 3. THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF PETS 

                      National Institutes of Health
                               OMAR Workshop
                         September 10-11, 1987


This statement was originally published as:
     The health benefits of pets.  Workshop summary; 1987 Sep 10-11.
     Bethesda (MD):  National Institutes of Health, Office of Medical
     Applications of Research; [1987].
For making bibliographic reference to the statement in the electronic
form displayed here, it is recommended that the following format be
used:
     The health benefits of pets.  NIH Technology Assess Statement
     Online 1987 Sep 10-11 [cited year month day]; (3).


OVERVIEW

More than half of all U.S. households have a companion animal. Pets are
more common in households with children, yet there are more pets than
children in American households.  There are more than 51 million dogs,
56 million cats, 45 million birds, 75 million small mammals and
reptiles, and uncounted millions of aquarium fish.  

It is important at this time to assess whether these populations have
any beneficial impact on physical, social, and psychological health.

To this end, the National Institutes of Health convened a Technology
Assessment Workshop on the Health Benefits of Pets on September 10-11,
1987.  After a day-and-a-half of presentations by experts in relevant
fields, a working group drafted the following report to provide the
scientific community with a synthesis of the current knowledge and a
framework for future research, and to provide the public with the
information it needs to make informed decisions regarding the health
benefits of pets.  

Throughout history animals have played a significant role in human
customs, legends, and religions. Primitive people found that human-
animal relationships were important to their very survival, and
petkeeping was common in hunter-gatherer societies.  In our own time,
the great increase in pet ownership may reflect a largely urban
population's often unsatisfied need for intimacy, nurturing, and
contact with nature.  However, it is impossible to determine when
animals first were used specifically to promote physical and
psychological health.  The use of horseback riding for people with
serious disabilities has been reported for centuries.  In 1792, animals
were incorporated into the treatment for mental patients at the York
Retreat, England, as part of an enlightened approach attempting to
reduce the use of harsh drugs and restraints.  The first suggested use
of animals in a therapeutic setting in the United States was in 1919 at
St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D. C., when Superintendent Dr.
W.A. White received a letter from Secretary of the Interior F.K. Lane
suggesting the use of dogs as companions for the psychiatric hospital's
resident patients.  Following this, the earliest extensive use of
companion animals in the United States occurred from 1944 to 1945 at an
Army Air Corps Convalescent Hospital at Pawling, New York.  Patients
recovering from war experiences were encouraged to work at the
hospital's farm with hogs, cattle, horses, and poultry. After the war,
modest efforts began in using animals in outpatient psychotherapy.
During the 1970s, numerous case studies of animals facilitating therapy
with children and senior citizens were reported.  


THE ROLE OF PETS IN CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH

The role of social support in cardiovascular health--a question not yet
resolved despite considerable research--provides a rational framework
for studying the possible benefits of pets beyond mere enjoyment and
affection.  

Since psychological factors can elicit strong and immediate responses
from the cardiovascular system, many studies are attempting to determine
whether such influences ultimately affect the risk of developing
cardiovascular diseases.  The description of a "coronary-prone behavior
pattern," or Type A behavior, and its link to the probability of
developing overt disease provided hope that, with careful training,
individuals could exercise additional control over somatic illness by
altering their lifestyle.  Relaxation, meditation, and stress management
have become recognized therapies for attempting to reduce blood pressure
before pharmacological methods are prescribed.  It therefore seems
reasonable that pets, who provide faithful companionship to many people,
also might promote greater psychosocial stability for their owners, and
thus a measure of protection from heart disease.  Systematic research
addressing this issue is scarce, and it has been difficult to draw
definitive conclusions from the few studies with small sample sizes that
have been completed.  A selection of these, providing direct as well as
indirect evidence relevant to this hypothesis, was reported at this
conference.  

