From: [email protected] on behalf of Pamela Osgood To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 12:51:16 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Pamela Osgood
580 Capp St Apt 815 San Francisco, CA 94110-2561
From: Edward Sing
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 10B on Jan 2, 2023 Alameda City Council Agenda: animal research prohibition resolution Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:10:25 PM
Alameda City Council:
I fully support this resolution and urge you to vote Yes! Ed Sing
Alameda Resident for 27 Years
From: [email protected] on behalf of Carol Strand To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:11:37 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Carol Strand
1733 Madera St Berkeley, CA 94707-2513
From: [email protected] on behalf of Teresa Goodman To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:28:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Teresa Goodman
2209 Scott St San Francisco, CA 94115-1722
From: [email protected] on behalf of Erin Pincombe To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:43:21 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Erin Pincombe
FILLMORE St San Francisco, CA 94115
From: [email protected] on behalf of Lan Luc
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 10:20:02 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lan Luc
2028 Foothill Blvd # B Oakland, CA 94606-4670
From: [email protected] on behalf of Jorge Becerril To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 11:44:42 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jorge Becerril
35 Alpine Ter San Francisco, CA 94117-3166
From: [email protected] on behalf of Gail Henigman To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 12:46:19 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Gail Henigman
101 Parnassus Ave Apt 1 San Francisco, CA 94117-4239
From: [email protected] on behalf of Francesca Rago To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 12:50:18 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Francesca Rago
111 Cleaveland Rd Apt 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3854 From: [email protected] on behalf of Elanor Sue To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 1:05:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elanor Sue
255 8th Ave Apt 516 Oakland, CA 94606-5146
From: [email protected] on behalf of Sue Klapholz To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 1:56:29 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sue Klapholz
76 Peter Coutts Cir Stanford, CA 94305-2511
From: [email protected] on behalf of lila cohen To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 2:07:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. lila cohen
1218 Queens Rd Berkeley, CA 94708-2112
From: [email protected] on behalf of Donna Turner To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 2:56:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Donna Turner
1154 Alemany Blvd San Francisco, CA 94112-1443
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kelly Berry To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 3:03:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Kelly Berry
1036 Los Gamos Rd Apt B San Rafael, CA 94903-2579
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kerry Boyd To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 3:54:48 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kerry Boyd
356 King St Redwood City, CA 94062-2039
From: [email protected] on behalf of Joshua Beth To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:26:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Joshua Beth
1484 76th Ave Oakland, CA 94621-2709
From: [email protected] on behalf of Therese Brewitz To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:51:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Therese Brewitz
2362 Courtland Ave Oakland, CA 94601-4838
From: [email protected] on behalf of Barbara Bennigson To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 6:04:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Barbara Bennigson
2339 Ramona St Palo Alto, CA 94301-4132
From: [email protected] on behalf of Lydia Clifton To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 6:44:27 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lydia Clifton
3250 Hollis St Unit 211 Emeryville, CA 94608-4160
From: [email protected] on behalf of Trang Hoang To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:42:56 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Trang Hoang
2060 4th St Apt 412 Berkeley, CA 94710-1962
From: [email protected] on behalf of Gwen Willows To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 7:43:28 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Gwen Willows
3022 Tulare Ave Richmond, CA 94804-1150
From: [email protected] on behalf of Cynthia Hellmuth To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 10:37:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Cynthia Hellmuth
170 W G St Benicia, CA 94510-3142
From: [email protected] on behalf of Judith Casino To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 9:08:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Judith Casino
21 Leeds Ct W Danville, CA 94526-4311
From: [email protected] on behalf of Lynn Husbands To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:10:17 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lynn Husbands
5396 Heavenly Ridge Ln El Sobrante, CA 94803-2627
From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 5:19:11 PM
From: Kerry Boyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 3:54:41 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Dear Councilmember Trish Spencer,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science-driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals. And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body. Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr.
John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.”
