Public Affairs
As originally published in The Physiologist
Volume 45, Number 2, April 2002, page 108
Congress Considers Permanent Exclusion of Rats, Mice, and Birds From the AWA
On February 12, 2002 the Senate adopted an amendment to the farm bill that would permanently exclude rats, mice, and birds from the regulatory provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The amendment, offered by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), would write into law the administrative exclusion of these species from the AWA that has been in place for 30 years. It was adopted by unanimous consent and is now part of the Senate version of the farm bill that is the subject of a House-Senate conference committee. The conference is expected to last for several weeks because of the major differences between the House and Senate versions of the farm aid legislation. The conferees must also decide whether to include numerous other provisions, including the Helms language, in the final version of the bill.
The Helms amendment is an effort to resolve once and for all the question of whether the USDA should regulate rats, mice, and birds under the AWA. If the legislation is not approved, the USDA is expected to issue a proposed rule later this year bringing these species under the AWA. The USDA is required to issue the proposed rule to comply with an agreement the agency reached with animal activist plaintiffs in September 2000 as part of an out-of-court settlement of a lawsuit over the USDA’s past exclusion of rats, mice, and birds from the AWA. The USDA was prevented from issuing the proposed rule during fiscal year 2001 because Congress placed a temporary spending moratorium on making the change. However, Congress did not renew the ban for fiscal year 2002.
When the AWA was first adopted in 1966, it provided only for the welfare of dogs and cats in research. Other animal species were later added by law and by administrative action starting in 1970. However, purpose-bred rats and mice, as well as birds, have been specifically excluded from the AWA since 1972. Nevertheless, animal activists have long sought to convince, pressure, or compel the USDA to extend the AWA regulations to these species.
Purpose-bred rats and mice represent some 95 percent of the animals used in research. The APS opposes USDA regulation of these species because the vast majority of the animals in question already fall under one or more of the other animal welfare oversight systems (PHS Policy, AAALAC accreditation, and the Good Laboratory Practices Act). USDA regulation would not improve the quality of care provided to these animals, but new record keeping and inspection requirements would be costly and burdensome to implement.
President Bush Unveils FY 2003 Budget Proposal For Life Sciences and
Biomedical Research
On February 4, 2002, President George W. Bush presented his budget proposals for fiscal year 2003. This year’s budget, reflective of the events of September 11, 2001, places an emphasis on health science and biomedical research as tools to aid homeland security in the fight against bioterrorism. Below are selected highlights from the administration’s proposals for selected government agencies that support biomedical and life sciences research.
National Institutes of Health
Under President Bush’s FY 2003 budget request, the NIH budget would be $27.3 billion. After figuring in $1.5 billion for the FY 2002 Emergency Response Fund—funds set aside to combat bioterrorism—the NIH increase is $3.7 billion or 15.7 percent over FY 2002. This increase would complete the NIH doubling that began in 1997 and is consistent with the $27.3 billion recommended by FASEB.
The President’s budget request allows NIH to build on the scientific momentum of investigator-initiated research and provide new research opportunities. NIH would fund a total of 9,854 competing Research Project Grants (RPGs) in FY 2003. This represents an increase of 477 competing RPGs over the FY 2002 estimate of 9,377 awards. In FY 2003, total RPGs funded will be 38,038 awards, an increase of 1,408 awards over the FY 2002. In addition, President Bush’s budget request will support 17,014 full-time training positions, an increase of 305 positions over FY 2002 estimates. An increase of four percent for pre- and postdoctoral stipends for NRSA trainees is also proposed.
NIH’s priorities in this year’s budget include bioterrorism research. In consultation with the Federal Office of Homeland Security and the HHS Office of Public Health Preparedness, NIH has developed a FY 2003 budget request that includes a total of $1.7 billion for bioterrorism related research and infrastructure.
