Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013

Background Paper

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20131

1 Executive Summary
The Lush Prize, now in its second year, aims to encourage young scientists todevelop a career in toxicology without harming animals by offering £10,000
bursaries to allow them to advance in this area. As last year, in 2013 it isseeking nominations from keen young scientists with a desire to fund the nextstage of a career focused on an animal-test free future.

1.1 Methodology
This paper is based on the following:
1. An examination of UK GCSE and A Level syllabus positions on
dissection
2. A survey of dissection in UK university life sciences curricula
3. Selected information on dissection and the academic curricula in otherparts of the world
4. Interviews with two individuals who left the life sciences in part due toanimal testing concerns
5. Interviews with last year's Young Researcher winners
6. Feedback from last year's winners on the merits of the Lush Prize
7. Selected information on groups working to help people overcome
ethical barriers to involvement the life sciences (Appendix I).

1.2 Key findings
The status of dissection on the curriculum varies greatly from country tocountry - from India, where dissection has actually been banned from bothschool and university curricula, to the UK where a more 'personal choice'stance seems to apply, to other European countries where conscientious
objection to dissection can involve a legal battle. It appears that globally, real
progress towards humane education is being made.
Information on dissection at UK universities was not easily obtainable, which
could be a major barrier to those wanting information on animal use before
even considering whether to apply for a course in the life sciences.
The experience of young researchers choosing to avoid animal experiments
varies greatly depending on the situation they find themselves in. Interviews
pointed to the importance of centres or research groups dedicated to animalalternatives. It is clear that those students lucky enough to find themselves at
Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20132

one of these institutions have a much easier time in pursuing thiscareer route. That said, there are still obstacles and challenges, including
funding issues and resistance from those working outside these institutions.
Those who choose this often difficult path outside specialist institutions may
face a very tough time - the two we interviewed ended up changing career, inlarge part due to issues around animal use.
The Lush Prize can make a meaningful contribution to encouraging young
researchers working in the field of animal-free toxicology to pursue theirchosen path. It is clear that last year's Lush Prize was instrumental in allowing
one researcher to go back to her chosen path in animal-free toxicology work.
Last year there were concerns raised in the Background Paper that theamount per student was not sufficient to be considered meaningful, however
feedback from last year's winners indicate that this is not the case. Responses
highlight the importance of its focus on replacement and indicate that thePrize has served as a big motivational boost and raised the profile of nonanimal work.
There are a number of organisations working at the school curriculum level
either by lobbying for change or by providing resources to help educators
teach without using animals, and there is overlap with the Training category
here. The reach of the Young Researcher category could potentially be reconsidered to include these initiatives; perhaps this is an area that warrants a
category of its own, or it could be the particular focus of the training prize in
one year.
Rewarding organisations which target school curricula with the aim ofencouraging more young scientists to come into the academic arena with an
ethical stance on animal use could be a way of reaching more young people.
However, without the structural support for these students post school or first
degree level, they may simply end up exiting the life sciences without realising
their potential for achieving change in this area. The young researcher award
as it is provides meaningful encouragement to those already on this often
difficult path and has already proved itself effective at driving change in thisarea.
Looking ahead the biggest challenge for the Young Researcher award ismaking more potential recipients aware of its existence. Developing acommunications strategy with this in mind should be a key task for the 2014
Lush Prize. Although the award is designed to reward a maximum of fiveresearchers each year, raising awareness of its existence will provide
motivation and encouragement to many more.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20133

2 The educational curriculum
The Lush Prize seeks to support young researchers internationally. Given
those co-ordinating the project are based in the UK, we start by examining
dissection in the school and university curricula here in the UK. Some
information on dissection in the school and university curricula in othercountries is looked at later.

2.1 The UK situation at school level
2.1.1

GCSE Level (secondary/high school level)

In terms of the UK school curriculum at GCSE level, dissection appears to besomething that would only be considered if suggested by individual teachers,
rather than something that is proposed in the national curriculum. The national
curriculum programmes of study for science at key stages 3 and 4 (age 11-16)
have recently been disapplied and so are no longer statutory. Schools are free
to develop their own science curricula that best meet the needs of their pupils,
in preparation for the introduction of the new national curriculum from
September 2014. It is interesting to note that the discovery and developmentof new medicines, including their pre-clinical and clinical testing is on the draft
new curriculum – a potential opportunity for organisations to create
curriculum-based educational materials on alternatives to animal testing. 1
2.1.2

A Level (college/further education level)

When it comes to A level it seems there are no compulsory dissections in the
UK but dissection does become a suggested activity. We had a look at thevarious exam boards which offer biology A Level in the UK.

1
2
3

•

Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) – includes dissection as
one of many suggested activities in its 'Scheme of Work', which states
there are far more activities than it would be possible to teach. Links tovideo clips are given as well as a note to 'consider all members of theclass before carrying out dissection'.2•

EdExcel – the scheme of work is not prescriptive and offers video clips
as an alternative to dissection.3•

University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) – although
no dissection of materials of animal origin will be set in Advanced
Practical Skills papers, dissection, interactive videos or similar will

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary
Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) Scheme of Work
EdExel Biology Scheme of Work

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20134

continue to be a useful aid to teaching, e.g. when the heart isbeing studied.4•

Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board (OCR) – if a
dissection is not possible or desirable a short video showing thestructure of the lungs could be shown.5•

The Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) – guidance on
dissection says that there are also many interactive white board models
available to assist in the dissection and for use as an alternative. 6•

The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA) –includes dissection in its scheme of work but again says this not should
not be considered prescriptive or exhaustive, and includes anillustration of heart dissection using a web resource as a suggested
activity in the same section as actual dissection.7

It would seem therefore, that at school level in the UK, dissection is not seen
as a requirement and that alternatives to dissection are clearly prescribed as
something teachers should be thinking about if they do choose to teachdissection. Of course, how all of this plays out in the class room will dependon the attitude of individual teachers. As one of our young researchers
explained, 'my husband currently teaches A Level Sciences and it’sinteresting/worrying to note that he still has struggles with the exam board
trying to find acceptable alternatives, not just to dissection but for veganstudents who don’t wish to experiment on horse blood and milk.' This conflicts
somewhat with what web-based research found but is perhaps a more
realistic gauge of how things are 'on the ground'.
It seems young people studying biology shouldn't find resistance to refusing
dissection, at least on paper, and therefore should find it easier to challenge
if ever pressure was put on them. The fact that consideration of all students
and alternatives to dissection are included in some curricula is very welcome
and shows structural progress for humane science.

