Chapter 1. An Introduction to Brain and Behavior

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.


Links 1 - 20 of 1038

JoAnna Klein Some microscopes today are so powerful that they can create a picture of the gap between brain cells, which is thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. They can even reveal the tiny sacs carrying even tinier nuggets of information to cross over that gap to form memories. And in colorful snapshots made possible by a giant magnet, we can see the activity of 100 billion brain cells talking. Decades before these technologies existed, a man hunched over a microscope in Spain at the turn of the 20th century was making prescient hypotheses about how the brain works. At the time, William James was still developing psychology as a science and Sir Charles Scott Sherrington was defining our integrated nervous system. Meet Santiago Ramón y Cajal, an artist, photographer, doctor, bodybuilder, scientist, chess player and publisher. He was also the father of modern neuroscience. “He’s one of these guys who was really every bit as influential as Pasteur and Darwin in the 19th century,” said Larry Swanson, a neurobiologist at the University of Southern California who contributed a biographical section to the new book “The Beautiful Brain: The Drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” “He’s harder to explain to the general public, which is probably why he’s not as famous.” Last month, the Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis opened a traveling exhibit that is the first dedicated solely to Ramón y Cajal’s work. It will make stops in Minneapolis; Vancouver, British Columbia; New York; Cambridge, Mass.; and Chapel Hill, N.C., through April 2019. Ramón y Cajal started out with an interest in the visual arts and photography — he even invented a method for making color photos. But his father pushed him into medical school. Without his artistic background, his work might not have had as much impact, Dr. Swanson said. © 2017 The New York Times Company

Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 23251 - Posted: 02.18.2017

By Meredith Wadman The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) today put the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on notice that it intends to use legal tools to force the agency to restore tens of thousands of documents on animal welfare that it removed from its website on Friday. In this letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, the animal welfare organization reminded the government that under the terms of a 2009 legal settlement with HSUS, USDA had agreed to make public some of the records it has now scrubbed from its public database. HSUS, its lawyers write, “is exercising its rights under [the 2009 settlement] and intends to take further action unless USDA agrees to reconsider this bizarre reversal of the agency’s longstanding policy” of making inspection records and others publicly available. The animal organization’s letter notes that under the terms of the 2009 settlement, the two parties, HSUS and USDA, now have 30 days to settle their differences. After that, HSUS can ask the court to reopen the lawsuit. A spokesperson for USDA did not in the course of 3 hours return an email and a call requesting comment. The HSUS letter also argues that USDA’s actions violate laws governing the electronic release of data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). One of the laws requires agencies to “make available for public inspection … [By] electronic means” all FOIA requests that it releases to anyone and that it determines are likely to be asked for again, by others. When they were public, many of USDA’s inspection reports, especially those of troubled facilities, were accessed repeatedly by a number of different users. © 2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 23192 - Posted: 02.07.2017

Sara Reardon The welfare of research animals, including primates, will be much harder for the public to track after a US regulatory agency removes information from its website. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency charged with ensuring the humane treatment of large research animals, such as primates and goats, has quietly scrubbed all inspection reports and enforcement records from its website. The move has drawn criticism from animal welfare and transparency activists who say the public has the right to know how their tax dollars are being used. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which also oversees animals in circuses, zoos and those sold commercially as pets, says that making the data publicly available posed a threat to individuals’ privacy. USDA spokesperson Tanya Espinosa would not specify what personal information the agency wanted to protect, but said that it would be impossible to redact it from all the tens of thousands of inspection reports, complaints and enforcement action documents that used to be public. The decision is a result of the USDA’s “commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals”, according to a statement on the agency’s website. The records will still be available in redacted form through freedom-of-information requests. ”If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website,” the statement concludes. © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 23188 - Posted: 02.04.2017

