During the past year the Animal Care and Experimentation Committee has been monitoring plans for the implementation of the new edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The Committee has also been following one proposal to replace Class B dealer supplied dogs with purpose-bred animals and another to prohibit “invasive” research involving chimpanzees and other great apes. Activities this year included developing an APS position statement condemning harassment and violence against researchers and visits with congressional offices. Next year the Committee will sponsor an EB 2012 symposium on public outreach about animal research.
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
The ACE Committee has monitored various discussions on implementing the 8th edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. A major concern has been how the NIH and AAALAC, International intend to implement the new Guide’s recommendations. AAALAC, International provided some indication in February 2011 when it requested feedback on six new position statements setting forth how its site visitors would interpret various issues addressed in the 8th edition. The APS asked AAALAC to confirm that it would apply performance-based standards in interpreting key recommendations such as newly increased minimum cage sizes. APS also suggested that AAALAC consider accepting alternative ways for animals to interact with conspecifics when social housing is not a viable option.
In February, 2011, NIH published a request for comments on a proposal to start using the new Guide 12 months hence in March 2012. NIH also requested comments on whether or not it should adopt the new Guide in the first place. Deciding how to respond to NIH’s request proved to be much more complex than the ACE committee initially thought because while the new Guide provides updated guidance that will improve laboratory animal care, some of its far-reaching recommendations lacked appropriate scientific underpinnings. For example, the minimum cage size for a number of species was increased. This provoked concern because NIH has taken the approach that certain cage size requirements in the current Guide, such as for rodent breeding, represent mandatory minimums. However, no evidence was presented in the new Guide showing either problems with the current cage sizes or improvements in animal welfare with larger cages. Since buying new caging systems would add significant costs at a time when budgets are constrained, there was concern about the impact if NIH interpreted the minimum cage sizes in the new Guide also as mandatory minimums. As a result, APS took the unusual step of supporting the Guide itself but opposing NIH implementation if it would be treated rigidly as a regulatory document rather than flexibly as a guidance document. APS said that if NIH intended to take an inflexible approach towards enforcing the Guide, the document should be treated as regulation and therefore should to undergo the more rigorous regulatory review process.
Concerns about the Guide were widely shared in the research community, with organizations focusing on a number of problem areas. The comment period closed in late May, but as of August, NIH had not yet announced its new implementation plans. On June 9, NIH published a notice acknowledging the receipt of “numerous well-reasoned comments” and said it would review all comments before determining whether to proceed with adoption of the Guide and on what timetable. The notice said NIH might also issue position statements interpreting the Guide. If so, these documents will be published for comment. The ACE Committee will continue to monitor NIH’s plans and provide comments if needed. In the meantime, the APS Office of Science Policy has created a web page for updates on Guide implementation. [http://www.the-aps.org/pa/policy/animals/Guide.htm]
NIH to phase out grantee purchases of Class B Dogs
On March 18, 2011 NIH published a notice to grantees entitled Guidance on the NIH Plan to Transition from the use of USDA Class B Dogs to Other Legal Sources (NOT-OD-11-055). The notice, available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-055.html, outlines NIH plan to phase out the use of agency funds to purchase dogs from USDA-licensed Class B vendors and urges awardees to begin identifying other permissible sources. The notice states further that NIH has initiated contracts with Class A vendor to breed dogs with the key traits found in dogs previously obtained from Class B dealers, and that a limited number of these large, mature, socialized, out-bred hounds or mongrels will be made available to grantees during FY 2011. NIH plans to monitor the availability of such animals over the next several years, and it anticipates that by FY 2015 it will institute a prohibition against the use of NIH funds to purchase dogs from Class B vendors.
Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act
On April 13, 2011, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (GAPSCA) was introduced in both the House and the Senate. This is the latest iteration of a bill to prohibit all research on great apes on the grounds that “research laboratory environments involving invasive research cannot meet the complex physical, social, and psychological needs” of these animals. Chimpanzees are the only great ape species in U.S. biomedical research and are needed primarily to study infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C. This legislation defines the term ‘‘invasive research’’ broadly to mean anything that could cause “death, injury, pain, distress, fear, or trauma.” In addition, it would forbid even the temporary removal of animals from their social groups for research purposes. Under this definition, research involving common diagnostic procedures such as liver biopsies would be prohibited. Even research using procedures that are widely considered to be non-invasive, such as drawing blood or recording observations using MRI technology, would be banned.
This legislation is not expected to move this year because the Institute of Medicine is currently conducting a study on the need for chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. Nevertheless, at the ACE Committee’s recommendation, APS sent letters asking current co-sponsors to withdraw their support from the bill. APS also asked other Members of Congress to oppose the legislation. More information about the letters is available at http://www.the-aps.org/pa/policy/animals/OpposeGAPA.htm.
Council Approves Statement Condemning Extremism and Harassment
The ACE Committee also recommended that APS adopt a position statement condemning extremists who target scientists for using animals in their research. [See box].
Hill visits
During EB 2011, staff arranged a total of 19 meetings for 14 scientists from both the Animal Care and Experimentation and Science Policy Committees. In our meetings we underscored both the need for continued federal funding for biomedical research and the importance of whole animals studies. The ACE Committee’s fall meeting has been scheduled for October 25-27. It will also include Hill visits to discuss proposals that would restrict the use of animals in research.
EB 2012 symposium: “Public Outreach and Animal Research: a Toolkit for Investigators”
Public support for animal research has declined over the last decade, in part because groups opposed to this work have campaigned energetically against it, while few scientists have tried to conduct public outreach about their work or to correct inaccurate statements made by research opponents. There is growing awareness that outreach is needed, but many researchers don’t know how to get started. The goal of the ACE Committee’s symposium at EB 2012 is to provide scientists with information and strategies to help them engage in public outreach about the importance of biomedical research using animal models. Symposium speakers will include Dario Ringach (a neurobiologist from UCLA’s Jules Stein Eye Institute); John Young (attending vet at Cedars-Sinai and Board Chair for Americans for Medical Progress); and Jim Newman (Media Team Leader at Oregon Health & Science University). All three have long track records of outreach and advocacy. The session will suggest ways investigators can broach the topic of animal research with their students, neighbors, and family members.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Yates, PhD
University of Pittsburgh
APS Condemns Extremism and Harassment
Over the course of many years, scientists who use animals in their research have been subject to harassment, threats, and violence by individuals acting in the name of animal rights. The American Physiological Society unequivocally condemns the targeting of individuals engaged in legitimate scientific inquiry.
Knowledge obtained through research with animals has saved many lives and improved the quality of life for millions of people and animals. Scientists recognize that they have ethical duties both to relieve suffering through research as well as to provide humane care for the animals in their charge. Moreover, the use of animals in research is subject to strict regulatory oversight.
Harassment, threats, and violence in the name of animal rights contribute nothing to the betterment of animal welfare. These tactics are all the more abhorrent since animal research continues to play an essential role in efforts to discover causes, preventions, treatments, and cures for diseases that afflict both humans and animals.[1]
[1] Please see The APS position statement “Animal Research Is Essential to the Search for Cures.”