2.2 The UK situation at university level
We contacted the biology admissions offices or similar of 24 of the 25 'RussellGroup Universities' asking for information on dissection. The questions asked
can be found in appendix II.
Not a single university responded to this request, although they were notchased by telephone due to time constraints. Perhaps as the request wasmade in August, a busy time for admissions offers, it was not seen as apriority and thus ignored. It would be interesting to see how such a request
4
5
6
7

Cambridge International A & AS Level Biology syllabus
OCR Scheme of Work: Science and Society
Pathways in Applied Science (QCF)) Unit Specific Teacher Guidance
Revised GCE & AS & A Level Scheme of Work, Biology

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20135

would be responded to if it came from a potential applicant and thatis something to consider looking at in future years.

2.3 Groups working on animal use in the curriculum globally
We have identified a number of organisations working on the issue ofdissection at school and university level around the world and highlight someof them, and their achievements, below. This list is by no means exhaustive.
2.3.1

Pro Anima

Pro Anima, a French animal rights organisation, told us that “Since 2010, Pro
Anima has supported the young student Axelle in her fight against her own
university, concerning the obligation to run dissections according to a
curriculum, and participated in legal costs, calling for the right to conscientious
objection. We are just launching the campaign “Dissection… Objection!” andhave sent a press release to colleges, universities, student associations,members of the French government (Education Minister), the European
Committee, UNESCO, and the European Parliament in early 2013. We havelaunched a petition and cards that anyone can fill in and send to thegovernment.” They also told us that “Recently, we have succeeded in endinga school’s visits to laboratories conducting experiments on dogs andmonkeys, by writing letters to the college’s headmaster and the Children's
Rights’ Defence Minister.”
2.3.2

PETA USPETA claimed a victory in March of this year for convincing
Baltimore,Maryland, and Washington, D.C., school districts to adopt policies
allowing students to opt out of classroom dissection. It said that Baltimore City
Public Schools was joining every other district in Maryland and neighbouring
Delaware, Pennsylvania and Virginia, which have such guidelines already inplace. PETA also donated computers and software to the district through thegroup's national educational grants programme so that teachers have accessto virtual dissection equipment, which has been shown to teach anatomy
better than animal dissection. PETA and virtual-dissection software leader
Digital Frog International were also offering training sessions for teachers. 8
The organisation also claimed a victory in June when it announced that
Connecticut had overwhelmingly passed a dissection-choice bill allowing
students to opt out of participating in or watching classroom animal
dissections and instead to be provided with humane non-animal learning
methods, such as realistic models and interactive computer programs. 9
2.3.3

PETA India

Another significant victory claimed by PETA has been achieved in India where
dissection in the education curriculum has been banned by the government
altogether. In 2012, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a89

http://www.peta.org/about/victories/baltimore-adopts-dissection-choice-policy.aspx
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2013/06/06/victory-connecticut-passes-dissection-choicelaw.aspx

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20136

directive instructing "all the institutes/establishments associated withteaching of medical, pharmacy and other graduate/postgraduate courses inlife sciences to follow the University Grants Commission guidelines fordiscontinuation of dissection and animal experimentation in theuniversities/colleges and introduce use of alternatives to animal
experimentation." PETA is now pursuing through the courts those institutions
who have not yet complied.10

2.4 Conclusion
It is very encouraging to see groups working to achieve change structurally atthis level.
Many organisations working at school and university level were identified in
the training paper doing work which clearly overlaps with the issues we aretrying to identify and address through the young researcher award and thisassociated research process. We list some of them in appendix I. More detailcan be found in the 2013 Training paper.

3 Interviews with young researchers
Last year, interviews were conducted with individuals from a number oforganisations involved in promoting alternatives to animal experiments and/or
animal rights.
What clearly came out of the interviews is that young researchers wishing to
go into a career without ever using animals need to be determined,
resourceful and tenacious. As Dr Capaldo of the New England Anti-Vivisection
Society told us, “Really do an assessment of your personality because you dohave to have a bit of a fighter in you. I don’t mean that in a belligerent way, but
you have to be someone who understands that even in 2012, you’re going to
be going against the grain a bit. You’ve got to get used to the fact that it may
not always be an easy route.” Alistair Currie, who was with PETA at the time,echoed these sentiments, “Forging an entire career in toxicology where you’re
never involved in animal testing is much more challenging.”
It was also identified that many might be put off entering in the first place:“Some budding scientists may well be put off entering science, particularly
toxicology, because of the issue of animal welfare.”
Dr Capaldo told us “certainly in the US, not all states have laws whichguarantee students the right to choose alternatives to traditional animal
dissection, so even at high school level, students may be put off. Our
message to budding scientists is that if you aren’t willing to hurt or harm
animals, then you may go into another field. What this means”, says Dr10

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-14/india/39975740_1_animal-experimentationugc-moef Legal notice to government to enforce ban on animal dissections, June 14th 2013

