The Non-Protection of Laboratory Animals

One of the most pressing concerns in the area of animal welfare is reducing the number of animals used as research subjects. The issue is fraught with emotion. Physicians, families, and friends of human patients, suffering with devastating disease, face the loss of a patient, a family member a friend or even their own life. We are convinced that research on animals is clean and sanitary and that it may lead to a "cure." This article does not address the validity of research on animals. Volumes have been written on that subject. This article addresses our assumption that animals used in laboratories are safe and protected.

Most of us have a companion animal, a dog or cat who is our very best friend. Most of us are well aware of an animal's great capacity to feel pain, to suffer, and to experience fear and terror. We deny this happens in animals used in research. We speak about "purpose bred" animals and the great strides taken in the care and protection of laboratory animals. We feel better about the suffering of animals in laboratories because we picture sterile housing facilities, healthy animals, and committee after committee of professionals who make sure that there is little or no suffering. Most of us are not even aware that the United States Department of Agriculture allows research in which animals are subjected legally to prolonged and protracted suffering with no relief. Research personnel, National Institutes of Health, the United States Department of Agriculture, and every conceivable federal and local agency assure us that research animals are protected by the animal welfare act, NIH guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals, USDA inspections, and by a host of other regulating agencies.

Closer scrutiny of this "so-called" protection reveals a system that is fraught with problems. The most serious problem is a policy of research institutions regulating themselves with respect to the types of procedures done on animals, the number of animals used in these procedures, the level of pain and illness to which animals are subjected, and the living conditions for the animals. Research institutions operate under a policy of enforced self-regulation. This means that every research institution in which animals are used as subjects must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use committee (IACUC) that oversees the use of animals in research. The IACUC frequently operates under a document filed by the institution outlining how the institution will comply with the animal welfare act and other federal regulations regarding the use of animals in research. The document is called the institution's animal welfare assurance. This system is the prototypical "Catch 22." Let's examine the issues related to the IACUC and the "policy of enforced regulation." After considering these issues, ask yourself, if protection for animals, used in laboratories, really exists.

The IACUC at most institutions is heavily weighted with representatives who do research on animals

Other than a token outside member, an occasional member from an animal organization such as the humane society, an infrequent member outside the scientific community, most IACUC members enter their meetings with a predisposition to approve the use of animals as research subjects. Although the stated duty of the outside member is to represent the community and community interests, members of the community are not allowed to have any contact with this member regarding questions and concerns. This is not true of the human counterpart to the IACUC, the human subjects institutional review board (IRB). The IRB reviews all human research at an institution. IRB's generally are represented by members from many diverse scientific and academic disciplines. The reason for this is clear. It is a system of checks and balances to make sure that unnecessary research is not done on human subjects and to make sure that others, outside the community of science, raise issues of concern regarding the human research.

The IACUC is the classic case of the fox watching the hen house

Did you know that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rarely make in person performance site visits to research institutions? NIH is the institution that uses your tax dollars to fund research, much of it on animals other than humans. How does NIH monitor the merit of the research being conducted on animals and the care and treatment of the animals? NIH relies on yearly reports from the institution's IACUC. These reports are based on the assurance that the IACUC has met as directed and properly reviewed all research at a given institution and properly inspected all animal facilities. What if the institution is not complying with requirements for animal care or review of research projects? What if the IACUC itself has not complied with all aspects of the animal welfare assurance? Who reports this to NIH? The IACUC must self-report the institutions own noncompliance. Sound full proof to you? Recently In Defense of Animals obtained material documenting that a prestigious neurological research institution in Arizona had failed to comply with its animal welfare assurances for at least twelve years. To compound this fiasco, it was the chairman of the institutions own IACUC that had signed the submission of the animal welfare assurance. Did the institution report its noncompliance? Of course not. The institution was caught in a rare NIH performance site visit in 1998. The head of the NIH site visit team wrote, " It was the opinion of the site visitors that the institution has placed itself and the research community as a whole at risk, by operating in the manner in which it is presently proceeding." Is this an isolated incident? Of course not.

The policy of enforced self-regulation is analogous to allowing banks to audit themselves with no federal audits, to the IRS allowing taxpayers to file returns with no checks on the returns, and to private businesses regulating themselves with no scrutiny by their investors. It is a unique system, unlike medicine, law, or veterinary medicine, in which the scientists, on their honor to regulate themselves and with no formal requirements for licensing, are permitted to do surgery on animals, administer drugs to animals, and to make animals ill. Frequently graduate students with even less training engage in these activities.

Animals used in research are subject to the worst stressors. They have no control over their environment and they frequently are subjected to procedures that make them very ill or inflict frightening and long-term pain with little or no relief. For some indication of the type of pain and illness dogs, puppies, cats, kittens, primates, mice and rats endure, take a little time and read a few toxicology studies of any drug used to treat any disease such as cancer or osteoporosis. Toxicology means the animal is given doses of the drug until the drug poisons the animal. Now ask yourself if you would be comfortable being a research subject under these circumstances in which your welfare was "protected" by a committee made up of scientists heavily prone to approving your use and totally on its honor to report any problems in the research or in your care. Ask yourself if you are comfortable with your tax dollars being spent on research in which the primary regulating institution is the institution receiving your money.

In Defense of Animals
Arizona Office
2121 S. Mill Avenue, Suite 107C
Tempe, AZ 85282
Telephone: 480-394-0578
Fax: 480-394-0576

Resources

We welcome your feedback and appreciate your donations. Please join today! All donations to IDA are tax-deductible.