Public Affairs

As originally published in The Physiologist
Volume 44, Number 6, December 2001, page 414-417 

Are You Giving Money to Undermine Medical Research?

If you make an unrestricted donation to the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) or your local United Way, you might be inadvertently donating to groups working to promote animal rights groups’ agendas or oppose the use of animals in research. 

The CFC (for federal employees) and the United Way are umbrella organizations that funnel donations to philanthropic causes. Any nonprofit organization can apply for inclusion. If you visit the website of the CFC or your local United Way, it is striking to see the wide range of causes represented. What is even more striking is the fact that some of them represent diametrically opposing approaches to controversial issues. With respect to medical research, some of the organizations raise funds to support research on various diseases, while others work actively to oppose the use of animals in research. 

When you give to a United Way or CFC campaign, you have the option to designate specific charities to receive your donations. If you do not designate recipients, your donation will be divided among all the participating organizations, based upon their proportionate share of designated funds from other givers. This  means that by failing to designate a recipient organization, you have no control over where your money goes. You may well be giving to groups working for opposing ends!

It can be difficult to draw the line between organizations that promote legitimate concern for animal welfare and groups that strive to undermine research and other endeavors involving animals. As a general rule it is always good to know something about a charity before giving to it, especially since many groups have similar sounding names. Websites are a convenient way to get such information. The CFC provides a list with links to participating charities at http://www.opm.gov/cfc/. Similar links should also be available from the web site of your local United Way. To find your local United Way’s website, go to the search page at http://www.unitedway.org/uwsearch/. Then search using the under "field of service" using the category "humane concerns–animals" to get a list of the charities eligible to receive United Way funds in your area. You can get a  sense of what an organization is doing by reviewing its mission statement, newsletter, action alerts, and issue briefs. 

Below is a selection of the animal-related charities listed as part of the 2001 Combined Federal Campaign National List: 

• Animal Legal Defense Fund (http://www.ALDF.org)
• Animal Protection Institute (http://www.api4animals.org)
• Animal Welfare Institute (http://www.awionline.org)
• Doris Day Animal Foundation (http://www.ddaf.org)
• Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org)
• In Defense of Animals (http://www.idausa.org)
• New England Anti-Vivisection Society (http://www.neavs.org)
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta-online.org)
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (http://www.pcrm.org)
• United Animal Nations (http://www.uan.org)

Two controversial organizations included in the CFC are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). PETA states on its website that it "operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." PCRM’s website states that it "advocates alternatives to harming animals for educational or research purposes" on the grounds that "alternatives to animal research can provide more precise, cost-effective, and humane answers to human health questions and educational needs." Currently the two organizations are working in tandem to undermine the fundraising efforts of charities that support animal research. 

PETA has posted a "do not give" list posted on its web site with more than 80 medical research and patient assistance organizations (http://www.peta.org/mall/cc/ccchartest.html). The list includes the Red Cross, March of Dimes, American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Noting that health charities "do have relevant and effective projects that help improve lives," PETA asserts that agencies sponsoring animal research "drain money away from these projects and into cruel experiments on animals" and that these research projects "have no practical benefit to anyone." 

PCRM has set up a special website at http://www.charitiesinfo.org with a similar list of charities that support animal research, as well as those that do not. The PCRM site "seeks to promote informed giving, advocate higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in health research, and enable the public to make sound, compassionate giving choices." It further clarifies its rationale as follows: "Many people do not realize that when they donate to a health charity, they may be helping to fund disturbing experiments that have little to do with helping those in need." 

The bottom line is that if you don’t designate a recipient for your charitable gift, your money may go to organizations that oppose medical research. The obvious solution is to designate the charities of your choice when you give!

APS Launches New Legislative Action Center

The APS has established a new Legislative Action Center on the web at http://www.the-aps.org/pub_affairs/
leg_act_cntr/index.htm. 

This site provides users with up-to-date news on issues that affect biomedical research. APS Members can also express their support for science funding and animal research issues using the "Take Action" option. This option involves special software that will assist APS members in sending letters to Congress. The first such letter, which is now available, expresses thanks to Representatives and Senators for past support of NIH funding and urges that this support be continued. As issues arise in the future, the APS Public Affairs Office will post additional letters. 

In addition to this grassroots activism section, visitors to the site will find a guide to communicating with Congress, including advice on the most effective ways to get your message across to an elected official and how to prepare for a meeting with a Senator or Representative. Other resources include information about animals in research, essays detailing the benefits of biomedical research, and a special section with interesting news and findings.  

The APS Animal Care and Experimentation (ACE) Committee will present a symposium at EB 2002 in New Orleans concerning the workings of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). This program will provide an overview of the IACUC process for review of animal research protocols. It is intended to be useful both for research scientists and IACUC members. The symposium, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the IACUC But Were Afraid to Ask," will be held on Saturday, April 20 from 1-5 PM in Room 213 of the Morial Convention Center in New Orleans. ACE Committee Chairman John Stallone will chair the session.