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20137

Capaldo, “is that for students who don’t want to be harming animals,by the time they’re getting to PhD programmes, they’re going to be moresurrounded by people willing to use and harm animals because these are thetype of people who won’t have been put off at the high school level. We had
an epidemiologist who was told point blank that she would have to do rat
research as part of her post-doc epidemiology programme or to not evenbother applying, even though she had chosen epidemiology specificallybecause she didn’t want to do animal research.”
Alistair Currie pointed out “it’s unlikely that anyone gets into toxicology
because they’ve got a burning desire to test on animals. However, the issue ismore likely to be whether or not they can avoid doing animal tests at somepoint in their career, and that may well be putting off potential researchers.
There’s also the possibility that you might find that in some circumstances,even someone who is validating new methods may, on occasion, still findthemselves in a situation where they have to be involved in animal tests forcomparison. That’s likely to put a lot of people off… Forging an entire careerin toxicology where you’re never involved in animal testing is much morechallenging... what’s needed is enough options so that the people who arehighly committed against animal tests feel that toxicology is something that’s
open to them.”
For this year's paper we have decided to explore this area in more depth byfocusing on talking to the young researchers themselves, and so haveconducted in-depth interviews with all of last year's young researcher winners
as well as two other individuals who entered the life sciences but who choseto change path at least in part due to issues around animal use. We include all
six of them as separate case studies. Although lengthy, each of their stories is
unique and gives a real insight into the actual experiences of the people weare trying to support with the young researcher award, so they are presented
almost in their entirety. The questions which elicited these responses can befound in appendices I & II.

3.1 Case studies
3.1.1

Sofia – the early-exiter – Portugal

I applied and was accepted on a Biology BSc but ended up by dropping out inthe first year. When I decided to leave I had not yet been asked to dissect orvivisect but I knew that before the end of the year, I would be asked to do it. Iof course didn't want to. I was already expecting a normative, non-critical typeof thought from the institution itself. Still, I must admit I was shocked
professors weren’t discussing these matters with students. Maybe later onthey did, I really don’t know; as I said, I left before I was asked to do it. Even
more shocking, and to me that was the most saddening part of it and definitely
one of the most worrying aspects, was the students’ apparent indifference tothe subject and the powerless way they perceived themselves. The general
opinion of the student body was that dissection and vivisection werescientifically mandatory and even if they didn’t want to do it, there was nothing
they could do to prevent it. Conscientious objection was something the great
Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20138

majority of students would not consider. I felt excluded from thecourse. I knew that if I wanted to pursue Biology I would have to go to court (inorder to avoid dissection) eventually and honestly I didn’t feel like going
through that long process and could not afford it anyway. That was not the
only thing that made me decide to leave, but it definitely had a strong
influence. I ended up quitting the course and started my studies on the socalled “human sciences”. Animal use was not the only factor, but it played an
important part in my decision. I now hold a B.A. (180 ECTS) in “Artistic
Studies - Comparative Arts and Cultures”, a course based on the European
and North-American tradition of Comparative Literature and Comparative
Studies and am now pursuing a Master in Critical Animal Studies/Animal
Human Relationships, which seems to be extremely difficult due to the very
recent emergence of this field of study.
3.1.2

Joe – the committed conscientious objector – UK

I was good at Biology & Chemistry at school and so there was a natural
progression to studying a life science degree, then a related PhD and finallytaking up a post-doctoral position. With hindsight I should probably have
jumped off this ‘conveyer-belt’ of life science progression before the post-doc
or even PhD stage! I had the option whilst studying for my university degree totake modules that would have involved dissection, I avoided these, I’m notsure what would have happened though if I had chosen one of the ‘dissection’modules. During my PhD studies, again although I avoided it, there was anincreasing pressure on me to become involved with carrying out studies
involving rodents. I chose my degree modules so as to avoid carrying out
dissection and stated at the start of my PhD that I would only do it if I didn’t
have to carry out experimentation involving animals. I expected whenchoosing to do a life science degree that dissection would be something that,
although I wanted to avoid it, would be happening and would be carried out bypeople I was studying with. I had no contact with dissection during myundergraduate degree, but exposure to vivisection during my PhD studies
hardened my stance against it and made me feel angry and isolated. I never
did animal work, but as time went on during my career in the life sciences
there was more and more pressure to get involved with vivisection. The
pressure and slowly building encouragement to get me carrying out animal
experiments made me feel awkward and angry. I also felt very upset knowing
what was going on in the same building I was working in. During my PhD I
was able to guide my own research in a way that avoided animal testing,using non-animal methods. This did however get harder and harder as theresearch progressed and I was encouraged more and more to use nonhuman models to look at some of the key areas I was investigating. The
position I ended up in essentially had me boxed into a corner from whichchanging career or carrying out animal experimentation (either directly or
indirectly) were the only options. As my career progressed I would say that thealternatives were pushed to one side, or not seen as being able to give thewhole picture, by the people leading my research group. I didn't feel excluded
but I guess I had that feeling that most people have when they think they are
the only person that has an opposing world view or moral stand point to those

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 20139

around them. This made me feel isolated, uncertain, saddened,
more convinced of my moral stand point.
Eventually I changed path, I'm still using some of my scientific and life scienceskills, but I’m now working in the field of conservation.
I did try and find myself a PhD position that would have enabled me to use myscientific skills and my desire to help in the fight against human diseases,
which only used non-animal methods. I found it hard though getting advice on
this from my tutors at university and also felt awkward about talking about it
too much as I felt I was going against the grain. I contacted the Doctor
Hadwen Trust and the Lord Dowding Fund, as well as FRAME and evencompanies including Lush, but wasn’t able to get any useful advice on what
options were available. It would have been useful at this stage to have beenable to get a bit more support and encouragement. I do feel my desire to nottest on animals did make things harder and the career path I was on would(and in fact did) eventually become impossible to pursue without animal
testing being involved. The reliance on animals and the belief that their use isessential and necessary for scientific progression is deeply ingrained in the
majority of the life sciences and so anyone with an opposing opinion willautomatically come up against barriers and obstacles if they become involvedin this field and stay true to their beliefs.
3.1.3

