Public Affairs
As originally published in The
Physiologist
Volume 45, Number 5, October 2002, page 457-461
Research Opponents Launch Anti-Charity Campaign
Congressional Appropriations: The Final Stretch
House Agriculture Bill Would Halt USDA E-FOIA Disclosures
2002 APS Mass Media Fellow - Emily Singer
?Science in the Media? -
An EB 2003 Symposium
Symposium Summary Posted on APS Web Site
FASEB Promotes Mentoring Tool
Research Opponents Launch Anti-Charity Campaign
Health charities that fund animal research are being targeted by the ?humane seal of approval? campaign developed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) in conjunction with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This ?humane giving? campaign is predicated on the activist view that animal research is inhumane and lacks scientific value. Its goal is to pressure health charities to stop supporting animal research to develop cures.
In addition to PCRM and PETA, the other organizations participating in this campaign include the Medical Research Modernization Committee, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, In Defense of Animals, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Last Chance for Animals, and Beauty Without Cruelty.
Charities are classified as acceptable or unacceptable depending upon whether they sign a statement of assurance that they do not and will not ?conduct, commission, or in any way fund Experiments on Nonhuman Animals.? PCRM and PETA have recruited a number of celebrity spokespersons for the campaign and have developed ads encouraging the public not to give to organizations that fail to sign this pledge. The forerunner of this effort is a campaign PETA initiated against the March of Dimes in the early 1990s.
In an article published in the July 28, 2002 issue of The Washington
Times, laboratory animal veterinarian John D. Young, chairman of the Americans for Medical Progress Board of Directors, described the campaign as an effort ?aimed at stopping the humane and responsible use of laboratory animals in biomedical research.? Young noted that PCRM and PETA have ?attacked several of the nation?s leading health research charities and have sought to drive physicians and scientists away from their quest to improve human and animal health.?
Charities targeted because of their support for animal research include not only the March of Dimes, but also the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children?s Research Hospital, American Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and Boys Town. ?Seventy charities in all are currently on PCRM/PETA?s ?don?t donate? list,? Young wrote. ?These are organizations that through their grants and contributions to biomedical research are responsible for hundreds of specific achievements in medical progress.? Conversely, the charities being championed as humane are mainly ?involved in patient assistance, not research.? While these causes ?do provide ?essential health services? and they deserve our support,? Young pointed out that ?the vital and necessary work performed by an AIDS hospice provides no hope for effective treatments or cures for millions of AIDS patients worldwide.?
One can gain further insight into the ?humane seal? campaign by looking at PETA?s on-going efforts to erode public support for the March of Dimes. Starting in the 1990s with protests against the March of Dimes? fundraising walk-a-thons, this campaign now involves celebrity endorsements and more elaborate media events. PETA has even created a special anti-March of Dimes website
(http://www.marchofcrimes.org), which includes the following statements:
?With the worthy goal of preventing birth defects, the March of Dimes collects millions of dollars in donations annually. But most donors who generously open their pocketbooks are unaware that their gifts help to fund painful experiments on animals. The March of Dimes has funneled millions of dollars into laboratory studies on primates, rats, mice, cats, dogs, rabbits, pigs, sheep, guinea pigs, opossums, and members of other animal species.
Both animals and human babies are the losers, because every dollar spent to harm these animals is a dollar that could have-and should have-been used to help people.?
Research opponents are trying to encourage the public to look for the humane seal of approval before donating to charities. In addition to paid advertisements and various media stunts, supporters of this campaign are sending letters to the editor and submitting opinion articles asserting that animals are abused in laboratories and that data derived from animal research is not applicable to humans because of differences between species. Physiologists should take every opportunity to rebut these false
claims.
Congressional Appropriations: The Final Stretch
As summer gave way to fall, congressional appropriators started down the final path towards passage of the 13 annual spending bills that fund the United States government including agencies that support biomedical research. By law, all 13 bills must be finished by October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. Before leaving for the August recess the Senate appropriations committee had voted on the Labor Health and Human Services and Education (Labor HHS) bill and the Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD) bill. However, the House is lagging behind passing their fiscal year (FY) 2003 version of these bills because of conflicts between conservatives and moderates over spending levels.
On July 16, 2002 Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) Chairman of the Senate Labor HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) held a press conference to announce that their subcommittee marked up a FY 2003 spending bill that provides $27.2 billion for NIH in FY 2003. This is a $3.7 billion or 16% increase over NIH?s FY 2002 budget. Later in the day, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the subcommittee?s recommendation.
The APS submitted a press release (http://www.the-aps.org/pub_affairs/leg_act_cntr/news/nih_support.htm) praising Senators Harkin and Specter for their effort in supporting the five-year doubling of the NIH budget. ?Senators Harkin and Specter have been two of the Senate?s fiercest advocates for biomedical research,? commented APS Executive Director Martin Frank. With the doubling of the NIH budget they ?have helped to open the door to progress which will pay enormous health dividends for this and many generations to come.?
The House Labor HHS subcommittee was expected to take up its FY 2003 spending bill at any time. However, it was anticipated that it would be a contentious debate. Many factors make it difficult for the House subcommittee to match the Senate Appropriation Committee?s $3.7 billion increase for the NIH. This included a fight between conservative members who want to hold the line on spending and moderates who want to see more money infused into the legislation.
The Senate also acted first in funding the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Veterans Medical and Prosthetic Research. On July 30, 2002 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2003 VA-HUD spending bill. The measure provides $5.3 billion for NSF. This is 11% or $528 million more than the FY 02 enacted level and $288 million more than the President?s request.
Nevertheless, there was concern over the lack of a funding increase for the biological sciences directorate (BIO) within NSF. Overall, the Senate VA-HUD committee provided increases of 12.3% to 20% for the other six directorates but only allocated a 3.4% increase for BIO. While the committee report did not identify why this disparity occurred, some on Capitol Hill have previously expressed the view that since biomedical research funded by the NIH has done very well, life sciences research at the NSF can be reduced in order to fund other disciplines.
In addition to NSF, the Senate VA-HUD committee also provided $400 million for VA medical and prosthetic research. This is $29 million above the FY 02 enacted level.
The House VA-HUD subcommittee is expected to draft its bill soon. House appropriators are expected to have a hard time also with this bill because they have less money to work with than the
Senate.
House Agriculture Bill Would Halt USDA E-FOIA Disclosures
In July the House and Senate Appropriations Committee approved FY 2003 funding legislation for the Department of Agriculture. The House provided a 3% increase in funding for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) enforcement while the Senate bill provided 5% increase. The House bill also included language to prohibit the USDA from disclosing information that could be used by terrorists to target biomedical or agricultural research facilities. This was an effort to end FOIA disclosure of identifying information about research personnel and activities. The Senate bill did not include FOIA language.
The House Committee recommended $15.6 million for APHIS AWA enforcement, a $450,000 increase over the FY 2002 funding level. The President had requested $14.4 million for this activity, which includes annual inspections of registered research facilities to ascertain their compliance with AWA animal care guidelines. The Senate Committee recommended $16.4 million, an increase of nearly $800,000.
The House bill included language stating, ?None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to release information that may be used by individuals or terrorist organizations for the purpose of targeting biomedical or agricultural research facilities or personnel employed in biomedical or agricultural research.? The Senate bill did not include this language so if both chambers approve the legislation as written, the issue will have to be resolved in conference.
The House language was intended to rectify a problem that emerged last October when the USDA?s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) began posting facility inspection reports to its E-FOIA website. Some of those reports included the names of research and veterinary personnel and specified rooms where research animals are housed and research is conducted. In February, then-APS President John Hall sent a letter urging APHIS/Animal Care Acting Deputy Director Chester Gipson to ?revise procedures for the preparation of Animal Welfare Act (AWA) animal facility inspection reports and the release of these reports under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).? The APS asked APHIS to ?reexamine what information is released under FOIA as well as the current practice of making these reports available over the Internet.? Other research community organizations made similar appeals, and about this time, the USDA posted a notice indicating that facility reports had been temporarily removed from the E-FOIA website pending review of policies and procedures for posting them.
In the APS letter, Hall pointed out that a month after the September 11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a policy memorandum concerning FOIA to government agencies. The October 12, 2001 memorandum noted the need to balance the FOIA mandate to share information with the public with the protection of other ?values and interests,? such as ?safeguarding our national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy.? The APS urged APHIS to revisit its FOIA procedures in light of this guidance.
Representatives of the biomedical research community met with Gipson in February to discuss this issue. USDA officials had previously stated that the agency believes it is obliged under FOIA to release AWA inspection reports exactly as written. That is, the USDA interpretation of FOIA is that except in the face of a very specific threat of harm, it is not allowed to redact the names of research or veterinary personnel or locations in the facility the animals are kept or research is conducted. The research community argued that while the USDA may need this information for its internal use, it should not be disclosed to the public, and particularly should not be published on the web. Furthermore, the reports essentially provided raw allegations of AWA violations that facilities often contested.
Nevertheless, the USDA insisted on posting inspection reports as written even if the alleged violations had already been resolved in the institution?s favor.
The concerns of the research community arose because of numerous violent acts that have been committed in the name of ?animal rights.? On February 12, 2002 FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief James F. Jarboe told the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests that the ALF and ELF have committed ?more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.? Jarboe identified the ALF as ?a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.? He said that the ?most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson,? generally involving ?improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms.?
Activists opposed to animal research frequently use FOIA to obtain copies of AWA facility inspection reports. This is a well-known technique for gathering information about research activities. Prior to E-FOIA, those requests provided a record of the individuals and organizations expressing interest in a particular facility. However, that ceased to be the case once reports were posted on the Internet. The animal extremists who align themselves with ALF and ELF have shown themselves to be net-savvy. The concern was that they could easily use anonymously-acquired information to select targets. The House language represented an effort to halt this practice to protect research and agricultural and facilities from this danger.
2002 APS Mass Media Fellow - Emily Singer
This year?s APS-sponsored AAAS Mass Media Fellow was Emily Singer. Singer, who recently received an MS in Neuroscience from University of California, San Diego, spent her summer at the
Los Angeles Times.
After an overall positive experience, Singer has decided that she wants to continue to pursue a career in science writing. In the fall, she will begin a year-long intensive science communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, that will expand upon much of what she learned this summer. The following article details Singer?s summer as a Los Angeles Times reporter.
Emily Singer
AAAS Mass Media Fellow
Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times building is a maze of hallways and desks, with 1,500 editorial staff members whipping themselves into a frenzy around the 5 pm deadline. When I first arrived, the surrounding confusion was an apt metaphor for how I felt. But after 10 weeks, I slowly learned my way around the newsroom and vastly improved my ability to report science news.
As an AAAS fellow at the L.A. Times, I was given a unique opportunity for hands-on training that few scientists ever get to experience. Placed alongside other interns with graduate degrees in journalism and internships at smaller papers under their belts, I received an assignment on my first day, and didn?t stop writing for the rest of the summer.
The fast pace of newspaper writing was like a roller coaster ride in contrast to the months and years it takes to publish a scientific paper. Within my first few weeks, I wrote my first ?daily? story, which meant doing the background research, interviews, writing, and editing for the article all in one day.
I also ventured out to the local science community, interviewing scientists at UCLA and Caltech that I probably wouldn?t have been able to talk to as a graduate student, but who were happy to speak with the
L.A. Times. Also, the title of journalist gave me license to ask the types of ?silly? questions I might have kept to myself as a scientist.
Ashley Dunn, the science editor, was very supportive and took time to teach me about the business. Every day at 5:30 pm, he gave me a lesson for the day. Sometimes they were ?1-hour? lessons (?get your byline right!?), or the ?20-year? lesson (?figure out how to list things without actually listing them?), or the biggest, the LIFE lesson (?the most important quality in a reporter is to be able to take care of themselves?). He also took me to several daily meetings, to see how the news is selected and shaped throughout the day.
One of the high points of my fellowship was making the front page on a story about a placebo-controlled surgery trial for knee arthroscopy. It was a controversial story and a little overwhelming to report, but I pulled through. For me, one of the most fascinating aspects of the story was the differences between what I found most intriguing, the experimental design of a placebo-controlled surgery trial, and what the more senior journalists wanted to emphasize, the downfall of a multimillion dollar industry.
