Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter Provided by the Animal Welfare Information Center United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library

July-September 1992 Vol. 3, No. 3

ISSN: 1050-561X

S. 544

by

Senator Howell Heflin

The author is the senior U.S. Senator from Alabama

The Animal Research Facility Protection Act, S. 544, is designed to deter crimes committed against the research institutions of this country. The fact that the United States is the preeminent leader in contributing life-saving cures and life-improving treatment for the diseases which plague the world should be a source of pride for our citizens. Most of us are grateful that research has eradicated polio and other childhood diseases, stroke, diabetes, and countless other illnesses. We are grateful, too, that scientists continue to seek solutions to the maladies which still beset us, like Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cancer, mental illness, and spinal cord and head injuries.

S. 544 would make it a Federal offense under the Animal Welfare Act for an individual to enter or remain without authorization in a research facility and steal, destroy, or make unauthorized use of research animals, equipment, or data, or have the intent to do so. A person found guilty would be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each separate violation. Penalties would be greater if the act were willful and malicious, caused harm to a person or property, or placed the life of any person in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, there are some people so opposed to the use of animals in this essential research that they are setting fire to research facilities or breaking into laboratories to steal animals and destroy equipment, records, and research data. There are dozens of recent examples. The week before I introduced this bill in the last Congress, two separate buildings at the University of Arizona were set ablaze and destroyed. Ironically, one arson target was a veterinary diagnostic laboratory devoted to animal health care and the other was the office of university veterinarians who take care of the laboratory animals. Two additional University of Arizona laboratories were broken into and vandalized. Hundreds of research animals were stolen. Some of the mice taken were infected with an organism (cryptosporidium) which causes dehydration and death in Third World peoples. In this country, malnourished children, AIDS patients, and other people with compromised immune systems who may be exposed to the stolen animals are at risk for disease.

A group calling itself þThe Animal Liberation Frontþ (ALF) claimed responsibility for the arson, theft, and intimidation. Their press release claimed the Arizona raid was conducted as þan act of mercy and compassion for the individual animal victims and also as part of a larger international campaign against the scientific/medical industry.... Similar illegal acts in the name of animal rights have occurred across the country. Their frequency and severity are escalating in the United States. In another incident, a Texas researcher's federally supported project sustained immediate damages costing $70,000. His basic research that could benefit victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and those suffering from sleep disorders was halted for more than a year. That researcher has been the subject of a second break-in attempt, death threats, and a hate-mail campaign which continues to this day. Another researcher, at the University of Pennsylvania, a year ago saw his office broken intoþcomputer disks, a scientific manuscript, videotapes, and personal files stolen. He and his family received threatening phone calls, his home was watched by unknown persons, and another animal rights group (not the ALF) sent his neighbors derogatory letters about his work. This man was not accused of animal cruelty as such. Rather, according to the ALF, he was targeted for defending his colleagues in Texas and for being very vocal in telling the public about the importance of animal research. Our right of free speech is precious. I am as appalled by the attempts to intimidate this researcher into silence as I am by the senseless destruction of property. Lawful protest, including that against the use of animals in research, is protected in this country. All citizens are free to express their opinions; there is no justification for resorting to violence. Extremists in the animal rights movement who choose to be terrorists must be stopped.

While crimes committed in the name of animal rights have increased throughout the United States, thankfully we have not reached the level of violence experienced in Britain. According to New Scotland Yard, there were over 400 crimes in the United Kingdom (U.K.) linked to the animal rights movement in 1989 alone. Firebombings have often been used by animal rights extremists in Britain to destroy property. In June 1990, however, there were two car bombing incidents specifically designed to kill or maim their targets, who included a medical scientist and a veterinary officer.

Fortunately, the veterinarian escaped when her car burst into flames, but when the bomb intended for the scientist exploded, it permanently scarred and injured a baby being wheeled by in a stroller.

The reason I bring these incidents to your attention is because it is believed that the United States is not more than 2 years behind the U.K. in terms of terrorist activities being employed by a few extremists in the animal rights movement. We should learn from Britain's experience and do everything we can to stem the rising tide of illegal and increasingly violent acts being committed by animal rights extremists here in our country. The victims of the illegal acts of animal liberation supporters are not only research institutions and staff but all of us. The immediate cost of crimes against research facilities is severe, but the ultimate cost to society as a whole is inestimable. Lost research time and information means the delay or loss of the products of that research. The real price of the crime my legislation seeks to prevent is paid by all those who are waiting for cures and treatment for their afflictions. Human beings, of course, will pay the price, but so will all animal life, for animals as well as people benefit from this research.

Extremists who perpetrate crimes in the name of animal rights ignore not only the rights of others, but also their own rights of free speech. Responsible dissent is protected by lawþnone of us would have it any other way. But ideological terrorists and vigilantes who take the law into their own hands must be stopped. Everyone can agree that we owe an enormous debt to research animals. Laboratory animals should be utilized only when necessary and must be well cared for and respected for humane as well as scientific reasons. But no one can condone lawless and senseless destructive acts for whatever reason they are motivated.

The Animal Research Facilities Protection Act is needed to support law enforcement efforts around the country. Crimes against the Nation's research facilities should be Federal offenses. The fact that 12 states have already enacted laws increasing penalties for crimes against research facilities is convincing evidence that this is an extremely serious problem. No individual State, however, can protect its research facilities from interstate or international saboteurs. We must provide that protection on the Federal level. The Federal investigative capability and legal system must be brought to bear against research sabotage that can affect the future health of our Nation.

