Day: June 26, 2003

No Liberal Media Here

I thought the flurry of Supreme Court decisions over the past few days were well-decided, but I had to laugh out loud at Knight Ridder’s characterization of the Court which reads almost like an intentional parody,

The Supreme Court on Thursday defied its stridently conservative image by issuing two important rulings that, along with several others in its current term, embraced tolerance, inclusion and even compassion in their interpretations of federal law.

Ah, so the opposite of conservative is tolerant, inclusive and compassionate. Yep, no liberal media bias at all there.

But the truly bizarre thing is that I do not remember the job of the Supreme Court being to demonstrate tolerance, inclusion and compassion. I though its job was to be the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.

Silly me.

Source:

Recent decisions counter view of Rehnquist court. Stephen Henderson, Mercury News, June 26, 2003.

Inktomi Still Sucks

This Salon.Com article is pretty much the same “can we really trust Google” article that every other newspaper and tech journal seemed to run a couple weeks ago. Well at least it was pretty standard fare until this howler comparing Inktomi favorably to Google,

Asked about this possibility, Tim Cadogan, Yahoo’s vice president of search, was noncommittal. “The best way to think about that is, we’re focused on our goal,” he said. “And we’re going to use whatever components technologies there are to get to that goal. To date Google has been a very good partner to us. We’ve been very happy to use them.” But Cadogan also said that Yahoo plans to invest in Inktomi’s technology, and, when asked if he thought that Inktomi’s results were as good as Google’s, Cadogan said that “a couple of third-party studies show that Inktomi is slightly better than Google.” (This study — which was commissioned by Inktomi but appears quite free of bias — found that Inktomi came up with slightly more “relevant” results for a given list of queries.)

To put it plainly, Inktomi sucks and its search results are next to useless compared to Google.

For example, suppose we go to Inktomi and search on “animal rights.” Now it really does not bother me that my site, which is usually returned in the #3 or #4 slot by Google, does not show up in the top 100 results returned by Inktomi.

No, what indicates to me that Inktomi is a complete waste of time is that this About.Com page is returned in the #6 slot by Inktomi. This page has absolutely nothing at all to do with animal rights. It is simply About.Com’s top level directory. The word “animal” doesn’t even appear on the page, and “rights” only appears in the “all rights reserved” copyright notice.

Yet Inktomi’s search engine thinks this is the sixth most relevant page for a search on “animal rights.” That is simply pathetic and shows the advantage of Google’s scheme of ranking pages in part based on the extent of inbound links.

Source:

The Google Backlash. Farhad Manjoo, Salon.Com, June 25, 2003.

PETA Activists Arrested Outside Vogue Offices

The Portsmouth Herald reports that two activists were arrested at that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals protest outside the offices of Vogue magazine where the activists poured fake blood on the edifice of the building.

Matt Prescott, 21, and Alex Hodgkins, 19, were charged on May 27 with disorderly conduct and criminal mischief for splattering the fake blood on the building housing Vogue’s offices.

Hodgkins told the Portsmouth Herald,

My being inconvenienced for a few hours is nothing compared to the misery and suffering endured by animals killed for their fur.

Source:

Fur protesters arrested outside Vogue offices. Susan Nolan, Portsmouth Herald, June 15, 2003.

Proposed APHIS Regulation of Medical Record Keeping

[[Page 17752]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. 97-033-1]

Animal Welfare; Medical Records

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to require that research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors maintain medical records as part of their program of adequate veterinary care. We believe research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors should maintain medical records as a means of communication concerning the care being provided to animals and to ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care. In addition, these records would provide a basis for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to better assess the veterinary care programs of research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 97-033-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 97-033-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your name and address in your message and “Docket No. 97-033-1” on the subject line.

You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.

APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information, including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet . . . [here].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal Welfare Act (the Act) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the responsibility of enforcing the Act to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The regulations established under the Act are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), chapter I, subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Subparts C and D of 9 CFR part 2 (Sec. Sec. 2.30 through 2.40, referred to below as the regulations) require, among other things, that each research facility, dealer, and exhibitor have an attending veterinarian and maintain a program of adequate veterinary care.