In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments —including those that inflict pain. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system. In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kerry Boyd
356 King St Redwood City, CA 94062-2039
From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 5:17:03 PM
From: Therese Brewitz <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:51:51 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Dear Councilmember Trish Spencer,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science-driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals. And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body. Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr.
John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.”
In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments —including those that inflict pain. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system. In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Therese Brewitz
2362 Courtland Ave Oakland, CA 94601-4838
From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 5:17:32 PM
From: Joshua Beth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:26:12 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Dear Councilmember Trish Spencer,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science-driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals. And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body. Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr.
John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.”
In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments —including those that inflict pain. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system. In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Joshua Beth
1484 76th Ave Oakland, CA 94621-2709
From: Debra Shapiro
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:54:47 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Debra Shapiro
1111 Marquita Ave Burlingame, CA 94010-3322
From: Nikki Nafziger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:39:55 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Nikki Nafziger
1101 Porter St Vallejo, CA 94590-7907
From: Julie S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:20:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Julie S
1082 Tilley Cir Concord, CA 94518-1829
From: darrell Rolstone
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:18:26 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. darrell Rolstone
9 Orange Ave Larkspur, CA 94939-1925
From: Ruth Robertson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:18:02 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Ruth Robertson
126 Beaver St San Francisco, CA 94114-1517
From: Utkarsh Nath
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:46:31 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Utkarsh Nath
34462 Alberta Ter Fremont, CA 94555-2907
From: Agha Haider
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:45:10 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Agha Haider
10737 Inspiration Cir Dublin, CA 94568-5556
From: Amita Pereira
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:33:09 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Amita Pereira
5800 Burlingame Ave Richmond, CA 94804-5210
From: Dave Hall
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:30:17 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr Dave Hall
4800 Sorani Way Castro Valley, CA 94546-1350
From: Leslie Harrop
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:20:27 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Leslie Harrop
17 El Paseo Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-2370
From: AJ Cho
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:16:48 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mx. AJ Cho
159 Santa Teresa San Leandro, CA 94579-1963
From: Suzanne Wood
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 8:35:18 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Suzanne Wood
2510 Russell St Apt 1 Berkeley, CA 94705-2158
From: Sheila Gill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 8:15:44 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Sheila Gill
PO Box 370592 Montara, CA 94037-0592
From: Alice Polesky
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 8:12:43 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Alice Polesky
890 Kansas St Apt 4 San Francisco, CA 94107-2664
From: Hannah Cranch
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 8:07:45 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Hannah Cranch
2520 Emerson St Palo Alto, CA 94301-4222
From: Kendra Knight
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 6:39:44 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Kendra Knight
1301 Sanchez Ave Burlingame, CA 94010-3643
From: Elaine Huff
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 6:36:14 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Elaine Huff
1926 Anza St San Francisco, CA 94118-3657
From: Giuliana Rinaldo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:37:58 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Giuliana Rinaldo
1900 Trousdale Dr Burlingame, CA 94010-5387
From: Elanor Sue
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 4:39:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elanor Sue
255 8th Ave Oakland, CA 94606-5146
From: Greg Rosas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:54:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Greg Rosas
4353 Edwards Ln Castro Valley, CA 94546-3653
From: Tem Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:48:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Tem Narvios
1425 Visitacion Ave San Francisco, CA 94134-2756
From: R Daghighian
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:44:20 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. R Daghighian
1107 Emerald Bay Ln Foster City, CA 94404-4017
From: Carol Taggart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:17:04 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Carol Taggart
1705 Valparaiso Ave Menlo Park, CA 94025-5560
From: Neale Miglani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:14:30 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Neale Miglani
3 Macgregor Pl Danville, CA 94526-2918
From: Antonia Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:13:40 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Antonia Moore