Congress Considers Break-in Bills

by

John Melcher

Although local laws forbid breaking into buildings, Congress has been considering legislation to make it a Federal offense to break into a laboratory conducting medical research.

In the past, several laboratory break-ins allegedly occurred at the instigation of animal rights organizations. Two bills are under consideration which would make laboratory break-ins a Federal crime. A bill sponsored by Senator Howell Heflin (D-Alabama) has passed the Senate while a separate bill sponsored by Congressman Charles Stenholm (D-Texas) recently passed the House Agriculture Committee. The Stenholm bill extends Federal protection to farms and agricultural animal facilities as well.

Animal welfare groups generally oppose the legislation as unnecessary and threatening to laboratory employees. In order to make it acceptable, they firmly believe the bill should protect and encourage þwhistle blowersþ who report impropriety concerning laboratory animals used in research and testing. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agrees with this assessment, asserting that both bills would interfere with an individual worker's right to report substandard animal care as determined by law. The ACLU also concluded that these bills would prohibit the news media from publishing leaked information from a laboratory.

In addition, the House Judiciary Committee staff earlier stated that if the Stenholm bill is reported from the Agriculture Committee, they would ask for sequential referral of the bill for their consideration. The referral of a bill reported by a House Committee is decided by the Speaker of the House. The Judiciary Committee asserts that this bill includes matter under their jurisdiction and generally the Speaker would be inclined to allow them to amend the bill before it is considered by the House of Representatives.

If the House does eventually act favorably on the Stenholm bill, it would necessitate a conference committee between the House and Senate to reconcile the differences between the Stenholm bill and the Heflin bill already passed by the Senate.

There are other bills in Congress similar to these, but the action between the House and Senate is likely to center on these two bills. If the House Judiciary Committee amends the Stenholm bill to include protection for a þwhistle blower,þ it would permit an employee of a laboratory to go over the head of his or her superiors to document improper treatment of laboratory animals and the employee would be protected from firing, harassment, or retribution.

In order to substantiate a claim, þwhistle blowersþ often copy documents. Similar Federal legislation allows employees to use such copied material to support their complaints against superiors.

There is no general Federal law protecting þwhistle blowers,þ and with these bills there has been considerable debate over that kind of protection. The ACLU and animal welfare groups contend that the provisions are not adequate in either bill. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has taken particular exception to the legislation, asserting that the work of its investigation department would be badly impaired. HSUS discovers or follows up on complaints of inhumane animal treatment by sending its own investigators to gather the facts and then review the matter with appropriate officials.

Based on Congress' past support of þwhistle blowersþ in other legislation, it's likely that this kind of protection would be added to the final bill before it would be enacted. Both Senator Heflin and Congressman Stenholm have proved to be willing to work with colleagues insisting on such provisions. This type of change could be done in the Judiciary Committee which will likely consider the bill in May 1992.

The Stenholm bill has more than 250 co-sponsors, which is more than the majority of the House. So if the bill clears the Judiciary Committee and is considered by the whole House, its passage appears certain.

###

John Melcher practiced veterinary medicine for 20 years before being elected to Congress in 1969. He represented Montana for 8 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate.

Reprinted by permission of WARDS, 1660 L St., NW, Suite 612, Washington, D.C. 20036-5603. Originally published in the Spring 1992 issue of þOur Animal WARDS.

[Editor's note: On April 9, 1992, the Agriculture Committee accepted several changes to H.R. 2407, and the bill was sequentially referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee, in their meeting on July 22, amended the bill and replaced it with substitute legislation offered by Rep. Charles Schumer. On August 4, having voted to suspend the rules, the House passed a managers substitute to H.R. 2407. The new measure, introduced by Rep. Stenholm, and renamed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, is a compromise worked out between the Agriculture and Judiciary Committees. Upon passage of H.R. 2407, the House considered S. 544 þthe Senate version of the Animal Research Facility Protection Actþ and amended it by deleting all sections after the enacting clause and inserting the provisions of H.R. 2407 as passed. The Senate voted to accept the House amendments on August 7 and the measure was signed by the President on August 26, 1992.

As sent to the White House, the bill amends Title 18, U.S.C., by creating a new section 43, Animal Enterprise Terrorism. The bill defines animal enterprise as þa commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing; a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences.þ Any activity against an animal enterprise which results in economic loss greater than $10,000 would become a Federal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The bill also imposes stiffer penalties if people are seriously injured or killed. Another provision orders restitution to cover the costs of repeating experiments, or the loss of food production or farm income. Because of the change in the wording of the bill, it was considered unnecessary to address whistle blower protection.]

Research and its Protection: An Integrated Approach

by

Edward L. Lee, II CPP

Thousands of organizations are involved in medical and behavioral research using live animalsþuniversities, government laboratories, pharmaceutical and health care companies, hospitals, medical centers, and a wide assortment of other companies and foundations involved in biomedical and technological research. These organizations are a major target of animal rights activists who believe that animals have the same rights against þexploitation and imprisonmentþ as do people.

It is this very philosophy which has rendered animal rights as one of the most emotional social movements of the 1980's and 1990's. Activists, who possess a never-ending appetite for information involving animal research and issues which they contend violate animal rights, continually threaten industries which use animals in medical and behavioral research. Consequently, since 1988, we have seen a steady increase of such crimes as burglary, theft, compromise and sabotage of animal-based research data.