The goals of this expanded effort are to develop the countermeasures that will be needed to respond to and control the intentional or unintentional release of agents of bioterrorism. The plan consists of interconnected efforts, including basic research on the physiology and genetics of potential bioterrorism agents, immune system function, and response to each potential agent, and the pathogenesis of each disease.
Additional information on the NIH budget can be accessed online at http://www.nih.gov/news/budgetfy2003/2003NIHpresbudget.htm. This document highlights the President’s FY 2003 budget request and NIH’s priorities. More detailed information can be found on the NIH Budget Office website at:
http://www4.od.nih.gov/officeofbudget/index.html.
National Science Foundation
Under President Bush’s budget proposal, NSF would receive $5.03 billion for FY 2003. This increase represents a five percent increase over the agency’s FY 2002 budget of $4.789 billion. FASEB recommended $5.5 billion for NSF in its Federal Funding For Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research, FY 2003 report.
Under President Bush’s initiative, both NSF research and education programs would rise. The agency’s annual stipends for graduate students would rise to $25,000 up from $21,500, an increase of 16 percent. The new budget proposal would also increase the number and size of NSF grants. Under the President’s budget, the average NSF grant would rise to $120,000 in FY 2003, up from $113,000 in the current year. The NSF also estimates that 6,580 research grants would be awarded in 2003, compared to 6,390 this year.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Under the President’s proposed budget, VA Research would receive $409 million for FY 2003. This represents a $38 million increase, or 10.2 percent over FY 2002. FASEB recommends that this year’s fiscal increase should be the beginning of a multi year investment that will expedite the application of new scientific advances in the treatment of diseases. According to this year’s consensus conference “sustained investment in VA research will ensure that the highest quality research is conducted and that top scientists working in areas of particular interest to VA are recruited and retained within the VA system.”
NASA
Under the President’s proposed budget, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget would grow to $15 billion, including $842 million for Biological and Physical Research (OBPR). This would be a $28 million or 3.4 percent increase over FY 2002. Included in the OBPR budget is $321 million for BPR programs and $347.2 million for the International Space Station. FASEB recommends an annual increase of $100 million for OBPR’s biological research programs to be used to enhance investigator-initiated, peer reviewed life sciences research opportunities.
Former Rep. Porter Calls On Congress To Keep Funding NIH at 10 Percent
As research advocates and policy makers find themselves in the final year of the campaign to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, questions arise as to what will happen once this goal is achieved. The research community will continue to advocate for future increases, but many are concerned that NIH may receive smaller increases once the doubling campaign ends.
One element of the problem is the fact that some policy makers may feel that NIH has received its fair share with its 15 percent increases over five years. According to this view, with the stagnant economy and budget deficits, a continuation of high dollar funds to NIH would be unrealistic. Still research advocates point out that maintaining the momentum of discovery is essential.
One of NIH’s strongest advocates is John Porter, the former Chairman of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education. Speaking at a National Press Club forum on disease research funding in January, the former Illinois Congress-man stated that Congress should increase funding for the agency at a level of 10 percent annually to continue to take advantage of biomedical research opportunities. “Without the suggested 10 percent annual funding increase, Porter stated, “we will lose the leadership and the momentum, and particularly, we will lose the scientific opportunities that lie out there and that are greater then they have ever been before.”
This lost opportunity could be tremendous, given the rise in the number of new research project grants. According to NIH, the number of new research project grants started in 2000 was 5,919, the number for 2001 is 6,164 and the number projected for 2002 funding is 6,226. There will be approximately 3,000 competing for renewal each year. Meanwhile, funding reserved for non-competing renewals has grown from $6.7 billion in 2000 to $9.2 billion (a 37 percent increase) in FY 2002.
Even as Congress focuses on the fifth year of the doubling, the research community must look for the best ways to ensure continued research progress.
CSR Continues IRG Review
The APS provided comments in February to NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) concerning the proposed guidelines for the reorganized Cardiovascular Sciences Integrated Review Groups (IRG) [See accompanying box.] The
Cardiovascular Sciences proposal was part of CSR’s continuing efforts to reorganize NIH peer review under the broad framework proposed in 1999 by the Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review.
