Home Page
About SAEN
Articles and Reports
Contact Us
Events and Campaigns
Fact Sheets
Financial Information
How You Can Help
Make a Donation, Please!
Media Coverage
Newsletters
Petitions
Picture Archive
Press Releases
Resources and Links
Grass Roots Org. List

Stop Animal Exploitation NOW!
S. A. E. N.
"Exposing the truth to wipe out animal experimentation"

Articles and Reports

Letter of Complaint to the USDA about the unnecessary duplication of experimentation on animal


1081-B St. Rt. 28 PMB 280
Milford, Ohio 45150
513-575-5517
www.saenonline.org 

6/1/09

Tom Vilsack                                  Dr. Robert Gibbens                 Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer
Secretary of Agriculture                Director, Western Region        Director, Eastern Region
U.S.D.A.                                      USDA/APHIS/AC                     USDA/APHIS/AC
1400 Independence Ave., S.W    2150 Centre Ave.                     920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 2000
Washington, DC 20250                Building B, Mailstop 3W11         Raleigh, NC 27606
                                                    Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

Secretary Vilsack, Dr. Gibbens, Dr. Goldentyer,

I am writing to you today regarding a matter of the utmost importance, the unnecessary duplication of experimentation on animals.

The Animal Welfare Act makes several statements regarding the duplication of research using animals, including:

“(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds;”

and

“The Secretary shall establish an information service at the National Agricultural Library. Such service shall, in cooperation with the National Library of Medicine, provide information--

(1) pertinent to employee training;

(2) which could prevent unintended duplication of animal Experimentation”

It is clear from these statements that it was the intent of Congress that the unnecessary duplication of experimentation on animals should be prevented. There can be no justification for performing unnecessary experimentation. The unnecessary duplication of experimentation wastes large amounts of federal funding, which potentially deprive other more worthy projects of funding. Additionally, unnecessary projects take the lives of animals without purpose. The only accomplishments of redundant experimentation are the wanton destruction of animal lives and lining the pockets of greedy “scientists” and laboratories.

The only regulations which have been promulgated by the USDA to address the issue of duplication are:

Sec. 2.31 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

(d) IACUC review of activities involving animals. (1) In order to approve proposed activities or proposed significant changes in ongoing activities, the IACUC shall conduct a review of those components of the activities related to the care and use of animals and determine that the proposed activities are in accordance with this subchapter unless acceptable justification for a departure is presented in writing; Provided, however, That field studies as defined in part 1 of this subchapter are exempt from this requirement. Further, the IACUC shall determine that the proposed activities or significant changes in ongoing activities meet the following requirements:

(iii) The principal investigator has provided written assurance that the activities do not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments;

and

Sec. 2.32 Personnel qualifications.

(c) Training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in at least the following areas:

(5) Utilization of services (e.g., National Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine) available to provide information:

(iii) That could prevent unintended and unnecessary duplication of research involving animals;

It is clear from both the text of the Animal Welfare Act and the regulations which have been promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture that the intent of Congress was to prevent the performance of experimentation beyond a point which is deemed necessary.

However, if we are to look at this issue in any intelligent fashion, we must critically examine the methods that have been established to prevent unnecessarily duplicative experimentation. The totality of the responsibility for the prevention of experimental duplication rests with the principal investigator and the Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee of the research facility in question.

Animal experimentation has become big business in the United States. It has been estimated that over $12 billion in federal funding is annually spent on animal experimentation by the National Institutes of Health. This funding provides a substantial part of the research budget of many research institutions across the United States. In fact, SAEN investigations have approximated that over 30 U.S. research facilities receive over $100 million in federal funding per year. Clearly, these facilities have a substantial vested interest in making certain that animal experimentation receives the fullest possible funding. The Institutional Animal Care & Use Committees are typically comprised almost entirely of employees of the research facility. And so the employees of these facilities have a very substantial interest in insuring the continuation and even the expansion of animal research. This interest runs in direct contradiction to the elimination of unnecessarily duplicative research.

