Public Affairs

As originally printed in The Physiologist, 
June 2001, Volume 44, Number 3 
Page 122-125

President Submits Budget Proposals 
Congress and The President Take Up Stem Cell Research 
Campaign Against Huntingdon Arrives Here 
Rachel Davis is APS-AAAS Mass Media Fellow

President Submits Budget Proposals 

    On April 9, 2001 President George W. Bush submitted his first budget proposal for FY 2002, which begins on October 1, 2001. The formal budget submission provided details for the budget outline that was released earlier. Below are selected highlights from the new administration’s proposals for specific government agencies that support biomedical and life sciences research. 

National Institutes of Health
President Bush’s 2002 budget proposal kept his campaign promise to support the doubling of the NIH budget. The President’s proposal allocated $23.2 billion dollars to the agency—a 13.4% increase over FY 2002. Even though this proposed funding increase is the largest in the institute’s history, it falls $500 million short of the increase that would be needed to keep NIH on the doubling path. APS supports the FASEB consensus conference, which calls on Congress and the President to provide the NIH with $23.7 billion for FY 2002.

Under the proposed budget, NIH would spend $12.5 billion dollars—a 12.6% increase over FY 2001—on Research Project Grants (RPGs). This would give the institutes the ability to fund 9,158 new and competing grants, for a total of 34,090 grants. New grants would average $348,000, a 4.3% increase over the current funding level.

Among NIH’s FY 2002 priorities is the study of genetic medicine as a way to identify the relationship between genes and disease progression. This includes a focus on which genes are involved in a disease and how they affect progression, response to therapy, and complications. NIH is also focusing on building a clinical research base that will study how to use the sequenced human genome to develop new therapies.

In addition, $10 million was set aside to establish facilities to provide for the long-term care of chimpanzees no longer needed in research, as authorized last year under the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act.

For additional information concerning the NIH budget, visit http://www.nih.gov/news/BudgetFY2002/index.htm. It provides a press release summarizing NIH’s FY 2002 plans, a summary of FY 2001 investments as of April, 2001, and a list of major initiatives that each institute is undertaking.

National Science Foundation
Under President Bush’s budget proposal, NSF would receive $4.4 billion for FY 2002, a 1.3% increase. Included in the President’s proposed budget is $483,110 for the Biological Science Directorate—a .5% reduction from FY 2001. APS supports the FASEB consensus conference that calls for a 15% increase to bring the NSF, as a whole, to $5.1 billion in FY 2002.

The NSF proposes to increase average grant award size from $110,400 in FY 2001 to $113,690 in FY 2002. However, because of the minimal budget increase, the number of supported researchers will decline from 27,010 to 26,660. In addition, the NSF announced that it will conduct a study with the assistance of US academic research universities to determine whether increasing the average NSF grant size and duration would produce greater efficiency in the research process. The study will try to assess whether time spent in writing proposals detracts significantly from time that could be spent conducting research. 

Although NSF was not an administration priority in the FY 2002 budget, there are still indications of concern within the administration. The General Science section of the budget states that for the 2003 budget cycle, the administration will undertake a budgetary review to determine how best to support NSF’s budget in a sustained manner over time. 

Department of Veterans Affairs
Under the President’s proposed budget, VA Research is scheduled to receive $360 million for FY 2002. This represents a $10 million increase, or 2.9% over FY 2001. APS supports the FASEB consensus conference, which calls for the VA Research and Development Budget to be increased by $44 million to $395 million.

NASA
NASA is slated for a 7% budget increase overall, but the administration’s request for key biological research programs falls 2.5% below FY 2001 levels. Biomedical Research and Countermeasures, Fundamental Space Biology, and Advanced Human Support Technology total some $141 million in FY 2001 and are the main NASA programs that fund investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed grants. These programs use the space environment to understand biological processes and also support research to ensure that humans can live safely and productively in space. These programs were formerly part of the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences but have become part of the newly created Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR). The FASEB consensus conference recommended a $50 million increase for biological sciences research that encompasses these three programs plus a biotechnology program (housed in another division) for which no breakout of the FY 2002 recommendation was available. For these three programs, however, the administration’s request actually represents a $3.5 million decrease.