Despite a statement in the Phase 1 report of the boundaries panel that it wanted to provide “a home for the review of all science relevant to contemporary biomedical research,” many physiologists have been concerned that the recommendations as a whole failed to provide sufficient emphasis on and review opportunities for integrative approaches to biomedical problems. “The proposed alignment shortchanges many areas of both basic and applied physiological research,” the APS stated in comments provided to CSR in 1999 when the Phase 1 report was released. The proposal “appears to convey a bias toward reductionist approaches to the detriment of integrationist ones,” the APS said.
The CSR is currently involved in the second phase of the boundaries project. This involves refining the parameters of each proposed integrated review group (IRGs) by listing what research topics will be reviewed by its study sections. Those IRG study section guidelines are then reviewed by a steering committee comprised of scientific experts and NIH staff. The steering committee develops criteria for the IRG’s study sections, and the proposal is published for comments by the research community.
Further explanation of the process and the schedule is available at
http://www.csr.nih.gov/PSBR/IRGComments.htm. IRGs currently in various stages of consideration include Surgery, Applied Imaging and Applied Bioengineering, Renal and Urological Sciences, Digestive Sciences, and Immunological Sciences. Scientists whose research falls within these areas are strongly urged to comment on the IRG proposals before they are finalized.
The American Physiological Society (APS) wishes to take this opportunity to congratulate the CSR for accomplishing the difficult task of restructuring the cardiovascular IRG into subject area study sections.
The APS recognizes that grants may fall into subject areas covered by many different study sections and indeed different IRGs. The major areas covering the important cardiovascular disease entities have been incorporated into these study sections. Nevertheless, I would like to express a continuing concern on behalf of the APS membership regarding adequate representation for integrative physiology on cardiovascular study sections. By and large, most of the whole animal and human physiology and pathophysiology will be reviewed by the Clinical and Integrative Cardiovascu-lar Sciences (CICS) study section. It also appears that a good deal of whole animal, organ based or human research will be evaluated by the Hypertension and Microcirculation (HM) study section.
As you know, the genetic and molecular biological revolution of the past decade has placed a major emphasis on funding this type of research by the NIH. There is now an emphasis on proteomics and functional genomics. The next step will be, of course, to further our understanding of the regulatory functions of genes and proteins to affect a specific phenotype in normal and diseased organs and individuals, and to understand how organ systems interact under normal conditions and in pathological states. Who will carry out the research for this second, “new biological revolution”? It will undoubtedly be those scientists trained to carry out integrative experiments using organs, whole animals and humans. Since scientific investigations incorporate a variety of techniques to solve biomedical problems it is necessary to review proposed research from different aspects.
The APS strongly believes and wishes to reaffirm that all study sections would benefit from representation of integrative scientists whose expertise spans the gamut from hemodynamic monitoring to autonomic function to exercise and environmental physiology. For instance, in addition to the hemodynamic changes, it is now clear that a full understanding of the cardiovascular adjustments to acute and chronic exercise must take into account genetics, molecular and cellular biology, metabolism, and neural and hormonal systems. This, by definition, is integrative physiology! In the final construction of study sections we feel it is critical that there be diverse representation in order to adequately evaluate molecular, cellular and integrative approaches. Finally, there needs to be a balance between basic scientists and clinical investigators. This is especially true in the CICS study section.
The APS appreciates that the CSR is sensitive to the above issues. However, the Society wishes to emphasize as strongly as possible that the pendulum is starting to swing back to a biology that is truly dependent upon our ability to “put it all together.” Integrative biologists will play a critical role in this effort. The APS will be happy to provide whatever expertise you require to make the review process equitable and successful in the future.
