Animals in Research Facilities / 97R’s into the law in various provisions.^40 What is most signifi cant,
the 1985 amendments mandated the formation of institutional ani-
mal care and use committees, or IACUCs, which review protocols
for animal research. However, the Animal Welfare Act does not
apply to mice, rats, or birds, who constitute the majority of animals
used in research. Moreover, with the rapid growth of the biotech-
nology industry, mice and rats are being produced in dramatically
increasing numbers. While legislation aims to decrease the use of
animals, the trend has been to use them in greater numbers by not
giving the majority of them legal standing. When these animals die
in disasters rather than experiments, the only regrets are over “lost
research.”
Most university-based facilities must also follow guidelines
established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its par-
ent institution, the Public Health Service.^41 Whereas the Animal
Welfare Act was imposed on labs by Congress, the NIH guidelines
were created from within the scientifi c community as a form of
self-regulation.^42 Although I will not compare the two sets of reg-
ulations in detail here, I do want to make three related points. The
NIH guidelines, in contrast to the Animal Welfare Act, include rats,
mice, and birds. The NIH is the largest provider of funds to medical
research facilities in the United States, and the grant money they
dole out comes from tax dollars.^43 Finally, because the guidelines
apply to institutions receiving federal funds, which include univer-
sity campuses, the NIH can—at least in theory—withhold funding
from institutions that fail to comply.^44 Consequently, animal advo-
cates have appealed to the NIH for sanctions following the deaths
of animals in disasters. Their efforts highlight the different ways
the two groups view animals and animal experimentation.
Seeking Accountability
On learning of the memorial service for the animals lost in Tropi-
cal Storm Allison, Theodora Capaldo, executive director of the New
England Anti-Vivisection Society, wrote to the editor of the Houston
Chronicle, stating that the “public show of sentiment is suspect and