Chiara – the well supported enthusiast – Italy

During my scientific education and experimental work I have always invested
my moral and ethical strengths in the cultures and in the development ofinnovative methods, supporting the validity of the alternative to animal testingin vitro models, in order to keep pace with improvements in science to benefit
human health.
Since I was a thesis-stage student, I have always carried out my research within vitro models, because I refuse to both inflict needless suffering on animals
and conduct experimental research of low quality. I had the good fortune tomeet in my experimental training Dr Anna Maria Bassi, head of a researchteam which works only with in vitro models. So, I had the opportunity to growprofessionally within the laboratory, the Analysis and Research Laboratory in
Pathophysiology (LARF) of the Department of Experimental Medicine (Genoa– Italy), previously known as a "cell cultures laboratory" and developed in
1970. As a researcher with Dr Bassi's team, I contribute with my work to
perform scientifically good research in Pathology fields.
My decision to work without animals came both from my strong rejection of
the use of animals and through the careful and patient leadership of mymentor Dr Anna Maria Bassi. I chose the institution for its non-animal research
stance.
My major difficulty has been fundraising and finding partners to develop new
and competitive projects. In the Italian scientific environment there are few
research groups that promote in vitro models as alternatives to animal testing.
In addition, the Italian Parliament has only very recently banned animal tests
Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201310

and endorsed funds for research on in vitro models with particularattention to the policy of the 3Rs and the European legislation.
In Italian academic institutions there are very few courses on alternative
methods and research groups devoted exclusively to in vitro models. I’ve not
got this problem because I worked on my thesis at LARF. For this reason we
offer updated training courses and workshops on in vitro models.
3.1.4

Felix – The motivated human research-focused scientist – USA

I have always aspired to perform research that can provide information thatcan more rapidly be translated into understanding the factors that contributehuman diseases. In my scientific career, since my days as a graduate student,
I have found it useful to focus my research in a human-based rather than
animal-based approach. I strongly consider that the human-based approach
can provide information that the public can associate more with the real world.
I could say that there was, and still is, some type of resistance by those thatargue that much more information can be gathered from animal-based
research. The motivation to perform research in non-animal models hascome from myself, and still is to this day. I selected my current institution(CAAT USA) based on its known tradition as an excellent training place for us
scientists that soon will transition into more independent positions in our
careers. There have been some challenges, mainly by arguments that someof the proposed questions in my research can be better answered in an
animal model. However, I still maintain the great utility of using human-basedmodels to better understand the human physiological reactions tox or y
stimuli.
I think that the most difficult steps are in the very early stages, such as
undergraduate and post-graduate, where our scientific freedom is limited.
However, for me it has been the post-doctoral stage because our non-animal
system has been received with some level of resistance by some of ourcolleagues.
3.1.5

Line – the animal-free testing convert – Denmark

I always aspired to do research on human health, but the specific field I am inis a result of networking more than me seeking it out. I actually started with
the intent of working with animals because I thought that I could help theanimals “from the inside”. So the animals used would be as few and as welltaken care of as possible. I am glad that I changed my course, because it isstressful to be around animal suffering every day. I was never put in a position
where I was forced to use animals, but I have colleagues that use animals
and I am forced to evaluate their results. For me the encouragement topursue this path came from the group that I am in now (Lisbeth E. Knudsen). I
didn't choose the institution particularly because of the focus on non-animal
research, but the ability to work on entirely human tissue is very interestingfrom a scientist's point of view, especially when researching human health, theuse of animal models will always be less accurate than using humans.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201311

I haven't encountered challenges in furthering my career without theuse of animals, so far I have had only triumphs and support in avoiding theuse of animals
I think the undergraduate level is the hardest when it comes to avoiding
animals. Often you are not able to choose, as the institutions are streamlined
and every student has to do the same courses.
3.1.6

Liz – The slow burner – UK

I was generally interested in the Sciences and did A’ levels in Biology,
Chemistry and Physics. In Biology we had to do one rat dissection. At thistime I was a vegetarian at home but still eating fish etc. when visiting otherpeople’s houses as I didn’t have the confidence yet to exert my vegetarian
status fully. The same went for the dissection really, I was concerned aboutanimal welfare and didn’t want to do the dissection but I wanted to pass thecourse and go to University. It was said we could apply to dissect a plant butthat we wouldn’t get as good a mark. I don’t know how much of this was
rumour and I should have stood my ground more and insisted but I was young
and lacked confidence. I regret this and have been trying to make up for it
since!
When I went to University I became a strict vegetarian and I didn’t study
Biology in part due to advice at College that it would involve a lot of dissection
and I was still going for avoidance rather than fighting for change. But also I’ddone a work placement in the chemical industry and enjoyed it. However,during the course of my degree I was more and more drawn to the options
that involved a Biological element. So for my MSc I chose to do Toxicology,
with the long term aim of working in a hospital and thus with humans, notanimals. I spoke with a friend who had completed the course and ascertained
there was no practical animal work involved though of course the lectureslargely dealt with animal testing which was tough to hear at times. In practicethere was no animal work bar one experiment where we were given urine
from 2 rats to compare, one that had been given aspirin and one that hadn’t.
The University bought these samples commercially, to my knowledge noanimal work was going on under our noses. I still wasn’t happy about it but it
was such a tough year, I was exhausted and I’m afraid I let it go.
Probably for me, undergraduate level was the most difficult step in my career
path, as I chose a degree away from Biology to avoid animal use. At school I
didn’t really realise yet I was pursuing a career without the use of animals.
Though for more aware youngsters it could be at this early stage they are put
off. By post-graduate level I had decided I specifically wanted to pursue a
career in alternatives and this was the basis of the research so there was noconflict. As a post-doc the problem may be lack of funding and as an adult you
normally have more responsibilities, house, family etc. and working for free tofollow your beliefs is not always a practical option. Additionally, as a
researcher you have to be prepared to justify and prove the value of yourwork to the scientific community on a regular basis which can be tough.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201312