USDA Pressed to Reconsider FOIA Policies
On October 1, 2001, the USDA began posting to its website the annual inspection reports of animal research facilities required under the Animal Welfare Act. This practice focused renewed attention on USDA policies regarding the release of information that may endanger the safety of research personnel and facilities.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a 1966 federal law requiring government agencies to disclose to the public many of their records unless the information falls within certain exempted categories. The list of exemptions from disclosure requirements includes security concerns, protecting personal privacy, and preserving the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA)
Amendments took FOIA one step further by requiring government agencies to make some records available over the Internet. This included agency reports and materials frequently requested under FOIA. The USDA decided to post facility inspection reports to its website because they are considered to be frequently requested documents. Most of those requests come from animal activists seeking to obtain information about research facilities.
The APS has joined with others in research community in raising objections to the USDA’s FOIA policies with respect to facility inspection reports. In a February 11, 2002 letter to Chester Gipson, the Acting Deputy Director of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Animal Care division, APS President John Hall asked the agency to “reexamine what information is released under FOIA as well as the current practice of making these reports available over the Internet.
“FOIA release of facility inspection reports is problematic because some reports identify research personnel or where animals are kept in the facility,” the APS letter stated. “This information could lead to harassment of individuals and institutions and, in the most extreme cases, could endanger lives and property.”
The Animal Welfare Act requires the USDA to conduct an unannounced inspection of each registered research facility annually to determine whether it is in compliance with the AWA. Licensed animal dealers are also subject to inspections.
In meetings with representatives of the research community, USDA officials acknowledged the legitimate security concerns related to USDA release facility inspection reports. However, the officials insisted that the agency considers facility inspection reports as agency records and that under FOIA, such records must be released in their entirety. Efforts are now being made by a number of organizations within the research community to sensitize the USDA to encourage the agency to reexamine its procedures.
House Resources Subcommittee Examines Domestic Terrorism
On February 12, 2002, Congress-man Scott McInnis, Chairman of the House Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee held a hearing on Eco-Terrorism and Lawlessness in the National Forests. The purpose of this hearing was to examine the recent wave of violence
committed by radical environmental and animal rights groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
The FBI has identified these organizations as one of America’s primary domestic terrorist threats. According to the FBI, ALF and ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of $43 million. In a press release announcing the hearing McInnis stated: “We must strip away the Robin Hood mystique and perceived high ground that some have given these radicals;” noting, “It is just a matter of time before a human life is taken.”
The Committee heard from a variety of witnesses, including an FBI Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, a logging company manager and three Members of Congress, but it was former ELF Press Officer Craig Rosebraugh who drew the most interest. While his presence fueled hope that the committee would gain insight into the inner workings of ELF, ultimately it did not receive any answers. Rosebraugh, who was subpoenaed by the committee, refused to answer questions. Over 50 times he replied to the subcommittee’s questions—ranging from his involvement with criminal activity to his belief in the role of science in society—by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Rosebraugh did issue an 11-page statement in which he described his transformation from patriotic supporter of the United States to his current belief that the government is misleading and self-interested. He pointed to the use of animals in biomedical research to support his claims. “While a great percentage of the public in the United States had been convinced that animal research progressed and continues to improve human health, I soon realized that this myth was not only untruthful and single sided, but the work of a slick public relations campaign by the pharmaceutical industry in coordination with federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. I also learned that just like the factory farm industry, the use of animals for human entertainment and for the fashion industry, animal experimentation was motivated first and foremost by profits. Furthermore, I learned how the government of the United States, not only economically supports these various institutions of exploitation and slaughter, but how it continues to perpetuate and politically support the dangerous lie that animal research saves human lives.”
McInnis informed Rosebraugh that invoking the Fifth Amendment in oral testimony did not mean he could refuse to answer written questions. He told fellow committee members that the next step would be to submit written questions to Rosebraugh and that if he did not answer them, he could be held in contempt of Congress. On March 1, Rosebraugh’s counsel received a copy of 54 questions with a request that they be answered by March 15, 2002. A list of these questions can be found online at:
http://www.protectcivilliberties.com/additionalquestions.html.
