Animal Testing Dispute Splits NAS Panel

WASHINGTON—Nearly two years after it was convened, a National Academy of Sciences panel is searching desperately for the middle ground in a bitter debate about the use and treatment of laboratory animals. A minority report, rare in an NAS study, seems likely to emerge from the 15-member panel, which has heard scientific discussion give way to personal attacks in the course of its nine meetings. The latest spark stems from a Wall Street Journal editorial relating an account of an alleged conversation between panelists Michael DeBakey, the Houston heart surgeon, and Christine Stevens, president of the Animal Welfare Institute. The June 16 editorial recounts a story told by DeBakey, who is lobbying in the media against a House bill that would ban the use of pound dogs in research, about a meeting several years ago with Stevens at a congressional hearing on lab animals. According to DeBakey, Stevens thanked him for the role his pionnering efforts had played in the health of her husband, who has had coronary bypass surgery. DeBakey said that Stevens, whom the editorial mistakenly called Helen, "became flustered and ended the conversation" when told that much of his work was based on research with animals. Stevens wrote to the newspaper June 20 demanding "a full retraction of the false and defamatory statements which you published." In her letter, part of which appeared in the July 13 Journal, Stevens says that such a conversation, which she calls "a self-serving fantasy," never occurred. "It is absurd to suggest," she wrote, "that I could be 'flustered' by news about animal experimentation." Her letter, which was sent to each panel member, goes on to describe a visit to DeBakey's laboratory at Baylor College, made a few years ago at his invitation, in which she found "conditions of the sort we have long striven to rectify." In a recent interview, Stevens said DeBakey's public comments on the issue convinced her to describe for the first time the "overcrowding of animals and improper supervision" she had witnessed during that visit. DeBakey said Stevens "obviously has a convenient memory." As for her visit to his lab, DeBakey said "she made many remarks about how pleased she was by the conditions and about the high quality of the facility." The Same Ground Panel members and outside observers say the dispute demonstrates the acrimony that has hindered the group's efforts to provide Congress and federal agencies with a consensus report that can be used to shape public policy. DeBakey is said to speak for a majority of members, most of whom have conducted research with animals, who fear that a further tightening of federal regulations may force scientists to abandon such research. Stevens is said to lead a minority that has argued for greater protection of animals and a recognition of the issue's ethical dimensions. "We keep going over the same ground," complained Jean Dodds, chief of the hematology laboratory at the New York State Department of Health in Albany and president of the Scientists' Center for Animal Welfare. "The discussion varies depending on who comes to each meeting, but there aren't any new issues being raised." Dodds said she is part of a small group "trying to gain appropriate rights for animals" in the final report. If they fail, she said, "the only option is a minority report." Norman Hackerman, chairman of the panel and former president of Rice University, agreed that "the chances of a minority report are pretty good." He insisted, however, that the group has made steady progress toward its goal of reaching a consensus on the major issues. He said he hoped the group's next meeting, on August 12-13, would be its final one. "People are convinced that the research is important, and that animals should be used for the welfare of humans," said Hackerman, former chairman of the National Science Board. "They're also convinced that animals should be humanely treated. There are issues on the periphery that are not yet resolved—such as the use of pound animals and the cost of using animals—and that's what I'd expect any minority report to concentrate on." Interviews with several panel members revealed sharply different perspectives on their deliberations. Some members criticized as a meaningless exercise the day-long session last year in which dozens of groups presented their positions, but others praised it as an opportunity to air the full range of views on the topic. Although many panelists mentioned the high level of emotion within the group, others said they were struck by the goodwill and mutual respect shown. Andrew Rowan, an assistant dean at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine who has monitored the panel's progress, observed that the issue can bring out the worst in people. "This topic seems to provoke emotional and irrational behavior on both sides," he said. "People who otherwise make a living by analyzing the data and looking at all sides of the question have a tendency to let their hair down on this issue. It's not a pleasant sight." Mervis is on the staff of The Scientist.

Animal Testing Dispute Splits NAS Panel

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of