A plausible physiological basis for a beneficial influence of pets is
provided by studies of heart rate in Old World monkeys and research of
blood pressure in college students.  There is now objective evidence,
based on direct examination of coronary arteries, that monkeys housed in
benign social environments and more frequently engaged in affiliative
behaviors develop less severe coronary disease than monkeys repeatedly
exposed to dominance-competitive interactions.  It is possible that this
decrease in atherosclerosis is directly related to the much lower heart
rates that have been observed in these animals by means of telemetry,
especially at times when they are engaged in social interactions with
each other.  Decreased coronary disease in animals with genetically
lower heart rates also has been reported by others.  

Since elevated blood pressure also is associated with higher risk of
developing significant coronary heart disease, demonstration that the
presence of an unfamiliar dog lowers systolic blood pressure (but not
diastolic blood pressure or heart rate) in college students is only a
partially encouraging finding for proponents of a link between health
and pet ownership.  The experiment should be repeated, using the
subjects' own pets rather than an unfamiliar animal, which may evoke a
degree of anxiety in some people.  A number of studies have reported
that domesticated animals can influence physiological measures such as
heart rate and blood pressure acutely, but conclusive data are needed to
demonstrate that the magnitude of these effects is sufficient to be
clinically significant and endure over a sufficiently long period of
time to be beneficial.  One approach would be a cross-sectional study
showing lower heart rates or blood pressures in pet owners than in
nonowners, although the problem of self-selection still remains.
Experimental designs that randomly assign pets to some individuals and
not to others for a period of time would be ideal, although more
difficult and costly.  

However suggestive the findings from studies of human physiology may be,
the final link will have to come from clinical studies that demonstrate
a direct relationship between pet ownership and either the incidence of,
recurrence of, or mortality from heart disease in people.  Results from
one such study, presented at this conference, found that postmyocardial
infarction survival rates were much higher among pet owners than among
nonowners.  However, as in the case of other social variables, only a
small proportion (3.5 percent) of the difference in mortality was
attributable to pet ownership itself.  Because determining severity of
disease is not yet an exact science, it is conceivable that all
myocardial infarction (MI) patients who owned a pet were in relatively
better health, as reflected by their ability to care for a household
pet. It is therefore important to conduct rigorous prospective studies
in which the effects of placing a pet with a randomly chosen sample of
post-MI patients would be examined.  

In spite of the current insufficiency of data conclusively linking pet
ownership to cardiovascular health, the evidence provided at this
conference is sufficiently encouraging and intriguing to be worthy of
serious followup.  Those who own pets would surely be delighted to learn
that they reap unexpected health and financial benefits (from lower
health care costs) in addition to enjoying the companionship of the
family cat or dog.  

Conference participants agreed that definitive conclusions on possible
benefits of companion animals would require much larger sample sizes and
more rigorous experimental designs than studies conducted thus far.
Reexamination of data from one or more of the existing large
epidemiological studies or collection of relevant followup data seeking
to link incidence of disease with presence or absence of household pets
could be a useful forerunner to costly de novo population studies.
Alternatively, future national health surveys might include questions
related to pet ownership among the demographic data collected so that
the relationship of household pets to a variety of illnesses and
conditions also could be determined.  

Pet ownership is a very personal decision reflecting an individual
preference; this can bias the outcome of nonrandomized studies. Not only
does ability to care for a pet imply better health, it also may reflect
availability of more discretionary income, which may result in more
investment in health care.  A companion animal may not necessarily be
appropriate for everyone; however, withholding a pet from someone who
wants one could be as much a source of distress as forcing one upon
someone who does not. Conference participants accepted that many
questions would have to be examined when attempting to resolve these
issues. Given the present state of knowledge, the best judge of the
risks or benefits of pet ownership for optimal cardiovascular health is
the individual.  Hopefully, research developments will provide better
guidance in the future.  


THE ROLE OF PETS IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT

A number of empirical studies have investigated how children interact
with pets and how they view their relationships with animals, including
pets. These studies have taken two basic forms: (l) observational
studies of actual interactions between child and pet and (2) interviews
with children in which their attitudes and beliefs regarding animals in
general, and their own pet in particular, were examined.  

