From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:17:09 GMT

From article <C1C826.HoC@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
>     So far, I follow you; thru congressional pressure (like at
> appropriation time) PAC-driven congresspersons could lean on the
> National Institutes of Health. But *what* would the AMA (or NABR,
> if it has any such clout) want NIH to do, if NIH were 'responsive'
> to their wishes?

Restore Taub's funding, for starters.

The AMA may have quite a few interests at stake here, but their 
avowed interest --- in terms of the issue at hand --- has been 
focused on rules and regulations and activities that might, in 
the AMA's opinion, impede the progress of scientific research.  

I haven't had a chance to sift through the AMA's publications in 
the wake of Taub's initial trial, but I can demonstrate that the 
AMA launched a massive political effort after the army cut off 
funding for Dr. Michael Carey's cat shooting experiments at LSU.  
(For a brief summary of the AMA's position, see JAMA, July 24, 
1991; I trust, BTW, that you'll accept JAMA's reportage as an
accurate reflection of the AMA's official position.) 

I suspect that the AMA also has some covert concerns stemming 
from the fact that the issues raised by the animal rights 
movement conflict with AMA policies in a number of different 
areas, including national dietary goals and patient rights.  Some 
of these may be purely ideological and reflective of the 
conservative political philosophy of many older US physicians;  
however, some of them also have blatant monetary implications.  For 
example, the AMA's historical opposition to efforts by 
organizations like the USDA, PCRM, Public Citizen, Consumers Union, 
etc, to inform the public about the relationship between fat intake 
and disease takes on sinister overtones when we consider the amount 
of money that's spent on the treatment of cardiovascular disease 
and cancer in the United States each year.  From the AMA's 
perspective, it's clear that bad diets are good for business.  

>      NIH is primarily a research organization; the AMA
> is primarily an organization of practicing physicians, I presume.

Many of whom consider themselves to be political wheeler-dealers. :-)

> The fraction of the AMA's total membership that are physicians 
> involved in biomedical research, I would hazard, is small, so
> I can't imagine AMA spending any of their hard-bought favors
> by leaning on NIH to fund more physician-originated research
> projects. And that's the only thing I could imagine NIH doing
> for the AMA.

Again, take a look at the aforementioned article in JAMA.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the AMA's historical opposition to 
regulations governing animal research, dating back more than a 
century, as well as the AMA's current relationship with anti-AR 
lobbies.  As a key example, the AMA played an instrumental role in 
organizing the NABR and, not only works closely with the NABR on 
special projects, but is represented on the NABR's Board of 
Directors.  

> You also added pharmaceutical companies to the list;
> I would guess that Industry's R&D dollars are be large, compared
> to the small amount they might be able to siphon off NIH. The
> organization the pharmaceutical industry would like to have be
> 'more responsive' is the FDA!
> So what would these various entities press NIH for?

Good question.  Here again, I think we may have both overt and 
covert interests at stake.  At the very least, it's clear that 
pharmaceutical companies have been deeply concerned about the 
financial impact of the AR movement over the long haul, and like
the AMA, they seem to be aware that every event could pave the way 
for additional progress or setbacks, depending on one's point of
view.

Just yesterday I was cleaning out one section of my home library 
and came across a bottom shelf that was loaded with old copies of 
_Science_, most of them dated around 1986 or thereabouts.  Before
tossing them out, I decided to skim the editorial commentary at 
the beginning of several issues and came across a letter from 
someone who was bitching that the cost of "his" dogs had gone 
from $55 a pop to $500 after the "AR activists" had killed a 
local pound seizure law... which, in effect, cut off his cheap
source of lost or abandoned pets.  The writer went on to complain 
that the research costs in his own department had risen dramatically, 
thanks to new guidelines on animal care. 

>> .... Care to 
>>take a guess about PETA's relative rank in terms of PAC contributions?
> 
>    I'll bite - what? 

It's not on any of my lists, Bob.  The key PAC players (ie AMA, 
NRA, National Dairy Board, etc) spend nearly as much --- just in 
PAC dollars alone --- as PETA grosses in total revenue.  And 
these amounts, typically 4-5 million, don't include the allegedly 
autonomous private contributions that are indirectly controlled 
or influenced by the policymakers at those organizations.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg