U.S. Officials Defend Animal Research

Under attack by animal rights campaigners, federal health agencies counter with a vigorous drive yo gain public support WASHINGTON - Top health officials in the Bush administration have begun an offensive on behalf of the use of animals in research. Their campaign is meant to counter the continuing efforts by animal rights activists to disrupt and condemn animal research as part of the movement's broader attack on the treatment of animals. This new, more aggressive attempt to preserve a scientific tradition of animal experimentation marks a dramatic change from the "bunker mentality" of years past, in which government officials kept mum and most scientists tried to shrug off the periodic raids on their laboratories. Health agency officials now believe that approach only emboldened the animal rights movement by leaving the impression that scientists were embarrassed by their use of animals. Those officials have decided that a vigorous defense of animal experimentation and a confrontation, when necessary, with leading elements of the movement is a more effective strategy. "We're not going to apologize anymore for working with animals," says Frederick Goodwin, who directs the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services. In the past, he says, "we assumed the public would eventually reject the extreme views of the animal activists. But the 10 years in which that attitude has prevailed has seen a steady growth in the animal rights movement. And that's why we must speak out. We should not miss any opportunity to point out the important role that research with animals has played in improving our nation's health." Not surprisingly, the approach is welcomed by scientists who feel under attack. "We've looked at the arguments [of the activists] and searched our souls and adjusted and reformed our practices to match our ethical principles," says Steven Wise, a behavioral neurophysiologist at the National Institute of Mental Health who works with monkeys. "But there's only so far you can go. Further changes could be unduly restrictive on the research." However, that attitude worries those scientists who are working for the gradual improvement of laboratory conditions and a steady reduction in the number of animals used. "I think that the public supports the use of animals in research, but they are uncomfortable with the way it is being done," says Andrew Rowan, a veterinary scientist and director of the Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy. "To say that no more compromise is possible is nonsense. The simple fact is that the research community has found its license to do whatever it wants to do with animals curtailed, and it's not happy about that." Recent events offer ample evidence of the government's new strategy in action: The conviction in federal court November 29 of an animal rights activist for the destruction of federal property in connection with a violent protest last spring outside the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. The case of Edward Ashton, 40, of Beacon, N.Y., who broke the front door of the main NIH administration building, marks the first successful prosecution by federal officials of illegal activity stemming from an animal rights protest. An unusual meeting November 27 at NIH, part of a series of sessions at health research agencies, in which federal scientists heard top agency officials describe the threat to scientists who work with animals and outline strategies to defeat animal rights advocates within their laboratory, on the streets, and in the media. Senate passage November 20 of a bill that makes it a federal offense to break into research facilities with the intent to steal or harm research animals or damage records or equipment. The bill was introduced by Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) and stipulates a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $10,000 if the action harms people or property; the House is expected to act on the issue sometime this year. Strong language about the need for animal experimentation during congressional testimony November 8 by a top federal health official on a bill that would regulate toxicity testing of consumer products. The comments by Assistant Secretary for Health James Mason on the importance of animal testing in connection with the development of new cosmetics and other health products stand in contrast even to the recent decision by such industry leaders as Avon Products Inc. and Revlon Inc. to eliminate such tests as the LD-50 and the Draize test, which either maim or kill animals in tests for cosmetics. The companies have been leading targets of the animal rights movement for using rabbits and other animals in toxicity tests on their products. The point man for this stepped-up campaign is Goodwin, a research psychiatrist and long-time federal science administrator who in 1988 was named head of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Research grants awarded by that agency, comprising the national institutes of Mental Health, Drug Abuse, and Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have been a special target of animal activists. WASHINGTON--In 1985 James Wyngaarden, then NIH director, realized that his agency was living in a glass house when it came to deflecting criticism from animal activists that its scientists were not sensitive to the proper care of their laboratory animals. Although NIH requires its grantees to meet the requirements set by the independent American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), NIH's own labs were not similarly accredited. So Wyngaarden ordered plans to bring the entire $800 million intramural research enterprise into compliance with AAALAC standards. (Some individual NIH programs were already meeting such standards.) All repairs, renovation, and new construction were to be completed by the fall of 1987 so that NIH could then apply for what one NIH official calls the "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" for its animal laboratories. Now, more than two years later, NIH is still working toward that goal. Six projects begun in the past few years and costing more than $20 million either have been finished or are within a few months of completion. Once the animals are moved in and all systems are functioning properly, say officials, NIH can then apply for accreditation. But even that belated timetable, nearly three years behind schedule, may contain more hope than reality. "We're shooting for the summer of 1990," says Ernest Lunsford of NIH's design and construction branch. "But even if we don't have everything built by then, we should at least have identified plans that, once finished, will lead toward accreditation." The reason for the delay is, in a word, money. Congress controls the NIH budget, including the amount it can spend on campus construction projects. But all projects are funded from the same pot. The result is that, unless the pot is made bigger, congressional preferences for one particular project translate into less money for all the rest. And that's what has happened to many of the improvements that Wyngaarden envisioned. "Building 49, for example [a $60 million facility on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Md., for the neurosciences that will