These studies have demonstrated major developmental changes in how
children interact with pets.  For example, toddlers (2 to 3 years old)
are more likely to hit, poke, or grab their pets (behaviors that might
be considered aggressive) than are older children. Three- to 4-year-old
children tend to pet their animals more than engage in other behaviors,
while 5- and 6-year-olds generally hug, stroke, and massage their pets,
suggesting both more sophisticated and "gentle" physical contact
patterns and more empathetic social relationships.  These age-based
changes in patterns of behavioral interactions with pets are generally
parallel to the developmental changes in interaction patterns that
children have with familiar humans, including parents, siblings, and
peers.  

Examination of children's attitudes toward pets reveals that many of
them ascribe a rich range of social attributes to these animals. Some of
these attributes--especially love and affection, companionship,
intimacy, and nurturance--also are used in the children's description of
their relationships with other specific people, but other attributes--
for example, ownership and entertainment--are uniquely ascribed to pets.
Consider the attributes of companionship and love and affection.  Most
children rate their own pets very high on both characteristics while
they rate neighborhood animals high on companionship but not on love and
affection.  (By way of comparison, siblings tend to be rated high on
companionship but not on love and affection, while the reverse is the
case for ratings of grandparents.) Taken as a whole, these results
suggest that children's relationships with familiar animals, especially
pets, are unique and different from their relationships with others in
their social world.  The relationship with pets typically is
complementary to these other relationships rather than a substitute for
any one type of human relationship.  

Of course, children differ in their attitudes and relationships toward
pets, and some of these differences can be related to factors such as
family size, presence or absence of younger siblings, and family income
(most of the studies to date have been limited to samples of children
from stable, suburban middle-class families, and generalization to other
groups of children may not be valid).  The long-term consequences for
children of establishing such relationships with pets and other animals
have not been studied to date in any detail, although a number of
studies of children in diverse family circumstances suggest that, at
least for some, the presence of a pet is greatly beneficial.  On the one
hand, it has been suggested that exposure to pets should facilitate the
establishment and maintenance of relationships with peers, especially in
grade and high school.  On the other hand, there has been some concern
that children who establish too intense a relationship with a pet may
suffer in the development of sophisticated and meaningful relationships
with other people.  More research is needed to determine what such
long-term consequences might be and to identify any conditions,
situations, or characteristics of particular children whose specific
relationships with their pets put them at risk for developing problems
in subsequent social, emotional, and cognitive development. Prospective
longitudinal studies in home or neighborhood settings would be very
useful in this regard.  


HEALTH CORRELATES OF PETS IN OLDER PERSONS

In addition to examination of the effects of the human-companion animal
bond among children and special populations of chronically ill or
disabled adults, there has been widespread consideration of the benefits
of companion animals for older persons. Interdisciplinary researchers in
veterinary medicine, public health, and the behavioral sciences have
begun to explore the health correlates of the human-animal bond and to
examine the benefits of a wide range of pet-facilitated therapies on the
health and functioning of the elderly.  The assumption of a salutary
effect of pet ownership on the health of older persons is based on a
growing body of literature suggesting the importance of social ties and
relationships for persons experiencing life changes affecting health or
social situations.  

Two types of research predominate in this area.  A few large-scale
epidemiological studies are examining the association of pet ownership
and attachment with the health and well-being of older persons living
independently in the community.  However, most researchers are involved
in applied intervention studies examining the effect of pet-facilitated
therapy or animal visitation programs on older persons in long-term care
settings.  

Data from a national probability sample of 1,232 older persons living in
the community reveal a lack of influence of pet variables on health
outcomes in the general population of older persons: (1) no direct
association was found between pet variables (pet ownership and
attachment) and reported illness status or levels of depression and (2)
no support was found for the hypothesized protective buffering role of
pet ownership/attachment, and (3) there was stability in basic
conclusions across subgroup analyses based on sex, age, and pet
characteristics.  

However, a benefit of pet ownership and attachment in combatting
depression, but not general illness status, was found among older
persons in situations of personal stress who were without adequate human
social support (e.g., bereaved persons without a close source of human
support).  Significant health benefits of human-animal interactions in
the general population of older persons may be limited to persons in
special "at-risk" circumstances.  There is also new research examining
the relationship between pet ownership, psychosocial variables, and
health care utilization.  These data collectively suggest that pet
ownership may reduce the demand for care for medically nonserious
problems.  

Studies of health benefits of pet programs for nursing home and health
center residents often are flawed methodologically or reported
incompletely.  Yet the cumulative weight of these studies strongly
suggests that psychosocial benefits can be gained from animal visitation
programs for at least some older persons in such settings.  For example,
the presence of animals in institutional settings is associated with the
tendency of older persons to smile and talk more, reach out toward
people and objects, exhibit more alertness and attention, and experience
more symptoms of well-being and less depression.  Pet programs have
proven superior in producing psychosocial benefits in comparison to some
other alternative therapies (e.g., arts and crafts programs, friendly
visitor programs, and conventional psychotherapy).  

The effect of exposure to pets on measures of physical and cognitive
functioning is less clear.  It is difficult to isolate intervention
effects in the face of multiple symptoms and changing physiological
conditions found in the severely impaired older population.  Further,
benefits for cognitively impaired persons may not carry over to times
when animals are not present.  The benefit of animal visitation and
live-in programs should be addressed in relationship to other factors
that influence long-term care services for older persons.  

Future research is needed to test explanatory models for understanding
the health benefits of human/animal interactions in older persons.  Two
strategies for theory development were identified in this conference:
(l) the generation of hypotheses from observations about the nature and
consequences of the human-animal bond, and (2) the borrowing of theories
and methodology from related scientific studies (e.g., the study of
health and human social supports).

Future studies need to recognize the heterogeneity of the older
population and the complexity of the human-animal bond.  Large-scale
epidemiological studies of associations between people and pets often
fail to reveal the expected relationships.  We need to have realistic
expectations of the benefits of pets given the number of other
interacting social and behavioral risk factors that impinge on the
health and functioning of older persons--whether in community or
institutional settings.  There is a need to specify the meaning of pets
in everyday life and to explore the ways in which the presence of
companion animals can affect the health and well-being of different
segments of the older population.  

The examination of associated health benefits of companion animals for
the elderly requires the researcher to go beyond a simplistic
description of the presence or absence of a companion animal to consider
the quality of that pet interaction.  The relationship between the
desire for and the reality of pet interaction should be examined
further.  The congruency between desire and reality may be a key factor
in observed health impacts.  


THE ROLE OF PETS IN SOCIAL AND THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS

The use of selected animals as agents in a wide variety of therapeutic
approaches has become increasingly widespread in recent years.  Two
examples were highlighted in this section of the workshop: companion
dogs for handicapped people confined to wheelchairs and "hippotherapy,"
horseback riding as part of a therapeutic program.  

Companion dogs provide wheelchair patients with a source of social
stimulation that is typically more constant and reliable than most human
companions, including spouses, siblings, or therapists.  In addition, a
number of empirical studies have demonstrated that the presence of a
companion dog serves to increase the quantity and quality of attention
directed toward the handicapped persons by both familiar individuals and
strangers.  This "magnet" effect of companion dogs can be of significant
benefit to the handicapped individuals because research has clearly
demonstrated that individuals with noticeable physical handicaps
otherwise tend to be avoided or ignored by both familiar and unfamiliar
individuals, relative to nonhandicapped people.  At this point, study of
long-term consequences of companion dog presence for this group of
handicapped individuals has yet to be carried out.  

"Therapeutic riding" is an umbrella term to describe a variety of ways
in which the horse may be used to influence the physical and
psychological well-being of individuals.  It incorporates riding skills
and gymnastic exercises for emotional, cognitive, and sensorimotor
benefits.  For patients with movement disorders, specially trained
physical and occupational therapists use therapeutic riding in which the
horse influences the patient rather than the patient controlling the
horse.  The goal is to improve the patient's posture, balance, mobility,
and function.  

At this time, solid data on the success of therapeutic riding is
limited. The European literature on the topic is increasing. Future
research is indicated to compare the efficacy of therapeutic riding with
other clinical treatment procedures that do not involve the horse and to
validate dramatic clinical observations.  


SAFETY AND RISKS IN PEOPLE-PET REALATIONSHIPS

In evaluating the health benefits of pet-people relationships, one also
must consider the safety of this intervention for both people and pets-
-for example, dangers to pets associated with chemicals such as
insecticides and pesticides and people's risks of infections, allergies,
and injuries associated with lack of veterinary medical advice.  

Although the risks associated with interaction are real for both people
and pets, we need additional research to better define those situations,
hazards, and populations with high risk as well as those situations and
populations with very low risk.  For example, reports from agencies in
50 states and studies of 284 nursing homes in Minnesota have shown that
visiting and live-in pets can be relatively safe for residents in the
supervised conditions of nursing homes.  In the Minnesota study, no
infections or allergic reactions and only two significant injuries were
associated with pets during 12 months of research.  Other studies
emphasize that knowledge and motivation for people and appropriate
selection and behavioral training of pets are essential to increase the
safety of people-pet interactions.  

More research is needed to better define high- and low-risk conditions
in defined populations and situations to develop more specific knowledge
for promotion of safety and appropriate interactions between people and
pets.  


FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Studies on human-animal relationships originated with a focus on the
beneficial aspects of pets.  In time, four general research areas
developed, including:  (1) historical descriptions of human-animal
interactions, (2) demographics and explanations of pet ownership, (3)
physiological and psychological responses of people interacting with
animals, and (4) animals as facilitators of psychological or physical
therapy.  

Methodologies for future research can begin without explicit hypotheses
and proceed from descriptive studies of representative and, hopefully,
random samples.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with extrapolating
from attitudinal information as long as the sample is representative of
the target population.  It should be remembered that samples of
convenience are prone to bias, and interpretation must be limited and
made with great care.  If the hypothesis is supported, research could
proceed to cross-sectional and retrospective studies and then to long-
range prospective investigations.  A causal association between animal
contact and human health can be demonstrated only by prospective
studies.  

There are many promising areas of research related to potential health
benefits of companion animals that would not only advance our
comprehension of how to best utilize animals therapeutically but also
would provide insight into the very nature of the link between people
and animals in the general population.  The major research questions
include:  (1) For whom is animal interaction most beneficial?  (2) For
whom and where is animal interaction problematic?  (3) How is contact
with animals beneficial? and (4) Are different species of animals, and
even plants, important to human health?  

Future knowledge and research efforts should be directed toward specific
health benefits of pets in the following areas:

   * Pets have a special place in the lives of people but, in larger
     perspective, share many attributes of other members of the living
     environment.  The value of this environment to the physical and
     mental health of people should be better understood.  Specific
     research, from this perspective, is needed.

   * Data are needed to address issues of how to assess optimal
     candidate populations that most benefit from pets and what
     relationships serve to produce effects of sufficient magnitude and
     duration to be of lasting benefit.  Such studies are needed for all
     candidate populations and include cardiovascular, developmental,
     and psychosocial issues.

   * The relationship between animals and cardiovascular disease is
     intriguing and needs to be aggressively studied. Specific studies
     are needed in at least two areas in followup to work reported here.
     An understanding is needed of the differences in the effect of
     "bonding" between a person and his pet versus simply the effect of
     a strange animal on blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.
     Also, large clinical prospective studies are needed in which
     animals are randomly placed with postmyocardial infarction patients
     to examine the magnitude and longevity of protective effects.
     These studies on people should be repeated on nonhuman animals to
     generate and test hypotheses about mechanisms of action.

   * It is evident that interpretation of results in this area of
     research is particularly difficult due to the lack of long-term
     clinical and epidemiological data.  Much clarity would be achieved
     by the reexamination of large, national, epidemiological studies
     and by the addition of animal-related and pet ownership and
     demographic questions on future national health surveys.
     Consideration of pet exposure as a possible "protective" factor in
     scientific studies of human health would be cost-effective and is
     an idea whose time has come. This research area would be
     facilitated greatly if animal ownership patterns could be added to
     many ongoing studies.

   * The relatively low order of significance of many of the test
     results points to the importance of rigorous statistical
     methodology.  Sample sizes, likewise, have not been sufficient in
     many cases to support definitive conclusions. Due to the great
     number of pets in American households, however, a positive impact
     of even a few tenths of a percentage point may benefit tens of
     thousands of people.  The U.S. census also should begin to include
     questions on the number and types of animals in people's homes.  If
     this were done, we could begin to address a variety of public
     health issues, including potential zoonoses with long incubation
     periods and subtle positive effects of animals on chronic and
     stress-related diseases.

   * Studies suggest that pets should be beneficial to some children
     through the facilitation of stable relationships with peers and
     adults, yet these studies are limited due to the small numbers and
     disproportionate samples from upper and middle classes.
     Prospective longitudinal studies should be conducted across racial
     and socioeconomic boundaries to determine long-term consequences
     and to identify specific populations, conditions, and experiences,
     with or without pets, that put children at risk for developing
     problems in social, emotional, and cognitive development.

   * There has been extensive consideration of the benefit of pets to
     older persons.  In most cases, these applications simply have been
     in acknowledgment of the psychosocial benefit of animal visitation
     and live-in programs to the institutionalized person, and have not
     been rigorous studies. Because of the rapidly increasing size of
     the elderly population and the overwhelming evidence, anecdotal and
     large-scale surveys, additional studies are needed to focus on this
     population.  Future studies should recognize the heterogeneity of
     this population and the difficulty in isolating the many variables
     impinging on the older person. Such variables stem from illness,
     prior experiences with or without pets, and expectations of the
     benefit of pets (as contrasted to the reality of caring for the
     pet).  This research should consider the use of existing
     explanatory models to serve as a unifying theoretical base.

   * European literature on the use of therapeutic horseback riding
     should be made readily available in English and the knowledge
     assimilated.  Future research should identify the specific
     emotional, cognitive, and sensorimotor effects of therapeutic
     riding on movement disorders and compare these effects with that of
     other clinical treatment procedures that do not involve the horse.

   * The value of companion animals for visually handicapped persons has
     long been known.  More recently, similar animals have proven
     equally effective for the hearing impaired. New research is needed
     to extend these relationships to further identify the benefit of
     companion animals to other handicapped persons such as paraplegics
     and quadriplegics.

The Working Group believes it is important to generate an increased
awareness of the potential importance of human-animal interaction and
involve scientists from a wide variety of fields for interdisciplinary
collaborative research.  Future studies of human health should consider
the presence or absence of a pet in the home and the nature of this
relationship with the pet as a significant variable.  

This workshop examined many of the relationships between companion
animals, people, and health, and concentrated on the status of the
scientific descriptions of these relationships.  The Working Group,
which drafted this report, believes that persuasive evidence was
presented to conclude that pets are likely to be medically beneficial to
some people's health.  However, much is to be learned about many of
these relationships before broad generalizations of medical benefit can
be made.  The committee hopes that investigators will heed the
recommendations of this report in the design of future studies and that
funding institutions will encourage their submission for peer review.


TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PANEL

Robert K. Anderson, D.V.M., M.P.H.
Professor and Director Emeritus
Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
     
     
Alan M. Beck, Sc.D.
Director
Center For The Interaction of Animals and Society
University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     
     
Peter G. Kaufmann, Ph.D.
Behavioral Medicine Branch
Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Marcia G. Ory, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Chief
Social Science Research on Aging Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Andrew N. Rowan, Ph.D.
Director
Tufts Center for Animals
Boston, Massachusetts
     
     
Stephen J. Suomi, Ph.D.
Chief of the Laboratory of Comparative Ethology
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Thomas L. Wolfle, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Office of Animal Care and Use
Division of Research Services
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
 
SPEAKERS

Robert K. Anderson, D.V.M., M.P.H.
"Safety and Risk:  The Experience in the Elderly"
Professor and Director Emeritus
Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
     
     
Alan M. Beck, Sc.D.
"Promising Research for the Future:  Comprehension Before Intervention"
Director
Center For the Interaction of Animals and Society
University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     
     
Brenda K. Bryant, Ph.D.
"The Role of Pets in Childhood:  Coping and Socialization"
Professor
Human Development and Family Studies Unit
University of California at Davis
Davis, California
     
     
William B. Buck, D.V.M., M.S.
"Protecting Pets From Hazards"
Professor of Toxicology
Director
Illinois Animal Poison Information Center
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine
Urbana, Illinois
     
     
Leo K. Bustad, D.V.M., Ph.D.
"Historical Perspective"
Professor and Dean Emeritus
President of Delta Society
Director
People Pet Partnership Program
Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine
Pullman, Washington
     
     
Richard B. Fink, D.V.M.
"Patterns and Trends of Pet Ownership in the United States"
President
American Veterinary Medical Association
Whittier, California
     
     
Erika Friedmann, Ph.D.
"Companion Animals in Hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease"
Associate Professor
Department of Health and Nutrition Sciences
Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Brooklyn, New York
     
     
M. Geraldine Gage, Ph.D.
"Contributions of Family Theories to Companion Animal Studies"
Professor
Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
     
     
Thomas F. Garrity, Ph.D.
"Pet Ownership as a Protective Factor Supporting the Health of the
     Elderly"
Professor and Acting Chairman
Department of Behavioral Science
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
Lexington, Kentucky
     
     
Lynette A. Hart, Ph.D.
"Socializing Effects of Animals for People With Disabilities"
Director
Human-Animal Program
University of California at Davis
School of Veterinary Medicine
Davis, California
     
     
Aaron H. Katcher, M.D.
"A Theoretical Perspective:  The Health Significance of the Living
     Environment"
Associate Professor of Psychiatry
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     
     
Carl Kluwer, M.D.
"Social and Therapeutic Effects of Therapeutic Riding/Hippotherapy"
Referent Fur Internationale Kontakte
Kuratorium Fur Therapeutisches Reiten
Bergisch Gladbach-Refrath
Germany
     
     
Randall Lockwood, Ph.D.
"Pet Selection in Therapeutic Programs"
Director, Higher Education Programs
Humane Society of the United States
Washington, D.C.
     
     
Robert Malakoff
"Politics of Pets"
Staff Professional
U.S. Senate Banking-Housing Committee
Washington, D.C.
     
     
Stephen B. Manuck, Ph.D.
"Coronary Disease: Discovering the Behavioral Connection"
Associate Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
     
     
Martin B. Marx, D.V.M., M.P.H., Ph.D., F.A.C.E.
"Methodologies for the Future"
Professor of Epidemiology
Department of Family Practice
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
Lexington, Kentucky
     
     
Hubert Montagner, Ph.D.
"Attitudes and Ethical Structure With Regard to Child Development"
Director
Laboratory of Psychophysiology
Professor
Faculty of Sciences and Technics
Besancon, France
     
     
Susanne S. Robb, Ph.D., R.N.C., F.A.A.N.
"Nursing Home and Health Care Center Residents"
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Medical District 5
Veterans Administration
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
     
     
Peter M. Schantz, V.M.D., Ph.D.
"Potential Health Hazards Associated with Pet Animal Contact"
Epidemiologist
Parasitic Diseases Division
Center of Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta, Georgia
     
