Home Page
|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
Articles and Reports The Animal Experimentation Scandal (2005 Updated Report): Research Duplication The finding of a significant increase in the number of grants funded
by the agencies which are catalogued in the CRISP system leads to
several questions. Perhaps the most important of these questions deals
with the issue of duplication. Are all of these research projects
necessary? Are they unique and innovative? Are any of these grants
redundant? Are those researchers who are being trusted by the NIH et al
to perform medical research defrauding the American taxpayer? While it is not within the scope of this audit to fully answer
questions of this nature, certain conclusions can be drawn from a
relatively limited number of additional searches that have been run
using the CRISP system. Three species were used: rats, mice and macaque
monkeys (chosen to illustrate both ends of the evolutionary scale). The
results of these searches were very disturbing. There are currently (for
fiscal 2003) 175 separate projects (costing a potential $70,110,425 per
year) that examine neural information processing in macaque monkeys.
Since neural information processing could still be a potentially large
area, the topic was refined even further. Visual neural information processing in macaque monkeys brought up
127 separate projects within the CRISP system (costing $50,880,137
annually). This area is examined in 125 studies in nine other species of
animals costing an estimated $50,078,875. The total for all species
becomes $100,959,012. 245 projects study cocaine in rats ($98,154,595); while 108 projects
study cocaine in mice ($43,268,148), and 46 projects study cocaine in
macaque monkeys ($18,429,026). This is a total of 399 projects studying
cocaine in three different species. This gives us an estimated total of
$159,851,769 annually spent on cocaine addiction research experiments in
only three species of animals. Using these same three species as a basis
we can find 67 studies examining heroin ($26,842,277), 42 that examine
marijuana ($16,826,502) and 34 that study phencyclidine ($13,621,454).
Studies in heroin, marijuana, and phencyclidine (PCP) in these species
use a total of $57,290,233 per year. However, the big winner for funding in the area of addiction
experimentation is alcohol. For these same three species these agencies
fund 587 projects totaling an estimated $235,170,397. We must wonder if
the best way to deal with the substance abuse problem facing the U.S. is
to continue to manufacture drug-addicted rats, mice, and primates at an
annual cost of $452,312,399. Despite substantial criticism of the use of rats and mice in cancer
research [i.e. -- “The history of cancer research has been a history of
curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades,
and it simply didn’t work in humans.”( C Ray Greek and Jean Swingle
Greek, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese, The Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2000 p. 139)] This is still one of the most highly
duplicated areas of research which is currently funded by the federal
government. Cancer studies in rats are funded 599 times while mice
projects in cancer are funded 3305 times simultaneously. When the
computation is done, these 3904 grants may have wasted $1,564,063,424.
When the total for neural information processing experiments in all
species is added to the cost of the addiction experiments in several
species and the cost of cancer research in rats and mice the total
becomes $2,117,334,835. In other words, it is very possible that the
seven agencies which comprise the CRISP system likely waste over $2.1
Billion dollars or more annually in duplicative experiments in only
three areas of research. This translates into a 17% level of waste in
the research budgets of the federal agencies in question. It must also be noted that some of these grants have been in
existence for decades. Specifically, several of the grants in the area
of neural information processing in macaque monkeys have been in
existence for over 30 years, with one reaching 33 years of age. This
type of information spawns several further questions. If this area has
been studied by dozens of researchers for decades, why are new grants
which often utilize essentially the same methodology continually
appearing in this field? If decades of study have not garnered
worthwhile information, why are more grants being approved? If the
decades-old grants are not sufficient to examine the field,
necessitating new grants, why do the old grants continue to be renewed?
Why is all of this research happening? To answer this question, the
funding of animal experimentation within specific facilities will be
examined. Statistical Highlights
Go on to
Specific Facilities |
