investigators and sponsors in the least want to say ok we'll make that change yes but so when did you start this effort to compile this information where it's not in your complaint it's really i believe almost as a subsequent t before you started the action you have to have standing the time you start the accurate don't isn't your burden to establish that you had this injury that you started expanding those funds at the time you started the action well that subsequent to the denial of the petition they started collecting this information neither of which i can i confirm as much as i want i still can find no factual basis for inferring that that collection of weeks after the essentially dismissal of the of the nd move to your position is that their response to the denial and the fact that it happened burdened center is enough to give it standing you're not you're not really contesting that it was burdened in doing that activity beforehand hopes the government would obviate some of that burden the government didn't care for the brain continuing here your position is that there isn't an allegation that the outreach the private outreach trying to persuade principal investigators west occurring before the agency denied the petition for  or the center have been doing some activities before it filed suit that were affected are burdened by the denial of the will make it sound and i'm sorry conferences they communicate with the sponsors and and the polling data so that they can file petitions essentially to ensure the protection of human subjects if we were to view protections as advocacy as opposed to service you know howard standing why has this distinction between advocacy include include lobbying and i think you your body says that all it should include but i think our cases have looked at  more broadly lobbying litigation costs perhaps administrative advocacy work what would you pointed out side of it ministry of advocacy litigation  lobbying on your issues that's more in the service side of things but you know with this issue advocacy i believe that the frames in the in use pure pure advocacy to the legal decision about that but i'm asking you as a record matter as a matter of the activities of the organization what would you characterize as the most sort of service like as opposed to advocacy like important thing and that in fact attending these conferences and writing articles on different subjects was much more important to you and your board or your group of decision makers and so you bring this lawsuit and you can individuals could bring a lawsuit if they didn't know about it but of course they would know to bring one up you know about it and you still get to bring a lawsuit correct but individuals couldn't do that well individuals couldn't do what you're doing your  it either this organization or of the realization because organizations have greater standing than individuals well i mean if you have if you feel you can have members of the organization who stated as well you said that would work here because but as soon as they bring a lawsuit they already know will have the information that they need to know and so then they will have statements right and you know it is there are drug companies and individuals who work for drug companies who work with  if they also know that i will say these are not a good predictor then there are then that they don't have state because in their form consent documents they're going to lose the commons the wrists that ok look we've done animal studies transparency that is it's it's it's unclear to the public how many deaths there have been of human subjects in clinical trials it's unclear to the public how many i mean if  you if you want to know how many animals are in our in political or in pre clinical experiments you can find the data to the to the mouse to the monkey to the dog but if you were asked how identified as not advocacy like formula and petitions to agencies i'm not sure that our case law treats those as something other than advocacy so i'm looking for things that are more in the heartland of non advocacy service type activities by your organization and the things that you have mentioned was attending conferences and  strong records are you know and how how to understand what you claim is impaired in terms of your activities that doesn't even arguably that advocacy domain and you're spell out chapter and verse exactly what investigators have to tell subtext because very situational and we're not going to change the practice just with respect to this issue doesn't make sense to have a cookie cutter set of requirements on the gap between how animals respond to testing and how humans might respond we don't do that we have a much more flexible requirement that  so to hear if there is an issue of you know misleading information about how safe an animal test results suggest human tests are going to be nothing in our rules says you have to provide that so cases with individuals where the representation was made that we were to document that the animal studies were conducted and the animal studies demonstrated efficacy and or safety but there's never never i've never an informed consent document where there were animal studies are essentially due to something that tries to do some research to participate that human subjects be aware that animal studies are not or are not necessarily a good predictor so don't rely on the statement that animal studies showed it was safe because because you know for it's the there are serious there are certain conditions that can be caused by the psychotic drug good drugs to treat psychosis or seizures that essentially start to destroy the brain and most don't suffer from that tell me how you distinguish food and water watch say understand your argument to be since the f d a want to do it we're going to have to educate people about this problem that's that's why you're dedicating all these resources to addressing this problem watch was a case where the summary judgment stage not the motion of this mistake and so there was a question