REPORT 1
USDA subverts Animal Welfare Act in whistleblower protection case

REPORT 2
Ron Wood's crack-smoking experiments. A case study of waste, fraud and animal abuse

REPORT 3
"Scientific Welfare" needs reform. Wasteful, irrelevant and cruel research underwritten by U.S. tax dollars

REPORT 4
Retaliation Case of
Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.

REPORT 5
Top Ten Lies of the Department of Agriculture
In the matter of animal welfare whistleblower - Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.

REPORT 6
The History of Medical Progress written by Dr. Ray Greek, Director of the Medical Research Modernization Committee

"If I, an internationally recognized scientist and consultant to heads of state and national academies, couldnot secure protection under federal law, how can U.S. citizens believe thatanyone, let alone younger, lesser-known scientists, dare to oppose scientificmisconduct, animal abuse and the misdeeds of corrupt administrations?"- Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.

ACTION is part of Agency's long-standing pattern of failure to uphold the law.

"Scientific Welfare" needs reform
Wasteful, irrelevant and cruel research underwritten by U.S. tax dollars
An Investigative Report By In Defense of Animals, April 24 1995

Overview
The year is 1995, and the country is re-examining the expenditures of federalmonies on all sorts of government programs. From social welfare to corporatewelfare, no federal agency has been spared consideration by the budget-cuttingknife. One area of government spending that merits further review for budgetcutting is biomedical research.

Biomedical research is the fourth largest federally-funded industry in theU.S., behind space, energy and defense. Taxpayers fund biomedical research,through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) to the tune of more than $12 billion per year. Over thepast several years, the seeds of doubt have been planted as to the effectof such huge research expenditures on the state of the nation's health.Allegations of scientific fraud, wasteful research spending and incestuousawarding of grantswhere researchers in similar fields approve grants foreach otherhave been leveled by scientists, congresspersons and governmentwatchdog groups alike. Questions about the efficacy of another kind of federalwelfare programscientific welfarehave echoed through the halls of CapitolHill and beyond:


"The NIH gives away $5 billion a year for research. Whether that moneyis well-spent is anybody's guess. For the most part, NIH blindly truststhat the money went for credible research."
- Jack Anderson, Washington Post, April 11, 1988

"Listen, deep down all my colleagues believe the feds owe them a living.But just because you get a Ph.D., doesn't mean you're entitled to federalsupport."
- Dr. Rustum Roy, material science professor, Pennsylvania State University,Washington Post, February 17, 1991
"You get the sense that the NIH was a social security agency for scientists."
- Dr. Bernadine Healey, former director National Institutes of Health, NewYork Times, November 1, 1992

"It appears that the system has changed from one of NIH giving grantsfor scientific research to one of scientific research being done solelyto get NIH grants."
- Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,1989

"Listen, deep down all my colleagues believe the feds owe them a living.But just because you get a Ph.D., doesn't mean you're entitled to federalsupport."
- Dr. Rustum Roy, material science professor, Pennsylvania State University,Washington Post, February 17, 1991

In Defense of Animals has conducted an in-depth investigation of federallyfunded biomedical research using animals. The results show that tens ofmillions of dollars are wasted each year on fiscally-irresponsible, clinically-irrelevantexperiments on animals. Americans may be interested to know that our taxdollars fund experiments like these:

Drug Addiction Research - $200 million annually from the National Institutesof Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse

Morphine addicted rats with cravings for ice cream -$189.243/yr. (JohnsHopkins University)
Effect of PCP on rabbit eye blinks - $189,585/yr. (Northwestern University)
Effect of hair color, race and ethnic background on drug concentrationsin human hair transplanted onto nude mice -$346,275 /yr. (University ofUtah)
Effect of cocaine in pigeons - $294,642/yr. (University of Arkansas)
Effect of "social status and preference for alcohol" in rats $74,301/yr.(Rutgers University)
Impotence and penile erections in dogs inhaling cigarette smoke $229,489/yr.(University of California)
Effect of cocaine on cows $104,042 (University of Maryland)
Effect of drug prevention programs on cocaine-addicted rhesus monkeys -$148,573 (University of Chicago)