These crimes invariably include the theft of research files and computer data, the commingling of research animals, or the actual theft or release of the animals themselves. Needless to say, each year such crimes result in the loss of millions of dollars worth of research information.

Regardless of the types of research an organization is involved in, information and material stemming from research must be protected for reasons ranging from financial to ethical. In some cases, animal rights threats have been instrumental in the stoppage or renewal of multi-million-dollar research projects.

The Risk Assessment Process

In order to protect research information and material, a facility must determine the following:
1. What information or material needs to be protected from theft or compromise?
2. Who will be responsible for protecting research information?
3. What means of physical or procedural protection is warranted?
4. What vulnerabilities at the facility increase the probability of an incident resulting in the loss, theft, or compromise of research information?

In addressing question 1, senior management and the facility's security manager should carefully review all research projects from the standpoint of what would be the financial, long-term, and media damage to the facility's programs if project data were lost, stolen, or compromised. Each project should be analyzed independently, thus allowing management to prioritize those projects which are most at risk. In this way, available funding can be used to protect project data in priority order.

Insofar as question 2 is concerned, any facility which is a potential target of animal rights groups should have either a full-time security professional or a consultant tasked with establishing a broad-based security program aimed at incident prevention. Regardless of the type of security professional used, he or she should be well versed in animal rights tactics, as such knowledge is vital in assessing the threat and in reducing security vulnerabilities.

The answers to questions 3 and 4 will be based upon the results of a comprehensive risk assessment which must be completed in order to identify security vulnerabilities which, if not reduced, might result in the loss, theft, or compromise of research information or material.

PHASE I: Physical Security

Phase I of the risk assessment concerns an evaluation of the facility's physical security program which traditionally examines such issues as perimeter, door, and window security, the existence of security guards and/or technical security application (e.g., closed-circuit television, intrusion systems, card-access systems, etc.), and how computer hardware and software are to be physically protected. Once completed, this aspect of the risk assessment will identify vulnerabilities which can be reduced if physical security recommendations are implemented.

PHASE II: Procedural Security

The next phase of the risk assessment process concerns procedural security issues. For example, who is authorized access to the research information? How is the information used, transmitted, and stored? Are research operations compartmentalized? Has a thorough background investigation been conducted on all persons having access to the research facility and its data? What procedures exist to prevent the unauthorized access to computerized research data?

The Risk Assessment Process: Step By Step

In order to effectively complete a risk assessment of the facility, the two phases must be addressed methodically and in sequence. Therefore, let's examine the many facets of identifying vulnerabilities:

Threat Analysis

Available information and intelligence should be gathered on the tactics of existing animal rights groups which have in the past, or may in the future, expressed interest in the facility and its activities. This information can be obtained from many sourcesþnewspaper, trade publications, The Security Advisor: A Newsletter Dedicated to the Prevention of Crime By Animal Rights Activists, and law enforcement and security professionals.

Although information gathering is relatively easy, the most important element in using it is analyzing its significance. Without careful analysis, the raw information is of little value. A good example of this point is failing to analyze how animal rights groups break into laboratories. For example, we know that in the majority of cases, burglaries occur because employees sympathetic to the activists' cause contribute to the break-in by leaving a door or window unlocked or failing to activate an alarm system. Consequently, a prudent security program would ensure that security is based not only on one element of protection (e.g., an alarm system) but also on redundant aspects of security which might include a thorough background investigation of every employee and an after-hours security patrol.

An effective use of intelligence will also include knowledge of the tactics used by particular animal rights groups. For instance, knowing that the Animal Liberation Front conducts its criminal operations almost exclusively at night suggests that security deterrence must be particularly effective at that time of day.

The Physical Security Survey

An essential ingredient in protecting any information is to determine what the physical strengths and weaknesses are at your facility. For example, how is access to the facility controlled? Is there a method of recording information on all persons who enter and exit the research area? Are closed-circuit television cameras in place and is video recording available? Who controls access to the research area? Is the research area protected with an intrusion alarm? If so, who responds to the alarm? If guards are provided, are they contract or proprietary? Are cleaning and maintenance personnel escorted into research areas or do they have free access? If such personnel do have access to the research area, who has conducted their background checks? Understandably, if no one at the facility can satisfactorily answer these questions, excessive risk may exist and immediate action will be necessary to reduce security vulnerabilities.

Procedural Security

This is an element of security which often receives little more than cursory attention. Procedures that inhibit movement or the convenience of staff or visitors are often difficult to þsellþ to senior management and are often problematic to enforce. Nevertheless, without sound security procedures in place, it will be immensely difficult, if not impossible, to afford research information effective protection from loss, theft, or compromise.

If employees are allowed to freely remove material from a restricted area, without proper safeguards, the most well-intentioned understanding of the damage animal rights activists can cause at a research facility will be of little value.

Consequently, in order to develop a viable procedural security program, it is extremely important that the security manager or person responsible for the facility's security program become intimately familiar with all aspects of specific research projects.

All members of the facility's staff should be constantly reminded that most security breaches begin with people. For example, it is much easier for an animal rights group to attempt to have one of its members employed within a facility than to run the risk of apprehension during or after a burglary. In addition, even current staff members can be co-opted into assisting an animal rights group as a result of blackmail, money, or harassment and intimidation. Employees can, for instance, significantly assist activists by describing the facility's security system, physical layout, and/or location of research data. Regardless of the method used by animal rights groupsþinfiltration of one of their own or co-opting of a current employeeþthe end result for the facility will be the same: project sabotage, financial loss, and embarrassment in the eyes of the media who invariably become aware of the facility's inadequate security.