as to whether or not about the nature of the injury though they said they would have to go educate the public and you say you have to go  percent i think you have to divert he's actually have to you're your daily activities have to be inhibited and the plaintiff in that case could not demonstrate that daily activities one could be inhibited and that and that if that's the difference of standing at work sept it would mean that any advocacy organization work or indeed any concerned citizen could obtain standing to challenge government action with respect to virtually any policy dispute or generalized grievance because the theory seems to be that  the government fails to adopt a particular proposal for how to regulate rd parties for increasing regulation on rd parties a plaintive group can then undertake modest efforts like sending unsolicited emails to try to persuade started and focused a lot on the timing of when exactly they had started to compile the clinical investigators information and it was correctly established that there was no allegation that that had happened you know months before may th but the more important point is if  started doing this years ago who or what they were engaged in was at advocacy they were engaged in a letter writing campaign to persuade their parties to do something that they think is a good idea and regardless of the timing of that effort not make the task getting harder and peter peter was a hard informational standing case which this case is not it's really worked you know right from the get go nobody here is claiming that the harm is that they've been deprived of the flow of information that should be coming to them  organizations individuals remained able to file citizen petitions with the agency to conduct whatever outreach that they think is appropriate although it was cut off it wasn't something that was there before and peter right we're talking about the failure of the animal welfare act regulations to cover birds so it wasn't that was something that was taken away it was that there was an understood need and peter tried to get the agency to respond  timing whether an organization that responds after the agency fails to take up the cause the way they think it whether that post petition denial effort can ever give rise to standing and it seems like at least implicitly impede that that as you say they're cutting off of the ability of complaints it's really they're experiencing it after the denial but they didn't have it before people realize are problematic entities organizations realize are problematic and they try to get the you know what they think is maybe the official response from the government the government turns them down they will turn and try to do it themselves and there  that it may well been in anticipation of location and that is a line of work has suggested in past cases is one that you know can't be crossed it really seems that wiped out the reason those possible reason that you're doing this is to create a pretext one the point here is that the activity that they are engaged in is advocacy to rd parties about how they think they should conduct their behavior in and be regulated by the government and you know that pharmaceutical companies should charge or prices or that coal power plants should emit you know less pollution and just start contacting those those rd parties and saying i want you to do this thing and and then ask the government to mandate it when the government says no say party education or communication play i mean if for example if i were running habitat for humanity and i was worried about beach erosion and i tried to get the relevant department  interior to deal with and they denied my petition and instead of you know building homes in this island community all the volunteers had to start building levees or you know doing some other work it buyers or would be renters to house or you're helping connect people to employment the organization holds itself out to the public as a provider of services and the public comes to them and in many of those cases the plaintiff organization was suing a defendant that was directly behind was giving racial steering practices and made the point of organization services getting more difficult but as a satirist previously this is just an embassy organization it doesn't it interfaces with the government and it's and  we're contacting principal investigators and work urging that they give better informed consent to to human subjects and tell them about the gap between how yes so they decide that they haven't alleged it that way i just also educating the public at large and in sort of a unsolicited way is well read as as an act as is not a harm to the organization's activities or you can conceive of it as it's just a harm to advocacy if the defendant clinical trials that the informational injury if there is one in this case is one that would be asserted by somebody who is thinking about participating in a clinical trial but isn't getting the information he needs to know and the problem with that he's a split in the original complaint that clinical trials provide you know detail physiological in for you know the diagrams of the molecules that are going to be involved in this clinical trial and that's not something you would know already right so if your theory is i have a right to see diagrams of the molecules of abuse in the clinical trial f d a if i was required to make that information public or compel studies to make that information publicly you would have that would be kind of what informational injury made would look like in this context and that's not what the that who is being more i'm sorry we've got him talking about different information are you arguing that for they deny the petition you are also compiling the information about who is doing this only on the principle investigator who's worried this waco thing they consider that person their doctor generally not the scientists they don't consider themselves a subject they consider themselves a patient they don't understand that they're