Speakers will include Molly Greene of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), who will discuss IACUC function and responsibilities. Stallone will discuss protocol review. J.R. Haywood, also of UTHSCSA, will give a presentation entitled, "Troubleshooting: Where Do We Go From Here?" Following each speaker’s presentation there will be an opportunity to pose questions to representatives of NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), the USDA’s Animal Care unit, and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), International. OLAW, USDA, and AAALAC are the major organizations responsible for oversight and accreditation of animal research facilities. 

This program is co-sponsored by the American Physiological Society, NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, American Society for Nutritional Sciences, American Association of Immunologists, American Association of Anatomists, and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 

Those who would like to attend this session should contact Alice Ra’anan at araanan@the-aps.org to register. Resource materials will be provided. Further information is available online at http://www.the-aps.org/meetings/eb2002/abs/pa_stallone.htm .

As November approached, Congress continued to labor on funding legislation for the FY 2002 fiscal year that began October 1. Partisan wrangling was largely set-aside in the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11. Nevertheless, progress on appropriations was hampered initially by the need to approve new legislative authorities to meet the threat of possible further acts of terrorism and then by complications ensuing from the discovery of anthrax on Capitol Hill. Continuing resolutions were used to keep the government operating through mid-November while Congress sought to complete its business. However, it seemed increasingly unlikely that legislative  business could be wrapped up before Thanksgiving.

National Institutes of Health: The House approved its Labor-HHS-Education funding bill on October 11, ratifying the funding levels approved by the L-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee the preceding week. The House provided the NIH with $22.9 billion in FY 2002 or a 12.8% increase over FY 2001. Although this sum seems to be slightly below the 13.6% increase recommended in the President’s budget, there was more to it than what meets the eye. The House bill includes a provision that would reduce by $172 million the amount of funds that the Secretary of HHS can transfer out of NIH research to use for evaluation studies. Since evaluation funds come "off the top" of the NIH account, the amount available for research under the House bill would be the same as what was proposed by the President. The House bill would also continue to prohibit the use of federal funds for research involving human embryos but ratified President Bush’s decision to permit stem cell research with existing stem cell lines. The committee report accompanying the legislation states that the embryo research ban "should not be construed to limit federal support for research involving human embryonic stem cells listed on an NIH registry and carried out in accordance with the policy outlined by the President." 

The Senate version of the Labor-HHS-Education funding bill was brought to the floor during the last week of October, but progress was constrained by amendments addressing a large number of contentious issues. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the bill on October 11, providing a $3.4 billion increase to keep the NIH on the path to a five-year doubling. However, the Senate increased the amount of funds that HHS would be allowed transfer out of the NIH budget from one percent to two percent. 

The Appropriations Committee report that accompanied the Senate version of the bill included a paragraph concerning systems and integrated biology. The Committee recommended "increased support for research and training in whole systems pharmacology, physiology, and other integrative biological disciplines." It noted that during the past two decades there has been increased support for research and training at the cellular and molecular levels but "diminished support for training and research in systems and integrated biology," which "threatens to slow the rate at which fundamental discoveries made at the cellular and subcellular levels are translated into useful therapies." The Committee also took note of the current reorganization of peer review taking place at NIH’s Center for Scientific Review and expressed the hope that the CSR "will ensure that scientists with whole-systems expertise will be represented on those panels." Committee language is not binding but it is taken as an expression of congressional interest and concern. 

National Science Foundation: Funding legislation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and VA-Research was also moving toward completion. House and Senate conferees were working to resolve differences in FY 2002 funding for VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. For the NSF, the House provided $4.84 billion overall, an increase of $414 million or 9.4 percent. This would include $3.64 billion for NSF research, an increase of $300 million or 9.0 percent. The Senate provided only $4.67 billion for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $256 million or 5.8 percent. The Senate bill provided $3.51 billion for NSF research, an increase of $170 million or 5.1 percent. 

VA Medical Research: The House provided $371 million for VA Medical and Prosthetics Research, an increase of $20.28 billion or 5.9 percent over FY 2001. The Senate provided $390 mil-lion for VA medical and prosthetics research, an increase of $39.8 million 11.4 percent or over FY 2001. 

Bills Would Impose Rigid Standards for Dog Socialization

    Bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to provide improved conditions for dogs commercially bred as pets. However, this legislation would have the unintended consequence of interfering with breeding and conditioning dogs for research. 

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 1478, the Puppy Protection Act of 2001 on October 1. Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY) introduced a similar bill in the House. The legislation would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to require the USDA to promulgate "an engineering standard, including a written plan of activities, based on the recommendations of animal welfare and behavior experts, for the socialization of dogs to facilitate contact with other dogs and people." 

Because of the way the bills were written, this provision would also apply to research facilities and to dealers who provide conditioned dogs for research. The legislation would impose a set of rigid requirements for socialization, in place of the more flexible "performance-based" standards that research facilities currently employ. Performance-based standards seek to achieve specific outcomes, in this case, the welfare of laboratory animals, but allow significant latitude in how those out-comes are achieved. 

Performance-based standards permit laboratory animal care staff and research scientists to exercise their professional judgment, and they also allow for innovation. Although Congress may determine that engineering standards are an appropriate remedy for problems in the pet breeding industry, this approach may interfere with the ability of research facilities to provide optimum care for their animals.