While it is not possible to guarantee that any security system or program is 100 percent effective, there are both physical and procedural steps that can be taken which will afford reasonable assurance that everything is being done to protect vital research information. Some of these steps include:
1. Institute a program of pre-employment and periodic reinvestigation of all direct-hire and contractual staff who have access to proprietary research projects.
2. Develop a log-in, log-out system for everyone entering the research area, regardless of purpose. This can be simplified through the use of an electronic card access system. Require that any visitor to areas where research data is used, transmitted, or stored be escorted by a staff member.
3. If not already present, use covertly installed closed-circuit television with videotaping capability which can be activated by motion detectors. This will provide valuable evidence in the event of a laboratory break-in.
4. Provide new employee and refresher security awareness training for all staff members which stresses their responsibility for protecting research information; explains facility security policies and procedures; demonstrates how to mark, handle, store, and transmit such data; and formally describes the penalties for negligent handling or unauthorized disclosure of research information.
5. Have more than one type of security for the facility. Access to a facility should not be dependent upon only one form of security (e.g., an alarm system). Redundant security (i.e., a guard and an alarm) will substantially reduce the potentiality of a successful burglary.
6. Restrict access to research areas and data on a need-to-know basis only.
7. Ensure that all computerized research data is þbacked upþ weekly and stored off-site in a data vault. This will reduce the potential of research data loss.
8. If possible, locate all CPU's and mainframes in a dedicated computer room with an after-hours vault protected with a central station intrusion system. Hardware and software should be protected from fire by industry-accepted methods.(Note: Facilities receiving Federal funding or contracts are subject to the requirements of the 1988 Computer Security Act.)
9. Develop and test a crisis management plan which articulates the facility's response in the event of an animal rights incident (to include how the media will be handled).
10. Ensure that the facility is complying with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations concerning the use of animals. There is no better way to legitimize an animal rights crime than by research staff engaging in unnecessary or inhumane treatment of animals.
Although there are numerous other issues which could be addressed in protecting research information, we have attempted to offer the reader a basic introduction which, if followed, will minimize the risk of loss, theft, or compromise.

###

Edward L. Lee II, formerly Director of Security of the U.S. Agency for International Development, is the editor of The Security Advisor: A Newsletter Dedicated to the Prevention of Crime By Animal Rights Activists. The Security Advisor is also the publisher of Worldwide Animal Rights Incidents: 1991. For more information on risk assessment or these publications, please call:(703)237-3151 or fax (703)237-0804.

LEGISLATION UPDATE

H.R. 4619 To rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded (R92-36) in a special message transmitted to the Congress by the President on March 20, 1992, in accordance with section 1012 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Introduced March 26, 1992, by Harris Fawell (R-IL) and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Budget authority is rescinded in accordance with section 1012 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683). The amount of rescission is $250,000. These funds were originally allocated for facilities used to care for and house animals used in university research projects. Related bill S. 2414.

H.R. 4989 To amend Title 35, United States Code, to impose a 5-year moratorium on the granting of patents on invertebrate or vertebrate animals, including those that have been genetically engineered, so that Congress can fully assess, consider, and respond to the economic, environmental, and ethical issues raised by the patenting of such animals.

Introduced by Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) on April 28, 1992, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Congress finds that the patenting of animals raises serious economic, environmental, and ethical issues not yet addressed by Congress, and that the granting of numerous animal patents could expose patent holders to revocation or alteration of their patents and expose the Federal Government to potential financial liability for restitution. Therefore a 5-year moratorium will be imposed in which no invertebrate or vertebrate animal, including a genetically engineered animal, shall be considered patentable.

H.R. 5350 To establish the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Tissue Bank.

Introduced June 9, 1992, by Robert Davis (R-MI) and referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment on June 17, 1992. This act may be cited as the þGreat Lakes Wildlife Tissue Bank Act.þ The Secretary of the Interior shall make provision for the storage, preparation, examination, and archiving of tissues of fish and wildlife from the Great Lakes. A central database to track and assess data on Great Lakes fish and wildlife will be established.

S. 2762 To assure the preservation of the northern spotted owl and the stability of communities dependent on the resources of the public lands in Oregon, Washington, and northern California, and for other purposes.

Introduced May 21, 1992, by Slade Gorton (R-WA) and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This act may be cited as the þNorthern Spotted Owl Preservation and Northwest Economic Stabilization Act of 1992.þ Congress finds that the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, as it applies to the northern spotted owl, has had severe economic and social impact on communities in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. The purpose of the act is to establish a preservation plan for the northern spotted owl, minimize loss of jobs, encourage development of high-quality forestry techniques, and provide for long-term survival of the northern spotted owl at lower economic and social costs. Related bill H.R. 5256.

H.R. 5105 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure adequate analysis before application of requirements and prohibitions under that act to a species, and for other purposes.

Introduced May 7, 1992, by Rod Chandler (R-WA) and referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Executive comment requested from Commerce, Interior, and Justice on May 25, 1992. A broad set of amendments are proposed to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533). The following amendments are proposed: species may not be listed as endangered or threatened unless the Secretary of Commerce has prepared and published in the Federal Register an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of the determination that the species is endangered or threatened; the Secretary of the Interior shall consider alternative recovery plans for the species in question and shall submit the alternative plans to blind peer review by experts from outside the Department of the Interior; the Secretary will also provide for public participation in recovery plans, including holding public sessions before preparing a draft plan and publishing draft plans in the Federal Register.