By SHERI FINK, STEVE EDER and MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN A group of brain performance centers backed by Betsy DeVos, the nominee for education secretary, promotes results that are nothing short of stunning: improvements reported by 91 percent of patients with depression, 90 percent with attention deficit disorder, 90 percent with anxiety. The treatment offered by Neurocore, a business in which Ms. DeVos and her husband, Dick, are the chief investors, consists of showing movies to patients and interrupting them when the viewers become distracted, in an effort to retrain their brains. With eight centers in Michigan and Florida and plans to expand, Neurocore says it has assessed about 10,000 people for health problems that often require medication. “Is it time for a mind makeover?” the company asks in its advertising. “All it takes is science.” But a review of Neurocore’s claims and interviews with medical experts suggest its conclusions are unproven and its methods questionable. Neurocore has not published its results in peer-reviewed medical literature. Its techniques — including mapping brain waves to diagnose problems and using neurofeedback, a form of biofeedback, to treat them — are not considered standards of care for the majority of the disorders it treats, including autism. Social workers, not doctors, perform assessments, and low-paid technicians with little training apply the methods to patients, including children with complex problems. In interviews, nearly a dozen child psychiatrists and psychologists with expertise in autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or A.D.H.D., expressed caution regarding some of Neurocore’s assertions, advertising and methods. “This causes real harm to children because it diverts attention, hope and resources,” said Dr. Matthew Siegel, a child psychiatrist at Maine Behavioral Healthcare and associate professor at Tufts School of Medicine, who co-wrote autism practice standards for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “If there were something out there that was uniquely powerful and wonderful, we’d all be using it.” © 2017 The New York Times Company

Keyword: Learning & Memory
Link ID: 23171 - Posted: 01.31.2017

Jon Hamilton What Einstein did for physics, a Spaniard named Santiago Ramón y Cajal did for neuroscience more than a century ago. Back in the 1890s, Cajal produced a series of drawings of brain cells that would radically change scientists' understanding of the brain. And Cajal's drawings aren't just important to science. They are considered so striking that the Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis has organized a traveling exhibition of Cajal's work called The Beautiful Brain. "Cahal was the founder of modern neuroscience," says Larry Swanson, a brain scientist at the University of Southern California who wrote an essay for the book that accompanies the exhibit. "Before Cajal it was just completely different," Swanson says. "Most of the neuroscientists in the mid-19th century thought the nervous system was organized almost like a fishing net." They saw the brain and nervous system as a single, continuous web, not a collection of separate cells. But Cajal reached a different conclusion. "Cajal looked under the microscope at different parts of the brain and said, 'It's not like a fishing net,'" Swanson says. "There are individual units called nerve cells or neurons that are put together in chains to form circuits." Cajal didn't just take notes on what he saw. He made thousands of highly detailed drawings, many of which are considered works of art. © 2017 npr

Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 23152 - Posted: 01.27.2017

By R. Douglas Fields With American restrictions on travel lifting, interest in Cuba has skyrocketed, especially among scientists considering developing collaborations and student exchange programs with their Caribbean neighbors. But few researchers in the United States know how science and higher education are conducted in communist Cuba. Undark met with Dr. Mitchell Valdés-Sosa, director of the Cuban Neuroscience Center, in his office in Havana to learn how someone becomes a neuroscientist in Cuba, and to discuss what the future may hold for scientific collaborations between the two nations. It is helpful to appreciate some of the ways that higher education and research operate differently in communist Cuba. In contrast to the local institutional and individual control of decisions in the U.S., the central government in Cuba makes career and educational decisions for its citizens. Scientific research is directed by authorities to meet the needs of the developing country, and Ph.D. dissertation proposals must satisfy this goal for approval. Much of the graduate education takes place in biotechnology companies and research centers that are authorized by the government — a situation resembling internships in the U.S. Development, production, and marketing of products from biomedical research and education are all carried out in the same center, and the sales of these products provide financial support to the institution. Copyright 2017 Undark

