Support for network to advance veterinary medical research

The Morris Animal Foundation applauds the AVMA Executive Board in their recent decision to help develop, promote, and launch an Animal Health Network.¹ It is critical that we as a profession join together to deal effectively with the problems that we face. As the largest contributor to the Cat Health Network as well as other efforts to advance veterinary research, we strongly believe that what veterinary medical research needs most is more collaboration and alliance building between like-minded organizations. Veterinary medicine researchers simply do not have the luxury to duplicate each other's efforts.

Unfortunately, the June article might leave some readers with the impression that there is currently no national organization dedicated to companion animal and equine research. The Morris Animal Foundation is justifiably proud of its 64-year history funding health studies specifically designed to answer questions about diseases and conditions of companion animals, horses, and wildlife. In fact, the Morris Animal Foundation is the largest nongovernmental source for funding of research specific to veterinary medical questions (more than $100 million historically). Currently we are managing grants for more than 330 studies, students, and fellows, and this year alone, we will commit to more than $8 million in research funding to advance veterinary medicine. We select the studies we fund through a highly robust and independent process, relying on advisory boards made up entirely of academic and governmental researchers who are leaders in their fields and who adhere to strict conflict-of-interest policies. This process is the basis for what we believe to be a highly credible and unbiased body of research. Our approach is built upon the love our founder, Dr. Mark Morris Sr, had for the animals he treated and his wish to give something back to them.

Our profession has benefitted from the trillions of dollars spent on research into human disease; however, there are diseases and conditions unique to veterinary medicine and those are worth finding cures for too. We encourage all veterinarians and veterinary organizations to come together to identify and support research in those areas of greatest need. Only by understanding where the needs are and identifying ways to increase overall funding can our profession hope to continue to find cures into the future.

We look forward to supporting the AVMA and the Animal Health Network in any way we can, but even more, we look forward to the time when we can say that there is finally sufficient support for research into veterinary diseases in this country. We are not there yet, but we are making great strides.

David Haworth, dvm, phd

President and CEO

Wayne Jensen, dvm, phd, mba

Chief Scientific Officer, Morris Animal Foundation, Denver, Colo.

Animal crowding and farm animal welfare

Few would deny that the signatory hallmark of the veterinary profession in the minds of our clients and the wider public is the compassion for animal suffering that frames our fundamental ethos, as embodied in the veterinarian's oath.¹ Undoubtedly, this compassion for animal suffering underlies the public trust in our profession. And, to maintain that trust, it is critical that we lead as thoughtful advocates of animal welfare.

Science will likely never precisely measure the conscious state of veal calves restrained in hutches, sows immobilized in gestation or farrowing crates, or hens housed in battery cages. However, such animal-handling practices run counter to our knowledge of natural behaviors, which I would argue remain our best guide for humane animal treatment. Many of the compromises to farm animal welfare stem from the crowding required to obtain current industrial production efficiencies,² although this is at odds with traditional animal husbandry practices. Industry advocates often justify these practices as necessary to feed the world, but I believe that encouraging a more equitable and more balanced distribution of animal protein in combination with promoting other foodstuffs would go further to mitigate world hunger and reduce animal suffering. Furthermore, a reduction in crowding and the stresses associated with it might not only enhance animal welfare, but also decrease the need to use antimicrobials to promote growth.

Although we do a good job of promoting animal welfare in companion animal medicine, it appears that we have adopted a higher threshold for what constitutes animal suffering when industrial economics come into play. Such issues are being increasingly examined in the veterinary curriculum,³ and I would argue that the expertise of our profession relative to food animal production does not qualify us to advise industry on its business models, profits, or efficiencies, but rather to provide counsel that sets the bar on animal health and welfare. Unless we as a profession are resigned to a dual-value system, we must continue to work to design a competitive production environment in which those standards to which we as a profession subscribe can be met.

Raymond J. Tarpley, dvm, phd, mph

Institute for Global Health and Health Policy, College Station, Tex.

Adoption of adjunct faculty by veterinary schools

Veterinary medical schools are facing tough financial times and require new approaches. For more than 100 years, human medical schools in the United States have used volunteer clinical faculty members, giving them the title of adjunct clinical professor. These individuals are not paid and receive no benefits other than the rewards of teaching; they are private practitioners who volunteer to work a minimum of 50 hours each year to run the clinics in the medical school hospital. Volunteer faculty members, whether they be in pediatrics, dermatology, or family practice, get the opportunity to give back to the medical school by teaching senior medical students, interns, and residents in the clinics. In turn, the medical schools get excellent clinicians at no cost. With volunteer clinical faculty members running the hospital clinics, full-time paid faculty members are freed up to perform other duties, such as performing research and serving on committees. The medical school saves money by requiring fewer paid faculty members.

A typical example is the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine. According to a recent story in the school's alumni magazine¹:

“There are just 2,000 full-time paid faculty in the UCSF School of Medicine, and approximately 3,100 volunteer clinical faculty. They teach not only medical students but also residents and fellows in the classrooms and clinics of UCSF, and in their own practices. They are committed to teaching at least 50 hours per year, but often go above and beyond. A recent survey conducted by the Association of Clinical Faculty shows 868 clinical faculty contributed 116,310 total teaching hours for the 2008–2009 academic year—an average of 133 hours per respondent. If the University were to pay those members of the volunteer faculty for their time, it would translate to almost $12.5 million in salaries, or 56 full-time faculty equivalents.”

The use of adjunct faculty has been a staple of medical school education for more than 100 years because it improves medical education and saves money. There is no reason why this model cannot be translated to veterinary medical schools.

James Ferguson, phd, dvm

Berkeley, Calif.

Distributed teaching model at the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

As Dr. Eyre states in his letter,¹ I am indeed persuaded that the distributed clinical teaching model used by the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine appears to be working well. However, Dr. Eyre fails to mention that the model is atypical, a rare exception that other schools with distributed teaching models would find difficult to emulate. In particular, the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine is part of a research university with many branches of advanced learning, including humanities, arts, and the foundational sciences (eg, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology). Veterinary faculty members are integrated with their medical school peers; are engaged in biomedical, translational, and clinical research; and are involved in the training of doctoral-level graduate students. As a result, veterinary students learn in an environment focused on high-quality contemporary science, which I believe is a requisite for the practice of science-based medicine, particularly given the growing impact of molecular biology on medical practice. In addition, the number of professional degree students, 32 per class, is small, consistent with the school's resources and mission.

Unlike other distributed teaching models, fourth-year veterinary students receive 30% to 40% of their clinical training on campus. Frequent interactions and extensive communication take place between school administrators, clinical faculty, and the community-based clinical educators, and off-campus clinical rotations are subject to faculty oversight. All of the community-based clinical educators receive compensation, and some teach on campus. In addition, clinical faculty members actively participate in off-campus rotations.

The University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine offers a production animal health program, and there are two on-campus research stations. Because the Province of Alberta provides the largest share of the school's operating budget, tuition is modest ($10,500/y).

Acknowledging the success of the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, I personally still prefer the traditional university-based veterinary hospital model because I believe that this model allows teaching, research, and patient care to be integrated more efficiently and gives faculty complete control of and responsibility for the educational program. When coupled with carefully chosen off-campus electives, I believe this model offers students a deeper, more coherent, and more comprehensive clinical education. Although the high cost of operating and maintaining a veterinary teaching hospital is often cited as an argument in favor of distributed teaching models, I suspect that close examination will demonstrate that achieving and sustaining a high-quality distributed teaching model, although just as costly, are more wearing on faculty and administrative personnel.

Robert R. Marshak, dvm, dacvim

Newtown Square, Pa.