While Rosebraugh’s testimony did not provide any insight into this growing problem, another witness’s did.
Richard Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, produced a tax return from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which showed that PETA has financially supported the ELF. On April 20, 2001, PETA donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front to “support their [sic] program activities.”
In addition to ELF, PETA has also supported radical animal rights groups. While viewing PETA’s finances, Berman noted the following:
PETA donated $70,200 to the defense of Rodney Coronado, an ALF member convicted of a firebombing at Michigan State University. He pleaded guilty to similar crimes at Oregon and Washington State Universities.
In 1999, PETA gave $2,000 to David Wilson, an ALF activist who once bragged about the movement’s expansion into “wildlife actions.”
In 2000, PETA gave $5000 to the “Josh Harper Support Committee.” Harper is an ALF member arrested on numerous occasions.
On March 4, 2002 Chairman McInnis sent a letter to PETA President Ingrid Newkirk calling on the organization to explain its involvement in financially supporting ELF. “As a non-profit organization with tax-exempt privileges and the incumbent public policy obligations that status entails, PETA has the responsibility to explain the full extent of its involvement with and contributions to environmental terror groups like ELF and ALF.” McInnis asked for answers to a series of questions, including:
NIH Posts Grant Funding Tables
The National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research has posted new grant funding ranking tables for FY 2001. The tables are available online at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/medschc.htm.
These tables include rankings of medical schools and departments. NIH prepares these tables as a service to the community. A complete index of available grant award tables, charts, and lists is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/index.htm.
Public Affairs Programs at EB 2002
The APS Animal Care and Experimentation Committee will sponsor a Public Affairs Symposium on Saturday, April 20 entitled “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the IACUC But Were Afraid to Ask.” The program will take place from 1-5 pm in Room 213 of the Convention Center. This symposium will provide information about what the IACUC is required to do and how principal investigators are supposed to cope with these demands. This program is co-sponsored by NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, FASEB, ASPET, AAI, ASNS, and AAA.
ASPET’s Public Affairs and Education Committees will sponsor a workshop on Sunday, April 21 entitled “Incorporating Complementary and Integrative Medicine into Basic Science Teaching: Why and Why Now?” The program will take place from 12:15-1:45 pm in Room 220 of the Convention Center. It will discuss educational initiatives underway in several medical schools to incorporate elements of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) into the medical curriculum.
FASEB’s Office of Public Affairs will sponsor a Public Policy Symposium on Sunday, April 21 entitled “Bioterror-ism: New Threats Facing the Nation, New Challenges for the Scientific Community.” The program will take place from 1-2:30 pm in Rooms 252/254 of the Convention Center. Topics will include new challenges for the scientific community in responding to bioterrorism, as well as the changing climate of scientific research in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the discovery of anthrax spores sent by mail. Featured speakers include Tony Fauci, D.A. Henderson, and Julie Louise
Gerberding.
The fourth annual Walter C. Randall Lecture in Biomedical Ethics will take place on Tuesday, April 23. Adrian R. Morrison is the featured speaker in this APS-sponsored lecture. His topic is “Developing an Ethical Position on the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” The program will take place on Tuesday, April 23 from 2-3 pm in Room 208 of the Convention Center.
Physiology Makes Headlines
The APS Communications program is now in full swing. This program publicizes APS initiatives and the science published in the APS journals and presented at APS meetings and conferences. To date, these efforts have spawned hundreds of mentions in various media outlets including: The San Francisco Chronicle, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, The Scientist, WebMD, CNNfn and BBC Online.
Have you noticed more physiology in the news? Check out links to recent media coverage on the “Physiology in the News” section of the APS Press Room
(http://www.the-aps.org/press_room/). For more information on the APS Communications Office, go to our “Communications Guide for Members Only” page
(http://www.the-aps.org/press_room/about.htm), also located in the Press Room.