About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1996 ALDF Update 1 (1996)

handle is hein.animal/aldfup1996 and id is 1 raw text is: uaate Volume 9, Number I February 1996 RESEARCH FEDERAL COURT JUDGE BLOCKS ANIMAL ADVOCATES' PARTICI- PATION IN REVISING GUIDE FOR TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN LABS On December 20, 1995, the U.S. District Court, D.C. denied ALDF's motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction in a case brought last year by ALDF and other animal protection organizations against the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The lawsuit charged that NIH was violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), by using a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to revise the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals without requiring that the committee open its meetings and records to the public and allow animal protectionists to participate in revising the Guide. Experimenters who receive federal funds must comply with the Guide, which makes recommendations about minimum care for animals in laboratories. Traditionally, the Guide has been written and revised only by representatives of the animal experimentation industry. Judge Gladys Kessler held that NIH neither established nor utilized the committee as those terms have been interpreted under FACA. She also was not persuaded by the only Supreme Court case to interpret FACA. That case stated that when the federal government uses quasi-public organizations such as NAS to set up committees, FACA is implicated. Judge Kessler held that NAS is not a quasi-public organization. In the interim, the Guide has been revised and pre-published copies have been issued. The new version of the Guide is improved in several areas. It devotes greater consideration to animals' behavioral and social needs, states that other animals should not be present when euthanasia is performed, and that it is essential that euthanasia be performed in a compassionate manner. In the area of research, however, the Guide continues its deferential approach. For example, it fails to define critical terms such as multiple survival surgeries and prolonged restraint. Co-plaintiffs in the case are the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PsyETA). Plaintiffs have appealed the decision. (ALDF v. Shalala, PF 610.80) A BI-MONTHLY NEWS SHEET FOR ATTORNEY MEMBERS OF THE ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 1363 Lincoln Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 415/459-0885

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most