1919 Alameda De Las Pulgas Apt 146 San Mateo, CA 94403-1256 From: Beth Milton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:13:23 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Beth Milton
923 Olympia Ave NE Olympia, WA 98506-3937
From: Elaine Parker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:10:05 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elaine Parker
285 Fairlawn Dr Berkeley, CA 94708-2220
From: Rocky Chau
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:41:18 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Rocky Chau
3811 Lakeside Dr Apt C212 Richmond, CA 94806-5755
From: Ron E Ginsberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:29:06 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Ron E Ginsberg
492 Grove St San Francisco, CA 94102-4303
From: Christie Decker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:21:33 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Christie Decker
786 Geary St San Francisco, CA 94109-7363
From: Paula Purvis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:01:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Paula Purvis
33 SE 2ND St Hallandale, FL 33009
From: Thefbiiswatching Izskaminyu
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:57:58 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Prefix Thefbiiswatching Izskaminyu
23 Av Oakland, CA 94606
From: Judith Gottesman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:41:27 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Judith Gottesman
PO Box 5043 El Cerrito, CA 94530
From: Anne Tuddenham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:56:03 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anne Tuddenham
1220 King Dr El Cerrito, CA 94530-2550
From: SUSAN LOUIE
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:51:31 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
SUSAN LOUIE
PO Box 7605 Berkeley, CA 94707-0605
From: Diane Arndt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:49:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Diane Arndt
2841 Ptarmigan Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-3136
From: Patricia Arthur
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:48:55 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Patricia Arthur
30 Reservoir Rd Atherton, CA 94027-6420
From: Gary Cianciarulo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:47:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Gary Cianciarulo
2699 18th St San Francisco, CA 94110-2110
From: Judy Schultz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:44:05 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Judy Schultz
2741 Bush St San Francisco, CA 94115-2927
From: Cassie King
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:45:27 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Cassie King
2239 10th St Berkeley, CA 94710-2325
From: Alexandra Saunders
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:40:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Alexandra Saunders
190 Camino Encanto Danville, CA 94526-2418
From: Linda Riebel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:34:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Linda Riebel
3350 Hermosa Way Lafayette, CA 94549-2101
From: Valerie Haak
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:27:17 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Valerie Haak
1738 Stanley Dollar Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-7427
From: Kerry Boyd
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:19:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kerry Boyd
356 King St Redwood City, CA 94062-2039
From: Mike Evans
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:12:16 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Mike Evans
HEARST Ave Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
From: Anita Watkins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:15:47 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anita Watkins
6109 Westover Dr Oakland, CA 94611-2404
From: Michael Ambrose
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 12:01:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Ambrose
360 Vallejo Dr Apt 107 Millbrae, CA 94030-2878
From: Waltraud Buckland
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:58:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Waltraud Buckland
155 Avenida Dr Berkeley, CA 94708-2124
From: Enoe Corado
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:55:46 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Enoe Corado
PO Box 410056 San Francisco, CA 94141-0056
From: Andrew Mueckenberger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:52:38 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Andrew Mueckenberger
2953 Southwood Dr Alameda, CA 94501-1751
From: Barbara Sanchez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:50:05 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Barbara Sanchez
3440 Little Ln Lafayette, CA 94549-4603
From: John Ida
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:46:15 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. John Ida
2000 Post St Apt 360 San Francisco, CA 94115-3577
From: Vira Confectioner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:40:32 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Vira Confectioner
PO Box 374 Sunol, CA 94586-0374
From: Eclipse Diamond
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:40:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Eclipse Diamond
1201 S Main St Apt 235 Milpitas, CA 95035-8060
From: David Perry
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:36:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
David Perry
513 Ashton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306-3608
From: Krista Alexander
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:36:10 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Krista Alexander
260 Grove St Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-2004
From: Patricia Geary
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:32:26 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Geary
708 Reisling Ct Clayton, CA 94517-1417
From: katrina child
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:28:39 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. katrina child
4019 24th St San Francisco, CA 94114-3715
From: Judy Bertelsen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:28:30 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Judy Bertelsen
PO Box 2774 Berkeley, CA 94702-0774
From: Michael Tomczyszyn
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:16:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Tomczyszyn
243 Ramsell St San Francisco, CA 94132-3140
From: Jill Harris
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:19:54 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jill Harris
823 Fulton St San Francisco, CA 94117-1709
From: Mari Vlastos
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:57:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mari Vlastos
1221 Queens Rd Berkeley, CA 94708-2111
From: Laura Nardozza
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:54:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Laura Nardozza
741 S Norfolk St San Mateo, CA 94401-3105
From: ferran puig
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:54:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. ferran puig
249 Yale Ave Kensington, CA 94708-1013
From: Elizabeth Hook
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:53:55 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Elizabeth Hook
2127 Taylor St Apt C San Francisco, CA 94133-2200
From: Fumi Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:52:12 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Fumi Lee
N A San Francisco, CA 94102
From: john Lloyd
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:45:52 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. john Lloyd
3300 Powell St Emeryville, CA 94608-1528
From: Leslie Smith
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:42:48 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Leslie Smith
6046 Fairlane Dr Oakland, CA 94611-1806
From: Melissa Davis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:39:49 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Melissa Davis
8240 Locust Pl S Dublin, CA 94568-1250
From: Jan norris
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:34:06 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jan norris
1422 Bellevue Ave Apt 403 Burlingame, CA 94010-3920
From: Y Yeh
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:27:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Y Yeh
4641 Margery Dr Fremont, CA 94538-2537
From: Miranda Helly
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:27:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Miranda Helly
1570 Jackson St Oakland, CA 94612-4469
From: Julia Earl
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:07:06 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Julia Earl
7 Sunrise Ln Larkspur, CA 94939-2188
From: Lll D
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:04:14 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Lll D
900 Madison St Albany, CA 94706-2025
From: Kathleen Harriman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:00:21 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kathleen Harriman
167 Marina Lakes Dr Richmond, CA 94804-7453
From: Catherine Morgan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:56:52 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Catherine Morgan
1024 Fair Oaks Ave Alameda, CA 94501-3922
From: Linda Johnson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:56:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Linda Johnson
1648 Lodi Ave San Mateo, CA 94401-3658
From: David Wendt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:55:37 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. David Wendt
430 N Civic Dr Apt 412 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3384
From: Cayla Coleman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:53:43 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs Cayla Coleman
205 Bayview Dr San Rafael, CA 94901-2560
From: Cheryl Parkins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:51:27 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Cheryl Parkins
4285 Gilbert St Oakland, CA 94611-5115
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:49:15 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jan Jones
2612 Tulare Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Cindi Goldberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:47:50 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Cindi Goldberg
1257 Hopkins St Berkeley, CA 94702-1144
From: Maria Nowicki
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:46:57 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Maria Nowicki
2324 14th Ave San Francisco, CA 94116-2517
From: Heather Curtis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:46:30 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Heather Curtis
553 Central Ave Alameda, CA 94501-3757
From: Barbara Greenwood
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:46:29 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Barbara Greenwood
713 Rosewood Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596-6127
From: Divya Priyanath
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:41:15 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Divya Priyanath
20107 Sapphire St Castro Valley, CA 94546-4727
From: Patricia Rogers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:39:57 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Rogers
317 Avenida Flores Pacheco, CA 94553-5258
From: Patricia Banchik
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:40:11 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Patricia Banchik
5827 Dover St Oakland, CA 94609-1423
From: Arin Weitzman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:37:51 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Arin Weitzman
772 34th St Richmond, CA 94805-1771
From: Ann Graves
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:33:17 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Ann Graves
1619 137th Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1603
From: MARISA Menéndez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:32:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
MARISA Menéndez
1118 Delaware St Berkeley, CA 94702-1620
From: Kim Bartlett
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:29:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Bartlett
3250 Hollis St Unit 211 Emeryville, CA 94608-4160
From: Renee Snyder
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:26:37 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Renee Snyder
2045 Pine Knoll Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-4650
From: Lisa Maker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:25:53 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs Lisa Maker
5455 Kirkwood Dr Concord, CA 94521-1643
From: leslie smith
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:25:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. leslie smith
1065 62nd St Oakland, CA 94608-2321
From: Jorge Belloso-Curiel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:24:26 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jorge Belloso-Curiel
431 Metro Walk Way Richmond, CA 94801-3236
From: R.Zierikzee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:18:50 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. R. Zierikzee
845 Euclid Ave Apt 4 San Francisco, CA 94118-2520
From: Dorothy Pasquinelli
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:22:52 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Dorothy Pasquinelli
PO Box 2827 El Granada, CA 94018-2827
From: Heidi Byers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:16:05 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Heidi Byers
10 Driftwood Trl Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-2349
From: Maria Harrington
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:15:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Maria Harrington
118 Blossom Cir San Mateo, CA 94403-4604
From: Janicedotherighthing Greenberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:15:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Janicedotherighthing Greenberg
1708 Golden Rain Rd Apt 3 Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2140
From: Jennifer Klatt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:14:41 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jennifer Klatt
6694 Liggett Dr Oakland, CA 94611-3252
From: [email protected] on behalf of Johanna Abate To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:12:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Johanna Abate
1650 California St Apt 9 San Francisco, CA 94109-4633
From: [email protected] on behalf of Susan Fischer To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:12:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Susan Fischer
2735 Cherry Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94597-2176
From: Helen Cameron
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:08:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Helen Cameron
842 Neilson St Berkeley, CA 94707-1816
From: Sheila Dixon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:08:28 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Sheila Dixon
1516 Silverleaf Ln Concord, CA 94521-3546
From: Carole Brady-Duport
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:08:19 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Carole Brady-Duport
286 Holly Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080-1321
From: Valerie Jo Ann Orner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:06:17 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Valerie Jo Ann Orner
1630 Sugarloaf Dr San Mateo, CA 94403-3946
From: Michael Ames
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:06:32 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Ames
17500 Kingston Way Castro Valley, CA 94546-1125
From: Denise Garza
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:05:13 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Denise Garza
4659 Diaz Dr Fremont, CA 94536-5450
From: Martin Horwitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:05:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Martin Horwitz
1326 23rd Ave San Francisco, CA 94122-1608
From: Shelley Abbate
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:05:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Shelley Abbate
2630 Parkside Dr Union City, CA 94587-1714
From: Erin Meadows
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:05:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Erin Meadows
1148 Grizzly Peak Blvd Berkeley, CA 94708-1741
From: Johanna Abate
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:03:07 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Johanna Abate
1650 California St Apt 9 San Francisco, CA 94109-4633
From: Meera P
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:02:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ma Meera P
43456 Ellsworth St Fremont, CA 94539-4201
From: Jann Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:02:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jann Lee
116 Arlene Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1731
From: Susan Fischer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:02:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Susan Fischer
2735 Cherry Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94597-2176
From: Ramona Williams
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:02:29 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Ramona Williams
675 Hartz Ave Danville, CA 94526-3838
From: Carlene Visperas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:02:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Carlene Visperas
5361 Meadow Wood Pl Concord, CA 94521-1502
From: Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:01:41 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
5737 Medallion Ct Castro Valley, CA 94552-1708
From: Parvin Shambayati
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:00:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Parvin Shambayati
2000 W John St Champaign, IL 61821-3666
From: Niloofar Shambayati
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:00:43 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Niloofar Shambayati
1901 Marin Ave Berkeley, CA 94707-2407
From: Devin McCormick
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:33:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Devin McCormick
1701 Brandee Ln Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8674
From: Alan Bent
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:21:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Alan Bent
280 Spear St Unit 8G San Francisco, CA 94105-6194
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Thank you for proposed resolution re prohibition of Animal Testing Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:34:01 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joanna Perez-Green <[email protected]>
Date: Oct 31, 2023 12:37 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Thank you for proposed resolution re prohibition of Animal Testing To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc:
Dear Councilmember Spencer,
I wanted to thank you for your proposed resolution, “Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Prohibiting Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda,” which i support.
Thank you,
Joanna
Sent from my iPhone
From: Carolyn Beaman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:02:33 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Beaman
534 Shorebird Cir Unit 17201 Redwood City, CA 94065-1050 From: Myra Delzeit
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:40:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Myra Delzeit
1270 Windermere Way Concord, CA 94521-3344
From: Linda Savage
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:46:05 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Linda Savage
1511 136th Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1640
From: Glenna Dowling
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:50:37 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Glenna Dowling
2741 Bush St San Francisco, CA 94115-2927
From: Joslyn Baxter
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:53:41 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Joslyn Baxter
324 Sheffield Ave Mill Valley, CA 94941-3860
From: Karen Kirschling
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:00:43 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Karen Kirschling
633 Oak St Apt 2 San Francisco, CA 94117-2655
From: Urmila Padmanabhan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:09:00 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Urmila Padmanabhan
42629 Queens Park Ct Fremont, CA 94538-3946
From: Marilyn Gandy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:37:53 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marilyn Gandy
950 Grizzly Peak Blvd Berkeley, CA 94708-1549
From: Nancy Paskowitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:53:52 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Nancy Paskowitz
579 57th St Oakland, CA 94609-1746
From: Bianca Molgora
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 4:04:26 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Bianca Molgora
3976 Folsom St San Francisco, CA 94110-6138
From: Hoffer, Naomi
To: Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Lara Weisiger; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote in favor of 10-B!
Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:43:16 AM
Importance: High
Dear Alameda City Leaders,
As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote in favor of Item 10-B, prohibiting animal experiments on public land, during the Alameda City Council’s November 7 meeting.
Banning cruel and ineffective animal experiments on city land would be a win for both human patients and animals, showing that Alameda supports ethical, human-relevant, science-driven research. Ninety-five percent of new drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly moving toward modern, non-animal methods for testing drugs and developing treatments for humans. Superior, cutting-edge technologies—including organs-on-chips and three- dimensional organ models that use human organ and tissue cells—are readily available and effectively mimic human systems.
Thank you for your consideration of this important and merciful request.
Best,
Naomi Hoffer, Alameda City Resident
From: Candi Ausman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 11:59:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Candi Ausman
35640 Fremont Blvd Unit 334 Fremont, CA 94536-3420
From: Timothy Bickel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:27:13 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Timothy Bickel
1608 Marina Ct San Mateo, CA 94403-5572
From: nicole kidd
To: Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Lara Weisiger; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote in favor of 10-B - no animal experimentation on our island!>Nine Out of Ten Drugs That Appear Promising in Animal Studies Go on to Fail in Human Clinical Trials.
Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:39:09 PM
As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote in favor of Item 10-B, prohibiting animal experiments on public land, during the Alameda City Council’s November 7 meeting.
Banning cruel and ineffective animal experiments on city land would be a win for both human patients and animals, showing that Alameda supports ethical, human-relevant, science-driven research.
Ninety-five percent of new drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials, according to The National Institutes of Health (NIH) . Researchers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly moving toward modern, non-animal methods for testing drugs and developing treatments for humans. Superior, cutting-edge technologies—including organs-on-chips and three-dimensional organ models that use human organ and tissue cells—are readily available and effectively mimic human systems.
Please SAY NO to ANIMAL TESTING ON ALAMEDA!!!
Thank you, Nicole Kidd
Nicole Kidd | 510-967-8295 | ♂
Analyst | Trend Scout | Moderator |
AUSD CTE INDUSTRY ADVISORY CHAIRPERSON
NEW: https://NicoleKidd.com #ArtisanNK #NKiddJewelry
From: Dina Slobodnink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:48:46 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Dina Slobodnink
510 41st St Oakland, CA 94609-2412
From: JUDITH FRUGE
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 10-B
Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 4:03:21 PM
As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote in favor of Item 10-B, prohibiting animal experiments on public land, during the Alameda City Council’s November 7 meeting.
