Deadly research that provides “a bit of a clue”

Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Source: Wikimedia/Manfred Werner / Tsui

Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Source: Wikimedia/Manfred Werner / Tsui

Today, Monash University informed us via its website about “New pathways discovered to prevent blindness”. Wonderful. Worthwhile research, one might think. A good use of public money.

Scientists have made a major new discovery detailing how areas of the brain responsible for vision could potentially adapt to injury or trauma and ultimately prevent blindness.

This sounds already a bit more cautious. The new research could “potentially” lead to something very useful for humans. But wait a minute, for humans? Nowhere on this webpage does it mention the research was undertaken on humans or the insights gained might apply to humans. But that’s what most readers would assume.

The research was not carried out with human subjects, but used 14 non-human primates. Nine 13-day old and five young adult marmosets were subjected to interventions on their brains and were subsequently killed.

This information is not provided on the Monash University website, nor in the article in The Age newspaper that reported on the research. I found it in the supplementary notes of the research article “Preservation of Vision by the Pulvinar following Early-Life Primary Visual Cortex Lesions” published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Biology. The research article and the additional notes are behind a pay wall.

The article in The Age quoted one of the researchers on the benefits of his research:

This gives a bit of a clue and an insight into how those things might be happening if the primary pathway looks normal.

What do you think … does invasive brain surgery on 14 marmosets and their subsequent death justify gaining an insight of “a bit of a clue”?

And what do you think about the researchers withholding vital information about their research? Why did they not tell us that the research was conducted on non-human primates and may or may not apply to humans? That the 14 marmosets were killed as part of the experiment? How much the animals suffered during the 12-month period of the experiment?

Apparently, misrepresenting and/or exaggerating research findings is not uncommon. In December 2014, the British Medical Journal published an article whose authors examined 462 press releases issued by 20 leading UK universities in 2011. They found that in health related science news and academic press releases

40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research.

The exaggerated or misrepresented information is then duly reported by health journalists in the media. And who can blame them … or should health/science journalists look at the original research articles and also ask the researchers a few questions?

Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Source: Wikimedia/ Leszek Leszczynski

Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Source: Wikimedia/ Leszek Leszczynski

On a brighter note, today I noticed a new publication by Animal Aid UK. It’s titled “The Scientific Case Against the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research” and meant to inform research charities on the limitations of animal research. Or, in their words, “why animal research can’t be trusted”. Check it out. It’s clear, informative and well written, and it includes references and links for further reading.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s