404 Reviews of recent publications--fd Cl~ett~. Tosic. Vol. 23. no. 3

an excellent publication .which will be useful for both beginners and old hands.

Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. Edited by W. J. Dodds & F. B. Orlans. Academic Press, London. 1982. pp. xii + 131. fl 1.50.

Methods and Issues in Occupational and Environ- mental Epidemiology. Edited by L. Chiazze, Jr, F. E. Lundin & D. Watkins. Ann Arbor Science, 1983. pp. xiii + 242. f36.50.

According to a number of the pundits, the future belongs to the epidemiologists. Forget the detailed animal studies, they say, market the chemical as soon as possible and let man act as his own experimental animal. Whilst this approach would undoubtedly attract praise from our animal liberationist friends, it will take several more years of development of the epidemiologist’s skill before this suggestion would have a chance of earning any accolades from more conventional opinion. As the present book shows, we are still some way short of being able to count efficiently the dead bodies that have resulted from past chemical and environmental insults; the epi- demiology of mild morbidity that is a prerequisite of any move to reduce drastically the testing of chemicals in the laboratory is not likely to be available in the foreseeable future.

Vivisectionist is a four-letter word. Should you have any lingering doubts about the accuracy of the arithmetic behind this statement, you need only turn to page 29 of Scienrifc Perspectives on hid Weljhe to see why the logic of numbers is in abeyance to the appeal of metaphor. There, Frederick Kerr (Mayo Foundation and Medical School) holds forth indignantly on the opprobrium he associates with the word: “There are probably few investigators who do not regret the need to use animals in research, and it is therefore particularly galling when the term oidsectimist is used to describe them. This happens to be an especially reprehensible term, since it implies-and to many indicates unequivocally-that a fully conscious animal is subjected to surgical and other invasive procedures without anaesthesia and hence with the infliction of unbearable pain. This never happens in any repu- table research facility, and to impute such an act to an investigator transcends the bounds of fairness and civility. Yet the term uioisectim has been employed in the most inflammatory and cavalier fashion for over a century”.

This volume is the result of the efforts of a number of members of the US Society for Occupational and Environmental Health who wished to promote better understanding of the strengths and limitations of epidemiology as currently practiced. The contribu- tions are grouped into four main sections. Section I highlights the problems and pitfalls inherent in each major category of epidemiological study (case con- trol, cohort etc.), providing a valuable guide of what to look for when evaluating a particular study. Section 2, which is headed “Selection Bias”, discusses matters such as the healthy worker effect and the difficulties of selecting a valid control group, of using a disease registry or of conducting a postal survey. Again, a commendable amount of interpretative good sense is made available. As is the case throughout most of the book, no statistical barriers have been erected between the various authors and their readership, so the audience that might benefit from the advice offered should be wide indeed. A more mathematical approach is adopted on occa- sions by the authors of the three chapters making up the third section, “Quantification of Risk and Multiple Factors”, but nevertheless the intelligibility of the text to general readers lapses only rarely. The book finishes in a more philosophical vein, allowing assorted industrialists, academics, trades unionists and regulators to entertain, with a few (or not so few) chosen words on “Epidemiology and Society”.

This is a book that will prove to be an education to all those who are tempted to beat well-conducted animal studies with an uncritical epidemiological stick. Studies in man are of undoubted value, but the negative results must be interpreted with the same degree of care (some would say suspicion) that is readily given to the positive animal bioassays. Yes- this is a worthy addition to many an industrialist’s bookshelf.

In the restrained atmosphere of this collection of papers, presented at the First Conference on Scientific Perspectives in Animal Welfare(Maryland. November 1981). Dr Kerr’s muted outburst is one sign that ‘scientific perspectives’ are not always the unemotional, objective views one might expect. Although none of the other contributors crosses the line between reasoned self-justification and self- righteous indignation, it appears that some of the thought behind these papers has been directed as much at the welfare of the scientist as at the welfare of animals.

Four of the five sections in the volume represent workshops that discussed the responsibilities of one of the elements of the scientific enterprise: the investigator, the research institution, the funding agency and the scientific journal. Each of these sections also contains a summary of the workshop’s recommendations. The fifth section contains a paper on the role of scientists in shaping public policy and a summary of the major recommendations arising from the conference.

The book opens with a ‘history’ of developments in the use of animals in medical research (squeezed into four pages by F. Loew of Tufts University) and a preliminary overview of the subject, including a summary of NIH plans and policies, by T. E. Malone from the Office of the Director of the NIH. The section on investigator responsibilities begins with Dr Kerr’s generally sensible look at some of the decisions to be made by researchers in choosing, handling and anaesthetizing animals. and at methods used for studying acute and chronic pain. His conclusion is marred, however, by some complacent moral attitudes (“. . investigators do not need to defend themselves or their high calling”) and some awkwardly hyperbolic rhetoric (“To those who adamantly oppose research using animals I would say: you will stand accountable for a heinous crime

Reviews of recent publications- -Fd Chn. Toxic. Vol. 23. no. 3 405

“). In the same section, M. E. Weksler (Cornell) describes attempts to replace or reduce animals used in ageing research, and P. M. Adams (University of Texas) touches briefly on a variety of suggestions for improved standards and greater responsibility among scientists using animals, including recom- mendations for incorporating ethical education into graduate and medical school curricula.

