The perception which is held by the American Public of animal
experimentation in general and primate experimentation in particular
is of an area of scientific inquiry that is well-regulated and
thoroughly examined during lengthy approval processes. The
underlying assumptions of this perception would be that due to
substantial regulation the animals (primates) used in this area must
be well cared for and thoroughly investigated. One of the results of
this kind of structure for the management of animal experimentation
should be that the basic needs of the animals that are regulated in
this manner are met.
Most people would agree that the basic needs of most animals
would include adequate access to food, water, freedom of movement,
and an adequate environment to allow the expression of the behaviors
which are basic to the nature of the animal in question. Non-human
primates, like all other species of animals, need adequate access to
food and water and an environment that allows them to behave in a
way that is natural to them. The complicated psychological nature of
non-human primates has even led to regulations requiring provisions
for environmental enhancement to support their ability to behave in
complicated ways which stimulate them in such a way as to prevent
the level of boredom that can lead to psychological abnormality.
The first area to examine is whether primates routinely receive
the basic necessities. In other words, do they receive sufficient
food and/or water? The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals
receive food and water: Section 3.82(a) Feeding: The died must be
appropriate for the species and meet its normal daily nutritional
requirements; Section 3.83 Watering: Potable water must be provided
in sufficient quantity to every non-human primates housed at the
facility. If potable water is not continually available to the
non-human primates, it must be offered to them as often as necessary
to ensure their health and well-being, but no less than twice daily
for at least one hour each time, unless otherwise required by the
attending veterinarian, or as required by the research proposal
approved by the Committee at research facilities. (The full text of
the Animal Welfare Act is available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml
). Are the provisions of this act followed and are there exceptions
which are allowed?
Like many general regulations, the regulations providing for
adequate food and water have exceptions. For example, Section
2.38(f)(2)(ii) Handling: Deprivation of food or water shall not be
used to train, work or otherwise handle animals; Provided, however:
That the short-term withholding of food or water from animals, when
specified in an IACUC-approved activity that includes a description
of monitoring procedures, is allowed by these regulations. What does
this mean? What is considered short-term?
First, it must be noted that legitimate reasons for withholding
of food and/or water from animals do exist, and that in some
instances this is standard practice in veterinary and even human
medicine. The most obvious example is in the period just before the
performance of surgery. In this situation food and/or water are
withheld to avoid vomiting during surgery and the potential
aspiration of regurgitated food and/or water – this kind of
food/water deprivation is not what will be discussed in this report.
Additionally, some illnesses require the withholding of food and/or
water during treatment to avoid excessive vomiting, again this is
not the kind of food/water deprivation that will be discussed in
this report. Regarding the training of animals to perform behaviors,
the use of food as reward is not uncommon. Many private individuals
use treats to encourage specific behaviors when training dogs, cats,
and other domestic animals. Special rewards can be effective means
of re-enforcement when training animals to do simple behaviors which
are not unpleasant for the animal. This use of food/water as reward
is not what we are discussing. This type of reward focuses on
additional special items, not limiting access to basic foodstuffs or
liquids.
The handling regulation listed above, while sounding innocuous
has had extreme implications for non-human primates used in certain
areas of experimentation. Many times researchers want primates to
perform complicated behaviors which are either unpleasant to them
(climbing into restraint chairs) and/or unnatural to them (tracking
visual stimuli across video screens). The result of this situation
is that the
primates must have a very strong motivation to perform these
behaviors, and perform them consistently. Simple motivations of food
and water rewards are apparently not sufficient. Apparently only
severe hunger or thirst are sufficient motivations to coerce the
monkeys into performing the desired behaviors in these protocols.
Clearly these are very unnatural behaviors (i.e. tracking visual
stimuli across a video screen) which are totally foreign to these
monkeys when in their natural environment. So, effective motivations
for these behaviors must be extreme. The result is that, on days
when they are to participate in these behavioral experiments, these
animals are often totally denied access to water (or less commonly
food) except when they are performing the experimental paradigms. In
reality, the behavioral parts of these projects when the primates
have access to water or food varies from 2 – 8 hours. This leaves
the monkeys deprived of water for periods varying between 22 and 16
hours per day, often five days per week. They are given free access
to water only on non-experimental days (mainly weekends) or at the
end of the experimental session. Examples of these protocols are
available at:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/grants-gov.html
The nature of these experiments is highly invasive and requires
extremely unnatural behaviors for primates like rhesus macaque
monkeys, the most common experimental subjects of these procedures.