Radiation Research - $20 million annually by the Department of Defense

Effect of full-body cobalt and neutron irradiation on beagles (Armed ForcesRadiobiological Research Institute, Bethesda, MD).
Effect of combined trauma (nuclear radiation and infections from simulatedgunshot wounds) on beagles (Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute,Bethesda, MD).
Effect of nuclear radiation on ability of monkeys to perform tasks (ArmedForces Radiobiological Research Institute, Bethesda, MD)
Effect of nuclear radiation on ability of rats to run on treadmills.(ArmedForces Radiobiological Research Institute, Bethesda, MD)

Animal Vocalization Research - $7 million per year by the National Institutesof Health and the National Science Foundation

Effect of sugars on cries of young rats isolated from their mothers andsiblings.
$107,557/yr. - Cornell University.
Comparison of brains of California marsh wrens who have a 150-song repertoirewith brains of New York marsh wrens who have a 50-song repertoire. - $279,861/yr.- Rockefeller University.
Effect on female rats of exposure to tape recorded vocalizations of malerats mating. $123,791/yr. - Rutgers University.
Effect of pain and isolation on vocalizations of 7-day old chickens. - $50,000/yr.- University of Mississippi.
Effect on vocalizations of infant rat pups exposed to freezing rat mothers.$341,260/yr. (Columbia University)
Effect of exposure to cocaine on movement and cries of 1-day old rat pups.- $136,231/yr. - Columbia University.
Placing female rats with aggressive mothers and exposing them to attacksto determine if female rats emit cries during fighting. - $696,948/yr. -Tufts University.


"Do you understand that this government is insolvent? . . . NIH willhave to take some cuts."
- Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas), House Appropriations Committee, New YorkTimes, February 20, 1995

"Scientists have no unalienable right to funding."
- Erich Block, former director of the National Science Foundation, WashingtonPost, February 17, 1991


This In Defense of Animals investigation is the first in a series of reportson fiscally irresponsible scientific research, funded by our tax dollars.The researchers conducting these experiments will no doubt claim their workis necessary and valuable. However, no one is preventing them from obtainingprivate funding. In that case, the free market could decide the "necessity"and "value" of their research. Government spending is a zero-sumgame; expenditures in one take money away from other areas. Our country'scurrent fiscal crisis necessitates hard choices about government spending,including research. In these times of tightened federal spending, rampantdeficits, and a national debt approaching $5 trillion, the reports raisethis fundamental question: Do we fund proven programs that directly helppeople in need, or subsidize scientists conducting curiosity-for-curiosity's-sakeexperiments that have no practical relevance to human health concerns?



In Defense of Animals Investigative Report #1




PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR
ANIMAL VOCALIZATION STUDIES

Wasting Tax Dollars on Esoteric, Irrelevant Experiments






"[These studies on birds] are prime examples of relatively meaninglessinvestigations unlikely to produce any practical benefit for anyone otherthan the researcher/s....[They are] of interest only to others engaged inrelated (and equally meaningless) research. Research of this type, whenfunded by public grants, constitutes an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money."

Yozan Dirk Mosig, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Nebraska-Kearney

I. Introduction

This is the first in a series of reports prepared by In Defense of Animals(IDA) to highlight the millions of dollars spent each year on fiscally irresponsibleanimal experiments. The focus of this report is animal vocalization studies,in which the physiological, developmental and/or psychological factors behindhow, why and under what conditions animals produce certain sounds are researched.The information contained in this report was compiled through searches ofMedline, a computerized database indexing published medical literature,and CRISP, a computerized information retrieval service operated by theNational Institutes of Health (NIH).

According to IDA's estimates, animal vocalization experiments like thoseoutlined in the following report have cost taxpayers at least $64 million.Some of the scientists performing this research have been receiving publicgrants for as long as 25 years. No impartial and independent governmentaloversight agency such as the General Accounting Office (GAO) exists to determineif the experiments have ever produced clinically useful results. This reportdocuments that the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have simultaneouslyfunded the same scientists conducting esoteric animal vocalization researchwith no apparent relevance to clinical human medicine. In fact, medicalprogress would not be hindered if taxpayer money were immediately and permanentlywithdrawn from the experiments outlined in this, and subsequent, reports.Considering our country's current fiscal crisis, we must begin making hardchoices, even about research -- and the clinically-irrelevant vocalizationstudies detailed in this report are a good place to start.