Another significant issue for biological research at NASA is the prospect of internal budget reallocations to meet space station cost overruns that are now expected to total $4 billion. The Bush administration has instructed NASA to find the additional cash internally. In March the chairman of NASA’s space station biological research project science working group complained to NASA about reports that it planned to cover overruns with cuts in facilities, equipment needed to perform science on the space station. Such cuts would constitute a “betrayal of the public trust” that flies in the face of the scientific rationale NASA used to justify the construction of the space station, according to working group chairman Martin Fettman.

Congress and The President Take Up Stem Cell Research 
The 107th Congress and the Bush Administration are currently trying to deal with one of the most controversial and contentious scientific issues of a generation: human embryonic stem cell research. At stake is the question of whether a move will be made to ban these scientific techniques that could have widespread ramifications on potentially lifesaving research. 

On April 5, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced the Stem Cell Research Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to remove the existing statutory prohibition against research that would destroy a human embryo. This provision prohibits the use of federal funds to extract stem cells from embryos. Under the terms of the bill, only embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics could be used for research and donor consent would be required. The bill also instructs NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to develop procedural guidelines to ensure the research would be conducted in an “ethical and sound manner.” 
Meanwhile, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) have introduced a bill that would ban outright both human cloning and human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This would prohibit the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. Most experts oppose cloning a human being as too dangerous, but there is concern that legislative language aimed at prohibiting human cloning would also hinder other kinds of valuable cloning research. The Brownback-Weldon bill would also prohibit the derivation of human embryonic stem cells.
While the Congress has taken steps to address this issue, the new Bush Administration has not acted to regulate this potentially lifesaving technology. On April 19, the DHHS announced the indefinite postponement of the NIH Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Review Group, pending completion of the department’s review of the Clinton Administration’s stem cell policy. Secretary Thompson said that he expected this review to be completed sometime in early to mid summer. 

Campaign Against Huntingdon Arrives Here
The scorched earth campaign to close down a major British animal testing lab has arrived in the US. Launched nearly a year and a half ago by a small group of animal activists, “Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty,” or SHAC, now claims to have a network of 10,000 volunteers in Britain dedicated to putting Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) out of business within three years. Although the activists nearly succeeded in this goal in January, a US investment banking group stepped in with a last-minute infusion of funds. That group itself has now become a target of SHAC. However, there is a growing appreciation within the British government and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries of the seriousness of this situation, and HLS supporters are starting to fight back.
SHAC was founded in December 1999 by a handful of activists who had recently forced a small farm that bred cats for scientific research to go out of business. The activists’ battle plan was to “look at the pillars propping up Huntingdon and remove those pillars,” according to SHAC co-founder Greg Avery. Avery was quoted in an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal on April 27, shortly after the debut of SHAC in this country.
“It’s anarchy one, democracy nil,” according to a London securities dealer whose firm stopped handling HLS stock. The dealer spoke with a reporter from the international edition of Newsweek, which ran a May 7 article entitled “War on Science.” Although SHAC representatives claim to foreswear violence, its supporters have nonetheless conducted systematic harassment and intimidation of employees, stockholders, and business operations of firms that have anything to do with the firm. Huntingdon employees themselves have also been subjected to physical attacks at their homes that have placed them and their families at risk. Masked assailants attacked the managing director of the company; a caustic substance was splashed into the eyes of a senior manager; and the cars of eleven employees were firebombed.

Huntingdon may have been selected as a target because of a prior controversy over its animal care practices. In March 1997, a British television program aired clandestinely made video footage in which HLS employees were seen mistreating animals. The most controversial footage showed an HLS worker punching a beagle, which set off a public uproar in Britain. Two HLS employees were subsequently convicted of animal cruelty. HLS fired one worker and agreed, under threat of losing its testing license, to take numerous steps to ensure humane treatment of animals in its facilities. However, HLS lost business and its financial position was weakened.
SHAC’s tactics involve confrontation and intimidation. It started out with demonstrations outside Huntingdon facilities and bombarding its employees with intimidating voicemail and email messages. SHAC obtained the names of businesses and individuals associated with HLS by using public financial records and tips from insiders sympathetic to its cause. The names and addresses of HLS workers and those of its officers, investors, bankers, and brokers have been posted to the SHAC website, published in newsletters, and even printed on stickers that have been plastered around London. The typical message states that these individuals are responsible for animal suffering and death and that SHAC supporters should “Let [them] know what you think of animal cruelty.” 

