AVMA, APS, American Legion Support Animal Research, Oppose Ending VA Dog Studies

Three additional national organizations have written to Congress to express their concerns with efforts that would effectively eliminate important research with dogs at the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA). The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the American Physiological Society (APS), and the American Legion, the nation’s largest wartime veterans’ organization with 2.3 million members, now join the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) and the Friends of VA (FOVA) in announcing their opposition.

The first of those efforts, H.R. 3197, introduced in July by Representatives Dave Brat (R-VA) and Dina Titus (D-NV), could have serious implications for veterans because research with dogs has led to life-saving and life-improving treatments for veterans suffering from spinal cord injuries, heart conditions, diabetes, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases experienced through military service. Rep. Brat also introduced similar language in an amendment to the homeland security “minibus” which was passed by the full House last month.

“Dogs are used in vital research that will help improve the lives of our veterans by finding treatments for diseases and conditions affecting the veteran community, including studies on cardiology, diabetes and spinal cord injuries,” writes the AVMA. “The American Legion recognizes the irreplaceable value this research provides for our veterans and appreciate the sacrifice these animals make in the name of science that humans and service animals, as well as duty K-9s, benefit greatly from,” echos the American Legion.

The letter sent by AVMA can be seen by clicking here. APS' letter is available here. The American Legion’s letter is viewable here.

Friends of VA Publicly Opposes Defunding VA Dog Studies

On Friday, Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research (FOVA) sent a letter to Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) and Nita Lowey (D-NY), the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Appropriations, opposing an amendment passed in the homeland security minibus that would prohibit funding at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for certain studies involving dogs.

FOVA is a coalition of more than 80 national academic, medical, and scientific societies, voluntary health and patient advocacy groups, and veteran service organizations dedicated to providing veterans with high-quality care. FOVA believes “The policy included in the appropriations bill will impede scientific research and unnecessarily delay research advances for our nation’s veterans.”

The amendment to the minibus was introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) and passed by the House of Representatives in July. It contains similar language as House standalone bill H.R. 3197, the PUPPERS Act, which would prevent Class D and E studies from being performed at the VA, a move that could set the precedent for a prohibition against the use of dogs in all biomedical research. The legislation is troubling, as it could represent the first time Congress has prohibited the use of an animal species in scientific/medical studies, and it could lead to future laws that target additional species of research animals. The studies performed by the VA involving dogs are critically important in the search for treatments for diseases that impact the veterans’ community and civilians, and are strictly regulated.

As mentioned above, there are two pieces of House legislation that, if signed into law, would limit the use of dogs at the VA. The first piece of legislation is Brat's amendment to the homeland security minibus, a spending bill that would need to be reauthorized each year. The second piece of legislation is a standalone bill that would serve as a more permanent prohibition of certain dog studies at the VA. Although the House amendment to the homeland security minibus was passed in July, the House standalone bill has not yet been considered by the Veterans' Affairs Committee. A Senate standalone companion bill has not been introduced either. Congress is currently in recess until after Labor Day.

Stars and Stripes, a publication widely read by the military community, published a story yesterday about FOVA’s letter. The publication touts a readership of more than one million per day, including “active-duty service members, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families.”

To read FOVA’s letter, please click here. We encourage you to share the letter as well as the Stars and Stripes’ article on your social media pages to help educate the public and policy makers about this harmful legislation.

USDA Asks for Input on AWA Licensing Requirements

This morning the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published in the Federal Register an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comments regarding procedures for applying for licenses and renewals at the department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The notice in the Federal Register states, “We are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements under our Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to promote compliance with the Act, reduce licensing fees, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked, or who has a history of noncompliance, from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. We are soliciting public comment on these topics to help us consider ways to reduce regulatory burden and more efficiently ensure the sustained compliance of licensees with the Act.”

The notice outlines several changes regarding licensing requirements that are under consideration by the USDA, such as eliminating license application fees and annual license fees, requiring applicants to disclose animal cruelty violations, and specifying procedures so licensees have time to apply for licenses.

The USDA invites the public to provide data and information regarding potential economic effects, alternatives to reduce regulatory burden, and suggestions to ensure the compliance of licensees with the AWA.