II. Bird Vocalization Research

"[These bird studies] are all lacking any connection between findingsand practical solutions to human conditions....[They] are blatantly lackingin evidence, or relationship to our advances in the treatment of psychological,neurological or general medical conditions....[T]he Government continuesto push these academic programs will little application to human health....Icannot overstate my concern regarding the practical ramifications or applicationsof these studies in improving the quality of human life."

Robert B. Sica, Ph.D.
Diplomat, American Board of Professional Neuropsychology
Clinical Neuropsychologist

"[These studies on birds] are prime examples of relatively meaninglessinvestigations unlikely to produce any practical benefit for anyone otherthan the researcher/s....[They are] of interest only to others engaged inrelated (and equally meaningless) research. Research of this type, whenfunded by public grants, constitutes an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money."

Yozan Dirk Mosig, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Nebraska-Kearney

A. Research of Fernando Nottebohm

According to IDA's estimates, Rockefeller University researcher FernandoNottebohm receives nearly $300,000 per year -- more than $8.2 million inpublic grants over the past last 25 years -- for his studies of the brainmechanisms that help to determine how birds learn and sing. During the last25 years, Nottebohm has published 58 articles dealing with various aspectsof bird vocalization. The following is a small sample (less than 1/5) ofthat research:

Effect of season on number of neurons in vocal centers of birds' brains(1994);

Study of juvenile male zebra finches raised in soundproof chambers or visualisolation and effect on the timing of the birds' song learning. Birds notraised in isolation but whose brains were purposely damaged were also studied(1993);

Effect of testosterone on the ability of castrated zebra finches to discriminatebetween different songs -- such as two canary songs, the finches' own song,or the songs of other finches (1992);

Effect of right-side and left-side damage to brain area involved in hearingon adult male finches' reactions to different songs, including their own,their cage mate's, and those of unfamiliar birds (1992);

Effect of surgically deafening and damaging the regions of the brain involvedin learning songs on song development in young zebra finches (1991);

Effect of seasonal changes on hormones and song in adult male canaries (1987);

Study of developmental and seasonal changes in canaries' songs and the correlationto size and weight of the birds' vocal control center. Nottebohm recordedsong development of male canaries, by season and by age (at 2 years old,their repertoire is much larger, and different, than at 1 year), then killedthe birds and examined their brains (1986);

Comparison of male marsh wrens from California (who have a 150-song repertoire)and New York marsh wrens (who have a 50-song repertoire), to see if Californiabirds with the larger repertoire had larger vocal control centers. Nottebohmkilled the birds and dissected their brains (1984);

Comparison of weight and volume of vocal centers in the brains of male canaries,who sing, and female canaries, who do not sing. Nottebohm recorded the songrepertoires of 25 male canaries during the peak of the singing season, thenkilled the male birds 3-4 months later, along with 21 female birds and dissectedtheir brains. Nottebohm concluded the males' regions were larger, which"confirm[ed] previous findings" (1981);

Effect of brain damage on songs of adult male canaries. Nottebohm recordedand analyzed the songs of the canaries, electrically damaged their brains,re-recorded and re-analyzed the songs, then killed the birds and dissectedtheir brains (1976).

B. Research of Nottebohm's Colleagues

Fernando Nottebohm is the "father," so to speak, of a "nest"of Rockefeller bird researchers, such as Arturo Alvarez-Buylla and DavidS. Vicario (both current recipients of public grants), who are conductingrelated experiments. Nottebohm's protégés have in turn bredothers at the same institution, as well as those who have migrated to differentfacilities (like publicly funded researcher John Kirn, formerly at Rockefeller,currently at Wesleyan University), where entirely new "nests"can be built -- at taxpayer expense.

Nottebohm has also influenced bird researchers at other facilities. Hispublicly funded publishing colleagues include Timothy DeVoogd at CornellUniversity, Heather Williams at Williams College, Arthur Arnold at UCLA,Donald Kroodsma at the University of Massachusetts, and J.C. Wingfield atthe University of Washington. IDA projects that the research of Nottebohm'spublishing colleagues has cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $6.6 millionto date.

C. More Bird Vocalization Research

There are numerous federally-funded researchers conducting bird vocalizationresearch who have no apparent connection to Nottebohm. These include birdresearchers Robert J. Dooling at the University of Maryland, Kathy Nordeenat the University of Rochester, and Sarah Bottjer at USC, all of whom havenot published with Nottebohm. IDA projects that these three researchershave cost U.S. taxpayers at least $5.7 million to date. Like Nottebohm,a number of bird vocalization researchers have been experimenting in thisfield -- at taxpayer expense -- for many years.

The following are a select few samples of such experiments, and the totalcost to date to taxpayers for grants that have funded the research of author(s)of the papers. The list below represents just those studies published duringa one-year period in 1993 -1994.

Comparison of vocal centers of the brains of marsh wrens with large songrepertoires and those with smaller or no song repertoires. Researchers injectedthe birds' brains with a cell staining agent, then killed them and dissectedtheir brains. (E.A. Brenowitz, B. Nalls, D.E. Kroodsma and C. Horning atthe University of Washington, Seattle)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.1 million

Effect of estrogen on masculinization of the song control centers in femalezebra finch nestlings. Researchers injected the nestlings with estrogenin different areas of their brains and bodies, then killed the birds anddissected their brains. (W. Grisham, G.A. Mathews and A.P. Arnold at theUniversity of California, Los Angeles)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $2.4 million

Study of development of neurons necessary for normal song development inmale zebra finches. Researchers killed 15-day-old male zebra finches beforethey could begin to learn songs. (F. Sohrabji, E.J. Nordeen and K.W. Nordeenat the University of Rochester)

Effect of brain damage on long-term maintenance of song on adult male zebrafinches. Researchers damaged song-learning regions of the birds' brainsand then recorded their songs. (K.W. Nordeen and E.J. Nordeen at the Universityof Rochester)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.6 million

Relationship between song repertoire size and the size of the song braincenter in comparison of the brain structure in 41 species of birds. (Devoogd,J.R. Krebs, S.D. Healy and A. Purvis at Cornell University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $862,478

Brain function in adult male zebra finches. Researchers electrically stimulatedand lesioned the brains of adult male zebra finches, as well as recordedbrain activity during songs. (H. Williams and D.S. Vicario at Williams College)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $452,560

Response of brain neurons of adult male zebra finches to sounds. Researchersdamaged the birds' brains, then implanted electrodes into the brains, andthen exposed the birds to sounds. (D.S. Vicario and K.H. Yohay at RockefellerUniversity)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.5 million

Role of head and beak movement in song production in white-throated sparrows(M.W. Westneat, J.H. Long, Jr., W. Hoese and S. Nowicki at the Chicago FieldMuseum of Natural History)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.2 million

Comparison of song control regions of male and female starlings. Researcherskilled the birds and dissected their brains. (D.J. Bernard, J.M. Casto andG.F. Ball at Johns Hopkins University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $423,200

Effect of testosterone on vocal centers in the brains of castrated malecanaries. Researchers killed the birds and dissected their brains. (F. Johnsonand S.W. Bottjer at USC)

Effect of testosterone and estrogen-related hormones on the brains of ovariectomizedfemale canaries. Researchers killed the birds and dissected their brains.(S.D. Brown, F. Johnson and S.W. Bottjer at USC)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $2.3 million

Effect on responsiveness of bobwhite quail hatchlings to their mothers afterexposure to bobwhite chick distress and contentment calls, domestic chickendistress calls or auditory isolation during the first 72 hours after beingborn. (T. McBride and R. Lickliter at Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $153,434

Effect of pain and auditory isolation on 7-day old chickens. Researchersimplanted formalin, which causes acute inflammatory pain, in the chickens,isolated them in soundproof booths, and measured the birds' footlift frequency,pecks, body temperature and weight, to see if these pain and stress-relatedbehaviors reflect "converging indices of stress and [pain]." (K.J.Sufka and N.C. Weed at the University of Mississippi, Oxford)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $99,574

D. Animal Vocalization Studies on Non-bird Species

Questionable animal vocalization research is by no means limited to experimentson birds. Like Fernando Nottebohm, a number of scientists have also beenexperimenting in this field -- at taxpayer expense -- for many years. Thefollowing is a select few samples of such research, limited to those articlespublished in 1993 and the first half of 1994. These, too, give a small indicationof what type of animal vocalization experiments are currently being conducted.


Effect of sugars on cries of young rats. Researchers isolated young ratsfrom their mothers and siblings, injected them with different sugars andrecorded their cries. Researchers also forced the pups' paws onto an extremelyhot surface, to see if the sugars affected how quickly the animals removedtheir paws from the heat. Their results "exactly parallel[ed] thoseobtained for human newborns." (E.M. Blass and D.J. Shide at CornellUniversity)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.5 million

Effect on vocalizations of female rats of exposure to male mating calls.Researchers presented female rats with tape recordings of males mating orcalls made before ejaculating, and also exposed them to rats whom the experimentershad "devocalized." Researchers compared the results with a previousstudy involving the effect of male sexual odors on female rats' vocalizations.(N.R. White, R.N. Gonzales and R.J. Barfield at Rutgers University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $2.6 million

Study of characteristics in male adult rats that cause freezing, reducedcries and other inhibiting behaviors in young rats. Researchers isolated14-day-old rats from their nests and exposed them to unfamiliar young oradult males, and familiar adult males. (L.K. Takahaski at the Universityof Wisconsin, Madison Medical School)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $384,108

Effect of xylocaine (which blocks lip movement) injected into rhesus monkeysto determine the importance of lip configuration in the animals' vocal production.(M.D. Hauser and M.S. Ybarra at Harvard University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: Unknown

Study of female rat vocalization during fighting. Researchers placed 18female rats with aggressive rat mothers, and exposed them to one-minuteattacks at 25-minute intervals. (K.A. Miczek and M. Haney at Tufts University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $8.7 million

Effect of cocaine on rat pups' vocalizations and responses to pain. Researchersinjected cocaine or saline into pregnant rats, isolated their pups, injectedthem with morphine, and induced pain. (G.A. Goodwin, C.A. Moody and L.P.Spear at Binghamton University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $1.6 million

Effect of testosterone and testes transplants on the courtship songs ofsterilized male and female frogs. Researchers removed the gonads of thefrogs, then gave them testis transplants at different developmental stagesor implanted them with tubes containing testosterone for 1.5-3 years. (J.T.Watson, J. Robertson, U. Sachdev and D.B. Kelley at Columbia University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $3.2 million

Effect of cold and maternal interaction on vocalizations and activitiesof infant rat pups. Researchers isolated 12-day-old rat pups from theirmothers in a number of situations, including varying the room temperatureand litter size. (M.A. Hofer, S.A. Brunelli and H.N. Shair at Columbia University)

Effect of devocalization on the warming of freezing rat pups. Researchersdisconnected pups' nerves to their larynx, and tracheostomized other pups,then induced severe hypothermia. (M.A. Hofer and H.N. Shair at ColumbiaUniversity)

Effect of freezing rat mothers on rat pups' vocalizations. Researchers inducedsevere hypothermia in rat mothers, then introduced and removed the freezingrat mothers to pups who had been isolated. (M.A. Hofer, S.A. Brunelli andH.N. Shair at Columbia University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $4.2 million

Comparison of sound communications underlying social behaviors in threeneotropical frog species. Researchers studied the frogs' mating calls, thenkilled the animals and examined their larynxes and ears. (W. Wilczynski,B.E. McClelland and A.S. Rand at the University of Texas)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $599,022

Study of 1-day-old rat pups injected with cocaine for seven consecutivedays, to see how it would affect their movement and cries after being separatedfrom their mothers. (G.A. Barr and S. Wang at Columbia University)

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS: $562,423

III. CONCLUSION

The animal vocalization experiments described in this report represent onesmall area in our country's huge, government-funded research enterprise.Future reports on such subject headings as animal sexual behavior and olfaction(smell) will demonstrate long-term public grants, representing tens of millionsof dollars, are underwriting studies with no clear application to humanconditions and diseases. Government research grants for such experimentsform in essence a public subsidy program for scientists. In light of ournation's pressing economic problems, however, it is time to re-evaluatethe propriety of "scientific welfare" in the form of public fundingfor "intellectual curiosity" experiments and other esoteric pursuitswith no direct relevance to improving the health and well-being of our citizens.