Research Animals

Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy

Summary:

In this case, animal welfare groups and two individuals challenged the regulation promulgated by Department of Agriculture that failed to include birds, rats, and mice as “animals” within meaning of Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (FLAWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied defendant's motion to dismiss, and subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs could not demonstrate both constitutional standing to sue and statutory right to judicial review under the APA. The Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss.

In this case, animal welfare groups and two individuals challenged the regulation promulgated by Department of Agriculture that failed to include birds, rats, and mice as “animals” within meaning of Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (FLAWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied defendant's motion to dismiss, and subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs could not demonstrate both constitutional standing to sue and statutory right to judicial review under the APA. The Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss.

U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West

Summary:

The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.   In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.   However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.   This case was amended and superseded by US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West , 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).

The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.   In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.   However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.   This case was amended and superseded by US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West , 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.

Summary:

Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act.

Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act.

Longhi v. APHIS

Summary:

APHIS was unsuccessful in asserting that an applicant who is part of one license as a partnership can not apply for another as a corporation.

APHIS was unsuccessful in asserting that an applicant who is part of one license as a partnership can not apply for another as a corporation.

Animal Reserach Policy in Australia

Share

|

Summary:

This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought.

This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought.

Brief Summary of Animal Testing Laws

Share

|

Summary:

A brief summary describing how and why animal testing is used within the commercial products industry. The summary explores the Animal Welfare Act and its impact on animal testing. In addition, the summary attempts to explain the complexities that surface during debates regarding animal testing and some of the arguments made by both animal advocates as well as those who favor the use of animal testing.

A brief summary describing how and why animal testing is used within the commercial products industry. The summary explores the Animal Welfare Act and its impact on animal testing. In addition, the summary attempts to explain the complexities that surface during debates regarding animal testing and some of the arguments made by both animal advocates as well as those who favor the use of animal testing.

Overview of Animal Testing in Commercial Products

Share

|

Summary:

The overview summary introduces the topic of animal testing within the commercial products industry. The article introduces a number of federal agencies responsible for monitoring and regulating animal testing. In addition, the overview explores the Animal Welfare Act along with some of the most traditional animal testing methods. The overview also reveals some recently developed animal testing alternatives and attempts to further explain the complex controversy that surrounds animal testing.

The overview summary introduces the topic of animal testing within the commercial products industry. The article introduces a number of federal agencies responsible for monitoring and regulating animal testing. In addition, the overview explores the Animal Welfare Act along with some of the most traditional animal testing methods. The overview also reveals some recently developed animal testing alternatives and attempts to further explain the complex controversy that surrounds animal testing.

Detailed Discussion of Animal Testing in Commercial Products

Share

|

Summary:

This paper will examine the use of animals in toxicology testing. It begins with an examination of the most commons tests performed on animals within the commercial products industry. Next, the paper delves into the controversy and debate surrounding animal testing, and whether such a practice actually determines the safety of a product. In addition, the paper will examine and analyze existing laws that regulate animal testing and the federal agencies that manage the safety of commercial products. Last, some alternatives to animal testing are revealed and the future of animal testing is discussed.

This paper will examine the use of animals in toxicology testing. It begins with an examination of the most commons tests performed on animals within the commercial products industry. Next, the paper delves into the controversy and debate surrounding animal testing, and whether such a practice actually determines the safety of a product. In addition, the paper will examine and analyze existing laws that regulate animal testing and the federal agencies that manage the safety of commercial products. Last, some alternatives to animal testing are revealed and the future of animal testing is discussed.

Animal Research: Policy, Public Perception, and the Problems of Transparency

Share

|

Summary:

This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought.

This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought.

To Save Lab Animals the Legal Way: The Right to Appeal on Permits to Perform Animal Experiments

Share

|

Summary:

In Norwegian law, animal welfare organisations have the right to appeal on permits to perform animal experiments. The author explains the reasons for the right, briefly outlines how a case of appeal develops and explains possible consequences.

In Norwegian law, animal welfare organisations have the right to appeal on permits to perform animal experiments. The author explains the reasons for the right, briefly outlines how a case of appeal develops and explains possible consequences.