Currently, Sec. 2.33(b), regarding research facilities, and Sec. 2.40(b), regarding dealers and exhibitors, describe the elements that must be included in a program of adequate veterinary care. These elements include: (1) The availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services; (2) the use of appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries and the availability of emergency, weekend, and holiday care; (3) daily observation of all animals for health assessment; (4) guidance to principal investigators and other personnel involved in the care and use of animals regarding handling, immobilization, anesthesia, analgesia, tranquilization, and euthanasia; and (5) adequate pre- and post-procedural care according to current established veterinary medical and nursing procedures. Sections 2.33(b)(3) and 2.40(b)(3) further provide that a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health, behavior, and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian.

While maintenance of medical records is implied through our requirements for adequate veterinary care, the regulations do not specifically stipulate the maintenance of medical records as one of the elements in a program of adequate veterinary care. Medical records are an essential part of any program of adequate veterinary care. Adequate veterinary care can only be provided to animals if an accurate medical history is maintained on the animals to provide communication among all personnel involved in providing care. In addition, medical records provide a basis for APHIS inspectors to assess a veterinary care program and ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care.

Therefore, we propose to add new Sec. Sec. 2.33(b)(6) and 2.40(b)(6) to the regulations to include the maintenance of legible medical records as an additional element of the program of adequate veterinary care required by the regulations. To ensure that medical records include, at a minimum, information such as the vaccination history, surgical history, and any known drug sensitivities of the animals, we would specify that each medical record must include: (1) The identity of the animal (with the exception that routine husbandry, such as vaccinations, preventive medical procedures, or treatments, performed on all animals in a group (or herd) may be kept on a single record); (2) the date, description of the problem, pertinent history, observations, examination findings, test results, and plan for treatment and care with a tentative diagnosis and a prognosis, when appropriate; (3) the type and chronology of treatment procedures performed, the context of [[Page 17753]] the problem to which the treatment procedures pertain, and the identification of the medication used, the date given, dosage, route of administration, frequency, and duration of treatment; (4) the names of all vaccines administered and the dates of vaccination; and (5) the dates and results of all screening, routine, or other required or recommended tests.

Amending the regulations to specifically include requirements for maintaining medical records would necessitate changes to the provisions of the regulations regarding recordkeeping requirements for research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors. Section 2.35 pertains to the recordkeeping requirements for research facilities, and paragraph (f) of that section stipulates that records and reports must be maintained for at least 3 years. We would amend the recordkeeping requirements for research facilities in Sec. 2.35(f) to require that medical records be kept for 1 year after the disposition of the animals and that one copy of those records be provided to subsequent owners of the animals or to any person to whom the animals are consigned. The retention period for all other records and reports would continue to be 3 years.

We would amend Sec. 2.75, regarding recordkeeping by dealers and exhibitors, by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) requiring that one copy of the medical records be provided to subsequent owners of the animals or to any other person to whom the animals are consigned. Because Sec. 2.80 currently contains a requirement that dealers and exhibitors, among others, retain records for 1 year after the disposition of the animals, we would not need to provide a specific retention period for medical records.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This proposed rule would amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to require that research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors maintain medical records as part of their program of adequate veterinary care. Currently, the maintenance of medical records is not specifically listed as one of the elements of a program of adequate veterinary care. However, we believe that requiring research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors to maintain medical records would help ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care. In addition, these records would provide a basis for APHIS to better assess the veterinary care programs of research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors.

In fiscal year 2000, there were 8,773 facilities of all sizes licensed or registered under the Act, including 4,612 dealers; 2,508 exhibitors; and 1,265 research facilities. Most research facilities are large relative to other regulated entities, and the average number of animals per research facility in fiscal year 2000 was 1,027.1 This rule would affect those facilities that provide veterinary care.

USDA Proposes Regulation Requiring Researchers to File Detailed Medical Records

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Planet Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to require medical researchers to file detailed medical records related to research animals as part of its enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.