     
Jerrold Tannenbaum, M.A., J.D.
"Ethical Issues in Human and Animal Interactions"
Clinical Assistant Professor
Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine
Boston, Massachusetts
     
     
Cindy C. Wilson, Ph.D.
"Influence of Pets on Cardiovascular Response of Healthy Students"
Associate Professor and Research Director
Department of Family Medicine
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, Maryland
     
 
PLANNING COMMITTEE

Robert K. Anderson, D.V.M., M.P.H.
Professor and Director Emeritus
Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
     
     
Alan M. Beck, Sc.D.
Director
Center For The Interaction of Animals and Society
University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     
     
Leo K. Bustad, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Professor and Dean Emeritus
President of Delta Society
Director
People Pet Partnership Program
Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine
Pullman, Washington
     
     
Susan M. Clark
Social Science Analyst
Office of Medical Applications of Research
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
John C. Donovan, D.V.M.
Director
Office of Laboratory Animal Science
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
William Ingalls Gay, D.V.M.
Director
Animal Resources Program
Division of Research Resources
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Lynette A. Hart, Ph.D.
Director
Human-Animal Program
University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine
Davis, California
     
     
Eileen G. Hasselmeyer, Ph.D., R.N.
Special Assistant to the Director
National Center for Nursing Research
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Linda M. Hines, M.A.
Executive Director
Delta Society
Renton, Washington
     
     
Peter G. Kaufmann, Ph.D.
Behavioral Medicine Branch
Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Barry D. Lebowitz, Ph.D.
Chief
Mental Disorders of the Aging Research Branch
National Institute of Mental Health
Rockville, Maryland
     
     
Marcia G. Ory, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Chief
Social Science Research on Aging Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Diana Post, V.M.D.
Veterinary Medical Officer
Center for Veterinary Medicine
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville, Maryland
     
     
Andrew N. Rowan, Ph.D.
Director
Tufts Center for Animals
Boston, Massachusetts
     
     
Arnold Sperling, M.Ed.
Therapeutic Recreation Specialist
Patient Activities Department
Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
Earl O. Strimple, D.V.M.
American Veterinary Medical Association Human-Animal Bond Committee
Delta Society--Board Member
Veterinarian
MacArthur Animal Hospital
Washington, D.C.
     
     
Stephen J. Suomi, Ph.D.
Chief of the Laboratory of Comparative Ethology
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
     
W.G. Winkler, D.V.M.
Deputy Director
Global Epidemiology Investigations Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta, Georgia
     
     
Thomas L. Wolfle, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Office of Animal Care and Use
Division of Research Services
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
     
 
CONFERENCE SPONSORS
     
Division of Research Services, NIH

Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH

Clinical Center, NIH

National Center for Nursing Research

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

National Institute on Aging

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Centers for Disease Control

Food and Drug Administration
     
 

ABOUT THE NIH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

NIH Technology Assessment Conferences and Workshops are convened to
evaluate available scientific information related to a biomedical
technology when topic selection criteria for a Consensus Development
Conference are not met.  The resultant NIH Technology Assessment
Statements are intended to advance understanding of the technology or
issue in question and to be useful to health professionals and the
public.  

Some Technology Assessment Conferences and Workshops adhere to the
Consensus Development Conference format because the process is
altogether appropriate for evaluating highly controversial, publicized,
or politicized issues.  Other Conferences and Workshops are organized
around unique formats.  In this format, NIH Technology Assessment
Statements are prepared by a nonadvocate, nonfederal panel of experts,
based on: (1) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant
to the consensus questions typically during a 1-1/2-day public session;
(2) questions and statements from conference attendees during open
discussion periods that are part of the public session; and (3) closed
deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and
morning of the third.  This statement is an independent report of the
panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal
Government.  

Preparation and distribution of these reports are the responsibility of
the Office of Medical Applications of Research, National Institutes of
Health, Federal Building, Room 618, Bethesda, MD 20892.  