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 23124 - Posted: 01.19.2017

Bret Stetka With a president-elect who has publicly supported the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, suggested that climate change is a hoax dreamed up by the Chinese, and appointed to his Cabinet a retired neurosurgeon who doesn't buy the theory of evolution, things might look grim for science. Yet watching Patti Smith sing "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" live streamed from the Nobel Prize ceremony in early December to a room full of physicists, chemists and physicians — watching her twice choke up, each time stopping the song altogether, only to push on through all seven wordy minutes of one of Bob Dylan's most beloved songs — left me optimistic. Taking nothing away from the very real anxieties about future funding and support for science, neuroscience in particular has had plenty of promising leads that could help fulfill Alfred Nobel's mission to better humanity. In the spirit of optimism, and with input from the Society for Neuroscience, here are a few of the noteworthy neuroscientific achievements of 2016. One of the more fascinating fields of neuroscience of late entails mapping the crosstalk between our biomes, brains and immune systems. In July, a group from the University of Virginia published a study in Nature showing that the immune system, in addition to protecting us from a daily barrage of potentially infectious microbes, can also influence social behavior. The researchers had previously shown that a type of white blood cells called T cells influence learning behavior in mice by communicating with the brain. Now they've shown that blocking T cell access to the brain influences rodent social preferences. © 2016 npr

Keyword: Alzheimers; Learning & Memory
Link ID: 23041 - Posted: 12.31.2016

by Tom Siegfried SAN DIEGO — Society’s record for protecting public health has been pretty good in the developed world, not so much in developing countries. That disparity has long been recognized. But there’s another disparity in society’s approach to public health — the divide between attention to traditional diseases and the resources devoted to mental disorders. “When it comes to mental health, all countries are developing countries,” says Shekhar Saxena, director of the World Health Organization’s department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Despite a breadth of scope and depth of impact exceeding that of many more highly publicized diseases, mental illness has long been regarded as a second-class medical concern. And modern medicine’s success at diagnosing, treating and curing many other diseases has not been duplicated for major mental disorders. Saxena thinks that neuroscience research can help. He sees an opportunity for progress through increased interdisciplinary collaboration between neuroscience and mental health researchers. “The collaboration seems to be improving, but much more is needed and not only in a few countries, but all countries,” he said November 12 at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. |© Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016.

Keyword: Depression; Schizophrenia
Link ID: 22972 - Posted: 12.10.2016

A graduate student has been charged with murder in the fatal stabbing of beloved USC neuroscience professor, Bosco Tjan on campus Friday. David Jonathan Brown, 28, of Los Angeles is expected to be arraigned Tuesday in downtown Los Angeles, according to the L.A. County district attorney’s office. If he is convicted, Brown faces up to 26 years to life in prison. Prosecutors allege that Brown used a knife when he attacked and stabbed Tjan in the chest at 4:30 p.m. Friday in his office in the Seeley G. Mudd Building on campus. Brown was immediately taken into custody. It was the last day of classes. Tjan, who joined the faculty in 2001, was a professor of psychology at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and a vision loss expert. As co-director of the Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center, Tjan ran a laboratory devoted to studying human sight. Brown was a doctoral student in Tjan’s lab, according to a USC website. The district attorney’s announcement comes a day after hundreds of students, staff and faculty gathered to honor the slain professor. “Bosco died doing what he loved, doing what he believed in — serving his students and building up a new generation of scholars,” USC President C.L. Max Nikias said. “His achievements are real, his influence enduring.” Tjan led a number of research projects and conducted a lab course on functional imaging. He was also a member of the Society for Neuroscience and Vision Sciences Society.

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 22957 - Posted: 12.07.2016

By David Grimm Animal research has a publication problem. About half of all animal experiments in academic labs, including those testing for cancer and heart drugs, are never published in scientific journals, and those that are have been notoriously hard to replicate. That’s part of the reason that most drugs that work in animals don’t work in people—only 11% of oncology compounds that show promise in mice are ever approved for humans—despite billions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Meanwhile, academic labs waste money, mice, and other resources on experiments that, unbeknownst to them, have already been done but were never reported. In response to similar concerns about human studies, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007 mandated that researchers conducting human clinical trials preregister the details in an online database like ClinicalTrials.gov. Now, some scientists are wondering whether a similar approach makes sense for animal experiments. In a study published this month in PLOS Biology, Daniel Strech, a bioethicist at Hannover Medical School in Germany, and colleagues investigated the idea of so-called animal study registries. They scoured the literature and interviewed nearly two dozen scientists to determine the pros and cons of such registries—and whether they would actually make a difference. Strech chatted with Science to discuss the group’s findings. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Q: What would these registries look like? © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 22930 - Posted: 11.30.2016