H.R. 5099 To provide for the restoration of fish and wildlife and their habitat in the Central Valley of California, and for other purposes.

Introduced May 7, 1992, by George Miller (D-CA) and referred jointly to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Reported to the House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment on June 16, 1992. House Report 102-576 (Part I) issued. Passed House with amendments on June 18, 1992. Referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 29, 1992. This act may be cited as the þCentral Valley Project Reform Act.þ

The purposes of the act are to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley basin of California. Emphasis is placed on the management of existing water resources.

COMPILED BY Cynthia Smith, Info. Specialist

Staff Changes

Jean Larson, the Coordinator of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC), has been selected for a Commerce Science and Technology Fellowship offered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Fellowship program þwas established in 1964 to provide senior-level executive branch employees (professional and management series) with an opportunity to study national and international issues relating to the development, application, and management of science and technology.þ Subsequently, management of the program was placed with the Department of Commerce. The program involves a 10-month intensive work assignment at the policy development and management levels, and will start on September 18, 1992. Jean will be returning to AWIC in July of 1993.

Obviously, this change will affect the AWIC program, but arrangements are being made to carry on AWIC business as usual. The AWIC staff will continue to serve your information needs and we hope you will continue to support the AWIC program as you have in the past.

IATA Live Animals Regulations

19TH EDITION, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is the trade association for 204 commercial airlines worldwide. In 1967, IATA considered the need for a global standard for the safe carriage of live animals by air. A permanent Live Animals Board was formed to review the conditions for the acceptance, handling, and packaging of live animals, taking into account the relevant national and international regulations and recommendations. As a result, the IATA Live Animals Regulations (LAR) were developed and published in 1969. Since then, the LAR has been updated and improved on a regular basis.

The IATA LAR is a mandatory procedure for the member airlines. It is also broadly used by veterinarians, laboratories, zoological institutions, shippers, and manufacturers as a reference document. Several governments, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands, have adopted the IATA LAR as part of their legislation for animal transportation. The LAR is also the official transportation guideline of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), an association representing State veterinarians. Earlier this year, the European Community (EC) announced the adoption of the IATA LAR for animal shipments entering the EC. All EC members are obliged to enforce the IATA packaging standards by January 1, 1993. In the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced the adoption of the IATA LAR packaging standard for shipment of wild mammals and birds, effective September 15, 1992.

Published in English, French, and Spanish, the current LAR is the 19th edition and has been in effect since July 1, 1992. The 19th edition contains complete revamped container requirements for large, exotic, and laboratory animals. The container specifications for birds have been revised to reflect the EC and U.S. requirements.

The 19th edition, IATA Live Animals Regulations, can be ordered from:

Publication Assistant
International Air Transport Association
2000 Peel Street
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3A 2R4
Tel: (514) 844-6311
Fax: (514) 844-3788

For further information, contact Joseph Chan, IATA Manager, Special Cargoes, Tel: (514) 985-6361 Fax: (514) 844-7711.

ANNOUNCEMENTS.....

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Percarditis in Chimpanzees / Zoo Amsterdam (ARTIS)

For more than two decades the chimpanzees at Amsterdam Zoo Artis have suffered from pericarditis. This disease is responsible for 30 percent of the mortality in our chimpanzee colony. A research project was started in August 1990 to obtain a better understanding of this disease. In February 1991, the whole colony (eight animals) was examined. These examinations included an electrocardiogram and Trans Esophageal Echocardiography (T.E.E.). One young female is a suspect for pericarditis. Despite extensive literature research, no scientific publications about pericarditis in captive chimpanzees have been found. If any zoos or veterinarians have experience with this disease in chimps or other great apes, please contact us at the address below. Any information on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

P. Klaver, D.V.M. or H. Royen
Natura Artis Magistra
Plantage Kerklaan 38-40, 1018 CZ
Amsterdam, Holland
FAX: 31-20-6253814
Phone: 020-5233400

WORLD CONGRESS ON ALTERNATIVES AND ANIMAL USE IN THE LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION, RESEARCH, TESTING

The first World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing will be held in Baltimore, Maryland, USA from November 14-19, 1993. Planned by an international consortium of scientists, the purpose of the Congress is to review progress made toward refining, reducing, and replacing the use of animals in education, research, and safety testing; to develop a realistic understanding of the current validity and status of alternatives; to illuminate the existing tripartite approach to the advancement of science and understanding of biology and disease (incorporating animal use, clinical studies, and in vitro methods); and to develop a dialogue between the animal protection movement and the scientific community.

