Talk:National Association for Biomedical Research

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Major inaccuracies in the source paper. Although attempts were made to correct these, the editor has reverted them back on multiple occasions even though even simple facts such as date of incorporation and IRS tax status are incorrect. Clearly, the seed document was written by a very biased source with little regard for fact checking.

Edit note

  • I think it is probably more accurate to describe NABR as an industry association rather than a front group. The single most important factor in inclining me in this direction is that I can see no indication that NABR pretends that it is a community or "grassroots" organization.
  • I have also moved the following section off the article page -- it would be more appropriate to have details such as this on another page and then have a brief statement on the NABR page and with the link to the more detailed material.----


Replaced section with one sentence & internal link.

Lisa 9/30

Edit note

Added to following text & refs to under "animal law" to clarify, because there was a "citation needed".

The only federal law that over sees laboratory animals is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes over 90% of all laboratory animals. Rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish are not covered and do not even have to be reported. [1] The AWA places no real restrictions on animal testing. Animals are routinely subjected to addictive drugs, electric shock, food & water deprivation, isolation, severe confinement, caustic chemicals, burning, blinding, chemical and biological weapons, radiation, etc. A researcher has only to declare that a procedure is necessary for it to be allowed. [2] Even minimal requirements under the AWA are rarely enforced. [3], [4] See also U.S. Department of Agriculture, section 3.

Lisa 10/2

Tax status

The article stated that " NABR is listed as a nonprofit organization under IRS code 501(c)(4). [ About NABR, NABR, accessed September 2009" but the web page cited doesn't mention any specific tax status.--Bob Burton 02:57, 1 October 2009 (EDT)


Just because SHAC 7 is mentioned in the article (because NABR have apparently once commented on them - just as I'm sure they have commented on most animal rights organizations at one time or another) does not make their backstory relevant to an article on NABR. Just as I would not expect a section devoted to the Animal Welfare Act, Senator Jesse Helms or Merck.

For that matter the HLS section isn't that relevant either. The important use of sourcewatch is to learn about an organisation - so make it about them (the use of a wiki is that people can click through the find out more about HLS, SHAC7 and the like).


NABR has been very instrumental in AETA and very vocal about HLS matters. Frankie Trull and her various groups (Policy Directions, NABR and FBR) have all been active in pushing AETA, and HLS was a large part of that. Since I included her public statement about HLS (which I noticed you didn't remove), it was important to clarify what she was talking about. The same is true for the Animal Welfare Act and the Helms Amendment, which NABR was apparently very active in. It's also important to focus on clients. So, this is about "the organization". They do a little more than "comment on animal rights organizations at one time or another."

I painstakingly research and reference every article I work on. Also, for a large article like this, I always consult an editor. You would probably be better off talking to an editor if you have a problem with SW policies. Many groups and companies analyzed here are front groups and lobbyists, who are not always as up front as you would like. We consider it a service. If you can't understand or appreciate that, I hope you can at least refrain from deleting other people's hard work.

In the future, please refrain from deleting portions of my articles you don't like, if you can. The last word is with the editor and that's who you can take it up with.

Lisa ---

Lisa, firstly you'll notice I am not criticising the aims or editorial policies of sourcewatch at all - I am well aware what the site is about and thus why it is useful. One of the crucial aspects of this is keeping information relevant. Everything you wrote about HLS and SHAC7 is fine - but it should be in the HLS and SHAC7 sections - not irrelevantly put in a topic about NABR.

The fact that you've written more about HLS and SHAC7 (of which neither section even MENTION NABR) than you have about their funding seems to show a misunderstanding about relevance. Fundamentally sourcewatch is a wiki based website which means connecting, or loosely related issues should be LINKED to, not included in the article.

The Frankie quote was relevant since it was by NABR's founder/president - it helped to elucidate the character of the business - the following two paragraphs did not. Rather than delete your sections again I advise that you remove them and instead have a link to HLS and SHAC7 sourcewatch pages at the bottom of the page. LP


Respectfully, I'll have to disagree. There are numerous links at the bottom and HLS is a long article. These are the two sections that relate to directly to her statements. They describe what HLS does and SHAC7 in the briefest way possible, which saves time going over the entire article and perhaps not even knowing what is being looked for. HLS and SHAC are still very under reported. Many people have no idea what a CRO is and have never heard of SHAC. I have done this with several articles. It's a very difficult call (what to include and what not to include). However, there is such confusion on this issue I feel this is the best formula.

Again, these groups can be very confusing. In this "series" there are actually four articles. The page on Policy Directions has more information about clients and funding. I have included links for all three groups in the top paragraph of every article. I don't want to get into an endless circular discussion over this. I can see you are very concerned. Please again feel free to contact the editor. That's what they are there for. Are you associated with Speaking of Research or one of these groups?