Banning cruel and ineffective animal experiments on city land would be a win for both human patients and animals, showing that Alameda supports ethical, human-relevant, science-driven research.
Ninety-five percent of new drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials.
Researchers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly moving toward modern, non-animal methods for testing drugs and developing treatments for humans. Superior, cutting-edge technologies—including organs-on-chips and three-dimensional organ models that use human organ and tissue cells—are readily available and effectively mimic human systems.
I strongly urge you to support 10-B.
Thank you,
Judith Fruge
From: Susan Dunn
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item #10B... please support this resolution Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 4:30:01 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members.
I urge you to support and vote for the resolution coming before you 11/7/23 Agenda
# 10B
regarding an resolution for drafting an ordinance which declares that there be no animal experimentation
or animal research permitted at City owned buildings, or land or property controlled by the City.
Please support and vote for this resolution; It is clear from the many emails you have received and are receiving that
a majority of Alamedans want and desire this resolution to be passed by you.
And please recall there is a long history in Alameda of residents being critical of animal research and the way it is conducted. Additionaly Alamedans want to preserve the City's good image and we believe that widespread animal research particularly on/at our City owned properties will tarnish this good image.
If the City wants to encourage Life Sciences companies to settle in Alameda, that is well and good.
However under the category of Life Sciences are many many types of companies
that do not use animals in their research. We Alamedans ask that the City formulate a policy of encouraging those types of companies to settle here.
Thank you,
Susan and Jeff Dunn
Susan Dunn
36 Sunny Cove Circle
Alameda, CA 94502
510-337-1354 (home)
510-759-9771 (cell)
From: Geralyn Gulseth
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 11:59:27 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss Geralyn Gulseth
110 Lagunaria Ln Alameda, CA 94502-6701
From: Allison Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 11:34:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Allison Jones
621 18th St Oakland, CA 94612-1324
From: Laura Mani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 9:36:14 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Laura Mani
1007 Erica Rd Mill Valley, CA 94941-3749
From: MARIE SARRICA
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 3:53:31 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. MARIE SARRICA
25853 Westview Way Hayward, CA 94542-1939
From: Midori Nakayama
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 10:35:43 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Midori Nakayama
220 Cardenas Ave San Francisco, CA 94132-2420
From: Valerie Jo Ann Orner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:31:26 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Valerie Jo Ann Orner
1630 Sugarloaf Dr San Mateo, CA 94403-3946
From: Harry Garrison
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:32:07 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Harry Garrison
1229 Oregon St Berkeley, CA 94702-2246
From: Renee Snyder
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:32:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Renee Snyder
2045 Pine Knoll Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-4650
From: Valerie Haak
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:32:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Valerie Haak
1738 Stanley Dollar Dr Apt 1B Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2858 From: Lisa Maker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:32:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs Lisa Maker
5455 Kirkwood Dr Concord, CA 94521-1643
From: Patricia Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:34:00 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Jones
98 Stratford Rd Kensington, CA 94707-1246
From: Maria Nowicki
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:34:01 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Maria Nowicki
2324 14th Ave San Francisco, CA 94116-2517
From: Natalie Khitrov
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:34:08 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Natalie Khitrov
2600 San Leandro Blvd Apt 1308 San Leandro, CA 94578-5045 From: Martin Horwitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:35:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Martin Horwitz
1326 23rd Ave San Francisco, CA 94122-1608
From: Joslyn Baxter
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:36:30 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Joslyn Baxter
324 Sheffield Ave Mill Valley, CA 94941-3860
From: josephine ramos
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:36:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. josephine ramos
1161 Kearny St San Francisco, CA 94133-4055
From: Diana Bohn
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:37:01 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Diana Bohn
618 San Luis Rd Berkeley, CA 94707-1726
From: Christopher Evans
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:37:55 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Christopher Evans
HEARST Ave Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
From: John Ida
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:38:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. John Ida