I got a graduate job in a hospital tox-lab but due to NHS
redundancies found myself looking for a job 12 months later. I got a job with acancer prevention unit. First of all I was examining human samples, breast
tissue etc. gained during biopsies and surgery, for biomarkers of cancer, butthen was required to test organs from experimental animals. I was still training
and learning but felt that the experiments were not always well planned andthe animal data derived was not always very informative. At this point I started
reading more about replacement toxicology which was an emerging field andrealised I had to take more proactive action as opposed to just going for jobs
that happened to not involve animal work and hope for the best. I contacted
my now boss literally by googling in vitro toxicology, etc. and luckily found hehad funding for a PhD student to study Neurotoxicology in vitro, by developinga brain model using human cells. This was a double bonus as a lot of in vitro
work then and now involves using animal cells and although that greatly
reduces the numbers of animals involved in experimentation, may not provide
the data most relevant to the human situation. I moved to Birmingham and did
my PhD followed by a post-doc funded by the Humane Research Trust.
University funding for replacement alternatives research seems to comemostly from these brilliant but small organisations rather than the big
companies who seem to focus more on reduction and refinement, although
this may just be a perception and may be changing in light of recent
legislation. I felt very lucky, my supervisor is hugely dedicated to replacement,
the work was interesting, I was learning a lot and the model we developed
was very promising. I also got to attend In Vitro Tox conferences and meetother people with the same aims and new ideas. We came up against someresistance from traditional toxicologists, as obviously, as consumers andpatients, we want to be healed and helped but also safe guarded and thiscurrently involves testing substances on animals. Also occasionally fromthose in our own field of in vitro toxicology as models using animals cells were
frequently seen as the gold standard. Our driving aim then as now is not justthe animal welfare issue but the development of models and methods that
better reflect the human condition, human based models which hopefully inthe future will provide data on chemical toxicity that is simply more relevant tohumans than that derived from animals. It a huge undertaking, especially forsmall University groups with limited man power and resources, compared withthe larger devoted organisations in Europe and the USA. But the more people
working to the same aim the better, though it would be good to have greatercollaboration and more funding opportunities.
After my first post-doc, despite the promising nature of the brain cell model,
my supervisor was unable to secure further funding. By this time I was
married, had a mortgage and a baby and was more limited in where I could
apply as I needed a job locally but obviously would not consider working withanimals. I was lucky enough to get a technician post which involved using
tissue from Alzheimer’s patients. I was hopefully helping patients and not
involved in animal work but it was a step away from the long term aim ofdemonstrating whether a) our human brain cell model could provide the most
relevant data regarding the response of humans to drugs, b) it is flexible
enough for use with other chemicals, ingredients and cosmetics etc. and c) it

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201313

is robust enough for examining repeat-dose and not just acuteeffects as this is very difficult to do in vitro. We kept applying for funding as I
really felt I had to get back to my original work for myself but also the sakethose who’d supported me thus far. Thankfully due to the Lush prize to
examine the response of the brain model to repeat/long-term exposure tocosmetic ingredients and post-doc fellowship funding to develop the model toexamine the effect anticholinergic drugs may have on brain cell function(interestingly from the British Brain Research Fund, not a humane researchorganisation, simply one interested in using the best tools for the job and who
had faith in our concept) I was able to get back to my research aims, though
come March 2014 I’ll be job-hunting again.
Because I have now chosen a career that specifically deals with developing
replacement models, with a supervisor specifically involved in this field,
avoiding animal use is not an issue until I find myself unemployed. But due tostill being an emerging field, employment opportunities and funding are an
issue,as is convincing our traditionalist colleagues of the worthiness of ourresearch. Though as it an emerging field we hope opportunities will increase.
In fact a PhD colleague of mine got a job with the Cosmetics and Perfumeries
Association that was specifically created due to the ban on animal testing,though she had to move to London. And my colleague has been awarded a
newly created lectureship in stem cell Biology due to his track record on
developing human cellular models for investigating neurodevelopmental
toxins and diseases of ageing.
So yes, animal use in the Life Sciences is probably a barrier to those whowish to avoid animal testing but it’s hugely complicated. There are jobs that
simply don’t involve testing but you need to be flexible about where you live
and work. I don’t know much about the current animal testing requirements ofthe various degrees and whether alternatives have to be available. You candirect yourself specifically towards being trained in alternatives to animal
testing but will come up against resistance from traditionalists in your field andthere is huge competition for funding but at least it's an expanding/emerging
field so hopefully things will improve. And it’s not simply a case of saying, welllet’s just do away with animal testing because the alternatives are notadvanced enough to replace animals yet, we need funding to progress themand after that need to validate them in order to prove they can provide thebest safety information which takes time and collaboration with the rightorganisations which isn’t easy to achieve. It’s not a simple career path tofollow, can be frustrating but very rewarding. I wouldn’t have got this far
without luck and the support and faith of a lot of different people and I’m suregetting involved with developing alternatives to animal testing rather than justavoiding animal testing is the way forward. Though I am only involved in thisat a post-doctoral research level, I am not involved with any campaigning tochange the way degrees are taught etc. Though many Biology degrees,
including those at my current institution are expanding to include modules on
stem-cell biology and how cellular models may be used in life sciences
research and particularly how (animal welfare aside) the use of humanmodels may prove more relevant to human health and safety that using

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201314

animals. To get the majority of people onside it really has to be a
combination of animal welfare concerns and using the best tool for the job,which ultimately we aim to show is using human material to examine human
responses.

3.2 Summary
The testimonies of these individuals largely speak for themselves. The
responses point to the importance of dedicated centres or research groups,
and these should be supported. Those who find themselves outside suchinstitutions or teams are more likely to feel stranded and isolated and perhaps
it is those students therefore, towards whom support should be targeted. Thenagain, Liz did have the support of a research group dedicated to replacements
but still struggled to find funding and it is very clear that being awarded theLush Prize has been instrumental in allowing her to go back and pursue her
chosen path.

4 Last year's Young Researcher winners on the Lush Prize
4.1 Line
The Lush Prize is a great encouragement and has helped me to recruit thenext generation of students and spread the good word! It allows
independence and thinking freely without having to rely on the rules fromfunding agencies. I think the amount is fine for a real project, as long as you
don’t have to pay your own salary. The awareness the Prize creates is a big
issue! The forum of Peers thinking the same way as you from all over theworld is awe inspiring.
I think the undergraduates and post graduates should be supported byinformation sharing, and the post-doctoral level by funding.
I think the ecological aspect should gain some focus. For example, the use ofalternative methods could sometimes be more environmentally costly (cellcultures require a lot of plastic and energy, production of robots and elaboratemachines use more energy than an animal), I was missing some informationand focus on this.