Twenty-seven Canadians a day are diagnosed with a brain tumour. Often, the prognosis isn't good, but it might be improved thanks to a new technique that targets tumours deep inside the brain that are too dangerous to remove surgically. The technique was created by Mark Torchia and Richard Tyc of the University of Manitoba and consists of heating the cancerous tissue with a laser, making it more receptive to chemotherapy. Carling Muir of B.C. is hoping the method, known as NeuroBlate, will help her survive the rare form of recurring brain cancer that she has been living with for the past decade. Muir, who was diagnosed when she was 19, has taken some inspiration from how Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie has handled his own diagnosis of brain cancer this past summer. "I worry more about, like, what it does to my family? That's the part that gets me," she told CBC's Reg Sherren. Sherren was granted exclusive access to the operating room at Vancouver General Hospital where Muir underwent the NeuroBlate procedure. Watch the video to see how surgeons used the laser ablation method to target the cancer cells in Muir's left frontal lobe and read more about the procedure below. ©2016 CBC/Radio-Canada

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 22902 - Posted: 11.23.2016

James Gorman The Goffin’s cockatoo is a smart bird, so smart it has been compared to a 3-year-old human. But even for this species, a bird named Figaro stands out for his creativity with tools. Hand-raised at the Veterinary University of Vienna, the male bird was trying to play with a pebble that fell outside his aviary onto a wooden beam about four years ago. First he used a piece of bamboo to try to rake the stone back in. Impressed, scientists in the university Goffin’s lab, which specializes in testing the thinking abilities of the birds, put a cashew nut where the pebble had been. Figaro extended his beak through the wire mesh to bite a splinter off the wooden beam. He used the splinter to fish the cashew in, a fairly difficult process because he had to work the splinter through the mesh and position it at the right angle. In later trials, Figaro made his tools much more quickly, and also picked a bamboo twig from the bottom of the aviary and trimmed it to make a similar tool. Cockatoos don’t do anything like this in nature, as far as anyone knows. They don’t use tools. They don’t even build nests, so they are not used to manipulating sticks. And they have curved bills, unlike the straight beaks of crows and jays that make manipulating tools a bit easier. Blue jays have been observed creating tools from newspaper to pull food pellets to them. Alice M.I. Auersperg, a researcher at the Veterinary University of Vienna who studies cognition in animals, and her colleagues reported those first accomplishments by Figaro in 2012. Since then, they have continued to test Figaro and other birds in the lab that were able to learn tool use or tool making, sometimes both, by watching Figaro. © 2016 The New York Times Company

Keyword: Intelligence; Evolution
Link ID: 22892 - Posted: 11.21.2016

By David Grimm “Painful, bizarre, and wasteful experiments.” Buying dogs “just to cut them apart … and kill them.” These statements might sound like the rhetoric used by extreme animal rights groups, but they come from White Coat Waste—a new, unlikely coalition of fiscal conservatives and liberal activists that aims to end federal funding for research involving dogs and other animals by targeting people’s pocketbooks in addition to their heartstrings. Last week, the group made its first foray into the political arena, holding a briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., for reporters and congressional staff. Speakers called on policymakers to launch an audit of the agencies that fund animal research, and depicted animal studies as another example of big government spending run amok. “I can’t think of any right-wing groups that have taken on animal research before,” says Tom Holder, the director of Speaking of Research, an international organization that supports the use of animals in scientific labs. “It’s a new way to crowbar off policymakers who might not otherwise support” efforts to end the use of animals in research. White Coat Waste, based in Washington, D.C., is the brainchild of Anthony Bellotti, a former Republican strategist who has consulted for campaigns against Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money. “That story was being told in the Planned Parenthood and Obamacare debates, but not in the anti–animal research movement,” he says. “I wanted to unite the animal lovers and the liberty lovers.” © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 22891 - Posted: 11.21.2016