Similarly, individual researchers have a vested interest in insuring the continuation of the funding of their own research grants. Every grant has a substantial portion of the funding assigned to salaries which include the principal investigator who most often receives the largest single portion of the salary component of the grant. Additionally, the ‘publish or perish’ mentality of the scientific arena has been well documented. Publication of research in medical journals is often linked to prestige and tenure at many universities. It is clear that individual researchers have a substantial vested interest in insuring the continued funding of their research grants both in financial terms and in terms of maintaining their ability to continue publishing a constant stream of journal articles.

The result of these combined interests is that both the Institutional Animal Care & Use Committees and the Principal Investigators have a vested interest in making very certain that research projects both receive funding and that these projects also continue to be funded ad infinitum. They have no real motivation to insure that a research project is not redundant or to cancel a project that is in fact redundant. Therefore, the regulations which have been instituted by past Secretaries of Agriculture have been totally ineffective, and have accomplished nothing more than giving the research industry the appearance of legitimacy.

To illustrate this situation SAEN has examined a group of grants that is currently funded by the National Eye Institute for redundancy. 57 projects were evaluated using a set of six different criteria, which constitute the basis for calculating a Redundancy Index. The area of research involves monitoring the functioning of the visual centers of the brain in non-human primates.

All 57 of these grants use macaque monkeys, this constitutes the first criteria, that these projects use the same species of animals, and are therefore assigned 1 point in the redundancy index. The other areas examined involve experimental procedures including the use of surgically implanted restraint bars, surgically implanted recording cylinders, surgically implanted scleral coils, restraint chair confinement, and the use of food and/or water deprivation as a motivational tool. Each project was assigned a point for each of these experimental procedures that was utilized. The points are then totaled and the total comprises the Redundancy index assigned to each project. The indices ranged from 2 (utilization of only the same species and one of the experimental procedures) to 6 (utilization of the same species of primate and all 5 of the experimental procedures). One project had an index of 2 and two projects had an index of 4. 24 projects had an index of 5 and 25 projects had an index of six The average duplication index is 5.4.

It is quite clear that a high level of redundancy exists in these experiments. They use the same species of animals, investigate the same processes in the brain, use the same procedures and are funded by the same part of the National Institutes of Health. It is then clear that these projects are duplicative of each other.

Are these grants duplicative of themselves? In other words, is virtually identical research being conducted by the same researchers year after year unnecessarily redundant? These researches have been studying the same processes in the same species of animals using the same procedures for many years. The average age of these grants is 9.23 years. Statistically, these grants seem to cluster in two areas. 28 grants are 5 years of age or less. So, while it can be said that these grants are redundant with other projects, it may not be possible to say that they are internally redundant. However, 19 grants are 11 years of age or more, with at least 8 being over 21 years of age. If a researcher has studied the same area of investigation, using the same species of animal and the same experimental procedures for over two decades, it would be essentially impossible to argue that this research is not internally redundant.

Several things have become patently obvious from this statistical examination of these grants. First, the 50 researchers who received these 55 grants are all performing research that is externally redundant, meaning that the projects are duplicative of each other. Many of them are also performing research that is internally redundant, meaning that they are simply performing the same experiment over and over with, at best, minute changes.

Several conclusions must be drawn from this information.

3. Fifty researchers have filed fraudulent statements of assurance regarding redundancy. This is a clear violation of the Animal Welfare Act.

2. The Institutional Animal Care & Use Committees of the 26 relevant laboratories have not fulfilled their function as required in the previously quoted sections of the Animal Welfare Act and have allowed, if not encouraged, “unnecessarily redundant” experimentation to be performed.

3. The regulation, quoted above, which required the filing of an assurance by principal investigators to avoid the performance of unnecessarily redundant experimentation has not been effective and has not been enforced in any meaningful way by USDA/APHIS/AC.

Therefore, I officially request that USDA/APHIS/AC institute an investigation of the research facilities named in the attached file and below and the researchers whose projects are named here and in the attached table.

I also officially request, under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552, copies of all documents generated during this investigation.

I also request that the Secretary of Agriculture immediately institute an Inspector General’s audit of the USDA/APHIS/AC enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act regarding the issue of the prevention of the performance of redundant experimentation, and that this audit not only examine the enforcement of these regulations, but also submit suggestions for more effective regulations for this area of enforcement.