4.2 ChiaraFirst of all, I am very honoured to win the Lush Prize award in 2012 and tohave been part of this movement, focused on anima-free research andtesting. The Lush Prize 2012 has allowed me to fund my research. The
experimental design, for the Lush Prize 2012, was presented to support the
research and development of innovative in vitro methods for the assessmentof the potential of sensitisation and inflammatory processes induced by

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201315

chemical mixtures, respecting and improving the quality of animaland human life. I am driven to work in this field, because I believe it is possible
to consolidate, standardise and generate innovative analytical procedures,that employ the use of alternative models to animals, through the definition of
new protocols for monitoring the risk associated with exposure to chemical
mixtures analysed in the project with identification of new biomarkers for theidentification of new scenarios of exposure and the risk for human health andthe ecosystem. Thanks to Lush Prize and the dissemination by many web
sites (dedicated to in vitro models or to the safety of animals) the visibility of
our research group has increased. Indeed we have an increase in training
participants in our theoretical and practical courses on in vitro models;moreover several industries have just contacted us for a collaboration. The
amount of the prize is meaningful, being equivalent to a one year Italian
fellowship. I think initiatives like the Lush Prize are very important toencourage experimental research by in vitro models.

4.3 Felix
The Lush Prize has come as a motivational piece into my scientific career. It
not only contributes financially, but also by acknowledging that non-animal
research does has significance in the scientific community. It has also helpedin promoting our scientific human-based approach within the scientific andnon-scientific community. In addition, the Lush Prize has helped make othercolleagues give credit to our non-animal approach. Initiatives like this one are
great ways to motivate others to follow their approaches and go outside
animal-based research. It can also benefit those in the early stages bycontributing to expand their scientific network and get access to materials
necessary to perform their research. I do consider that the amount of theaward is enough to be meaningful. However, I also consider that the door
could be open for future considerations regarding the amount of the pricebased on the increased cost of research and scientific training these days.

4.4 Liz
Whilst the LUSH prize wasn’t enough to fund a post-doc salary andconsumables it was certainly meaningful and gave me the encouragement I
needed to leave a reasonably interesting and permanent job as a technician
and get back into replacement research. The nomination process etc.
reconfirmed my belief that our brain cell model has the potential for use inrepeat-dose toxicity testing. However, I am only able to work on the project
part-time as my main fellowship funding and salary comes from a different
organisation, though the projects are complementary and involve
development of the same brain cell model.
Whilst the prize isn’t enough to fund a whole project it is enough to obtainmeaningful pilot data and this proof of concept is often what is needed tosecure full grant funding and so this sort of start-up grant almost could be vitalin the early stages of a young researchers career to enable progression.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201316

Though for grants the period between application to award time canbe a long and uncertain.
That the funding was aimed at replacement only was encouraging also as
often 3Rs funding seems to go to reduction and refinement projects, though
this may just be my perception. Similarly that everyone at the Lush prize
awards day/dinner were celebrating and working towards the same aim wasreally encouraging.
Also, it enabled me to pursue an area I have previously been unable to due tolack of funds, namely the removal of animal products from the in vitro process.
The culture of cells in vitro frequently employs the use of Foetal Calf Serum(FCS) as a growth factor supplement. This is taken from foetuses of thepregnant cow following slaughter in commercial slaughter houses. Other
factors such as antibody production and use of bovine serum albumin inassay processes were also a consideration. Ideally I would like to remove
animal products from my model for ethical reasons but also to more fully
humanise the model and make it more relevant. Replacement chemicallydefined cell culture products are becoming available but at a cost of up to 10
times that of the animal equivalents. Grants are often not able/willing to factor
in these extra costs and also it takes a large number of man-hours to adapt acell model to growth under new conditions and prove it is functioning as itshould. The Lush prize has enabled me to overcome these cost barriers.
Additionally, it has enabled me to begin examining the response of the cellmodel towards potentially neurotoxic cosmetics and ingredients. This was anarea I had wanted to examine as we hope to eventually demonstrate themodel to be flexible and useful for drug, chemical and cosmetics testing. This
would potentially increase funding opportunities and also help further theadvancement of replacement research more broadly.
As for how the Lush Prize could be expanded, I wonder if maybe a Lushconference or workshops… prize funding could fund travel andaccommodation and presentations could involve alternatives research,training etc. and get to meet others in the field, share ideas and practicaladvice on how to proceed/validate etc. Indeed it was great to meet people atthe Lush awards involved in training etc. and not just research. Advice on how
to progress research to the validation stage would be invaluable. Whilst the
IVTS and ESTIV run excellent annual conferences, PhD and post-doctoral
funding doesn’t always stretch to conference attendance, though I was lucky
enough to get a bursary to attend a couple based on my research record.
Perhaps attendance could include those at college or school to encouragethem but I’m not sure if this would be feasible. Also as I am snowed under andwant to do the best by all my funders I am considering using some of the LushPrize to fund a short-term undergraduate placement student who wishes toavoid animal use, to help with the workload but also train them in cell culture
and perhaps encourage them to pursue this route. The prize of £10,000 may
be enough to fund a year-out student and so could the Lush prize consider
this as an award? Academic and Industrial institutions could apply withprojects they would like funding and then seek a suitable candidate to support
Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201317

in alternatives research? I think it has to be specific in this aim, notjust people jumping on band-wagon to obtain funding, with no proven trackrecord of an overall aim in replacing animal testing as this diminishes
meaning.