In the second section, on institutional responsi- bilities, H. J. Baker et al. (University of Alabama) suggest mechanisms whereby research bodies can ensure that animals are treated humanely by their staff, and they note the valuable role of the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) in providing external evaluation of animal care in research institutions in the USA. This is followed by an account by K. J. ijbrink (Uppsala University) of Swedish animal welfare legislation, perhaps the most sensitive and progressive in the world. especially after the changes in 1979 that established regional ethical committees to review individual experimental protocols. In the final paper in the section. J. G. Fox (MIT) discusses the role of institutional animal care committees.

The first paper in the next section is a rather unfocused discussion (by C. E. Eyzaguirre, University of Utah) of various aspects of animal use and welfare (including another potted history of animal experimentation, notes on legislation in various countries and brief descriptions of sundry experimental procedures) with only an occasional nod at the ostensible subject of the section and of his paper: funding agency responsibilities. The next contribution (from D. J. Ramsay and J. S. Spinelli, University of California) again discusses animal care committees. and includes a description of the way in which they participate in the control exerted by the NIH over grant applicants. The final contribution in this section (by K. Kraner, NIH) provides another very short, and by now redundant, description of the practices of the NIH and AAALAC.

In the fourth section, on editorial responsibilities, F. B. Golley (University of Georgia) examines publishing as a means of controlling ethical behaviour in science and quickly concludes that it is not an effective one. He then turns his attention to the “internal controls”, the moral rules operating within individuals, in the broad context of “the quality of symbiotic life on earth”. This is the only point in this collection where the narrow scientific perspective widens enough to afford a view of the ethical imperatives behind the rules and regulations. G. J. Thomas (University of Rochester) also expresses the opinion that editorial control can only be of minimal use, while R. M. Berne (University of Virginia) outlines the obvious stages at which journals can screen out studies that have used animals improperly, though he acknowledges that even the closest scrutiny is not always successful.

In the final section of the book, H. 0. Halvorson (Brandeis) pontificates on the means by which scientists can participate in shaping public policy (in the USA) and puts forward recommendations for improved monitoring and control of animal welfare, most of which have already been made in previous papers. The final summary of the conference’s

recommendations again repeats the sensible, if obvious, suggestions made throughout. Most of these are expressions of the scientific community’s natural desire to be its own watchdog. Although tighter animal welfare legislation is looming on the horizon in the USA, it was clearly not a welcome feature of the landscape for most of the participants at this conference. Nevertheless, if put into practice, these recommendations would go some way towards ensuring that the humane use of animals receives greater attention from the scientific community.

While brevity is normally to be commended, most of the contributions are really too short (2-6 small pages) to provide anything but a shallow gloss on the chosen topic. Given the apparent limits on length, it is unfortunate that there is so much repetition and that many authors meander aimlessly through a variety of issues instead of focusing on one. Further- more, the conference was preoccupied almost entirely with the situation in the USA. The practices of the NIH, AAALAC and USDA will be instructive, but not wholly relevant, to scientists in other countries. Despite this, it is reassuring to see this evidence of the readiness of scientists in the USA to examine their practices for safeguarding the well-being and conscientious use of animals in their care. The organization that sponsored the conference, the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, is to be commended for its efforts to promote animal welfare through the education of the scientific community. The present publication has its faults, but is neverthe- less a step in the right direction.

Macrophage-Mediated Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity. Edited by H. S. Koren. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1984. pp. xvii + 361. Sw.fr. 150.00.

Macrophage-mediated antibody-dependent cyto- toxicity (ADCC) refers to the ability of the macrophage to either lyse, phagocytose or kill antibody-coated target cells. Research in this area has developed over the past decade and the present book charts the progress made in our understanding of this process.

The book contains contributions on the various lines of research that have been pursued in this field, divided into four main subject areas. The first deals with the macrophage populations and cell lines involved in ADCC reactions. The second section covers the importance of antibody class and the receptor sites on the macrophage membrane in ADCC reactions. The book then goes on to consider how this activity can be enhanced, together with the possible cytotoxic mechanisms involved in ADCC, such as the formation of reactive oxygen inter- mediates and free radicals. The final section, perhaps the most interesting one, is on the role of ADCC in defence against viruses, bacteria and parasites and its potential in tumour defence and regression.

Each of the sections is preceded by a summary and discussion of the contributions in that section, giving the reader an insight into how data obtained from various assay systems interrelate. The book as a whole gives a comprehensive view of ADCC reac- tions and their possible role in disease processes.