Did you know that for the past five years the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has received more funding from the National Science Foundation than any other university? After spending two years there, and the last seven months working as a public affairs intern for the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, it makes sense to me – there are so many bright people there making important contributions to science. During my first semester at the university, I decided to take a course on science reporting. From a young age, I’ve been interested in science – starting with a curiosity about what makes the human body and mind work, and then, later discovering a love for chemistry through baking.
Despite my scientific curiosity, I’m not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. However, by covering science, I’ve come to realize that we need more people working as translators between researchers working in the lab and those of us reading the news in our living rooms. There’s a gap between them, and if a bridge isn’t present, it can lead to misinformation and even unjustified panic.
And I’m not immune to that panic. In fact, I experienced it when I started working on a story that later went on to win a Michael E. DeBakey Journalism Award. Earlier in the year, I’d watched a news segment on dogs in research in Illinois, and was astounded to see the number of research dogs at my university. My family owns a beagle – one of the most common breeds of dogs in research – and though she doesn’t have a research background, it still hit me hard to hear about them.
Emma is Susan’s beagle.
A few months later, I learned about clinical trials that were beginning in humans to test a drug called PAC-1, which researchers hoped could be used to treat human cancer. It was previously tested in dogs! I was particularly concerned, having seen the earlier piece, and I wondered what would happen to them once the research was complete.
As it turned out, my worrying about dogs needlessly suffering for the betterment of humanity was unnecessary.
Timothy Fan, a veterinary oncologist, and professor at the college of Veterinary Medicine at the university, became interested in seeing how PAC-1 could help his patients – cats and dogs with tumors. Because we share environments, pets are exposed to many of the same carcinogens as people and can develop similar cancers. Clinical trials in pets with cancer can offer a more accurate look at how a drug could work for us. Once researchers observed how PAC-1 worked in the pet dogs, they began to study it in people. Both species are benefitting from this research.
After learning this, and talking extensively with the researchers, my anxiety faded – they did have dogs bred for research purposes, yes, but they are helping other dogs by being involved in the research process. I was further encouraged when I learned that the dogs used for research were adopted by many of the same researchers who worked on the study.
Even Dr. Fan, who headed the research, adopted one of the dogs – a hound dog named Ember. Ember is not only a wonderful pet to Dr. Fan, but also represents hope for so many who suffer from cancer.
It was after writing this article that I realized just how much I loved reporting on science. Moreover, it taught me how important animal research is to both our two-legged and four-legged friends.
About the Author: Susan Szuch is a rising junior studying news-editorial journalism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is focusing on science writing and communication. She is a public affairs intern with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and was formerly copy chief of the independent student newspaper at the University of Illinois, The Daily Illini.
I am an IACUC administrator and a “retired” animal researcher. Your article and blog post are so encouraging…you are absolutely correct that we need more people who can communicate to the public about the benefits of animal research. We as an animal research community also have to stop “hiding” the fact that it is being done and promote the positive results that come from it. Way to go and best of luck to you in the future. You are exactly what our field needs!
Really great article! And I agree, we do need more people working at translators between scientists and the general public. We scientists are often not the best at explaining things in layman’s terms, and we need folks like you to help us express the science in a meaningful way. Good luck to you and thanks for being our advocate!
Thank you for publishing this and sharing your story. Many of us in the animal research community have a great love for animals and are dedicated to providing 24/7/365 veterinary and husbandry care for them. We truly hope that our efforts advance biomedical research outcomes that benefit humans and animal alike.
Thank you for both your initial article and this follow-up! Our researchers here at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are absolutely top notch. Dr. Fan’s research helps not only the dogs but has potential for future use in humans. We have adopted several cats from here at the UIUC that had been used in diabetes research. Keep up the great work Susan!
As a research scientist and as a physician, who also has had many, many pets, I cannot stress enough the importance of biomedical research using human subjects. I even thought about going to veterinary medical school at one time (and was accepted at the University of Illinois Veterinary Medical School). We simply do not as some claim do not know everything as far as biology of either humans or animals. You cannot just plug numbers into a computer and out pops the “right” answer. Research subjects are like a black box, we know some of what goes on inside, but there is much that we do not know. Thus, in order to develop new treatments for both animal and human diseases, and even to just understand more of what goes on inside that “black box”, we have to learn new things. The nature of some research is such that it cannot all be done in humans, both in terms of numbers and in terms of what the study entails. I won’t argue whether there are some who abuse the privilege of using animals in research — there are bad people in every walk of life (I personally have read recently of some companies that do animal testing of cosmetics, which in my view cross the line in some of their practices. This should be stopped). However, to do a proper study, it is necessary that the subjects are as normal as possible. They cannot be in pain, they cannot be abused in some fashion, or any other practice that takes them out of what would be a baseline physiological state. Moreover, I know of any number of researchers who are also pet lovers. While we have a different relationship with our pet animals, than our research animals, it would also be impossible for any of us to treat a research animal with cruelty. In some cases, “disease” must be induced in an animal in order to study what happens pathophysiologically or after a treatment of some sort. Even when this necessitates that the animals are euthanized after the study, that is done in a humane manner, and the animals are treated humanely throughout. I have been in many animal quarters in research facilities, and it is obvious that those animals are just as happy as they would be were they a pet in someone’s home. If I had ever been in a position to catch someone doing less than that I would do what needed to be done (indeed during one postdoc experience, the technician and I decided that one of the research dogs was suffering in ways that should not have happened and we put him down. The principal investigator was angry, but what he wanted was just plain wrong! Eventually, that investigator was dismissed from the university for a whole lot of reasons, but that is another story). The point is that animal research is important, there is no other way to gain the information needed, and at the same time research animals ARE humanely treated. When an investigator violates that requirement for humane treatment, he or she should be dismissed from the university or other facility and any harm done to the animals should be dealt with as needed to prevent suffering. But the bottom line is that animal research is necessary and important, within the guidelines of humane treatment.
I’m so glad to hear that science can be kind to, and benefit animals! Behavioral research has done so much to improve the way dogs are trained, even in the last 15 years, and it’s all because dog trainers are taking a more scientific approach.
Why are you not going down the stem cell therapy. Using our own cells not experimenting on these poor creatures. The fact is that a load of money is thrown at these horrible labs by the government and what has been the outcome of curing cancer through your lab. I would say zilch.
Well, Ivy, If stem cells were the be all, end all, don’t you think they would be used for every possible treatment by now? And where do you think scientists learned how stem cells work in the first place? By discovering them and testing them exclusively on human volunteers?? If that’s what you think, then I suggest you do a little of your own research on the topic before you embarrass yourself. By your reasoning scientists should only conduct research with human volunteers. I’d hate to think how far back into the stone ages we would be if scientists were only able to work with humans. Most people have heard of volunteering for clinical studies, but let me ask you, Ivy, how do you feel about volunteering for a preclinical study??