Quantcast
Last updated on April 20, 2014 at 8:28 EDT

Animal Researchers Fear For Their Future

January 6, 2011

Scientists who use animals for research on human diseases fear that the U.S. government is restricting the massive National Institute of Health (NIH) in a way that could slash their funding.

Animal researchers say that they are being overlooked in the rush to create a new institute devoted to something they already do.

The AFP news agency reports that some are concerned that as the NIH forges ahead with a plan to speed up the way scientific discoveries are transformed into treatments and cures, it could incur large startup costs. 

The NIH is considering an advisory panel recommendation to create a new center for turning lab advances into practical health solutions for the public, also known as translational medicine.

The proposed National Center for Advancing Translational Research (NCATS) would include a new initiative from President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan, the Cures Acceleration Network, as well as other programs devoted to rare diseases and special award grants.

However, it leaves about half of a $1.3-billion program that funds the nation’s eight primate centers and a series of other research programs that are known as the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR).

NIH guidelines say that the creation of a new center means an existing one will have to be cut.

Some scientists are worried the changes could affect as many as 30,000 researchers who rely on about $500 million in funding for things like salaries, building research facilities, veterinarian training and key resources like fruit flies, worms, mutant mice and rats that are pooled among many.

Mark Lively, a scientist at Wake Forest University in North Carolina who is a member of the NCRR advisory board, told AFP’s Kerry Sheridan that most people agree with NIH’s goal of speeding discoveries to patients.

“Our position was ‘slow down guys, we are going too fast, there are too many questions,’” said Lively.

“Everyone I have spoken to at NIH, other directors of other institutes, are just astounded at the pace. They are busily putting together a budget, standing it up as an entity yet they don’t even have a mission statement that is publicly available. It is all being done very quickly. Very, very quickly,” he said.

“The motivation for creating this was not to save money, period,” he added. “I would guess that it is going to cost more money.”

He told AFP that NIH wants the new center to be included in the budget for fiscal year 2012, which Obama is expected to announce in February of this year.

“Behind the scenes, the working groups that are evaluating various options clearly have in mind eliminating the NCRR by simply distributing its programs to other places,” he said.

Hundreds of concerned scientists have posted comments on the NIH website, asking the government not to dismantle the NCRR, or to at least include all of its programs in the new center.

“It is quite clear that the commitment to some of these programs will change depending on what institute they are in or what center they get put in,” Linda Cork, a professor of comparative medicine at Stanford University, told AFP.

“The question is where will they have a home that has a commitment to providing for them?”

Cork was among many scientists who urged colleagues to weigh in on the changes.

Scientists at eight national primate centers that study a range of diseases and conditions in species like rhesus macaques, baboons, squirrel monkeys and others, posted a joint letter appealing to be included in the new center.

“It is important that the (primate centers’) long-standing and ongoing central role in translational research be recognized and incorporated into the new NIH translational medicine program,” it said.

Last month, NIH director Francis Collins told the journal Nature that he did not hope to eliminate animal research funding and other programs in NCRR.

“There is no intention here to dismantle them,” he said. “Dollars for biomedical research are going to be very hard to come by in the next year or two. But that can’t be a reason to stop promoting innovation.”

On the Net: