Activists Press For Open Meetings To Review Research Using Animals

Animal welfare activists are trying to open up the hearings of university animal care and use committees at state universities as part of their campaign to restrict or halt the use of animals in research. So far, however, they've had mixed success: State sunshine laws (which mandate open meetings of public bodies), public meetings, and the federal Freedom of Information Act have helped the activists obtain more data on research proposals, but acquiring the protocols for specific projects has remained elusive. One university at the center of the debate is the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Last spring, New York State Supreme Court Judge Robert W. Doyle ruled in favor of two animal welfare groups - the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Bide-A-Wee Home Association - seeking to admit the public to the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The school immediately appealed the ruling and won a temporary stay that has kept the committee's deliberations closed. A decision on the appeal is expected in the next few months. Meanwhile, under the Freedom of Information Act, the two activist groups have received copies of about 700 applications to conduct federally financed research involving animals at Stony Brook. However, most of the information likely to be of use to them was deleted. Acting in accordance with what it says are federal procedures to protect the in-vestigators' intellectual property, the university whited out the protocols to be used in the experiments. Also removed were the names of the researchers, their laboratory room numbers, and other identifying information on the grounds that releasing such information would pose risks to the investigators' safety. A handful of schools around the country, faced with similar challenges, have voluntarily opened their committee meetings. John Coulter, associate vice president for health sciences at the University of Washington, says that small numbers of antivivisection-ists have attended public meetings of his university's animal care and use committee. There have been no disruptions or demonstrations at these meetings, Coulter says, and he credits the activists with raising scientists' awareness of the issue. "In some ways," he says, "these folks have improved conditions." He adds, however, that some activists have used the information gained at the meetings to stage protests in front of the homes of research faculty. The University of Kentucky has held open meetings of its animal care and use committees since January 1989. To protect researchers' proprietary rights, however, the committee has gone behind closed doors whenever individual protocols were discussed, according to university veterinarian Ward Crowe. Crowe expresses concern that opening the committees has compromised the review process. "Before we opened the meetings," he says, "I saw a very conscientious, open discussion for animal welfare. Now, with the animal activists participating, I see people more formal, less candid." He maintains, however, that the care of the animals has not suffered, nor has science. "What's been lost is the opportunity to evaluate the program - it keeps us from being progressive." Coulter agrees. "There's less give-and-take out of a concern that anything they say could be used against them [researchers] in the future," he says. "There's always a worry that you're going to expose a faculty member." Other universities with open meetings include the University of Florida and the University of Massachusetts. But animal welfare organizations say they will keep up their pressure. "Animal rights activists shouldn't have to go to court to open these meetings. It's not like activists are changing the law," says Neal D. Barnard, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Barnard faults the composition of most animal care and use committees, many of which have only a single public member. He cites the high rate of approval these committees give experimenters (see Letters, page 18). "There should be a little tension between people who want to use animals and the animal care committees," says Barnard. "If there isn't . . . [the committees are] not doing their job. I think these animal care committees could work, but they need more advocates for the welfare of the animals." Gary Francione, an animal rights activist and the lawyer representing the ASPCA and Bide-A-Wee in the SUNY case, says that the mere fact that publicly funded research is kept secret is enough to raise opposition to it. "I don't understand what these people are scared about, but they're making it easy for me." One institution that has effectively shut out the activists is the military. The Letterman Army Institute of Research in San Francisco - a target of activists because of its use of greyhounds for research on bone trauma - has operated closed-door meetings with a single public member bound by law to confidentiality. Jan Polon, a part-time educator for the Humane Society and Let-terman's public member for the last four years, was removed from the board by Colonel Donald G. Corby, the base's commanding officer, in December, after she complained about the limited amount of time she was given to review protocols. She says she frequently was the lone dissenting voice on the committee. Polon adds that she supports some research involving animals, but believes strongly that committee deliberations should be open to the public. "If the public knew about the . . . research going on there, they'd be outraged," she says.

Activists Press For Open Meetings To Review Research Using Animals

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of