This story highlighted a certain level of tension that exists between the identity of scientist and that of reporter. As scientists, we are trained to make careful statements that reflect the data we have. Journalists are more likely to make strong definitive claims about the impact of this work on the world. This was one area where my editor and I often didn?t see eye to eye.
My internship also underscored the difficulty of portraying the incremental nature of science in a way that still reflects its significance. Not every study can have a landmark discovery, so the challenge of the science writer is to portray the work accurately, but also interestingly. And to inform the public on how the scientific research fits into their world. I hope I?ll learn how to balance these roles as I continue on the science writing path.
The AAAS Mass Media Fellowship is an incredible program that gives students an opportunity they would not otherwise get. Any scientists would benefit from the experience, whether they plan on pursuing a career in science writing or choose to stay in the lab.
?Science in the Media? - An EB 2003 Symposium
Mapping the genome, hypertension, heart disease?the list of recent news stories written on science-based issues goes on and on. These articles are part of a growing niche in the media for science and health news. Journalists are eager to report on new research in the life sciences. Many reporters have a moderate knowledge of the sciences and some even have subscriptions to scientific journals. They are becoming more receptive to scientific information, especially that which affects human health and personal quality of life. A growing number of reporters have become proactive in their approach, contacting scientists to explore new research on the horizon.
What does this mean to APS members? This ever-growing interest in scientific news is an opportunity to assist in public understanding of and garner public support for scientific and biomedical research. Not only are there many more occasions to publicize scientific studies, but there is also a higher probability that scientists will be called upon by the media to explain these studies. Helping APS membership to take advantage of these opportunities is the aim of the Communications Symposium at EB 2003.
The symposium, entitled ?Science in the Media,? will feature a panel of three journalists giving their insight into what makes science news and contributing best practices for getting your research covered. The symposium will also feature a hands-on session, with medical publicist Donna Krupa, discussing how scientists can work with the media. This will take the form of a mini-workshop where participants can engage in practical exercises.
The goal of this symposium is to familiarize scientists with how the media works. By preparing scientists to sculpt clear, media-ready messages, the scientific community assists in bringing accurate information to the public. The symposium is open to all members and will be held on Friday, April 11, 2003 from 2-4 pm in San Diego, CA.
Symposium Summary Posted on APS Web Site
A summary of the EB 2002 symposium ?Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the IACUC But Were Afraid to Ask? has been posted to the APS website. The URL is
http://www.the-aps.org/pub_affairs/IACUC/index.htm. This symposium was organized by the American Physiological Society?s Animal Care and Experimentation Committee with support from the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). The session was co-sponsored by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), American Society for Nutri-tional Sciences (ASNS), American Association of Immunologists (AAI), American Association of Anatomists (AAA), and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB).
The web page includes a summary of the proceedings, links to IACUC resources, and information about a second symposium on the workings of the IACUC that will be presented on Friday, April 11 from 1-5 pm as part of EB 2003 in San Diego.
To learn more about this program and how to register for it, see page 86 of the EB 2003 Call for Abstracts, or click on the link to ?Information about IACUC 101 for Scientists at EB 2003? from the URL above. Contact APS Public Affairs Officer Alice Ra?anan at
araanan@the-aps.org if you need further assistance.
FASEB Promotes Mentoring Tool
Principle investigators can make use of a new tool to help prepare postdoctoral fellows for research careers: the ?Individual Development Plan? or IDP. The FASEB Science Policy Committee recently published a set of guidelines for the development of the IDP to help faculty advisors fulfill their responsibilities as mentors. The FASEB IDP is available online at
http://www.faseb.org/opar/ppp/educ/idp.html.
The IDP guidelines are intended to ?provide a planning process that identifies both professional development needs and career objectives.? It is further intended to ?serve as a communication tool between individuals and their mentors,? according to the online summary.
For further information, contact Heather Rieff of the FASEB Office of Public Affairs at 301-634-7650.
[Thoughts on Teaching Physiology to Medical Students in
2002] [APS News]
[Section News]
[Chapter News]
[Education] [Membership]
[EB '02 Statistics]
[Career Opportunities
Report] [Publications]
[Book Reviews] [People
& Places] [News
from Senior Physiologists] [Announcements]