5 Identifying worthy candidates
Last year there were 6 nominations for the young researcher category, of
which 4 won. This year we have received ten nominations of which 8 were
worthy of consideration and 6 have been short listed. This year four of thenominations came from colleagues in more senior roles. This points to the factthat the young researchers we want to target are less aware of the award thanmore senior colleagues, indicating that somehow we aren't reaching them.
This demonstrates a need to develop our communication strategy for thisaward. It also seems that contacting key scientists in the field and specificallyinviting them to nominate their students might also generate nominations.
However, we should also be aware that it is students outside existing
networks, specialist centres and research groups who are likely to be in mostneed of our support. The animal rights/welfare community could be a goodplace to target communications around this award as those struggling at thefirst stages could be tapped in these networks. It is important to note that thetwo young people who exited the life sciences over animal use were both (andstill are) involved in animal rights campaigning.
As one of the unsuccessful young researcher candidates indicated last year 'Just the idea of the Lush Prize has given me more motivation to move
forward with my research!' (on computer modelling). So even knowledge ofthe prize could encourage people to keep going.

6 Conclusion and recommendations
The status of dissection on the curriculum varies greatly from country tocountry – from India where dissection has actually been banned from bothschool and university curricula, to the UK where a more 'personal choice'stance seems to apply, to other European countries where conscientious
objection to dissection can involve a legal battle. It appears that globally, real
progress towards humane education is being made.
Information on dissection at UK universities was not easily obtainable, which
could be a major barrier to those wanting information on animal use before
even considering whether to apply for a course in the life sciences.
The experience of young researchers choosing to avoid animal experiments
varies greatly depending on the situation they find themselves in. Interviews
pointed to the importance of centres or research groups dedicated to animalalternatives. It is clear that those students lucky enough to find themselves at
Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201318

one of these institutions have a much easier time in pursuing thiscareer route. That said, there are still obstacles and challenges, including
funding issues and resistance from those working outside these institutions.
One young researcher did have the support of a research group dedicated toreplacements but still struggled to find funding and it is very clear that being
awarded the Lush Prize has been instrumental in allowing her to go back andpursue her chosen path.
Those who choose this often difficult path outside specialist institutions may
face a very tough time – the two we interviewed ended up changing career, inlarge part due to issues around animal use – so perhaps it is those who theLush Prize should aim to support.
The Lush Prize can make a meaningful contribution to encouraging young
researchers working in the field of animal-free toxicology to pursue theirchosen path. It is clear that last year's Lush Prize was instrumental in allowing
one researcher to go back to her chosen path in animal-free toxicology work.
Last year there were concerns raised in the Background Paper that theamount per student was not sufficient to be considered meaningful, however
feedback from last year's winners indicate that this is not the case. Responses
highlight the importance of its focus on replacement and indicate that thePrize has served as a big motivational boost and raised the profile of nonanimal work.
There are a number of organisations working at the school curriculum level
either by lobbying for change or by providing resources to help educators
teach without using animals, and there is overlap with the Training category
here. The reach of the Young Researcher category could potentially be reconsidered to include these initiatives; perhaps this is an area that warrants a
category of its own, or it could be the particular focus of the training prize in
one year.
Rewarding organisations which target school curricula with the aim ofencouraging more young scientists to come into the academic arena with an
ethical stance on animal use could be a way of reaching more young people.
However, without the structural support for these students post school or first
degree level, they may simply end up exiting the life sciences without realising
their potential for achieving change in this area. The young researcher award
as it is provides meaningful encouragement to those already on this often
difficult path and has already proved itself to be effective at driving change inthis area.

6.1 Identifying worthy candidates
We received more nominations this year than last, but still only 8 worthy of
consideration with four of these coming from colleagues in more senior roles.
This points to the fact that the young researchers we want to target are lessaware of the award than more senior colleagues indicating that somehow wearen't reaching them and highlighting the need to develop our communication

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201319

strategy for this award. It also seems that contacting key scientists
in the field and specifically inviting them to nominate their students might also
generate nominations. However, it is students outside existing networks,
specialist centres and research groups who are likely to be in most need ofour support.
Looking ahead it seems the biggest challenge for the Young Researcher
award is making more potential recipients aware of its existence. Developing
a communications strategy with this in mind should be a key task for the 2014
Lush Prize. Although the award is designed to reward a maximum of fiveresearchers each year, raising awareness of its existence will provide
motivation and encouragement to many more.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201320

Appendix I
Organisations identified in the 2013 Training Prize paper which are working at
school or university level on non-animal teaching method.
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)In 2013, NEAVS offered 13 places to the 1st International Conference of
Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, in Almada, Portugal for students
wishing to pursue a career in alternatives to animal experimentation. NEAVS
also operates an alternatives loan library, through its Ethical Science
Education Campaign (ESEC). ESEC works to ensure all students can enter
the field of science and be a part of the breakthroughs of today and tomorrow
regardless of their ethics.11
Alexandra Association, Monaco (Alternatives to Experiments on
Animals Designed to Research Applications)
As well as educating existing scientists and laboratories the Alexander
Association operates in schools and has organised sessions for students on
animal testing and currently available, alternative methods in various schools
in Monaco where they are based.12
InterNICHE, UK
InternNICHE has worked tirelessly around the world in encouraging the
adoption of replacements to animal use on academic curricula. 13
CAAT and CAAT-Europe (USA/Europe)
Both centres aim to promote humane science by “supporting the creation,
development, validation and use of alternatives to animals in research,
product safety testing, and education”. These centres would be safe havens
for budding young researchers wishing to avoid animal use, although they
promote the 3Rs, rather than replacement only, they don't use animals. 14
Doctors Against Animal Experiments, Germany15
The organisation has recently published a “trilingual website in Russian,
Ukrainian, and German” to inform and educate students and teachers of theorganisation’s Eastern European project which has so far mainly worked in
http://www.neavs.org/resources/esecs-inventory-of-alternatives-to-dissection
http://alexandra-project.org/en/13
http://www.interniche.org/
14
http://caat.jhsph.edu/about/, http://caat.jhsph.edu/ http://cms.uni-konstanz.de/leist/caat-europe/15
www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/
1112Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201321

