Were the dogs in Frank Prato's study subjected to abuse?

No, two separate animal ethics committees cleared Frank Prato of all animal abuse allegations, finding the research was in line with approved protocols and the dogs were pain-free.

Why was dog research used for heart attack studies?

Dogs were used because their cardiovascular systems are similar to humans, with heart attack development mirroring that in people, making them an appropriate model for studying post-heart attack conditions.

What is the impact of halting the dog heart research?

The lead scientist believes halting this research will negatively impact advancements in treating and curing heart disease, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of heart failure patients.

Home / Science / Cleared Scientist Fights Back on Dog Heart Study

Cleared Scientist Fights Back on Dog Heart Study

4 Feb

•

Summary

Animal ethics committees cleared scientist of abuse allegations.
Dog heart research aimed to advance understanding of heart attacks.
The scientist believes halted research will impact patient treatments.

Frank Prato, the lead scientist at the heart of a controversial canine cardiac study, has publicly defended his research for the first time since his lab in London, Ontario, was closed. Prato revealed that two independent animal ethics committees have cleared him of all abuse allegations. His research, conducted at St. Joseph's Hospital, involved creating three-hour heart attacks in dogs to study post-event conditions.

Prato refutes claims of secrecy, stating the research began in 1982 and that dogs, with cardiovascular systems similar to humans, are an appropriate model. He emphasized that the dogs were fully anesthetized and experienced no pain, unlike human heart attack sufferers. The research was found to be in line with approved protocols, contributing significantly to the clinical management of myocardial infarction patients worldwide.

Despite the exoneration, the research was halted following public outcry. Prato expressed distress over the cessation of work that he believes could save numerous lives, highlighting the potential negative impact on the 750,000 heart failure patients in Canada. He argued that prioritizing animal companionship over potential human life-saving advancements is a misplaced value.