It must be noted that according to the National Institutes of Health
CRISP system, other species of primates including squirrel monkeys,
marmosets, and aotus monkeys are used in this general type of
protocol.
How wide spread is something like water deprivation? Research
facilities are required to file form 7023, Annual Report of Research
Facility forms with the USDA. The forms include a requirement for
disclosure of exceptions to standard care. Examples of this
information may include things like food or water deprivation
(called “regulation’). Facilities which have disclosed limiting the
access of primates to water during 2007 include: Yale, the
University of Chicago, University of Alabama, Pennsylvania State
University, Harvard, Catholic Healthcare (AZ), Brown University,
University of California (Berkeley), and the Salk Institute. During
2006 Stanford, the Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute,
University of Connecticut, University of Miami, MIT, University of
Minnesota, and the University of Texas (Austin) disclosed depriving
primates of water. Grant applications obtained from the National Eye
Institute of the National Institutes of Health reveal that Stanford,
University of California (Davis), Johns Hopkins, Harvard, MIT,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Wake Forest, Washington University
and the University of Houston “restrict” primates’ access to water
(this is water deprivation). Emory, Columbia, Oregon Health Sciences
University and the University of Washington limit primates’ access
to food (this is food deprivation). USDA inspection reports
discussed in a subsequent section of this report reveal that many
more laboratories severely limit primates’ access to water and/or
food.
In addition to experiencing water and/or food deprivation, these
neurological protocols require the monitoring of the activity of
individual neurons in the brain. The preferred methodology for
monitoring these individual cells is to literally hard wire into
them using microelectrodes. This procedure requires that the skull
of the primate be opened (holes are drilled in the skull) and
recording cylinders are attached over the holes through which the
microelectrodes are fed. These microelectrodes are attached to the
skulls with metal screws. One other consequence of this type of
experimental paradigm is that the head of the primate must be held
in place. This both forces the animal to look at the visual stimuli
as it is presented on the video screen, and it also prevents the
microelectrodes from being dislodged by movements of the head. The
immobilization of the head is accomplished by attaching a
restraining bar to the skull, again with metallic screws, and during
the procedure when the primate is confined in a sitting position in
the restraint chair, the restraining bar is literally bolted to the
chair.
This type of protocol is very widespread. Utilization of the NIH
CRISP system provides access to a listing of 75 grants funded during
2006 by the National Eye Institute related to vision which use
macaque monkeys. When the search is broadened by eliminating the
relationship to a specific branch of the funding agency and thereby
removing the focus on a specific area of neurological research, a
similar search reveals that macaque monkeys are used in 160
protocols of this nature and squirrel monkeys, marmosets, and aotus
monkeys comprise another 20 projects – totaling 180 separate
examples of this basic experimental paradigm.
Other common areas of experimentation involving non-human
primates are drug addiction, infectious diseases, etc. Of these,
possibly the most common is addiction research which is exemplified
by projects underway at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), the
University of Minnesota, Johns Hopkins University, and the Medical
College of Virginia. These protocols expose non-human primates to
addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, amphetamine, ecstasy, etc.
These projects have two basic paradigms. One paradigm confines
the animals, usually either rhesus monkeys or squirrel monkeys to
restraint chairs. They are trained to self-administer addictive
substances (again using either food reward or liquid reward) such as
pcp, Heroine, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol, etc. In some instances
the primates later undergo precipitated withdrawal which can lead to
abdominal discomfort, ataxia, tremors, vomiting, etc. Not unlike
symptoms in humans. Another paradigm keeps the primate confined to
their cages while wearing Teflon “jackets” which are connected to a
spring arm through which the addictive drugs are delivered. In these
projects primates are used in testing that compares the addictive
nature of one drug to another.
Many other uses of primates in experimentation exist including
infectious disease research, genetic research, etc. However, these
paradigms vary substantially and have different effects on primates
based on the exact protocols involved.
Go to Next Section
Return to Contents