Additionally, the USDA’s notice calls for comments on four questions, which are excerpted below in full:

  1. Should we propose to establish a firm expiration date for licenses (such as 3-5 years) and if so, what should that date be and why? Please provide supporting data.
  2. What fees would be reasonable to assess for licenses issued? Are the existing license fees (9 CFR 2.6) reasonable, or should they be adjusted to take additional factors into consideration, such as the type of animals used in regulated activities? Please provide data in support of any proposed adjustments to the license fees.
  3. In addition to the existing prohibitions on any person whose license has been suspended or revoked from buying, selling, transporting, exhibiting, or delivering for transportation animals during the period of suspension or revocation (9 CFR 2.10(c)), should such persons be prohibited from engaging in other activities involving animals regulated under the AWA, such as working for other AWA-regulated entities or using other individual names or business entities to apply for a license? Please suggest specific activities that should be covered and provide supporting data and information.
  4. Do you have any other specific concerns or recommendations for reducing regulatory burdens involving the licensing process or otherwise improving the licensing requirements under the AWA?

The announcement of this notice coincides with the 51st anniversary of the AWA. Public comments may be submitted online or in writing through October 23, 2017. Comments will be available for public viewing after submission. NABR plans to submit comments and we encourage your institution to do so as well.

USDA Calls for Public Comments on Regulatory Reform

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments from the public about the regulatory burden they have experienced and ideas for regulatory reform at the department. Specifically, USDA is looking for “public ideas on regulations, guidance documents, or any other policy documents that are in need of reform, for example ideas to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal those items.”

Public comments will be accepted in four batches over a one-year period; the deadline for the first batch is September 15. The second batch of comments is due on November 14. The third and fourth batches are due on February 12, 2018 and July 17, 2018, respectively. NABR is planning to submit comments during the November batch and we encourage your institution to submit comments as well.

The questions below have been excerpted in full from the USDA’s notice in the Federal Registrar:

  1. Are there any regulations that should be repealed, replaced, or modified?
  2. For each regulation identified in question number 1, please identify whether the regulation:
    1. Results in the elimination of jobs, or inhibits job creation;
    2. Is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    3. Imposes costs that exceed benefits;
    4. Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    5. Is inconsistent with the requirements or regulations of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), which requires that agencies maximize the quality, objectivity, and integrity of the information (including statistical information) they disseminate; or
    6. Derives from or implements Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
  3. Are there any existing USDA requirements that duplicate or conflict with requirements of another Federal agency? Can the requirement be modified to eliminate the conflict?
  4. What are the estimated total compliance costs of the USDA regulations to which you or your organization must comply? This should include the costs of complying with information collections, recordkeeping, and other requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, hand delivery, or courier. The USDA has requested that submitters please specify “Identifying Regulatory Reform Initiatives” in the comment for submission. To read the full notice in the Federal Register and to submit comments, please click here.

American Psychological Association Reaffirms Support for Animal Research

The American Psychological Association (APA) released a statement reaffirming “its long-standing support for ethically sound and scientifically valid research with nonhuman animals and the scientists who conduct it,” noting that animal research has “significantly improved the health and well-being of both human and nonhuman animals.” The statement recognizes the importance of animal research in the development and discovery of cures for diseases like tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, polio, muscular dystrophy, and high blood pressure. The APA is comprised of nearly 115,700 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students in the field of psychology.

To read APA’s full press release, click here.

Paralyzed Veterans of America Explains the Importance of Dog Studies at the VA

Sherman Gillums Jr., Executive Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) published an op-ed in The Hill yesterday in strong opposition to legislation that would hinder medical advancements for disabled veterans. “For a veteran facing a lifetime of paralysis after suffering a spinal cord injury, hope is often the last thing to die. Yet, the recently introduced House bill, H.R. 3197, threatens to crush what little hope to which I, and the approximately 60,000 veterans living with spinal cord injury, cling. The act proposes to reduce investment in medical research, and the reason is as simple as it is controversial: animal research.”