In announcing the proposed changes, APHIS contends that,

While maintenance of medical records is implied through our requirements for adequate veterinary care, the regulations do not specifically stipulate the maintenance of medical records as one of the elements in a program of adequate veterinary care. Medical records are an essential part of any program of adequate veterinary care. Adequate veterinary care can only be provided to animals if an accurate medical history is maintained on the animals to provide communication among all personnel involved in providing care. In addition, medical records provide a basis for APHIS inspectors to assess a veterinary care program and ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care.

Therefore, we propose to add new Sec. Sec. 2.33(b)(6) and 2.40(b)(6) to the regulations to include the maintenance of legible medical records as an additional element of the program of adequate veterinary care required by the regulations. To ensure that medical records include, at a minimum, information such as the vaccination history, surgical history, and any known drug sensitivities of the animals, we would specify that each medical record must include: (1) The identity of the animal (with the exception that routine husbandry, such as vaccinations, preventive medical procedures, or treatments, performed on all animals in a group (or herd) may be kept on a single record); (2) the date, description of the problem, pertinent history, observations, examination findings, test results, and plan for treatment and care with a tentative diagnosis and a prognosis, when appropriate; (3) the type and chronology of treatment procedures performed, the context of the problem to which the treatment procedures pertain, and the identification of the medication used, the date given, dosage, route of administration, frequency, and duration of treatment; (4) the names of all vaccines administered and the dates of vaccination; and (5) the dates and results of all screening, routine, or other required or recommended tests.

Not surprisingly, animal rights groups think this proposed regulation is a great idea, while groups representing medical researchers are generally opposed to the change.

Michael Stephens, vice president for animal research at the Humane Society of the United States, told The Scientist,

This is something that is long overdue, and we view the USDA as simply closing up a loophole. It will be a little easier for us to investigate whether adequate veterinary care is being provided. This is another element of accountability by the research community to demonstrate that they are indeed taking medical care of these animals.

Similarly PETA’s Mary Beth Sweetland — who is a direct beneficiary of animal research that resulted in insulin treatment for diabetes — had this to say to The Scientist,

USDA has realized how shoddy the record keeping on animal health really is. The USDA shouldn’t even have to intercede in this, but they do because these research facilities are not, of their own volition, going to keep proper records. It’s a matter of laziness and not caring.

That, of course, is a typical PETA lie. In fact, in proposing the new regulation APHIS itself notes that 75 percent of regulated research facilities are already in compliance voluntarily with the proposed new regulation. The Scientist reported that APHILS senior veterinarian medical officer Jerry DePoyster was unable to give an explanation of what motivated the proposed regulation.

But if this is something that most research facilities already do, why oppose making it required? Because, researcher groups argue, the new regulation would add an additional layer of detailed record keeping that would be expensive to comply with while providing little new additional information to help APHIS ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.

In a letter to APHIS opposing the regulation, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology president Steve Teitelbaum argues that the level of detail required by APHIS is unrealistic and that the proposals interfere with the ability of attending veterinarians to use their professional judgment in treating animals,

FASEB strongly believes that adequate veterinary care, which includes maintenance of animal health records, is an important component of laboratory animal care. In fact, the Animal Care Resource Guide?s Policy #3 currently requires that adequate records be kept. Our principal concern with the proposed amendment is that it creates burdensome paperwork that will not ultimately benefit the health of research animals. We agree with the American Physiological Society (APS) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) that the content of animal medical records is best left to the discretion of the attending veterinarian, in accordance with standard veterinary practice.

Medical records, whether for animals or humans, serve to document the history of illness and medical care for that individual. The proposed amendment attempts to transform animal medical records into ?a means of communication concerning the care being provided to animals? and ?a basis for the [APHIS] to better asses the veterinary care programs of research facilities.? While well intentioned, the level of detail required to accomplish these new goals is unrealistic for a research environment. In addition, no matter how detailed, medical records are only a small part of veterinary care, and can only play a limited role in aiding APHIS inspectors to evaluate programs based upon accepted standards of laboratory animal care.

