The Age of Research

For some time now, HRA has been publishing case studies on our website which aim to highlight animal experiments that have occurred recently. They provide a simple explanation of animal experiments, broken down to layman’s terms to demonstrate that the experiments that occur behind lab doors are not some exaggerated claims from yesteryear. They are happening right here and now. Recent posts however, have unveiled another issue of grave concern.

HRA published “Invasive surgery conducted on conscious greyhounds” in May 2013. The information about this experiment, conducted by University of Newcastle, was obtained from a 2011 medical journal Acta Physiologica (Scandinavian Physiological Society).
Dogs obviously attract more empathy than rodents (unfortunately for the latter) and this particular expose clearly struck a chord with many individuals as well as greyhound rescue groups. The university at which this experiment was conducted must have received an unusually high number of complaints as their public relations department promptly issued a press release in response to our claims. The release stated “The research in question was conducted prior to 2004 and published in 2011. Dogs have not been used for research at the University of Newcastle for more than ten years.” 

This in itself is good news – because they are no longer using dogs (if the claim is indeed correct) and they have clearly felt the need to defend their actions in using greyhounds in such a way.  It does not however, absolve them from the responsibility of conducting this experiment.
Of additional concern however, is why research allegedly over seven  years old is being published in a 2011 medical journal?

HRA wrote to the Chief Editor of Acta Physiologica , to verify if the journal was aware that the research submitted to them was conducted prior to 2004 and whether they have a policy of accepting data collected within a specified timeframe.  Its  response was “I can confirm that, from the start of the journal in 1889, there was probably never a time frame (from when publication should occur relative to experimentation).  At least it is never mentioned in any historical documents. I do not fully understand why there should be a time frame.”

This is cause for concern and the practice at best is misleading.  Decade old research published today seems to question the integrity of published Australian research. What does this mean for any researchers who cite this study in their own papers as 2011?  Is it not reasonable to  assume that research cited from a 2011 publication would be relatively recent?  At the very least why isn’t the research provided with a date?

This is not the first occasion in which researchers have implicitly misled the reader. On a previous case study regarding baboon research, conducted by Royal North Shore Hospital and published in The Bone and Joint Journal 2010, it was (subsequently) claimed to have been conducted over 20 years ago.

Similarly, an experiment involving rats on electric wired floors was publicised by HRA and obtained from another recent medical journal (2010). In a personal conversation with a representative of the institution I was informed that the research was conducted more than ten years ago. When questioned why it appeared in a recent publication I was told that “the researchers didn’t want it sitting on a shelf gathering dust”.  So to put this into perspective, sentient animals were exposed to unnecessary cruelty, and until recently the results of this no doubt critical experiment were left to gather dust on a bookshelf.

Again it raises the question of why publication was so delayed.  If the research was considered worthy enough to conduct in the first place, then why was it not published earlier so that any purported benefit could be shared and utilised by the scientific community?  We understand that researchers exist in a “publish or perish” world, so would the cynical amongst us suggest that  it could be that they are submitting “old” work for publication simply in order to increase their chances of obtaining further funding?

Meanwhile, back to the greyhounds. HRA is still waiting to receive a response from the University of Newcastle on a number of concerns we had with the experiment, including where the animals were sourced from.  It is suspected that they are failed racing dogs but we would like clarification.
We have also lodged an FOI request with the university seeking a copy of the relevant Animal Ethics Committee Minutes which approved the experiment, as well as the AEC annual report.

HRA will pursue this issue and urge medical journals to be vigilant in ascertaining the date research was conducted prior to publication.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust