The chief scientist involved in a contentious cardiac research project conducted on dogs is justifying the significance of his work for the first time following the closure of his laboratory in London, Ontario, and threats from the province’s premier to outlaw canine research. Frank Prato granted an exclusive interview to CBC London after being cleared of all animal abuse accusations by two distinct animal ethics committees.
Earlier in August, an investigation by the Investigative Journalism Bureau and Postmedia uncovered that scientists at the Lawson Research Institute were covertly inducing three-hour heart attacks in dogs and puppies at St. Joseph’s Hospital in London. The animals were then euthanized, and their hearts were extracted for further examination. The research was shrouded in secrecy, with the animals reportedly brought in covered crates amidst loud music to mask their sounds.
After public outcry, including condemnation from Ontario Premier Doug Ford, St. Joseph’s suspended Prato’s research. Ford had vowed to crack down on scientists conducting experiments on animals and proposed legislation to prohibit invasive medical research on cats and dogs.
Prato disputes the clandestine nature of his work, stating that he initiated dog research to study post-heart attack effects back in 1982. He argues that the dogs, under anesthesia, do not endure the same pain as humans during heart attacks, and their utilization has shown promise in understanding heart-related diseases and recovery processes, ultimately saving numerous lives.
An independent review carried out by Western University’s Animal Care Committee (ACC) in September and the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) in October found no substantiation of wrongdoing in Prato’s lab. The investigations, which involved site inspections, record examinations, and interviews with involved parties, concluded that the study did not induce heart failure, and the dogs did not experience pain during the procedures.
The ACC chair, Arthur Brown, affirmed that the research program adhered to approved protocols and regulatory standards, emphasizing the appropriateness of the animal model and its global contributions to managing myocardial infarction cases. Post-surgery, the dogs received constant monitoring by a clinical veterinarian, socialization activities, and proper care, including bedding, toys, and nutrition.
Prato, now speaking out against the research halt, believes that discontinuing such studies will impede progress in heart disease treatment and cures. He explained that dogs were chosen for cardiac research due to MRI limitations in the 1980s, as they closely resemble human hearts compared to other animals. The similarities in cardiovascular systems between humans and dogs make the latter an ideal model for studying heart technologies.
Despite the fallout affecting his professional and personal life, Prato remains focused on the impact on cardiac patients, expressing concerns about prioritizing one dog’s life over the potential benefits to millions of patients.
