The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing is an academic center affiliated with the Division of Toxicological Sciences in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Text Size:
SENATOR BOB DOLE
901 15TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 410
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
MARCH 19, 2001
John McArdle, Ph.D.
Director, Alternatives Research and Development Foundation
14280 Golf View Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Dear Dr. McArdle:
Thank you for your letter of March 1st regarding the current status of laboratory animals under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
I support the use of animals in research but firmly believe that there is a responsibility incumbent upon researchers to provide basic protections to the animals they use. It is obvious that good animal care is essential to ensuring good quality research. Through good animal treatment and minimizing painful tests, biomedical research gains in both accuracy and humanity.
As someone deeply involved with the process of revising and expanding the provisions of the AWA, I assure you that the AWA was meant to include birds, mice, and rats. When Congress stated that the AWA applied to "all warm-blooded animals," we certainly did not intend to exclude 95 percent of the animals used in biomedical research laboratories. Although the National Institutes of Health and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International provide oversight for some of the birds, mice, and rats used for experimentation, many research institutions fall outside their purview. With AWA regulations soon extended to these animals, I believe USDA, with its substantial experience in enforcement, is best suited to ensuring humane care for all laboratory animals. Moreover, neither NIH's policy nor voluntary accreditation includes legal consequences for failure to perform. The Animal Welfare Act does. That is the heart of the law.
I am aware of efforts by opponents of animal welfare to prevent coverage of birds, mice, and rats as detrimental to research. This notion is preposterous. A similar strategy was employed by opponents of my 1985 amendments to the Act. I am happy to observe that none of their predictions about the dire consequences for research ever materialized.
Indeed, those amendments have facilitated significant improvements in laboratory animal care and use, which in turn have benefited research. In fact, I understand that those members of the research community best informed about laboratory animals support the inclusion of birds, mice, and rats. From their work on the front lines, they recognize, as you and I do, that uniform protections not only are humane, but also ensure consistent experimental results and level the playing field in vital scientific research. Those who oppose USDA's efforts to fulfill its court settlement with your organization, I believe, are overlooking the long-term benefits to crafting better science.
We owe much to laboratory animals--that were true in 1985 and is truer today. I would hope that the Bush Administration and Members of the present Congress, some of whom stood with me in 1985 in advancing my amendments, will recognize that all animals used in experimentation deserve the benefit of the modest requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. I would urge them to allow USDA to achieve this end by pursuing a full and fair rulemaking as provided in the settlement agreement.
I wish you the best of luck not only in defending the Animal Welfare Act, but also in your ongoing efforts to advance humane methods of biomedical research.
Let me add that I am writing to you as a volunteer. I am not being paid by any persons or group for stating my views.
BOB DOLE