By Gary Stix Renowned neuroscientist Mu-Ming Poo is playing a key role in China’s contribution to the push by national and regional governments to set up gargantuan neuroscience research endeavors. The China Brain Project has yet to put forward funding specifics. But Poo, who directs the Institute of Neuroscience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and has held multiple academic posts at U.S. universities, is helping to shape the project’s 15-year timeline. To circumvent the paucity of drugs for neurological illnesses, Poo’s own team wants to focus on finding solid evidence for video games and other behavioral training methods that might produce near-term cognitive benefits for China’s aging population. Poo talked to Scientific American recently about these plans. Can you tell us about the Chinese Brain Project? Its goal is similar to the brain projects that have been launched in other regions but I think we’ve put more emphasis on the brain disease aspect than the U.S. project has. The U.S. project is more concentrated on developing new technologies for observing and manipulating the activity of brain circuits. In China there is a particular urgency to solve problems related to brain diseases because of its large population and an aging society saddled with neurodegenerative diseases. If we don’t find a solution for Alzheimer's by 2050, the entire medical system is going broke. In China there is an estimate that there could be many tens of millions of Alzheimer's or Parkinson’s disease patients by 2050 if no cure is found, given the rate of increasing life expectancy. © 2016 Scientific American,

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 22870 - Posted: 11.16.2016

By John Bohannon When it comes to influential neuroscience research, University College London (UCL) has a lot to boast about. That's not the opinion of a human but rather the output of a computer program that has now parsed the content of 2.5 million neuroscience articles, mapped all of the citations between them, and calculated a score of each author's influence on the rest. Three of the top 10 most influential (see table below) neuroscientists hail from UCL: Karl Friston (1st), Raymond Dolan (2nd), and Chris Frith (7th). The secret of their success? "We got into human functional brain imaging very early," Frith says. Getting in early made it possible to "be first to do many of the obvious studies." The program, called Semantic Scholar, is an online tool built at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2) in Seattle, Washington. When it debuted in April, it calculated the most influential computer scientists based on 2 million papers from that field. Since then, the AI2 team has expanded the corpus to 10 million papers, 25% of which are from neuroscience. They hope to expand that to all of the biomedical literature next year, over 20 million papers. When Semantic Scholar looks at a paper published online, what does it actually see? Much more than the typical academic search engine, says Oren Etzioni, CEO of AI2 who has led the project. "We are using machine learning, natural language processing, and [machine] vision to begin to delve into the semantics." © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 22855 - Posted: 11.12.2016

by Bethany Brookshire Most of us spend our careers trying to meet — and hopefully exceed — expectations. Scientists do too. But the requirements for success in a job in academic science don’t always line up with the best scientific methods. The net result? Bad science doesn’t just happen — it gets selected for. What does it mean to be successful in science? A scientist gets a job and funding by publishing a lot of high-impact papers with novel findings. Those papers and findings beget awards and funding to do more science — and publish more papers. “The problem that we face is that the incentive system is focused almost entirely on getting research published, rather than on getting research right,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. This idea of success has become so ingrained that scientists are even introduced when they give talks by the number of papers they have published or the amount of grant funding they have, says Marc Edwards, a civil engineer at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. But rewarding researchers for the number of papers they publish results in a “natural selection” of sloppy science, new research shows. The idea of scientific “success” equated as number of publications promotes not just lazy science but also unethical science, another paper argues. Both articles proclaim that it’s time for a culture shift. But with many scientific labs to fund and little money to do it, what does a new, better scientific enterprise look like? © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016

Keyword: Miscellaneous
Link ID: 22779 - Posted: 10.24.2016

By Nathaniel P. Morris When meeting new people, I'm often asked what I do for work. Depending on how I phrase my answer, I receive very different reactions."I'm a doctor specializing in mental health" elicits fascination. People's faces brighten and they say, "Very cool!" But If I instead say, "I'm a psychiatrist," the conversation falls quiet. They get uncomfortable and change the subject. Mental health has made great strides in recent years. Every week, people across the country participate in walks to support mental health causes. The White House now designates May as National Mental Health Awareness Month. In the presidential race, Hillary Clinton released a comprehensive plan to invest in mental health care. Yet psychiatry—the medical specialty focused on mental health—remains looked down upon in nearly every corner of our society. The public often doesn’t regard psychiatrists as medical doctors. Many view psychiatric treatments as pseudoscience at best and harmful at worst. Even among health professionals, it’s one of the least respected medical specialties. The field is in serious decline. Academic papers abound with titles like “Is psychiatry dying?” and “Are psychiatrists an endangered species?” Despite growing mental health needs nationwide, fewer medical students are applying into the field, and the number of psychiatrists in the US is falling. Patients too often refuse treatment because of stigma related to the field. © 2016 Scientific American

