|
Public Affairs |
|
The NIH Budget in the Post-doubling Era NIH Announces National Commission on Digestive Diseases APS Opposes Random Source Animal Restrictions |
|
|
|
In 2006, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
saw its budget cut for the first time in more than 30 years. Since 2004 the
NIH budget has been growing at less than the rate of inflation, and the
flattening budget has led to dwindling numbers of research project grants
and a precipitous drop in success rates. The outlook for the NIH budget in FY 2007 does not promise any relief for the agency or the extramural scientific community. In June, members of the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, chaired by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH), followed the Administration’s recommendation for the NIH, providing the agency with $28.3 billion, the same allocation it received last year. If the NIH is funded at last year’s level, it will be the agency’s second consecutive year without a budget increase and will result in continued erosion of purchasing power as the rate of biomedical inflation hovers at 3.8%. Under the Administration’s proposal, most of the NIH institute and center budgets would be cut by 0.5-0.8%, resulting in the loss of approximately 650 research project grants. With the number of grant applications still on the rise, the NIH expects that overall success rates will drop to 19% in 2007, from a high of 32% in 2001. In the Senate, Labor-HHS-Ed appropriators led by Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) will have a chance to reassess spending priorities. Chairman Specter and ranking member Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) are both longtime supporters of the NIH. This year they worked together to champion an effort to add crucial additional dollars for Labor-HHS-Ed spending. The final step in the funding process will be the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the spending bill. Reaching a compromise between the House and Senate versions will be particularly difficult this year, since the two chambers failed to agree on a budget resolution that sets the basic parameters for spending. |
|
|
|
On April 18, NIH announced the membership of the National Commission on Digestive Diseases (NCDD), established in August of last year. Developed to address the needs of the over 70 million people affected by digestive disease, the NCDD will assess the current state-of-the-science for digestive disease research, review the NIH portfolio of funded digestive disease research and develop a strategic plan to guide such research for the next ten years. Dr. Zerhouni, when first announcing the Commission, stated his intention that it will “develop a plan to most effectively take advantage of advances in the field.” The Commission will be chaired by Stephen P. James, director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition. The new commission consists of 16 voting and 18 ex officio members, who are senior representatives from NIH and other federal government agencies connected to digestive disease. APS members Daniel Podolsky, Eugene Chang, Mitchell Cohen, and Kenton Sanders, will serve as voting members and APS member, Raj K. Goyal, of the DVA, will serve ex officio. The Commission is chartered for two years. The NCDD has been asked to develop a plan to cover all areas related to digestive disorders in basic, translational and clinical research. It should address training and education programs and information collection, dissemination and exchange programs. The NCDD is charged with making recommendations that are both ambitious and feasible and to identify opportunities, and direction, not only for the NIH, but also for the whole research community as well as the public. |
|
|
| On April 27, 2006
Representatives Phil English (R-PA) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) introduced a bill
that would make it virtually impossible to obtain random source dogs and
cats for medical research. H.R. 5229, which had 44 House co-sponsors as of
May 25, is similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Daniel Akaka
(D-HI) on February 17, 2005. The “Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005,” as
both bills are known, would bar Class B dealers from supplying random source
dogs and cats for medical research. They would also make it more difficult
for pounds to provide animals for research by requiring them to register
with the USDA and to meet certain AWA standards that do not apply to pounds
that simply euthanize animals. The APS opposes H.R. 5229 and S. 451 because they would do more to disrupt medical research than they would to protect pets. Even if Class B dealers no longer provided animals for research, pet theft would persist. That is because the primary “market” for stolen pets is widely believed to be individuals involved in illegal dog fighting rings. According to the Humane Society of the United States, “A single fighting dog has likely killed dozens of animals before entering the ring for competition, and most of the victims used in this ‘blooding’ process are believed to be former pets.” Not only would H.R. 5229 and S. 451 do little to end pet theft, they offer no viable alternative to provide the random source dogs and cats needed for medical and veterinary research. For these reasons, the APS opposes the bills and has informed the bills’ sponsors of its opposition. Researchers are encouraged to let their legislators know about the bills’ harmful effects. The APS letter and a list of the bills’ co-sponsors are available on the APS website at http://www.the-aps.org/pa/. Although at one time researchers could readily obtain unwanted random source dogs and cats directly from pounds and shelters, 13 states now have laws prohibiting this practice, and a number of local jurisdictions have similar ordinances. As a result Class B dealers are the only option for many researchers who need non-purpose bred or “random source” dogs and cats. For researchers in those states, H.R. 5229 would put an end to research and related activities requiring animals that are older and genetically diverse. Concern over the safety of family pets has long been a driving force among those who style themselves as animal advocates. Allegations of pet theft led to the 1966 passage of the original Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Since then the AWA has been amended several times to add new deterrents against pet theft as well as to prevent lost pets from unintentionally ending up in research labs. Researchers support pet protection, and research institutions do their part to make the system work. The existing laws may not be perfect, but they provide a good starting point to ensure both pet safety and the availability of random source dogs and cats needed for medical research. There is impetus now to eliminate Class B dealers because of the recent and highly-publicized case of C.C. Baird, a Class B dealer who committed egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In February, 2006, USDA settled its case against Baird who agreed to pay a record $267,000 fine for multiple AWA violations including “severe mistreatment and neglect of a multitude of animals.” The USDA also revoked his license and confiscated a number of animals from his kennels. Baird’s case was extreme, but other Class B dealers have been charged with AWA violations involving failing to provide appropriate husbandry and veterinary care for their animals, obtaining animals under false pretenses or creating false ownership records. Researchers welcome USDA efforts to take action against dealers who violate the AWA. Such abuses cannot and should not be tolerated, and the research community relies upon the USDA to enforce the law. Activists assert that pet theft and animal abuse by Class B dealers can only be fixed by barring them from providing random source animals for medical research. However, many research institutions have no other option to obtain random source dogs and cats except for Class B dealers because many pounds are cannot or will not provide animals for research. Random source dogs and cats are needed for research into certain human and animal diseases, to test new veterinary medications, and to train veterinarians and physicians. The vast majority of animals in medical research today are rats, mice, zebra fish and fruit flies. All dogs and cats together comprise less than half a percent (0.5%) of laboratory animals, while random source dogs and cats represent perhaps a quarter of that total, an estimated 15,000-20,000 animals per year. Dogs and cats are the best available research models for certain diseases because their cardiovascular, digestive, and neurological systems have important similarities to those of humans. They are important in studying diseases that affect dogs and cats themselves, as well as for medical and veterinary training. Activists claim that purpose bred animals can replace random source dogs and cats. Researchers disagree. Purpose bred animals are young and genetically homogeneous. Random source animals literally come in all ages, breeds and genetic backgrounds, which is important when the research involves diseases that develop as the body ages or when the research must take into account the effects of genetic diversity. Research in which older animals are needed includes cardiovascular, digestive, and musculoskeletal diseases. Research in which both age and genetic diversity are relevant includes the development of veterinary medicines that will be used to treat animals of different breeds and ages. Random source dogs and cats have an important role to play in medical and veterinary research, testing, and training, but H.R. 5229 and S. 451 would impede those activities. The solution is for Congress to provide the USDA the resources it needs to sustain rigorous enforcement of existing pet safety laws. If your Senator or Representative is a sponsor of this legislation, please let him or her know that these bills would hamper research without solving the problem of pet theft. |
|
|
|
|
|
[Index] [Good
News and Bad News] [Membership] [APS
Business Meeting] [Education] |