Dog research at US Department of Veterans Affairs gets formal review

first_img Email That summer, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the “Puppers Act” in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would outlaw painful dog experiments at VA facilities. Similar language eventually made its way into a spending bill President Donald Trump signed in March requiring VA to suspend all dog research not directly approved by the agency’s secretary. (The language needs to be renewed every year, and was recently renewed for 2019.) Some studies stopped, but several continued, though it’s unclear who authorized them. VA now has 92 dogs in five studies that involve surgeries on hearts, brains, and spinal cords, which the agency says are important for learning how to treat fatal lung infections and heart disorders in veterans.In August, VA commissioned NASEM to review its entire canine research program, at a cost of $1.3 million. NASEM convened a committee of a dozen individuals, including experts in veterinary care, animal ethics, and biomedical studies involving dogs. All met yesterday in Washington, D.C., for the first time. By David GrimmDec. 10, 2018 , 5:15 PM Dog research at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is going under the microscope. Yesterday, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in Washington, D.C., began a formal review of studies involving nearly 100 canines at four VA facilities to determine whether the animals are being properly treated—and whether the work is necessary.If VA decides to end its dog research, it will be the first time a federal agency has stopped working on an entire species of animals since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service effectively outlawed all biomedical research on chimpanzees in 2015, says Cindy Buckmaster, chair of the board of directors of Americans for Medical Progress, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that promotes the need for animals in labs. “The findings from this report will impact how science is done on dogs across the country.”The NASEM review traces back to a campaign launched by the White Coat Waste Project in March 2017. The Washington, D.C.–based animal activist group used a public records request to highlight—in TV ads, on billboards, and through a massive email campaign—what it called “the mistreatment of puppies in painful heart attack studies,” including alleged botched surgeries and widespread animal abuse, at the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. (VA responded, saying the studies had been carefully vetted and complied with the U.S. Animal Welfare Act.) LARRY DOWNING/Reuters/Newscom Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Dog research at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs gets formal reviewcenter_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Department of Veterans Affairs A study dog plays ball with researchers at the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond. Michael Fallon, VA’s chief veterinary medical officer, spoke early in the session. “The VA doesn’t want a media debate based on emotional arguments—we want a scientific debate,” he said. “Shutting down this research would deny veterans important cures.”Fallon noted that VA spent just $100,000 on its canine research projects in 2018, a tiny fraction of its $720 million research budget. (Mice and rats make up 99% of the animals used in VA’s research, he said.) He also noted that from August 2017 through August 2018, the agency euthanized 65 dogs as part of its research, compared with the nearly 800,000 dogs U.S. shelters killed over a comparable period of time.Soon after, Joan Richardson, VA’s assistant chief veterinary medical officer, detailed the extensive review and oversight process that goes into the agency’s dog studies. She also walked the committee step-by-step through a dog pacemaker study, showing a video of a dog running on a treadmill and a photo of it playing fetch with researchers in a lab. She said VA’s dogs were well cared for and were only used when absolutely necessary—in this case because their heart anatomy is more similar to a human’s than almost any other research animal.During a public comment session that followed, representatives from pro-research organizations such as the American Physiological Society in Rockville, Maryland, extolled the need for dogs in finding disease cures. “There is an ethical cost to not selecting the best [animal] model,” said Alice Raanan, the group’s director of government relations.VA has credited its dog research with the development of liver transplants, hip replacements, and other treatments. But Nina Wertan, a program manager at The Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C., noted during the comment session that many of these developments were decades old. “Historic use is not justification for continued use.”Buckmaster is happy the NASEM review is taking place. “There hasn’t been a lot of nuance in this debate,” she says. “It’s important that the public understands exactly what goes into these studies—and why they are needed.”Justin Goodman, White Coat Waste’s vice president of advocacy and public policy, questions the need for the review in the first place. “The VA doesn’t need to spend a million dollars to realize the abject failure of its dog testing program,” he says. Goodman says scientists made similar arguments in favor of chimpanzee research until a NASEM report found that most research on the animals was unnecessary, which eventually led to the end of all invasive chimp research in the United States.Goodman is hoping the new report will lead to the same conclusion for dogs. “Any acknowledgement by [NASEM] that unnecessary dog testing is happening will raise questions about the need for these studies across government.” That could include dog studies at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Department of Defense, he says, and funding for these studies by the National Institutes of Health. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, announced last month that it is taking steps to eliminate the use of dogs in some of its studies.)“It’s likely that other organizations will pay some attention to our findings,” says Rhonda Cornum, chair of the NASEM committee.In the meantime, Goodman says White Coat Waste is working with congressional representatives to reintroduce the Puppers Act early next year, which would permanently end most of the current dog research at VA. Even if it passes, however, Cornum says her committee will continue its review. “I’ll keep working until someone tells me to stop.” Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *