1 Summary of Comments from Stakeholder Meeting
February 26, 2024
Business #1
• Did City look at San Jose or other life science hubs? • Alameda Point lends itself to STEM companies due to the large buildings/floorplates.
• Potential large loss to the City as an innovation hub, when this is required by the FDA.
• Alameda would take a hit as the first city to pass a ban, restricting part of the market for available space.
Business #2
• Animal testing facilities—a constant request from companies. • Currently, the life science sector does not have the sophisticated alternatives to animal testing; for example, only animal testing can demonstrate the impacts of a therapy on two separate organ systems simultaneously.
• Few options to contract animal testing within the Bay Area. Going out of the region, the state, or the country means that the company has less oversight on the testing. Also, the contracted company may have lower levels of quality work. • Contracting out to third parties particularly impacts start-ups, it is less of an issue to larger, established companies.
• Life science covers many “vertical” categories. “Human Therapeutics” is a major segment, roughly half of the industry (climate tech being another significant segment.)
• Most people in the general population will want assurances that a drug has first past validation in animal testing before put to human use; they will want a path to test therapies on animals before applied to humans.
• Concern about setting a precedence. What’s to say, why not expand the ordinance City-wide to private property, if it is acceptable for City-owned property?
Business #3
• Animal testing is part of a growth cycle for life science companies: conduct animal testing leads to more funding.
• Contracting out means “zero control” over the work and results in using more animals.
• Pushing animal testing to third parties does not move policy, just places the testing somewhere else: if not here, where?
• Going to another country is expensive; FDA would still need US based data. • A ban would portray Alameda as non-supportive of life science industry: “we are not wanted here.”
Exhibit 1
2 Business #4
• These are federal requirements.
• The advantage of the Bay Area is the speed of innovation and the capabilities/resources within the region (versus the need to contract outside of the region).
• The science is not there for having alternatives to animal testing. • Animal testing is done at every major public university, on public land.
Business #5
• Urgency of getting cancer-saving drugs to the public: alternatives currently are not an option.
• Animal facilities are very expensive, sometimes services are contract out. • Animal testing is a small part of the life science industry. • Companies may still want to be in Alameda for other business reasons.
summary of discussion
• Anxiety about animal testing policy.
• Has slippery slope of impacting private property or other Bay Area cities. • Should slow down the process, take more time to consider an ordinance. • Puts Alameda’s name out there in a negative light.