The Congress program will address issues of interest to an international audience of scientific researchers, corporate scientists, government regulators, educators, and the public. Topics to be covered in plenary lectures include history of animal use, safety testing, and the concept of alternatives. Platform presentations and workshops will encompass topics as diverse as alternatives in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, pain assessment and pain control, and animals and humans as research subjects: similarities and differences. Point/counterpoint sessions will include both scientific (basic cytotoxicity vs. cell target toxicity) and policy (need for animal data vs. need for alternative data in risk assessment) issues. Scientific poster presentations and trade exhibitions will be held throughout the sessions. The format of the Congress will provide an ideal opportunity for scientists, government officials, and lay persons interested in these issues to discuss the current status of animals and alternatives with leading researchers and theorists in the field. To register or be placed on the Congress mailing list, please contact the World Congress Coordinator, Office of Continuing Education, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 720 Rutland Avenue, Turner 20, Baltimore, MD 21205-2195 USA. Tel: (410) 955-2959 or FAX: (410) 955-0807. Electronic mailing addresses are:

BITNET: congrs93 @ jhuhyg.bitnet
INTERNET: congrs93 @ jhuhyg.sph.jhu.edu

ANNOUNCING THE ANNUAL IRB CONFERENCE OF APPLIED RESEARCH ETHICS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (ARENA)

Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) will sponsor a full-day meeting on December 9, 1992, at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel. In addition to its general business meeting, ARENA's program will feature a variety of presentations addressing issues pertinent to Institutional Review Board members and administrators. For additional information, please contact: ARENA/PRIM&R, 132 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02116, TEL: (617) 423-4112, FAX: (617) 423-1185.

PEOPLE AND ANIMALS: UNITED FOR HEALTH TEACHER TRAINING WORKSHOPS

To assist educators in the implementation of the People and Animals: United for Health curriculum, the Massachusetts Society for Medical Research (MSMR) holds bimonthly teacher training workshops. Registration forms are now being accepted for the first workshops of the academic year in November.

The workshops are held in two half-day sessions, 4:00 - 9:00 p.m., at the MSMR Headquarters, 1440 Main Street, Waltham, MA. Each of the two workshop sessions covers six curriculum units. Individual workshops are given on each unit by a member of the biomedical research community.

Teachers and others participating in the training workshops receive a complimentary curriculum package.

The first teacher training workshops of the academic year will be held in November on the following dates:

November Teacher Training Workshops Session 1: Wednesday, 4 November 1992, 4-9 p.m. Session 11: Wednesday, 18 November 1992, 4-9 p.m.

Dates for the January, March, and May workshops will be announced at a later time.

To register for the November workshop sessions, please contact MSMR prior to Monday, October 26, 1992. A confirmation letter and directions to the MSMR will be sent to you. A workshop packet and complimentary copy of the People and Animals package will be provided to you at the workshops.

The MSMR is eager to share the new People and Animals curriculum and corollary educational programs with teachers nationwide and looks forward to working with you.

A comprehensive curriculum for secondary school science educators addressing current topics in biomedical research and testing.

Curriculum Features

250-page Teacher Reference manual
Set of 159 Slides
Discussion Guide
Timeline Poster
Bimonthly Teacher Training Workshops
75-page Implementation Guide for Organizations

MSMR Corollary Programs

Science Beat, a monthly student newsletter on issues in biomedicine, written and produced by students
Biomedical Sciences Career Day, giving teachers and students an opportunity to gather with professionals in health research and the biological sciences
Tours of various Massachusetts research facilities
Essay Contest, in which students compete by submitting essays on a theme related to biomedical research
Classroom Speakers, addressing topics in biomedical science of interest to teachers and students
Student Internships in Massachusetts biomedical research facilities
For further information and to order the curriculum package, contact:
Massachusetts Society for
Medical Research
1440 Main Street
Waltham, MA 02154-1649
TEL: (617) 891-4544
FAX: (617) 893-4408

DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH CONNECTIVITY NONMAMMALIAN MODELS
National Center for Research Resources

Purpose

The Biological Models and Materials Research Program (BMMRP) of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) is reissuing this program announcement to encourage the submission of applications for the development of high connectivity nonmammalian models for biomedical research.

Eligibility Requirements

Applications may be submitted by foreign and domestic for-profit and non-profit organizations, public and private, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, laboratories, units of State and local governments, and eligible agencies of the Federal Government.

Applications from minority individuals and women are encouraged.

Foreign institutions are not eligible for the First Independent Research Support and Transition (FIRST) Award.

Mechanisms of Support

The support mechanisms for this program will be the individual investigator-initiated research project grant (R01) and the FIRST Award (R29). Under these mechanisms the applicant will plan, direct, and carry out the research program. The proposed project period during which the research will be conducted should adequately reflect the time required to accomplish the stated goals and be consistent with the policy for grant support.

Research Objectives

The objective of this program announcement is to stimulate research on the development of high connectivity nonmammalian models for biomedical research as follows:
Organismic, including all poikilotherms, but not homeotherms, lower organisms (such as fishes, invertebrates, and microorganisms).
In vitro systems such as established cell lines from any species or cell or tissue culture from poikilothermic sources.
Mathematical or computer models, in particular if closely coupled to biological experimentation. There are opportunities for mathematical modeling in many areas of biomedical research and at all levels of biological organization.

A high connectivity model is one in which:

The body of knowledge about the system is large and has resulted in extensive cross information, or connection, with other systems. Examples of organisms that have many characterized properties or functions include, but are not limited to, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditits elegans, Escherichia coli, Aplysia sp., Xenopus sp., Arabidopsis sp., and sea urchins.
A function or property is broadly retained across many taxa. Examples include cytoskeletal structure, cell adhesion, cytochrome c, hormone receptors, and genetic regulation.
The research involves broad intertaxonomic projects. Application Procedures

Applications are to be submitted on the grant application form PHS 398 (rev. 9/91) and will be accepted at the standard application deadlines as indicated in the application kit, i.e., June 1, October 1, and February 1.