Introduced in July by Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), H.R.3197 would effectively eliminate important research with dogs at the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. An amendment to the homeland security minibus serving the same purpose was passed by the full House last month. This legislation has serious implications for veterans because research with dogs has led to life-saving and life-improving treatments for veterans suffering from spinal cord injuries, heart conditions, diabetes, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases experienced through military service.

“The VA has a responsibility to consistently find new and better ways of treat America’s heroes. Animal research helps the department do that. The program has helped save and improve countless lives, and it will continue to do so—unless ideology, and in some cases extremism on the issue of animal rights, succeed in forcing the public's attention away from VA waiting rooms, inpatient wards, and rehabilitation gyms across the country. This is where the price of wars across several eras can be seen almost daily, as well as where medicine and science find their ripest opportunities.”

For more information about the importance of dogs in research, please click here.

To read the letter, click here.

USDA FOIA Logs Posted

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published on its website a list of all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that were submitted to the department in 2017. NABR is analyzing the documents and will report any findings of interest to the biomedical research community.

FOIA was enacted in 1966 to promote transparency and ensure accountability of government officials and agencies. The law permits the public to request records owned by federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

To review NABR’s analysis of FY 2016 FOIA requests from animal rights groups please click here (log-in required).

Recording of “Q&A with the USDA: The Fifth Edition” Now Available for Online Viewing

If you were unable to attend NABR’s exclusive July 18 webinar or just want to see it again, the recording is now available online for on-demand viewing.

Please click here to view “Q&A with the USDA: The Fifth Edition.” You will need your NABR Members Only log-in credentials to watch the presentation.

You can find all of NABR’s past webinars, including this one, in an online library in the Members Only section of our website.

If you have problems logging in or have any questions about the webinar, please contact us at info@nabr.org.

NABR President Rebuts PETA Letter to The Hill

As you’ll recall, last week shortly after National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins said in an interview that “Animals are still crucial to our understanding of how biology works,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) fired back with a letter to The Hill calling for a systematic review of animal studies at the NIH. This letter, “A need to rethink spending on animal-based research at NIH,” is part of PETA’s call to defund the NIH because of its use of animal models in lifesaving and live-improving research.

Today, NABR’s President Matt Bailey penned a response letter to The Hill discussing not only the benefits of animal research in medical discovery from conditions like HIV/AIDS, malaria, cancer, and Alzheimer’s, but covering the immense economic impact of taxpayer funded studies. The United States’ investment in research, specifically with the NIH, supports 350,000 jobs and produced $60 billion in new economic activity in 2015.

Take a moment to read Bailey’s letter and share it with your friends, family, colleagues, and on social media and encourage others to do the same.

NIH Director’s Interview Runs Counter to PETA’s Anti-Animal Research Letter in The Hill

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), explained the importance of animal models in research during an interview with the Washington Examiner last week. The interview focused on proposed cuts to the NIH in President Donald Trump’s budget, as well as information regarding research projects by the NIH.

The reporter stated, “PETA came out this year supporting budget cuts to the NIH, saying that cutting testing on animals would achieve significant savings. What can you tell us about where animal testing stands?” Dr. Collins emphasized the importance of using animals in an ethical and responsible manner, and affirmed that animal studies are a necessary step toward discovering new therapies and cures for diseases: “Animals are still crucial to our understanding of how biology works. Anybody who has looked at the kind of oversight that applies to that I think will be impressed by how much attention goes toward any protocol that we fund that is going to involve animals for research. It has to have veterinarians and members of the public looking constantly at the conditions under which the animals are cared for and how we do everything possible to avoid the creation of unnecessary pain… Animals are still crucial to our understanding of how biology works.”

Click here to watch (or read) the full Washington Examiner interview with Dr. Collins.

Shortly after the interview was published, Emily Trunnell, who is employed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) published a letter-to-the-editor in The Hill titled, “A need to rethink spending on animal-based research at NIH,” which argued animal studies do not provide results that are useful for humans and that failure rates for news drugs is greater than 95%. Trunnell called for alternative technologies to be used in place of animals, and requested a systematic review by the NIH for all animal experiments. Meanwhile Appropriations committees in Congress are voting to increase the NIH budget.

Page 4 of 32« First...23456...102030...Last »