Concerned with welfare of dogs in research.

I found the article " Effect of vaccination on experimental infection with Bordetella bronchiseptica in dogs " (JAVMA, Feb 1, 2001, pp 367–375) to be impressive but most disturbing. The work that went into the article was meticulous and thorough. The charts and statistical equations were extraordinary. The photomicrographs were clear and readable. It was all very impres-sive…but to what end? Twenty-five young healthy dogs were " humanely sacrificed " in the wake of this study! Why? Could this study have been performed some other way? Indeed yes! Is the magnitude of this disease such that we needed this study? Certainly not! This disease is generally regarded as being mild and self-limiting. I suppose that some of the vaccine manufacturers in support of this project will respond with rhetoric pertaining to the economic impact of Bordetella bronchiseptica infection. I am not a member of, nor do I support, any of the animal rights groups. But after 20 years in practice , I say that no animal should be put to death for the sake of kennel cough research. The authors respond: We wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Field' s sentiments concerning the judicious use of animals in studies pertaining to vaccine efficacy and other clinical research in veterinary medicine. In our recently published study on Bordetella bronchiseptica vaccines, as well as in other studies, we have always done our best to use as few animals as possible to yield significant results and to learn as much as we can from our experimental subjects. As stated in our article, the primary objective of our study was to clinically examine and provide data relevant to testing the hypothesis that administering both intranasal and intramuscular vaccines may provide superior immunity. 1 We strongly believe that changes in vaccine protocols (and therapeutic regimens) should be based on data, and not simply recommendations from experts in the field with unsubstantiated theories. As detailed in our article, there were measurable and significant histologic lesions, which were associated with clinical findings, in the upper and lower airways of the puppies. However, since we did not observe any gross pathologic lesions in any of the puppies (in replicate 1) and since differences in clinical responses were pronounced , we decided, for humanitarian reasons alone, to deviate from the protocol and forego pathologic examination of the second replicate of puppies. The 25 puppies in the second replicate were readily adopted …