Noisy and theatrical demonstrations have been held not only at the offices of banks and brokerage firms but also at the homes of those firms’ employees and directors. Individuals who invest in HLS have also been targeted. Various acts of sabotage are either known or believed to be attributable to the SHAC campaign. These include February 2001 demonstrations at British facilities of pharmaceutical companies suspected of being HLS clients, the jamming with glue-dipped cards of numerous cash machines belonging to Huntingdon’s bank, and an electronic assault on the web site of the American company that saved HLS from bankruptcy.

As a result of SHAC tactics, by January 2001, investment funds and brokerage houses had largely deserted HLS. Many openly acknowledged concerns about the safety of their employees. At about the same time, the British government came out in support of HLS at the urging of the British pharmaceutical industry. “However [the activists] dress this up, this is a campaign against the whole pharmaceutical industry and new medicines,” according to a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry who was quoted in the May 7 international Newsweek article. It was at this critical juncture in January that Arkansas-based Stephens, Inc., which already had a substantial investment in HLS, stepped in with an eleventh-hour infusion of funds.
The campaign against Huntingdon first came to the US in June 1997, when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced that it had video footage of alleged cruelty to non-human primates at its New Jersey facility. Michele Rokke, an undercover PETA operative, had obtained the footage while working as an animal technician. PETA started a campaign to convince pharmaceutical companies to sever their business ties with the company. The US branch of HLS counterattacked. It sued PETA under federal anti-racketeering statutes. The turning point in the legal battle came when Federal Judge Robert G. Doumar rejected Rokke’s testimony as untruthful after she denied under oath that she had signed a confidentiality agreement, although the document itself was produced in court, and a personnel clerk testified that Rokke had signed it on her first day at work. HLS later agreed to drop its suit in return for PETA’s promise not to disseminate the materials gathered by Rokke and or to infiltrate the company again for five years. 

Although PETA remains under that prohibition, the SHAC campaign against Huntingdon has followed Stephens, Inc. to the US. In March, SHAC supporters demonstrated against Stephens, Inc. at a Las Vegas conference for clients of the investment firm. Some 40 activists stood outside the hotel banging drums and waving signs reading “Stephens, Inc. is soaked in blood.” A small group also showed up in black hoods in the parking lot of a golf course where Stephens investors were playing. The Stephens Group and Stephens, Inc. responded by filing suit against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense League, In Defense of Animals, and several individual defendants because of their “unlawful campaign of violence, intimidation, and harassment directed against [HLS]” and the Stephens Group, as one of the company’s significant shareholders. The US subsidiary of HLS subsequently joined the suit. In another development, on April 4, 2001, unknown activists stole 14 beagles from the company’s New Jersey facility, and the next day rocks were thrown through the window of a laboratory employee’s home and his car was overturned.

However, at the same time, there were signs in Britain that HLS supporters would fight back. In April, in Britain the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) announced that it would stop banking with HSBC because it severed its ties with Huntingdon. The AMRC concluded that the HSBC, which is the world’s second largest bank, “could not be relied upon” for support if the AMRC were to be subjected to the same kind of campaign of intimidation. Although the AMRC itself has modest financial assets, its 112 members include large foundations such as the Wellcome Trust, which is one of the world’s largest charities. After an exchange of correspondence with HSBC, AMRC chief executive Diana Garnham noted pointedly that “animal rights extremists will see the reaction. . .of banks such as HSBC as a victory and will now move on to other targets.”

The British patient’s advocacy group Seriously Ill for Medical Research also went on the offensive in March by challenging SHAC protesters to refuse medical treatments developed through animal research. SIMR distributed small cards with a list of life-saving treatments that individuals ought to forego as a matter of principle if they declare themselves to be supporters of animal rights. The release of the cards was timed to coincide with a SHAC March on Parliament. 

Rachel Davis is APS-AAAS Mass Media Fellow
The APS AAAS Mass Media Science and Engineering fellow for summer 2001 is Rachel Davis. Davis is a candidate for a Master of Science in physiology in Fall 2001 at Indiana University. She is a student member of the APS and a member of the J.B. Johnston Club for comparative and evolutionary neurobiology. Davis is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dickinson College with a BS in biology. She will spend the summer working at Newsweek magazine. 

[Table of Contents] [No Free Lunch: A Matter of Opinion] [APS News] [Membership] [News From Senior Physiologists] [Positions Available] [ Book Review] [Books Received] [People & Places] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses] [APS Membership Application]