the Ukraine, providing alternative teaching aids in return foragreeing not to use animals.16 It has also financed the production of
educational films in Russian. It maintains the website “Harry Helps Animals”
aimed at children and young people of 10 to 13 years, 17, has created teachingmaterials related to animal testing, and offers animal welfare education inthree regions of Germany where trained animal welfare teachers work inschools focusing on animal testing. 18
LARF: The Analysis and Research Laboratory of Pathophysiology,
Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Genoa, Italy
LARF has been involved in in vitro experiments using the twenty years’ ofexperience of its staff in various fields of experimental pathology and isanother 'safe haven' for those wishing to avoid animal use. 19
Animalearn
Animalearn, a US initiative, involves a website dedicated to fostering“awareness of and a respect for animals used in education”. 20 .It has created
The Science Bank, a “lending program of new and innovative life science
software and educational products that enable educators and students tolearn anatomy, physiology, and psychology lessons without harming animals.”
It also provides humane education curricula and materials free of charge foreducators and students.” It conducts workshops – for free – for educators
wishing to implement the animal-free programmes and products and delivers
presentations to students and student organisations. It also delivers
presentations to classrooms. All levels of education are covered, fromelementary school and even pre-school, through to university levels, graduatelevel, veterinary school, and medical school.
National Anti-Vivisection Society (US)The US-based National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), 21 (not be to be
confused with the UK organisation of the same name, created an information
resource known as the Biology Education Advancement Program (BioLEAP)in 1993 which is now the most “comprehensive free lending library ofalternatives to classroom dissection” and offers a “growing archive of state-ofthe-art dissection alternatives to students, teachers, school boards andothers”, 22 aimed at all levels of education – from high school, right up until
post-graduate work, and which represent a selection of animals. BioLEAP
enables students and educators who object to, and wish to avoid, dissection
to do so while still fulfilling their academic requirements.
http://www.altex.ch/News.17.html?ncat=1&eid=304
http://www.harry-hilft-tieren.de/18
http://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/projects/eastern-europe/277-further-successes-inukraine19
http://www.larf.unige.it/
20
http://www.animalearn.org/
21
www.navs.org
22
http://www.navs.org/page.aspx?pid=416
16
17Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201322

Animal Aid
UK based organisation Animal Aid's Education Department produces
educational materials around the issue of animal testing and has a free school
speakers service. Its network of trained, volunteer school speakers isavailable to give talks or run workshops on a range of topics, including animal
experiments.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), UK
The RSPCA has a dedicated website with a range of resources for use inschools to stimulate debate around animal cruelty – and including animal
testing. A lesson plan is included and a number of factsheets are available todownload: Ethics, Animal Experiments and the lLaw;, Fundamental
rResearch, ; hHarm/bBenefit aAssessment, ; hHumans and oOther aAnimals,; mMedical rResearch, ; rRight or wWrong, wWho dDecides, ?; sSafety
tTesting of nNon-mMedical Pproducts, ; andvVeterinary rResearch. 2323

http://www.science-ethics-animals.org.uk/page/index.cfm

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201323

Appendix II
Questions put to university life sciences admissions offices:
1. Is dissection part of the curriculum for any courses at your institution?
2. If so, are there alternatives available for those students who do notwish to take part?
3. Are these alternatives offered automatically or only on request?
4. Do students encounter resistance to conscientiously objecting toanimal use?
5. Are students penalised in terms of their grades for refusing toparticipate in dissection?
6. Is this information freely available to students in advance of enrolment?
List of universities contacted:
University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Cardiff University
Durham University
University of Edinburgh
University of Exeter
University of Glasgow
Imperial College London
King's College London
University of Leeds
University of Liverpool
University of Manchester
Newcastle University
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
Queen Mary, University of London
Queen's University Belfast
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University College London
University of Warwick
University of York

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201324

Appendix III
General young researcher questions:•Have you ever considered a career in the life/biological sciences?

•

Did you pursue this?

•If not, why not?

•If so, were you asked to do dissection?

•

Did you want to do it?

•

How did you feel?

•

Did you agree to do it?

•

How did this make you feel?

•If not, were you offered an alternative?

•

Was the alternative freely offered?

•

Was there resistance?

•

Did you feel excluded from the course?

•

How did this make you feel?

•

Did your grades suffer as a result?

•

Did you continue with your studies in the life sciences?

•

If not, was animal use a factor in stopping?

•

What are you doing now?

Please expand discursively below if you have anything more you wish toshare regarding your experiences regarding with animal use and the life
sciences. We are particularly interesting interested in ascertaining whether thewidespread use of animals in the life sciences is a barrier to those people
entering the area who would be driven to find alternatives to animal use inresearch and testing due to the use of animals in the field. Your thoughts on
this would be very valuable.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201325

Appendix IV
Interview questions for young researcher winners:•

Did you always aspire to do the kind of research you are involved with?

•

Did you always aspire to work without the use of animals?

•

Was this ever difficult (i.e. were you ever put in a position werewhere
you were expected to use animals)•

Did the decision to work without animals come from encouragement/
the opportunity to do so from an institution (the one you're at now oranother one) or was it motivated entirely by yourself?

•

Did you choose that institution particularly because of the focus on nonanimal research?

•

Have you encountered challenges in furthering your career without theuse of animals?

•

Has the non-animal aspect of this been a particular issue?

•

How has the Lush Prize helped you overcome these challenges?

•

How else has it helped you further your research?

•

Do you think the amount young researchers are awarded by the prize
is enough to be meaningful?

•

How important do you think initiatives such as the Lush Prize are in
helping those who are at the early stages of a research career without
the use of animals?

•

Where do you think the most difficult step is in the career path of thosewishing to pursue a career without the use of animals, i.e. at school,
undergraduate, post-graduate or post-doctoral level? Which of thesestages has been most difficult for you?

•

Please let us know any other ideas of how the impact of the Lush Prize
could be expanded, e.g. how and where it could be targettedtargeted?
(both age groups and particular institutions) and whether you think theresources could be used differently to maximise the impact of replacing
animal testing through on young researchers.

•

Please share any other experiences you've had as a young researcher
working without animals that could be interesting or useful for us toknow for this the background paper we are compiling for the young
researcher element of the Lush Prize.

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2013 – Background Paper – August 201326