Keyword: Depression; Schizophrenia
Link ID: 22775 - Posted: 10.22.2016

By JOHN C. MARKOWITZ The United States government recently announced its new director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. Joshua Gordon. If you think that’s just bureaucracy as usual, think again. Mental health research, under the leadership of the previous director, Dr. Thomas Insel, underwent a quiet crisis, one with worrisome implications for the treatment of mental health. I hope Dr. Gordon will resolve it. For decades, the National Institute of Mental Health provided crucial funding for American clinical research to determine how well psychotherapies worked as treatments (on their own as well as when combined with medications). This research produced empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy and other talking treatments. But over the past 13 years, Dr. Insel increasingly shifted the institute’s focus to neuroscience, strangling its clinical research budget. Dr. Insel wasn’t wrong to be enthusiastic about the possibilities of neuroscientific research. Compared with the psychiatric diagnoses listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (D.S.M.), which can be vague and flawed, brain-based research holds out the promise of a precise and truly scientific understanding of mental illness. Psychiatric diagnoses depend on clusters of signs and symptoms. For major depression, for example, some criteria are low mood; wanting to die; and sleep, appetite and energy changes. These diagnoses lack the specificity of the biological markers that neuroscience seeks to identify. If we could find a genetic, neuroimaging or brain-circuit explanation for a mental illness, it might even yield a cure, rather than just the treatment of what can be recurrent, chronic conditions. But where does that leave patients whom today’s treatments do not help? Can they wait for neuroscience developments that may take decades to appear, or prove illusory? Staking all your money on one bet, as the institute did under Dr. Insel, has consequences. © 2016 The New York Times Company

Keyword: Depression
Link ID: 22757 - Posted: 10.15.2016

By Elisabeth Pain BARCELONA, SPAIN—In a bid to win the public's hearts and minds, the Spanish scientific community has pledged to become more transparent about animal research. Ninety research centers, universities, scientific societies, and companies around Spain have adopted a set of standards, launched yesterday by the Confederation of Spanish Scientific Societies (COSCE), on how research organizations should open up communication channels about their use of laboratory animals. They are joining a growing movement for transparency in Europe. Although animal research is generally accepted in Spain as beneficial, “part of the society is opposed to this type of research or isn’t sure about supporting it,” Juan Lerma, a professor at the Institute of Neurosciences of Alicante, Spain, who coordinated a COSCE commission on the use of animal research, wrote in the document. The signatories want to help the public better understand the benefits, costs, and limitations of animal research through a “realistic” description of the expected results, the impact on animals' welfare, and ethical considerations. Among other things, the Spanish organizations pledge to publicly recognize the fact that they're doing animal research, talk clearly about when, how, and why they use animals, allow visitors into their facilities, highlight the contribution of animal research during the dissemination of results, and publicize efforts to replace, reduce, and refine animal research. © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 22679 - Posted: 09.22.2016

By David Grimm Depending on whom you ask, yesterday’s U.S. government workshop on the state of nonhuman primate research was either a raging success or a complete fiasco. The event, held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, brought together dozens of scientists, veterinarians, and bioethicists to discuss how research on monkeys and related animals is contributing to human medicine and to review the welfare policies that surround this work. But observers differed widely on whether it accomplished what Congress had in mind when it told NIH to hold the event. “It was a great showcase of the importance nonhuman primates have played and continue to play in human health,” says Anne Deschamps, a senior science policy analyst at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, one of several scientific organizations that signed onto a white paper released in advance of the meeting that promoted the use of these animals in biomedical research. She contends that research on these animals has been critical for our understanding of HIV and the human brain. But the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), whose lobbying efforts led to the workshop, says the meeting was supposed to determine whether monkeys and their relatives belong in laboratories in the first place. “It was an infomercial for the use of monkeys in experiments,” says PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo in Norfolk, Virginia. “It was a wasted opportunity.” © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 22644 - Posted: 09.12.2016