Changes

'''Speaking of Research''' (SR). According to its website, "Speaking of Research is an international advocacy group that provides accurate information about the importance of animal research in medical and veterinary science." Research is generally described as "life saving.". <ref>Speaking of Research, [http://speakingofresearch.com/about/ About], organizational website, accessed June 13, 2016.</ref>

Speaking of Research SR previously overlapped with the group "Pro-test Test" in the United Kingdom as well as a Pro-test Test group affiliated with the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] (UCLA). Pro-test Test UK is no longer active, winding down its activities in February, 2011.<ref name="Pro test"> Pro-Test, [http://www.pro-test.org.uk/ Welcome], organizational website, accessed June 13, 2016.</ref>  Tom Holder is the listed as "Founder" of SR and was the "Press Officer" for Pro-test (UK). He lives in the UK.<ref> Speaking of Research, [https://speakingofresearch.com/about/founder-biography/ Founder Biography], organizational website, accessed June 13, 2016.</ref>

In March of 2008, he moved to the United States to found Speaking of Research SR and "take on animal rights groups.".  According to its website, its SR's "grassroots activities" on campuses are aimed at "generating student and faculty support" for [[animal testing]].  In October of 2008, he returned to the UK.  He is has been a regular contributor to the groups' blog and travels around the world to give talks on behalf of both Speaking of Research and Pro-TestSR issues. This He worked on a project was funded by Pro-test and the [[Americans for Medical Progress]] (AMP), currently operating on a small budget met by individual contributors.<ref>[http://speakingofresearch.com/about/founder-biography/ "Founder Biography"], Speaking of Research, accessed February 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.amprogress.org/MichaelHayreFellowship Micheal D. Hare Fellowship in Public Outreach], [[Americans for Medical Progress]], accessed February 2010.</ref> Holder no longer assists Pro-Test.

According to it's its website, Pro-Test was formed in January of 2006 by 16 -year old Laurie Pycroft, who was "frustrated with the way that those who opposed vivisection were dominating the public debate on animal research.".  According to Pro-Test, they were "funded entirely by donations by private individuals on a no-strings-attached basis".<ref>Pro-Test, [http://www.pro-test.org.uk/about.php About Us], organizational website 2006.</ref>  Laurie Pycroft was quickly elevated to the teenage mascot and moral compass of the pro-vivisection movementcampaign.<ref> R. Allen Bogle [http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/2009/09/pro-test.html Pro-Test], Primate Freedom, September 2009.</ref>  According to an April of 2006 article by Allan Cowell in the [[New York Times]]:<ref name="cowell"> Allan Cowell [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/world/europe/01pycroft.html?ex=1301547600&en=474ca73512b83e31&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss A Geek, Sure, but No Patsy When It's About Research], ''The New York Times'', April 1, 2006.</ref>

Charles River Laboratories is the world's largest supplier of laboratory animals.<ref> Gina Chon and Anupreeta Das, [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704447604576007921979103968 Charles River Labs Pushed to Sell Itself], ''Wall Street Journal'', December 9, 2010.</ref> It has been described as the "General Motors of the laboratory animal industry.". <ref> C. Roland Christensen, ''Business Policy: Text and Cases'', January 1982 p. 54, ISBN 9780256014518.</ref> Board members also represent universities and institutions receiving government grants for vivisection. Many corporations and institutions on AMP's board have amassed a history of gross animal welfare violations in the United States and Europe and been the focus of animal, health, consumer and [[human rights]] advocates.

For 10 months, an undercover investigator from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), witnessed what the investigator described as miserable conditions and depraved experiments performed on marmosets at Cambridge. (right)<ref>[http://www.x-cape.org.uk/cutting.htm The Cutting Edge], X-Cape, accessed March 2010.</ref>

A dossier published by Animal Aid revealed some of the most meaningless, horrific and barbaric primate experiments conducted at Oxford. Most of the experiments are clearly being done to satisfy morbid curiosity. In projects lasting months and even years, groups of monkeys are deliberately brain damaged with chemicals and put through a battery of tests. Most of the experiments end with the monkeys being killed to conduct necropsies. Prior to death, animals suffer from seizures, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors and uncontrollable body movements. Some vital scientific Scientific "discoveries " included the finding that "brain damage in monkeys increases their fear of toy snakes."<ref> Rudebeck M, Buckley MJ, Walton ME, Rushworth MFS.

In one experiment, "scientists" from Oxford, Cambridge and two other universities conducted a long-term study of brain behavior in two male macaque monkeys. Both monkeys underwent brain surgery to implant electrodes to record brain activity. The implant was held in place by stainless steel screws, a head bolt and dental cement. The monkeys were seated in a sound-proof room and locked into "primate chairs,", which restrict body movement. The "task" of the restrained monkey was to stare at streams of pictures until he saw a fish. Experimental brain and eye recordings were computer controlled. An "incorrect stare" or "no response" from the monkeys resulted in the withholding of a juice reward. The monkeys underwent 67 experimental sessions. It is not known what became of them after this ordeal. <ref> Everling S, Tinsley CJ, Gaffan D, Duncan J. ''Selective representation of task-relevant objects and locations in the monkey prefrontal cortex.'', ''European Journal of Neuroscience'', 2006; 23:2197-2214.</ref>

