from In Defense of Animals - Contact: Eric Kleiman, 717-939-3231
USDA FILES FORMAL CHARGES AGAINST UCONN FOR MULTIPLE AND
GRAVE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Gruesome Animal Suffering Documented, Including Rabbits
with Severed Spinal Cords Who Received No Anesthetic or Veterinary Care
Storrs, CT (April 23, 2001) - The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has filed formal charges against the University of
Connecticut for multiple and grave violations of the federal Animal
Welfare Act, In Defense of Animals (IDA) announced today.
The 16-page complaint, filed March 28, documents
evidence of at least 99 separate violations of the Act, and describes
severe animal suffering and a totally nonfunctional system of oversight,
veterinary care and training. Incredibly, UConn failed to provide *any*
veterinary care *at all* to a rabbit who had his spinal cord
intentionally severed, and eventually became paralyzed after *8 days* of
unrelieved suffering.
UConn also failed to provide any veterinary care for *11
days* to another rabbit who also had his spinal cord severed. Only after
a USDA inspector noted that this rabbit was "unable to stand" on his
hindlimbs, had a sore on his back, and was "lying in a metal slatted
cage in feces" did UConn provide care. The UConn veterinarian, who saw
this rabbit "for the first time" during the USDA inspection, euthanized
him the next day.
*Unbelievably, the USDA also found that UConn could not
demonstrate that these rabbits were even given anesthetics while their
spinal cords were being severed.*
"If UConn cared at all about this egregious suffering,
it would summarily dismiss everyone involved in these gruesome
violations," said IDA Research Director Eric Kleiman. "Unfortunately,
the state anti-cruelty statute exempts research facilities. This
exemption must be removed. If the suffering of these rabbits - and
others who died from stress caused by deficient feeding and sanitation -
does not constitute sheer, unmitigated cruelty to animals that should be
prosecuted, what does?"
Filing formal charges is the most serious step the USDA
can take against a research facility, and one that the agency rarely
takes.
"UConn's previous attempts to minimize the severity of
these violations indicate both a callous indifference to extreme animal
suffering and a blatant disregard for federal law," stated Kleiman.
"These are some of the most serious violations we have ever seen, and
demonstrate UConn's multiple failures to comply with the very
cornerstones of all animal welfare laws."
In a May 15, 2000 article in the UConn newspaper
Advance, then-vice provost for graduate education and research Robert
Smith claimed that the animal care problems were "limited." UConn also
claims on its web site that it is has "long recognized an ethical
responsibility for the humane care" of animals in research. But the
formal USDA complaint documents egregious animal care transgressions,
including the following violations of the Animal Welfare Act:
* Conducting research without approval of the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
* Failure of the IACUC to perform required reviews of animal care
program and to prepare said reports
* Failure to provide appropriate personnel and keep adequate records for
adequate veterinary care
* Failure to properly care and treat animals, to have the Attending
Veterinarian available, and to ensure that scientists, technicians and
other personnel were qualified to perform their duties
* Failure to make training and instruction available, and to review
personnel qualifications
* Failure to ensure that the Attending Veterinarian had authority to
ensure adequate veterinary care
* Failure to include training on proper experimental techniques, use of
painkillers, methods of reporting deficiencies in animal treatment,
proper methods of animal care and use, and alternatives to animal use
* Failure to observe animals daily to assess their health and to
communicate problems to veterinarian
* Failure to provide adequate post-procedural care and methods to
prevent, control and treat diseases
* Failure to maintain proper housing facilities to prevent injuries and
to have non-expired medicines
The complaint also indicates that UConn breached the
terms of a previous 1998 settlement with the USDA, relating to yet more
violations of the Animal Welfare Act, in which UConn agreed to pay a
$4,500 fine and to comply with the Act.
Kleiman noted that the sweeping, fundamental failures
documented by the USDA to provide adequate oversight through UConn's
IACUC and, consequently, adequate veterinary care and training are a
searing indictment of UConn's entire animal care program. Both the USDA
and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have stated that a properly
functioning IACUC is essential to proper animal care and compliance with
animal welfare laws. The USDA "relies on the facility to monitor its own
house" through the IACUC, while the NIH has described it as "pivotal" in
"ensuring the ethical and sensitive care and use of animals in research"
and the "cornerstone of its approach to ensuring the highest standards
for animal use." UConn's IACUC members are listed at
http://www.iacuc.uconn.edu/membership.html
"UConn received over $44 million in taxpayer research
funds from the NIH last year, yet has proved it cannot meet the minimum
standards of animal care *required* for receipt of that money," said
Kleiman.
Federal law requires that the NIH "*shall* suspend or
revoke" federal funds to any facility that has uncorrected, repeated
violations of animal welfare laws. According to IDA, the USDA's March
28, 2001 formal complaint against UConn, coupled with the finding that
UConn had breached a previous 1998 settlement with the agency,
demonstrates a pattern of violations.
"We believe the NIH must revoke tax funds to this
facility that has demonstrated such a blatant disregard for both
egregious animal suffering and compliance with federal law," Kleiman
concluded.
Go on to A Poem in
Hope of a Second Chance
Return to 25 April 2001 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
