Research Animals

Displaying 1 - 10 of 139
Titlesort descending Summary
A Cover-Girl Face does not have to Begin with Animal Cruelty: Chapter 476 Gives Legal Force to Alternative Testing Methods


The article examines animal testing by providing detailed background information on toxicity testing, product injury and consumer safety, and alternative testing. In addition, the article provides information regarding the agencies that oversee animal testing. Finally, the article analyzes federal and state laws that exist to monitor animal testing, specifically focusing on California legislation.
Alternative Research & Dev. Found. v. Veneman



An animal rights foundation sought to have the definition of “animal” amended, so that birds, mice and rats used for research would not be excluded.

 

USDA agreed to consider the animal rights foundation petition to have the definition amended, and agreed to do so in reasonable amount of time.

 

The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a biomedical research group that used birds, mice and rats in its research, attempted to intervene and prevent USDA from considering the petition.

 

However, NABR was prohibited from doing so because there was no showing that preventing intervention would result in its interests not being violated.
Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dept. of Agric. The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued the Department of Agriculture and its Secretary alleging that the Department's failure to promulgate bird-specific regulations is unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The Plaintiffs sought court-ordered deadlines by which the Department must propose such rules. The Department moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that it is not required by law to promulgate regulations for birds, and that it has not taken a final action reviewable by the court. The District Court ultimately held that, although the Plaintiffs have standing to sue, both of their claims fail. The Department is not required by the Animal Welfare Act to issue avian-specific standards; rather, it must to issue welfare standards that are generally applicable to animals. Secondly, although the Department has not taken any action to develop avian-specific standards, that does not mean that will not do so in the future. The District Court granted the department's motion to dismiss.
American Soc. for Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Trustees of State
In New York, an animal protection organization sought a judgment that would allow the public to attend meetings for a university’s animal use organization.

 

Such attendance was required under the New York Consolidated Law.

 

However, because the university meetings did not involve matters affecting the public or public policy, and since the animal protection organization was not considered a “public body,” public attendance was not ordered.

 
Animal Experimentation: Lessons from Human Experimentation


Conventional wisdom tells us that animal experimentation is a relevant precursor to human experimentation. The failings of human experimentation to protect human subjects, however, raise serious questions as to the safety and appropriateness of experimentation on animals. The federal government and medical community, since World War II, have used the Nuremberg Code and the federal “Common Rule” to determine how to conduct human experimentation ethically. Due to political or economic factors, government entities, hospitals, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies have continued to conduct human experimentation without the informed consent of their subjects. These human experiments have often achieved meaningless—or worse—devastating results. Because safeguards have failed with human experimentation, the federal and local governments, in conjunction with animal advocacy organizations, should take a series of concrete steps to eliminate an experimenter’s ability to cause pain, suffering, and unnecessary death to animals.
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy

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.
Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Welfare Institute; Valerie Buchanan; Jane Garrison; Nancy Megna, plaintiffs-appellants v. Ann In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy.

On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part.
Animal Research: Policy, Public Perception, and the Problems of Transparency
Animal Reserach Policy in Australia

Pages