2000 Post St Apt 360 San Francisco, CA 94115-3577
From: Michael Ames
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:38:25 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Ames
17500 Kingston Way Castro Valley, CA 94546-1125
From: R.Zierikzee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:38:25 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. R. Zierikzee
845 Euclid Ave Apt 4 San Francisco, CA 94118-2520
From: Crystal Heath
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:38:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Crystal Heath
3015 San Pablo Ave Berkeley, CA 94702-2430
From: David Balsam
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:39:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. David Balsam
6239 College Ave Oakland, CA 94618-1329
From: Patricia Banchik
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:39:37 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Patricia Banchik
5827 Dover St Oakland, CA 94609-1423
From: Linda Johnson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:40:38 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Linda Johnson
1648 Lodi Ave San Mateo, CA 94401-3658
From: Michelle Santy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:40:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Michelle Santy
PO Box 203 Moss Beach, CA 94038-0203
From: Youching Yeh
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:41:28 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Youching Yeh
4641 Margery Dr Fremont, CA 94538-2537
From: Terry Zwigoff
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:41:28 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Terry Zwigoff
290 Mullen Ave San Francisco, CA 94110-5332
From: Johanna Abate
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:42:38 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Johanna Abate
1650 California St Apt 9 San Francisco, CA 94109-4633
From: Elizabeth Ryan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:42:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elizabeth Ryan
1413 7th St Berkeley, CA 94710-1411
From: Jill Fraser
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:43:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jill Fraser
80 Eddystone Ct Redwood City, CA 94065-1234
From: Kristin Womack
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:44:23 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kristin Womack
396 San Francisco Blvd San Anselmo, CA 94960-1639
From: Jason Scharnagel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:44:32 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jason Scharnagel
1636 Clayton Rd Apt 7 Concord, CA 94520-3314
From: Melissa Davis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:46:22 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Melissa Davis
8240 Locust Pl S Dublin, CA 94568-1250
From: Anita Watkins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:46:54 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anita Watkins
6109 Westover Dr Oakland, CA 94611-2404
From: Nikki Nafziger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:47:30 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Nikki Nafziger
1101 Porter St Vallejo, CA 94590-7907
From: Ramona Williams
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:48:23 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Ramona Williams
675 Hartz Ave Danville, CA 94526-3838
From: R Daghighian
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:48:39 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. R Daghighian
1107 Emerald Bay Ln Foster City, CA 94404-4017
From: Kim Bartlett
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:51:20 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Bartlett
3250 Hollis St Unit 211 Oakland, CA 94608-4160
From: Patricia Rogers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:53:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Rogers
317 Avenida Flores Pacheco, CA 94553-5258
From: Stefany Reich-Silber
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:54:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
MS. Stefany Reich-Silber
1801 California St Berkeley, CA 94703-1207
From: Michael Tomczyszyn
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:55:51 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Tomczyszyn
243 Ramsell St San Francisco, CA 94132-3140
From: Erika Tunick
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:55:57 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Erika Tunick
15 Hoffman Ave San Francisco, CA 94114-3123
From: Cyndi Sood-Parker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:57:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Cyndi Sood-Parker
4927 Seaview Ave Castro Valley, CA 94546-2346
From: Elaine Huff
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:00:02 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Elaine Huff
1926 Anza St San Francisco, CA 94118-3657
From: Earl West
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:00:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Earl West
7 Rice St Apt 3 Daly City, CA 94014-1036
From: Dianne Morrison
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:04:03 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.
Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.
Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Dianne Morrison
20 Curtis Ave San Rafael, CA 94901-2007
From: Elizabeth Watts
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:05:14 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.
An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.
And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.
Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.
Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.
In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.