Application kits are available at most institutional business offices and may be obtained from the Office of Grants Inquiries, Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, Westwood Building, Room 449, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone (301) 496-7441.

To identify the application as in response to this announcement, check þyesþ in item 2a on the face page of the application and enter the PA number (PA-92-89) and the title, þHigh Connectivity Nonmammalian Models.þ

The completed original application and five legible copies must be sent or delivered to:

Division of Research Grants
National Institutes of Health
Westwood Building, Room 240
Bethesda, MD 20892

Award Criteria

Applications will compete for available funds with all other approved applications assigned to that ICD. The following will be considered when making funding decisions:

Quality of the proposed project as determined by peer review
Availability of funds
Program balance among research areas of the announcement

Inquiries

Written and telephone inquiries are encouraged. The opportunity to clarify any issues or questions from potential applicants is welcome.

Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to:
Dr. Louise E. Ramm, Ph.D.
Director, Biological Models and Materials
Research Program
National Center for Research Resources
Westwood Building, Room 8A07
5333 Westbard Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 402-0630

INTERNATIONAL DIRECTORY OF PRIMATOLOGY NOW AVAILABLE

The Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center, University of WisconsinþMadison, has just published the first International Directory of Primatology. The intent of the directory is to enhance communications among the many organizations and individuals involved in primate research, conservation, and education. It can be used by primatologists as a desk-top working tool or by librarians and other professionals who need to answer questions or direct students to primate programs or other information resources.

The directory is divided into five organizational sections and four indexes. The organizational sections cover (1) geographically arranged entries for major primate centers, laboratories, educational programs, foundations, conservation organizations, and sanctuaries, (2) current field sites with program and contact information, (3) members of groups involved with nonhuman primate population management, (4) professional primate societies, and (5) major information sources in the field. Access to this information is supported by organizational, species, subject and name indexes.

Following is a sample entry from the organizational section:

009
 Brasil
 CENTRO DE PRIMATOLOGIA DO RIO DE JANEIRO - CPRJ (Established 1979)
 Rua Fonseca Teles, 121/1624, Rio de Janeiro 20940
 @INDENT.25 = Director:  Adelmar F. Coimbra-Filho Phone: 55 (21)
 234-5496 Fax: 55 (21) 228-3409
 @INDENT.25 = Affiliations: Fundacao Estadual de Engenharia do Meio
 Ambiente
 @INDENT.25 = Mission: Fundamental research in primate biology with
 relevance to endangered species and biodiversity.
 @INDENT.25 = Principal Research Programs: Management and nutrition,
 Reproduction; Pathology of neotropical primates; Comparative
 anatomy; Conservation; Ecology; Habitat restoration
 @INDENT.25 = Number of Staff:  Total (18); Scientists (2)
 @INDENT.25 = Key Personnel: Adelmar F. Coimbra-Filho, Director,
 274-4105; Alcides Pissinatti, Chief Ve Nilton; Oliveira da Silva,
 Chief Librarian; Arthur Rodrigues da Silva,
 Chief-Management/Nutrition; Joao Lourenco dos Santos, Chief-Habitat
 Restoration
 @INDENT.25 = Species Supported: Leontopithecus rosalia (32);
 Leontopithecus chrysomelas (29); Leontopithecus chrysopygus (50);
 Callithrix geoffroyi (60); Callithrix kuhli (42); Saguinus bicolor
 (33); Saguinus bicolor martinisi (4); Cebus apella xanthosternos
 (13); Chiropotes satanas (2); Brachyteles arachnoides (4)

Copies of the International Directory of Primatologyþ225 pp., spiral boundþare available in the USA for $10 (includes surface postage and handling). To offset mailing costs, the price to other countries is $18, payable in U.S. dollars. Send orders to:

Larry Jacobsen, IDP Coordinator
Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center Library
1220 Capitol Court
Madison, WI 53715-1299
Phone: (608) 263-3512
Fax: (608) 263-4031
E-mail: library@primate.wisc.edu

UPCOMING FALL PUBLICATION

The Care and Use of Amphibians, Reptiles and Fish in Research

The Scientist Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW) will publish the proceedings of a conference held in New Orleans on þThe Care and Use of Amphibians, Reptiles and Fish in Research.þ

The material presented at this conference, by both the conference speakers and by the participants, is invaluable on the care and treatment of these particular species, including fish raised in aquaculture.

Some topics included in this publication will be:
Discussion of regulations and guidelines by the National Institutes of Health, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
Amphibians: the housing, handling, and nutrition of salamanders and frogs, medicine and diseases, anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia of amphibians, field and special research use.
Reptiles: the housing, handling, and nutrition of crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and turtles, special housing techniques for arboreal species, medicine and diseases, anesthesia,
analgesia and euthanasia, pain and stress assessment, and field research.
Fish aquaculture: stress management, disease prevention, handling, and euthanasia.
Research: housing and handling, nutrition, procedures, stress assessment, anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia, and field and special research use.

For more information on this publication, contact the SCAW office, 4805 St. Elmo Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Tel: (301) 654-6390 or Fax: (301) 654-6390.

NEW PUBLICATION

Implementation Strategies for Research Animal Well-Being: Institutional Compliance With Regulations Lee Krulisch, Editor

Proceedings of a 2 - day conference that focuses on the revised U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for the humane and responsible care and use of non-human primates and canines in research. The chapters address strategies that institutions have developed to meet or exceed the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

The topics include:
Current Regulations
Biosafety Issues
Physiological and Behavioral Needs of Canines
Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring Exercise Plans for Canines
Strategies for Small Groups of Canines
Physiological and Behavioral Needs of Primates
Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring of Primate Enrichment
Large Colonies vs. Small Colonies

For more information on this publication, contact the SCAW office, 4805 St. Elmo Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Tel. (301)654-6390 or Fax (301)907-3993.

Compiled by D'Anna Berry, Info. Specialist

MEETINGS.....

@California Science Teachers Association Convention, October 2-4, 1992, San Jose, CA. Contact: (408) 453-6692 - Don Iman. @

Seventh International Workshop on In Vitro Toxicology, October 5-9, 1992. De Haan, Belgium. Contact: W. Sonck 32-2-477.45.85.

National Science Teachers Association, Southwestern Area Convention. October 15-17, 1992. Ft. Worth, TX. Contact: (202) 328-0974.

American College of Toxicology, October 22-24, 1992, San Francisco, CA. Contact: (215) 443-8710 - Mildred S. Christian.

The Neurotrauma Society, 10th Annual Symposium, October 24-25, 1992, Anaheim, CA. Contact: (804) 794-9459 - Wendy Kidwell

Society for Neuroscience, October 25-30, 1992, Anaheim, CA. Contact: (202) 462-6688 - Society for Neuroscience.

PRIM & R, Emerging Issues in AIDS Clinical Research and Care: Implications for Health Care Delivery, October 29-30, 1992, Boston, MA. Contact: (617) 423-4112 - Joan Rachlin.

American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 1992 Annual Meeting, November 1-5, 1992, Anaheim, CA. Contact: (901) 754-8620.

American Medical Writers Association, 1992 Annual Meeting, November 6-8, 1992, Houston, TX. Contact: (901) 754-8620.

National Association of Biology Teachers, 1992 National Convention, November 11-15, 1992, Denver, CO. Contact: (703) 471-1134 - Michelle Robbins.

American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, November 14-19, 1992, Oakland, CA. Contact: (404) 727-7428 - Julie Fazollah.

3rd International Animal Nutrition Symposium, National Renderers Association, Inc., November 19, 1992, Lisbon, Portugal. Contact: 44(0)71 4931546 or Fax: 44(0)71 2872628 - Julie Brace-Maclean.

National Science Teachers Association, Eastern Area Convention, November 19-21, 1992. New York, NY. Contact: (202) 328-0974.

National Institutes of Health Workshop sponsored by the NIH Office of Protection from Research Risks, Vanderbilt University, and Meharry Medical College, December 3-4, 1992, Nashville, TN. Contact: (615) 322-4030 - Marilyn Dasaro.

The Human/Research Animal Relationship, SCAW Workshop, December 1992, Washington, DC. Contact: (301) 654-6390 or Fax: (301) 907-3993.

National Science Teachers Association, Southeastern Area Convention, December 10-12, 1992. Charlotte, NC. Contact: (202) 328-0974.

National Science Teachers Association, NSTA National Convention, April 1-4, 1993. Kansas City, MO. Contact: (202) 328-0974.

Joseph F. Morgan Research Foundation, Current Trends: In Vitro Skin Toxicology and Eye Irritancy Testing, April 21-23, 1993, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Contact: (613) 594-8226.

13th International World Congress of EEG and Clinical Neurophysiology, August 29-September 4, 1993, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Contact: (604) 681-5226 - Donald W. Paty, MD.

15th World Congress on Neurology (WCN 93), September 4-10, 1993, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Contact: (604) 681-5226 - Donald W. Paty, MD.

Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, September 9-11, 1993, Chicago, IL. Contact: (312) 464-2432 - Annette Flanagin.

World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, November 14-19, 1993, Baltimore, MD. Contact: (410) 955-2959.<$B1> Compiled by Jennifer Carter, Info. Support and D'Anna Berry, Info.Specialist

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by

W.M.S Russell and R.L. Burch
ISBN O 900767 78 2

The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare has re-issued this classic work which sets out the philosophy of the 3Rs - Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement - regarding the use of animals in scientific experiments.

The book by Russell and Burch was first published by Methuen in 1959 but went out of print some 25 years ago. It sought to minimize the then increasing number of animals being used in medical and veterinary research.

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique is available at œ12.50 / US$25 (including postage and packing) from:

The Secretary, UFAW, 8 Hamilton Close, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Herts, UK, EN6 3QD. Tel: 0707 58202 Fax: 0707 49279

NEW PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FROM AWIC...

The LD50 (Median Lethal Dose) and LC50 (Median Lethal Concentration) Toxicity Tests, SRB 92-12

Ethical and Moral Issues Relating to Animals, January 1985 - February 1992, QB 92-51

Housing, Stress and Welfare of Sheep and Goats, QB 92-59

Animal Models of Disease, QB 92-61

Laboratory Animal Facilities and Management, QB 92-58

Transport and Handling of Livestock, QB 92-57

Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, National Academy Press, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1992. (AWIC grant sponsored project)

Annotated Bibliography of Power and Sample Size for Animal and Human Experimentation, University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, 1991

Veal Calves, QB 92-67

Gu¡a Nutritiva y Dietetica de los Silvestres en Cautiverio (Guide to Nutrition and Diets of Wild Animals in Captivity), New York Zoological Society and the Animal Welfare Information Center, NAL Call No: SF95 C87

Animal Welfare Information Center United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library USDA Cooperative Agreement No. 58-0520-5-076 - July, 1995