The Puppy Protection Act would also require "mandatory revocation" of the licenses of animal dealers or exhibitors who commit three or more violations of the AWA within an eight-year period. However, USDA inspectors cite as "violations" not only serious problems that could affect animals’ lives or health, but also minor technical issues that are easily corrected. As currently written, the Puppy Protection Act could cause dealers to lose their licenses even if they have only committed minor, easily correctable violations of the AWA that had no bearing on the health and safety of the animals. 

The broader impact of the "Puppy Protection Act" must be considered, and its provisions should be revised to exempt research facilities and breeders. 

The 2002 Request for Proposals for the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Foundation (ACLAM) is available on the ACLAM web site at http://www.aclam.org. The Foundation awards research grants to increase the body of knowledge in laboratory animal science and medicine. Scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians may apply for grants of up to $20,000 from the Foundation. The application deadline is February 5, 2002. The ACLAM web site has information about past Foundation grants, including the ones awarded this year.

The 2001 grants included the following topics:
• Post-surgical Analgesia in Fish
• Enhancement of Rodent Health Monitoring in Ventilated Cage Racks 
• Pathogenesis and Transmission of Enterotropic Mouse Hepatitis Virus 
• Cloning and Expression of the Guinea Pig Adenovirus (GPAdV) Hexon Gene for Development of Serology Testing
• Validation of Bispectral Index as an Indicator of Surgical Anesthetic Depth in Pigs
• Measures of Cortical Function in Mice Following Cervical Dislocation, Decapitation and Potassium Chloride 
Injection. 

    On October 20, 2001, the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation announced a call for nominations for its 2002 Lasker Awards. The Foundation will accept nominations for its 2002 Albert Lasker Medical Research Awards from November 1, 2001 until February 1, 2002. Awards are given in three categories: basic research, clinical research, and special achievements. Lasker Awards Jury Chairman Joseph L. Goldstein would like, in particular, to expand the number of nominations for the clinical research awards. 

The Lasker Award is sometimes called the "American Nobel Prize" because of the distinguished caliber of its recipients. The 2001 award ceremony was held September 21, 2001. The Basic Research Award winners were Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies. The Clinical Research Award went to Robert Evans, and the Public Service Award was presented to William Foege. More information about the award ceremony and this year’s winners is available on the Lasker Foundation website at http://www.laskerfoundation.org/index_flash.html. 

Award nomination forms will be posted on the Foundation’s website at http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/nominate.html. Copies may also be obtained by contacting David Keegan at 212-286-0222, or via e-mail to dkeegan@laskerfoundation.org. Completed nominations must be postmarked no later than February 1, 2002. 

    On October 26, 2001 President Bush signed into law a measure aimed at countering terrorism. Dubbed the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, this new measure grants federal authorities expanded surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers. However, certain elements would also affect biomedical research. 

One provision of the law deals with the access and use of biological agents. Under the Act, possession of a biological agent, toxin or delivery system is a criminal offense except for situations "reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose." But "bona fide" research is never fully defined. 

This research exemption was inserted in the Senate version and was preserved in the final version at the urging of the academic and scientific community. On the Senate floor Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) remarked, "the ‘bona fide’ research exclusion may yet prove unworkable, unconstitutional, or both." Following the Senate vote on the bill, Senator Leahy hinted that additional work might be required to ensure the protections for research laid out in the bill are properly codified. 

Another potentially problematic provision is the $38 million authorization to enable the US to implement an electronic foreign student tracking system. This provision, sponsored by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), is intended to allow close monitoring of foreign students by giving broad-based powers to law enforcement authorities. Specifically, it amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that requires full implementation of the foreign student visa monitoring system by January 1, 2003. The act requires the tracking system to integrate information when foreign students enter the country and further expands the system to cover educational institutions beyond traditional colleges and universities, such as flight schools, language training and vocational schools. 

President Bush also issued a directive charging the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to develop a program to end abuse of student visas. 

Under the President’s October 31 directive, the Departments of State and Justice must establish a visa-monitoring program to "provide for tracking the status of a foreign student who receives a visa, "including whether the student is enrolled and in which classes, as well as the identification of the source of funds supporting the education." They must also develop guidelines to include limits on duration of student immigration status and "strict criteria" for renewal of student immigration status. 

In addition, the directive states that the government will institute measures to prohibit certain students from receiving education in "sensitive" areas of study, including those, "with direct application to the development and use of weapons of mass destruction." 

While the President’s directive was clear that he wanted to prevent future abuses by foreign individuals studying in the US, he also reminded the nation that the US recognizes the contributions of international students to the nation's universities, saying, "they add greatly to the vitality and quality of our…institutions of learning." 

Mr. Bush suggested that those in the academic community and other interested parties should be consulted in the development of this directive. 

[Table of Contents] [Passing the Flag - From Christchurch to San Diego] [APS News] [Membership] [APS Conference Reports] [Education] [Experimental Biology 2002] [Book Reviews] [Positions Available] [Obituary] [People & Places] [News From Senior Physiologists ] [Announcements] [APS Membership Application] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses]