 |
|
Atrocities in the Laboratory -Washington Times OP/ED August 1, 2002
NABR’s Misinformation Cripples Animal Welfare and Scientific Integrity Letter of Support from Colgate - Palmolive
Should the AWA Cover
Poll Shows Researchers Favor
Statements of Support from
Letter of Support from
Oversight and Coordination
All Laboratory Animals
Agony of Animals at Amgen |
Support Sound Scientific Research The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets minimum standards of animal care for experimental laboratories, animal dealers, and others. In 1970, the AWA was specifically amended to protect all “warm-blooded animals” used in research, but regulations promulgated excluded rats, mice and birds. Now, the vast majority of scientists and laypersons agree that it is time to include experimental rats, mice and birds in the regulations for enforcement of the Act. Roadblocks to Democracy Proposals like the Helms Amendments (2567 and 2569) will prohibit USDA from fulfilling its responsibility to the US District Court to commence with a proposed regulation and a public comment period. These amendments will result in a fundamental weakening of the Animal Welfare Act without due consideration of the issue at even one Congressional hearing. The proposals will circumvent due process in denying the public including the research community as a whole, the opportunity to provide input into the deliberations. This is how we are supposed to form public policy in this country-not by last minute end-runs in Congress made with high paid industry lobbyists. Cost of USDA Oversight of Rats, Mice and Birds For institutions that are already providing basic, sound animal care, husbandry and oversight of all of their animal-based research, the costs for implementation will be minimal. On October 4, 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture stated, “Any rules the Department promulgates should in no way hamper the vital work being done to ensure the continuation of our nation’s vibrant scientific and medical research.” USDA Preferred to NIH and/or AAALAC In 1966 and again in 1985, Congress contemplated and rejected the utilization of either accreditation or NIH policies as a means to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. Both NIH and the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, International (AAALAC) have repeatedly stated that they are not enforcement agencies. USDA is the only federal agency with the sole responsibility of enforcing legally mandated animal care requirements at registered research facilities. USDA’s track record for the species it currently covers far exceeds that of either NIH or AAALAC. In addition, since hundreds of laboratories that use rats, mice and birds fall outside of NIH or AAALAC purview, the care and treatment of animals is unknown. Sick animals like this laboratory rat can skew and quite possibly invalidate research results.
Among countries with legal protections for experimental animals, only the US denies such protection to birds, mice and rats.
This rat with electrodes implanted in his brain has a large, open wound on the side of his face.
GOOD SCIENCE REQUIRES GOOD ANIMAL CARE Statements from Scientists, Scientific Associations, Scientific Research Companies & Scientific Publications: * “The Procter & Gamble Company expresses its support for the inclusion of rats, mice, and birds in the USDA enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.” —Larry Games, Vice-President, Corporate Research & Development, Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs/External Relations, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, October 5, 2001 * “Rats, mice, and birds account for about 90% of all laboratory animals in the United States. And yet these animals—upon whom we rely so heavily in our biomedical research and product safety testing—are not covered by regulations designed to enforce the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the principal law governing the care and treatment of research animals in this country. The Advisory Board of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) finds this situation untenable….The CAAT Board sees no scientific or ethical basis for this exclusion.” —Statement dated December 4, 2001 from the CAAT Advisory Board [G Adam-Rodwell, PhD (Mary Kay Holding Co.), LS Andrews, PhD (Rohm & Haas Co.), AE Auletta*, PhD (US Environmental Protection Agency), FW Baker, PhD (Procter & Gamble Co.), MO Barker, PhD (Mary Kay Holding Co.), R Bascom, MD, MPH (Penn State University), JL Butenhoff, PhD (3M), WE Dressler, PhD (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.), J Foster (Charles River Breeding Laboratories, Inc.), JJ Freeman, PhD (ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.), AJ Gandolfi, PhD (University of AZ), AM Goldberg, PhD, DScHc (Johns Hopkins University), AW Hayes, PhD (The Gillette Co.), H Koeter, DrTox (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), R Main, MS, MPH (Alberto-Culver Co.), JP McCulley, MD (University of TX), KS Ramos, PhD (TX A & M University), B Robaire, PhD (McGill University), NR Rose, MD, PhD (Johns Hopkins University), AN Rowan, DPhil (Humane Society of the US), DN Sauder, MD, FRCPC (Johns Hopkins University), LM Schechtman*, PhD (US Food & Drug Administration), SA Shaya, PhD (Johnson & Johnson), WS Stokes*, DVM (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), GI Tennekoon, MBBA, LRCP (University of PA), EL Thompson (Bernice Barbour Foundation, Inc.), and JD Yager, PhD (Johns Hopkins University)] *Ex officio * “As a matter of principle, DPC [Dupont Pharmaceutical Co.] does not oppose including research rats, mice and/or birds in the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] regulatory definition of animals.” —David Martin, VMD, Senior Director, Animal Resources, Dupont Pharmaceutical Co., Wilmington, DE, May 24, 1999 * “At TARC [Torsten Almen Research Center], laboratory-bred rats and mice comprise over 90% of the species used in our biomedical research and development animal studies. The future use of laboratory-bred rats and mice will escalate especially in the fields of molecular biology, transgenic animal models, gene mapping, radiation oncology, targeting and imaging. The coverage of laboratory-bred rats and mice under the USDA regulations is appropriate and proper.” —John Ventre, MS, Chair, Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee, Torsten Almen Research Center, Nycomed Amersham Imaging, Wayne, PA, May 26, 1999 * “Our membership is committed to providing the highest standard of care for animals of all species. The AVMA [American Veterinary Medical Association] therefore must support the regulation of laboratory rats, laboratory mice, and birds under the AWA [Animal Welfare Act].” —Bruce Little, DVM, Executive Vice President, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, May 26, 1999 * “ACLAM [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine] can identify no philosophical or scientific reason for excluding these species [rats, mice and birds] from USDA regulatory oversight.” —Christian R. Abee, DVM, President, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Chester, NH, May 4, 1999 * “The political and economic rationale that led to the exclusion in the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] of the vast majority of animals used in research is ethically indefensible.” —The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis, Tennessee, December 12, 2000 * “SCAW [Scientists Center for Animal Welfare] strongly feels that the USDA should act promptly to change laboratory-bred rats and mice from non-regulated species to regulated species.” —Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, Greenbelt, MD, June 23, 1999 * “…[I]t would be a distortion to present the debate as a conflict between animal researchers and animal protectionists…Some of the research lobby’s arguments verge on the reactionary….[R]esearch lobbyists who have often stated that it is a privilege to use lab animals now risk giving the impression that some of them consider it a right. If that continues, research could suffer.” —Nature, Editorial, Vol. 407, No. 6805, October 12, 2000 * “If we use ethological sophistication to provide laboratory animals with the very best physical and social environmental conditions for their well-being, we need to use fewer of them in research experiments or routine tests, and our results will be more accurate and reliable.” —Michael R.A. Chance and William M.S. Russell, “The Benefits of Giving Experimental Animals the Best Possible Environment,” in Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, V. Reinhardt, ed., AWI, 1997 Note: The documents cited above contain additional remarks on this subject and can be obtained from SAPL upon request.
Working Group to Preserve the Animal Welfare Act (Alternatives
Research and Development Foundation, American Humane Association, American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Doris Day Animal League,
Humane Society of the United States, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, and |
