Laboratories: The de Groat Lab


The laboratory run by William C. de Groat focuses on creating injuries and pain in cats, rats, and rabbits. These procedures include, but are not limited to, spinal cord injuries and using technologies to induce bladder pain in the animals. The lab is also funded by at least two separate grants from the National Institutes of Health which uses tax dollars to fund research [1,2]. This means that public tax dollars that could be being used to study human diseases are being used to study injuries and diseases inflicted upon cats and other animals.

In several studies, de Groat and colleagues severed the spinal cords of cats [3,4]. One study involved cutting the cats' spinal cords between the 9th and 10th thoracic vertebrae located in the middle of their backs. Severing this part of the spinal cord would case severe deficits, but the de Groat lab waited 6-12 months after the injuries were given to the animals before moving on with their experiment [3]. They then gave the cats surgery to implant catheters and electrical stimulation devices in their bladders and connecting nerves. They then electrically stimulated the cat's bladder to measure contractions and other procedures were done to measure bladder capacity. Keep in mind that cats- who are obligate carnivores- differ greatly in this system from humans who are primate omnivores, yet the researchers involved are claiming that this suffering is being inflicted upon cats to help humans.

In another feline spinal cord injury study, the thoracic spine was severed in the same place, but the experiment began 3-11 months after the injury [4]. The cats were again given surgery to insert catheters and electrodes into the bladder and corresponding nerves. Again, they stimulated the bladder to measure contractions and capacity. Neither of these studies mention how the animals met their ends after all of the mutilations they suffered.

Other studies involve harvesting animals for parts. In one of these, "mongrel cats" were given surgeries to remove tissues from their bladders and were then killed [5]. Mongrel cats are cats of mixed breed or unknown ancestry meaning that they were likely not bred in a lab with a certain genetic line. The source of these animals is not listed in the publication. Other studies involve giving rats surgeries to remove bladder cells and then killing them [6].

These are only a few of multiple studies published by de Groat and his colleagues involving suffering and killing of nonhuman animals.


William C de Groat can be contacted in the following ways:

Work:
Phone: 412-648-9357
Email: wcd2@pitt.edu Fax: 412-648-1945 Address: W1352 Thomas E. Starzl Biomedical Science Tower 3500 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Have information on an animal laboratory that you would like to share? Email us about it. We will protect your privacy.


References
[1] Grant Number: 1R01DK077783-01 Project Title: Neuroplasticity of Urinary Tract Disorders after SCI
[2] Grant Number: 5R37DK049430-13 Project Title: AFFERENT MECHANISMS UNDERLYING BLADDER PAIN
[3] Tai C, Smerin SE, de Groat WC, Roppolo JR. (2005). Pudendal-to-bladder reflex in chronic spinal-cord-injured cats. Exp Neurol. 2006 Jan;197(1):225-34.
[4] Tai C, Wang J, Wang X, Roppolo JR, de Groat WC. (2007). Voiding reflex in chronic spinal cord injured cats induced by stimulating and blocking pudendal nerves. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):879-86.
[5] Ruan HZ, Birder LA, Xiang Z, Chopra B, Buffington T, Tai C, Roppolo JR, de Groat WC, Burnstock G. (2006). Expression of P2X and P2Y receptors in the intramural parasympathetic ganglia of the cat urinary bladder. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2006 May;290(5):F1143-52.
[6] Beckel JM, Kanai A, Lee SJ, de Groat WC, Birder LA. (2006). Expression of functional nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat urinary bladder epithelial cells.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2006 Jan;290(1):F103-10.