Matthew R Bailey

National Association for Biomedical Research, Washington, Washington, D.C., United States

Are you Matthew R Bailey?

Claim your profile

Publications (11)7.59 Total impact

  • B Taylor Bennett, Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey
    Lab Animal 09/2014; 43(10):345-6. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • B Taylor Bennett, Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey
    Lab Animal 05/2014; 43(6):191. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 03/2014; 43(4):119. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Matthew R Bailey, Andrew D Cardon, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 01/2014; 43(2):51. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 09/2013; 42(10):353. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 05/2013; 42(6):197-198. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 03/2013; 42(4):117. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    Lab Animal 12/2012; 42(1):13. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Originally enacted in 1966, the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act has been amended several times and renamed the Animal Welfare Act. Responsibility for administering the Animal Welfare Act was delegated within the United States Department of Agriculture to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and regulations and standards have been developed to implement the intent of Congress conveyed in the language of the Act. In our opinion, the key to compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and its regulations and standards is to have in place a proactive, progressive Animal Care and Use Program that uses the semiannual inspection and programmatic review process to improve the day-to-day management of the program. Successfully managing the inspection process has taken on new meaning in what has recently become known as the 'Age of Enforcement.' As part of this approach, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service made changes to the inspection process and issued an Enhanced Animal Welfare Enforcement Plan, which included the development of an Inspection Requirements Handbook. The Inspection Requirements Handbook provides inspectors with information on conducting inspections and includes as an attachment a flow chart for Enforcement Action Guidance. The chart describes 4 types of actions that may occur as part of the enforcement process and the steps that will be followed if noncompliant items are documented during an inspection.
    Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 01/2012; 51(3):301-5. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Andrew D Cardon, Matthew R Bailey, B Taylor Bennett
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state 'open-records' laws govern access to records in the possession of federal agencies and state entities, such as public universities. Although these laws are intended to promote 'open government' and to assure the existence of an informed citizenry capable of holding government officials accountable for their decisions, an inherent tension exists between the public's access to information and biomedical research institutions' need to ensure the confidentiality of proprietary records and to protect the personal safety of employees. Recognizing these and other conflicts, the federal FOIA and state public-disclosure laws contain express exemptions to protect sensitive information from disclosure. Although some state open-records laws are modeled after the federal FOIA, important differences exist based on the language used by the state law, court interpretations, and exemptions. Two specific types of exemptions are particularly relevant to research facilities: exemptions for research information and exemptions for personal information. Responding to FOIA and state open-records requests requires knowledge of relevant laws and the involvement of all interested parties to facilitate a coordinated and orderly response.
    Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 01/2012; 51(3):306-10. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Matthew R Bailey, Barbara A Rich, B Taylor Bennett
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Among the multitude of crises that US research institutions may face are those caused by animal rights activists. While most activists opposed to animal research use peaceful and lawful means of expressing their opinions, some extremists resort to illegal methods. Arson, break-ins, and theft with significant property damage at US animal research facilities began in the 1980s. The most troubling trend to develop in the past decade is the targeting of individuals associated with animal research, whether directly or indirectly, and the use of violent scare tactics to intimidate researchers and their families. The National Association for Biomedical Research has a 30-year history of monitoring the animal rights movement and assisting member institutions with crisis situations. In this article we discuss attacks on researchers at their homes, cyber crimes, exploitation of new media formats, infiltration of research facilities, and the targeting of external research stakeholders and business partners. We describe the need for a well-conceived crisis management plan and strong leadership to mitigate crisis situations. Institutions with well-informed leaders and crisis management teams ready to take timely action are best equipped to protect staff, laboratory animals, and research programs. They act on early warnings, provide support for targeted staff, seek legal remedies, thoughtfully control access to research facilities, and identify and enlist new research supporters. We underscore the importance of up-to-date crisis planning so that institutions are not only aware of ongoing risks posed by animal rights extremists but also better prepared to take preemptive action and able to manage those risks successfully.
    ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 03/2010; 51(2):138-48. · 1.58 Impact Factor