Animal welfare group overseeing medical research in London, Ont. defends dog testing

Arthur Brown says he understands the outrage over the use of dogs in a controversial research study by Lawson Research Institute in London, Ont., but he also stands behind his belief that the testing was carried out ethically.

Brown is the Chair of Western University’s Animal Care Committee (ACC), which conducted an independent review of the research work led by scientist Frank Prato at St. Joseph’s hospital this past fall. The Canadian Council on Animal Care also reviewed the program, with both groups concluding it met standards of care.

The study, which induced three-hour long heart attacks in dogs, is focused on understanding the effects of heart attacks in humans and why many patients later experience heart failure.

The research was shut down last August after details about it were revealed in a story by the Investigative Journalism Bureau and Postmedia. The debate around the research became heated, with Premier Doug Ford vowing to “hunt down” scientists who experiment on animals. People upset about the use of dogs staged protests at the hospital.

In an interview on CBC’s London Morning on Friday, Brown said he believes the research met the ethical standards of Western’s ACC.

“We found that the dogs were well cared for, there was lots of post-operative care, it was really a pristine program,” he said.

WATCH | Head of committee explains decision:

What Western University’s animal care committee found when it reviewed dog cardiac study

Arthur Brown is the chair of Western University’s Animal Care Committee, which cleared researcher Frank Prato of any wrongdoing by performing medical research on dogs at St. Joseph’s Health Care London. Brown joined London Morning host Andrew Brown to talk about the review process.

The ACC’s report outlines that a veterinarian was involved in the care of the dogs; a lab member was responsible for playing with them, and surgery was pain-free. The report also notes that the dogs recovered “rapidly from the procedure, with frequent monitoring.”

Brown said he understands the use of dogs in testing triggers an emotional response. However he believes in this case it was worth it considering the potential to lead to better treatment for heart disease, which consistently ranks next to cancer among the top killers of Canadians.

“There’s probably people out there who would say that there’s no condition in which we would have animal research regardless of who it might save,” said Brown. “And I think it’s a larger segment that would say … ‘I would like my children to have better care than I have today.”

Brown said Prato’s research, specifically the imaging of the heart after a heart attack, has lead to a standard of care for physicians to tell how much tissue has been damanged.

“So almost everyone who goes to the hospital that has a myocardial infarction is going to get this imaging to determine what needs to be done. And that’s millions of people,” Brown said.

He believes it comes down to ethics: “Balancing the welfare and cost to the animal with the medical benefits that humans could accrue. We have a long way to go on a lot of issues and it really needs to include animal research.”

And while Brown and Prato say the research was above board, philosophy professor Andrew Fenton said some key outstanding questions remain about how it was done.

Fenton’s research at Dalhousie University focuses on animal bio-ethics. He’s sat on a committees that have helped draft language for ethics guidance documents used by animal care committees.

Fenton said he’s not opposed to all use of animals in medical research but does have issues with how Prato’s team did its work.

“There are ethical questions about why these dogs need to be used, questions that any medical ethicist would want answered,” he said.

Fenton said he’d like to see more proof the results of the research will be useful, given that the testing was done on dogs. He points out that the dogs used in Prato’s research were young, while most people develop heart disease later in life.

“The animal model being used doesn’t seem too well matched with the target human population,” said Fenton. “It comes back to how scientifically useful these models are.”

Researcher responds to ‘why dogs?’ question

In his interview with CBC News, Prato said dogs were used because the architecture of a dogs’ heart is similar to the human heart. You can listen to Prato’s interview with London Morning host Andrew Brown here.

Fenton said he’d like to see more proof that Prato’s research could not have used people who’ve survived heart attacks, and who have consented to being in the study rather than use healthy dogs who can’t provide such consent.

WATCH | Frank Prato defends his research on dogs:

London researcher explains why he was testing on dogs

Frank Prato, the scientist behind controversial studies inducing heart attacks in dogs, sat down for an exclusive interview with CBC’s London Morning host Andrew Brown and defended the importance of his research. He also explained why whistleblowers were wrong about the allegations.

“That’s a better way to advance human medicine, than in using any animal model,” he said.

So is he suggesting that researchers should try to find people willing to have the blood flow to their hearts restricted for the purpose of study? No, but Fenton said he’d like to see more proof Prato’s research couldn’t involve people who already have heart disease or who’ve suffered a heart attack.

“The question is ‘Was this necessary?'” said Fenton. “Because we’re taking something away from the dogs by doing this, we’re causing them harm.”

Fenton said in the field of medical ethics in animal testing there’s a principle known as a “duty to repair.” He believes all the animals that were tested in the Lawson research should then be adopted out.

“If we hold the animals in case we can use them another way, or euthanize them we’re taking everything away from them instead of giving back,” he said.

In discussions with CBC News, Prato confirmed that the dogs used in the study were eventually euthanized.

“We’ve had to unfortunately euthanize because you can’t develop new technology if you don’t look at the tissue and know what the truth is,” Prato said. “You can’t just transfer it to human and hope that what you see is what would manage the patient correctly. You have to prove it.”