$1.5 Million in Funding Pays off in Better Science, Saved Animal Lives.

BOSTON--(BW HealthWire)--Sept. 2, 1999--

Researchers Receiving Funding from New England Anti-Vivisection

Society Report Successes at International Scientific Congress

Hoping to "reduce, refine and replace" the numbers of animals sacrificed each year in laboratory experimentation, some 750 scientists, physicians, veterinarians, educators, and representatives from government agencies and animal advocacy organizations gathered at the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, August 29 - September 2 in Bologna, Italy.

The attendees, from countries including Europe, Japan, India, Russia and the U. S., met to review the latest and most scientifically sound alternatives to animal testing, experimentation and use in education and to express world-wide commitment to refining, reducing and replacing animal experimentation with alternatives.

Two of the projects that drew great interest were those of Bjoern Ekwall, MD, PhD, of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden, and of Rodger Curren, PhD, of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences in Maryland. Both projects have received significant funding from the Boston-based New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS).

Theodora Capaldo, EdD, President and Executive Director of NEAVS, along with members of other U. S. anti-vivisection groups, was on hand at the Congress to meet with Drs. Ekwall and Curren and to hear of their projects' successes. She also welcomed Dr. Ekwall and his wife, Barbro, as members of NEAVS' 1999 Advisory Board.

NEAVS, founded in 1895, is one of the country's oldest and most respected animal advocacy organizations, dedicated to exposing, opposing and ending animal experimentation in laboratories, product testing, medical and veterinary education, and public and private classrooms. In the past 10 years, NEAVS has allocated an estimated $1.5 million for the research, development and use of alternatives to animals in scientific experiments and education, according to Dr. Capaldo.

"NEAVS' goal is to show both the ethical and scientific benefits of ending experimentation on animals as the route to human health," Dr. Capaldo said. "Once the scientific community commits to replacing the animal model with non-animal, in vitro methods, which are ethically and scientifically superior, we believe scientific preference for non-animal methodologies will grow rapidly. Science and people will benefit and the lives of countless animals will be saved.

"The ethical decision and commitment not to use animals in these ways has proven again and again to produce the scientific ability not to have to do so and, in the process, has led to better science," Dr. Capaldo noted.

Dr. Ekwall's research is a prime example of how both animals and people are well served by a scientific and ethical commitment to non-animal methods, according to Dr. Capaldo. "His work recognizes that animals are not the same as humans and, therefore, are not predictors of what happens when humans are exposed to certain chemicals. For example, Dr. Ekwall has demonstrated that in vitro [non-animal] testing using human cells can predict toxicity at a precision rate of 77%, compared to only 65% with traditional LD50 tests using animals." The "Lethal Dose 50" test forces animals to ingest toxic and lethal substances and die horrible deaths.

"In spite of pro-vivisection scare tactics, the work of Dr. Ekwall and others makes it readily apparent that animal experimentation is not the way to successfully advance human health," she said. "Every day, the assertion that vivisection is `the only way' is challenged by bright, humane, pioneering researchers from within the scientific community itself. NEAVS is committed to developing replacement alternatives to the estimated 20 - 40 million animals sacrificed annually in biomedical research and product/cosmetic testing in the U. S. alone.

"These figures represent a tragedy for animals, for science, for people and for the environment," Dr. Capaldo said. "The public that reluctantly endorses the cruelties of animal experimentation because they have been convinced that this is the only way to save the life of someone they love, can now be assured that there are better ways to achieve human health. And they, too, must begin to demand that the biomedical and scientific communities listen to the millions of people who want a 21st century of cruelty-free science."