'''World Week for Animals in Laboratories''' is a national week of protests and media events focusing on animal testing and the treatment of laboratory animals. It is held around the week of April 24th. <ref> [http://www.wwail.org/ World Week for Animals in Laboratories], In Defense of Animals, accessed February 2009.</ref>, <ref> [http://www.all-creatures.org/wlalw/ World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week], Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! accessed February 2009.</ref> During this week in 2008, Mr. Holder traveled to West Coast universities including, [[UCLA]], [[University of California, Berkeley]], Oregon Health & Sciences University ([[ONPRC]]) and the University of Washington. <ref> Richard Monastersky, [http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i32/32a00102.htm Chronicle: Protesters Fail to Slow Animal Research], Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2008.</ref><ref> [http://speakingofresearch.com/2008/04/28/speaking-to-the-west-coast-a-review/ Speaking to the West Coast: A Review], Speaking of Research, April 2008.</ref>

According to SR in January, 2010:<ref> Speaking of Research, [http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-welfare-the-3rs/ Animal Welfare and the 3Rs], Speaking of Research, accessed January 2010.</ref><ref> Speaking of Research, [http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/ AR Undone], Speaking of Research, accessed January 2010.</ref>

<blockquote>The fact is that animal rights groups do not exist to promote better animal welfare, but rather to band ban – on principle – all animal experiments carried out in the US and beyond. Animal welfare is of crucial importance to research since stressed animals tend not to give good results. Therefore it has often been researchers and animal care technicians who have championed advances in animal welfare – such as better designed cages, improved training, and new enrichment toys and activities for animals.</blockquote>Over 90% of the animals used in experimentation are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only federal law which over sees animal testing. Rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish are expressly eliminated from all safeguards. Species not covered under the AWA do not even have to be reported. <ref> [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/faq_awusda.pdf The Animal Care Program and the USDA's Authority Under the AWA: Q & A], [[U.S. Department of Agriculture]], APHIS Fact Sheet, July 2005, page 2.</ref> According to various animal rights groups, the AWA places no real restrictions on animal testing, animals are routinely subjected to addictive drugs, electric shock, food & and water deprivation, isolation, severe confinement, caustic chemicals, burning, blinding, chemical and biological weapons, radiation, etc. A researcher has only to declare that a procedure is necessary for it to be allowed. <ref> [http://all-creatures.org/saen/fact-anex-2005.html Animal Experimentation in the United States], Stop Animal Exploitation Now! April 2005.</ref> See also [[animal testing]], section 2.

According to ''PrimateLabs.com,'', "as a result of industry [[lobbying]], local and state animal cruelty laws frequently contain an explicit exemption for laboratory animals; therefore it is impossible to be charge in those localities for cruelty to a laboratory animal."<ref> [https://web.archive.org/web/20090728185028/http://www.primatelabs.com/factvsmyth.php Fact vs. Myth: FACT: State and local animal cruelty statutes do not cover animals in labs.], Primatelabs.com, accessed October 2009.</ref>  Lobbyists have fought every reform from the simple walking of dogs to larger cages for primates. Thanks to vivisection industry lobbying, over 90% of all laboratory animals receive no protection under the law.<ref> Jeremy Beckham [https://web.archive.org/web/20090629210740/http://www.primatelabs.com/robberbaron.php Vivisectors and Robber Barons], PrimateLabs.com, accessed October 2009.</ref> See also [[NABR & the Animal Welfare Act]].<ref> NAVS, [http://www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-informed/legal-arena/research/explanation-of-the-animal-welfare-act-awa/ Explanation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)], ''NAVS'', accessed January, 2017.</ref>

SR/Pro-test's Test has deflected and redirected scrutiny from what animal rights groups such as PETA have dubbed some of the world's more notorious and controversial laboratories and drug companies, as well as animal research in general. Also, and from violence and [[civil liberties]] issues concerning and violence against activists. See also [[Animal activists who have been injured or killed]].

According to it's its website, "Speaking of Research exists on a very small budget," all costs are associated with the website and total about $150/year.  Previously, SR operated with money donated by their "UK sister-group," Pro-Test, "who received their money from small private donations by scientists and other supporters. Travel costs and associated expenses of giving talks around the US and beyond have been generously met by the relevant host organizations."<ref> Speaking of Research, [http://speakingofresearch.com/about/ About], Speaking of Research, accessed January 2011.</ref>  It is hardly has described itself as a "campus oriented, grass roots" student movement if but "host organizations" are paying or reimbursing Speaking of Research/Pro-test Test for speaking engagements and conducting pro-vivisection rallies on their campuses. Several committee members are also university faculty members. See also [[Astroturf|astroturf]]. Animal researchers sometimes publish in hundreds of journals, much to their professional and financial success.  There is also a huge and profitable industry built which includes animal breeders, suppliers of cages and equipment designed specifically for animal testing. <ref> [http://www.curedisease.com/opposition.html Opposition from Vested Interest Groups], Americans for Medical Advancement, 2008.</ref> A 2001 audit for 30 facilities revealed that approximately 56% received over 100 million per year from the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH) for animal research. <ref>Micheal A. Budkie [http://www.all-creatures.org/wlalw/report-anexp-audit.html The Animal Experimentation Scandal: An Audit of the NIH: Funding of Animal Experimentation: Audit Findings], SAEN, 2001.</ref> See also [[NIH]].