Sincerely,


Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T.,
Executive Director, SAEN

National Institutes of Health Grant # Principal Investigator Laboratory

5R01EY009380

Paul Gamlin

University of Alabama Birmingham

2 R01 EY013337

Richard Anderson

California Institute of Technology

1 R01 EY015545

Richard Anderson

California Institute of Technology

2 R01 EY005522

Richard Anderson

California Institute of Technology

5 R01 EY007605

Thomas Albright

Salk Institute

2 R01 EY012212

Richard J. Krauzlis

Salk Institute

5 R01 EY016161

John H. Reynolds

Salk Institute

5 R01 EY014885

Robert M. Mcpeek

Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

2 R01 EY006860

Edward L. Keller

Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

5 R01 EY011720

Stepjem J. Heinen

Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

5 R01 EY014924

Tirin Moore

Stanford

5 R01 EY005603

William T. Newsome

Stanford

2 R01 EY012241

Jack L. Gallant

University of California Berkeley

5 R01 EY010562

Kenneth Britten

UC Davis

5 R01 EY013458

Gregg H. Recanzone

UC Davis

2 R01 EY010217

Jonathan C. Horton

University of California San Francisco

5 R01 EY003878

Stephen G. Lisberger

University of California San Francisco

1 R01 EY17210

Stephen G. Lisberger

University of California San Francisco

5 R01 EY006069

Michael J. Mustari

Emory University

5 R01 EY015312

Vallabh E. Das

Emory University

5 R01 EY008041

Robert A. Mccrea

University OF Chicago

5 R01 EY016711

Charles E. Connor

Johns Hopkins University

1 R01 EY017205

Charles E. Connor

Johns Hopkins University

2 R01 EY002966

Joachim Von Der Heydt

Johns Hopkins University

1 R01 EY016281

Ernst Niebur

Johns Hopkins University

1 R01 EY016187

Margaret Livingstone

Harvard Medical School

2 R01 EY013135

Margaret Livingstone

Harvard Medical School

5 R01 EY5911

John H.R. Maunsell

Harvard Medical School

1 R03 EY016047

Giorgio Bonmasser

Massachusetts General Hospital

1 R03 EY017081

Roger Tootell

Massachusetts General Hospital

2 R0 EY008502

Peter Schiller

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1 R01 EY014884

Peter Schiller

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1 RO1 EY017292

Robert Desimone

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2 R01EY012848

Ann Graybiel

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1 R01EY14970

James Dicarlo

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1F32EY018063-01

Nicole Rust

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

5 R01 EY012814

Dora E. Angelaki

Washington University

2 R01 EY010214

Lawrence Tychsen

Washington University

1 R01 EY017605

Bart Krekelberg

Rutgers University

5 R03 EY014657

Ralph M. Siegel

Rutgers University

2 R01 EY004148

Theodore Raphan

City University of New York

5R01EY014697-05

Jacqueline Gottlieb

NY State Psychiatric Institute

5 R01 EY013496

Michael L. Platt

Duke University

5 R01 EY17077

Christos Constantinidis

Wake Forest

5 R01 EY012389

Terrence R. Stanford

Wake Forest

5 R01 EY012032

Carol L. Colby

University of  Pittsburgh

5 R01 EY015485

Neeraj J. Gandhi

University of  Pittsburgh

5 R01 EY015260

Joshua I. Gold

University of  Pennsylvania

1 R01 EY014681

David Sheinberg

Brown

5 R01 EY001778

Vivien A. Casagrande

Vanderbilt

5 R01 EY008890

Jeffrey D. Schall

Vanderbilt

5 P30 EY008126

Jeffrey D. Schall

Vanderbilt

1 R01 EY016454

Eyal Seidemann

University of Texas, Austin

2 R01 EY006678

Dennis M. Dacey

University of Washington, Seattle

2 R01 EY000074

Albert F. Fuchs

University of Washington, Seattle

2 R01 EY006558

Chris R. Kaneko

University of Washington, Seattle

See also:
Redundancy and Animal Abuse funded by the National Eye Institute of the NIH

1 Jun 2009 - Research industry next to meltdown, charges watchdog; urges federal probe after study shows fraud in 26 laboratories, including Harvard, University of California

Return to Articles and Reports

   
   

We welcome your comments and questions


This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since date.gif (991 bytes)