More specifically, we wish to concur with APS and NABR in their comments regarding Section 2.33, particularly in reference to requiring a ?prognosis? for individual animals, which is inappropriate in a research setting, as well as to those provisions that clearly infringe on the professional judgment of the attending veterinarian ((b)(6)(iii)). Moreover, we agree that there exists no sound scientific means by which to evaluate drug-sensitivities in animals, and that all language referring to such should be removed from the background material.

Similarly American Physiological Society president John A. Williams sent a letter to APHIS regarding the proposed regulations on June 2 that read, in part,

While agreeing with the need for animal health records, the APS objects to the level of detail APHIS proposes to include in the AWA regulations. Prescriptive regulatory detail is inappropriate because this rule touches upon an area that rightfully falls within the scope of the professional judgment of the attending veterinarian. Most attending veterinarians in research facilities have been specially trained to manage health problems that may arise in a research setting. APHIS does not claim animal welfare in research facilities has been jeopardized due to poor record keeping. Nevertheless, it proposes to require an expansive system of animal health records and has seriously underestimated the amount of time that will be needed and the volume of paperwork that will be generated to implement it. Moreover, some of the information APHIS proposes to require is superfluous in the context of providing adequate veterinary care in a research environment.

. . .

The proposed rule goes well beyond the health records requirements of existing Policy #3, which states that animal health records ?are meant to convey necessary information to all people involved in an animal?s care.? The proposed rule appropriately states that records should ?serve as a basis for reviewing the medical history and planning veterinary care and provide a mechanism of communication for matters of animal health, behavior, and well being.? It goes on to say, ?Medical records document the animal?s illness, veterinary care and treatment and serve as a basis for review, study, and evaluation of veterinary care provided by the facility.? (Emphasis added.) This added rationale creates a problem because it leads USDA to propose adding record-keeping requirements that exceed what would generally be accepted as necessary in a research setting. These requirements will not ?ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care.? Rather, they will compel attending veterinarians to order more diagnostic tests and devote more time to writing medical records in anticipation of APHIS audits of their treatment decisions.

According to The Scientist, it will be about a year before a final decision is made on this proposed regulation. The proposed regulation can be found in its entirety here.

Source:

Groups attack USDA animal plan. Obaid Siddiqui, The Scientist, June 13, 2003.

APS Opposes Expanded Animal Records Rule. John Williams, American Physiological Society, June 2, 2003.

APHIS Proposal from the Federal Regster. APHIS, April 11, 2003.

Letter to APHIS. Steven Teitelbaum, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, June 4, 2003.

Michelle Thew Named Animal Protection Institute President

Michelle Thew, currently chief executive officer of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, was recently named to succeed Alan Berger as CEO of the Animal Protection Institute.

BUAV focuses mainly on animal experimentation and Thew was one of four finalists in the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals’ search for a new chief executive. That job was ultimately given to anti-hunting activist Jackie Ballard.

In an API press release announcing Thew’s selection, she said,

API is an organization whose work I have long respected, and I am thrilled to be joining as its new CEO. Creating real change for animals takes determination, skill and creativity. API will get the job done. High profile media work, professional lobbying, legal skills and public campaigning are key to success. API will use all of these tools in coming years to put the issue of animal rights on the map in the United States. I look forward to working with the excellent team at API to end animal abuse worldwide.

API has not been especially focused on animal experimentation, but appears poised to take a more active role in that area of the animal rights movement. Along with hiring Thew, API announced a new partnership with BUAV,

API and BUAV also announced that the two organizations are forming a new strategic partnership, a transatlantic relationship that will benefit animals worldwide. In addition to becoming API’s chief executive officer, Thew will also serve as a consultant to BUAV, with special responsibility for global strategic issues in animal experiments. “The challenges that animal advocates face are global and their response must be global too,” said Thew.

So is this really API making Thew its CEO or simply the UK organization opening up BUAV USA?

Source:

New CEO to lead Animal Protection Institute. Press Release, Animal Protection Institute, June 13, 2003.