hold scientists from seven of NIH's 13 institutes, as well as the animals used in their research], isn't part of the accreditation equation," says Lunsford. "But it comes out of the same pot as the rest of the construction projects. So when Congress tells us to remain on schedule for 49, but doesn't provide us with additional money, it means that we can't keep up with some other projects." In fact, NIH had planned to build an addition to its existing animal facility as an interim step that would meet AAALAC standards before the scheduled 1992 completion of the neurosciences building. But this year's budget didn't contain any of the $3.9 million that's needed. The result, notes Richard Wyatt, assistant director for intramural affairs, is that "the ultimate solution is moving faster than the interim solution." Accreditation isn't the only reason that NIH is renovating its animal facilities, according to Martin Morin, deputy director of the office of animal care and use. In some cases, he says, improvements were essential to keep up with the requirements of current research practices. "Whereas once we asked whether a drug could kill an animal," says Morin, "now we want to study the impact of the drug on the molecular level. NIH has a long and strong tradition of treating animals humanely. What's driving this project is not animal welfare issues, but rather the need to do better science." --J.M. Goodwin laid out the government's new philosophy during an impassioned presentation to 150 intramural scientists at NIH. He has held similar meetings in recent weeks with other federal scientists. The official told his NIH audience to educate themselves on the issue, to speak out when their colleagues are attacked, and to prepare for a long and difficult battle against forces that are trying to restrict the way they do research. He sees no middle ground. "In the beginning, there was a feeling that we needed to bend over backward to keep the faith and make us look good to the moderate animal welfare groups," Goodwin said. "But that's no longer the case. Christine Stevens [president of the Animal Welfare Institute, a group that works to improve the conditions under which animals are kept] and other moderates aren't driving the debate, and we're not gaining very much by trying to appeal to them. That's clear when you hear PETA [the more radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which believes that sentient animals deserve the same treatment as humans] say they don't give a damn about cage sizes. They want to stop all research." Goodwin says he has become outspoken on the issue because he thinks that animal activists have "disguised" their true intentions from the public and because polls show that the public trusts scientists when they discuss health-related issues. He says his agency has begun to train scientists to handle themselves in front of the media, and he offered these pointers to his NIH audience. "Each institute should have a spokesman," Goodwin said. "And the person should be young, physically attractive, and not the principal investigator under attack. We've also found it useful to pair up scientists with patient advocacy groups to emphasize the value of animal research in treating and curing disease." Goodwin says that top department officials, including HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan, share his views. In response to a question from an NIH scientist about how the administration would support an investigator under siege from animal activists, Goodwin said that his current bosses believe "that nothing should stand in the way of responsible research with animals. There was a different attitude two or three years ago, but that antiresearch attitude is no longer what's driving things in this administration." HHS's Mason made that change clear during his Senate appearance on a pending product safety testing bill, when he practically demanded a blank check for researchers. Although he opened his testimony by saying that "laboratory animals must be treated humanely," he noted in response to a question that "we need to have the flexibility to use any [animal] test to protect human health." He warned the members of the research panel of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee that the bill, which would put the government on record in favor of nonanimal tests, "would have devastating repercussions for the nation's health. Biomedical research and drug development programs would be severely impeded by restrictions on the choice of scientific methods." Many scientists who follow the issue applaud such a firm stance. "I think it's long overdue," says Gary Ellis, a health research analyst for the Institute of Medicine who directed several reports on the subject while working at the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. "The Public Health Service has been outflanked and outgunned for years by the animal activists, but I think that there's a large reservoir of public support for biomedical research, in general, and the use of animals specifically." At the same time, observers say that such advocacy runs the risk of becoming so shrill that it alienates its intended audience. The warnings in Mason's testimony, for example, were rejected by some legislators as a distortion of the bill's contents. "This bill does not prohibit the use of animals in testing," scoffed Sen. Ted Stephens (R-Alaska). "It has nothing to do with research on cancer, AIDS, and other diseases." Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who introduced a similar bill in the House, told the Senate panel that "the claims that this bill will ban all animal research are patent nonsense. It is focused solely on toxicity testing of consumer products." Indeed, an October 1987 memo that Goodwin wrote to his bosses about ways to counter the animal rights movement - containing the same message that Goodwin has brought to NIH and countless other groups in the past several months - was deemed to be so inflammatory that it was leaked to PETA by a member of Goodwin's staff. That group displayed it at its NIH protest last spring as evidence of the extreme measures that the government is considering to blunt their campaign. "They're trying to paint everybody as a terrorist," says PETA's Ingrid Newkirk. "They're trying to shut out the moderate elements, and ostracize the bad apples. But it's too late for that. You can't frighten people away from a discussion of the moral issues by trying to stereotype the entire animal rights movement." But Goodwin says he isn't trying to avoid debate; he appears regularly on talk shows and before groups interested in the issue. In fact, he says that the best way to win the war over the use of animals in research is to make sure that the public understands exactly what the animal rights activists hope to achieve. Once its goals are widely known, he argues, the movement will lose its appeal. "Their ideology is clear," he says, quoting from literature put out by various animal rights organizations. "Animals share the same rights as people. Humans have no special rights. Any favoritism toward humans is an example of speciesism. And I just don't think that the vast majority of people agree with those ideas."

U.S. Officials Defend Animal Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of