A third-party review of the use of dogs in medical research at London’s Lawson Research Institute found that the testing, which induced heart attacks in the dogs, complied with all “regulatory, ethical and professional standards.”
The 10-page report summarizing the review panel’s findings was released Thursday morning by St. Joseph’s Health Care, which operates Lawson.
In essence, the report states that the organizations involved in conducting and overseeing the research — Lawson, St. Joseph’s, and Western University — have a communications problem, not an animal-treatment problem.
The report said that while the research complied with animal care rules and was peer-reviewed, there were gaps in how it was communicated to the public and between Lawson and Western University.
“The panel concluded that while the animal care and scientific practices met or exceeded required standards, there were deficiencies in clarity of roles, institutional approval processes, and coordinated communication,” the report said.
The report also said the review concluded that allegations of animal mistreatment “were unfounded” and that the main problems relate not to how the animals were treated, but to “governance, alignment, transparency, communication, and the management of institutional responses to the public controversy.”
The report follows an independent review by Western University’s Animal Care Committee (ACC) in September and the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) in October. Both also found that the allegations of wrongdoing were unsubstantiated.
London researcher explains why he was testing on dogs
The controversial research was exposed last summer in a report by the Investigative Journalism Bureau and Postmedia.
The story revealed that scientists from Lawson were secretly inducing three-hour heart attacks in dogs before euthanizing them and removing their hearts for further study.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who vowed to “hunt down” scientists experimenting on animals. His government also proposed legislation that would prohibit “invasive medical research” on cats and dogs.
Lawson ended up shutting the program down, and Lawson’s head of research left the week after the story broke.
Frank Prato, the scientist behind the controversial studies, explained in an exclusive interview with CBC News earlier this month that the study led to life-saving discoveries into the damage caused by heart attacks and how patients recover from them. Prato (you can listen to his interview here) also said the dogs were anesthetized during the induced heart attacks and so did not feel pain during the testing.
Since the research was exposed last August, animal rights groups have continued to question its validity and the secrecy surrounding it. One academic who studies medical ethics questioned whether research involving young dogs would yield useful data on a disease that typically affects older humans.
The report’s key recommendations include a call for a revised joint governance policy between St. Joseph’s Health Care and Western University that clearly defines “authority, institutional approval processes, roles and responsibilities and escalation pathways.” The report said the two institutions were working under an outdated memorandum of understanding from 2013.
The report also recommends developing a “transparency strategy” to explain how animal testing is regulated and how it benefits society. Another recommendation calls for the creation of a “framework for coordinated proactive communication and crisis response with Western University.”
Another key recommendation calls for better reporting mechanisms and staff education related to animal welfare concerns, including better anonymous reporting options.
The third-party review was report was conducted and signed by:
