Historical Analysis of the Reporting Patterns of Major Primate Labs
The National Primate Research Center system is
comprised of eight laboratories that as a whole experiment on tens of
thousands of primates every year. These eight laboratories are
affiliated with these research facilities: Harvard, Oregon Health
Sciences University, Tulane, University of Wisconsin (Madison),
University of Washington (Seattle), Emory University, University of
California (Davis), and the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical
Research.
These facilities are required to file annual reports
with two federal agencies – the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Animal Welfare
Act requires all active research facilities to file reports with the
USDA, and all grant recipients are required to file annual progress
reports with the NIH.
These reports have several things in common. One
requirement is that the number of animals used by the Primate Centers is
reported to both agencies. The USDA report can include animals used in
experimentation that is part of the facility (i.e. the University of
Washington) that may not be a part of the Primate Center. So, the USDA
report can have totals larger than the NIH report, because the USDA
report may cover labs that are not part of the Primate Center. However,
every primate used in one of the Primate Centers must be reported to the
USDA.
For this comparison totals for both experimentation
and breeding/conditioning are used from both the NIH and USDA reports
are used.
When these reports are compared, several things become
apparent. The most obvious fact is that the numbers don’t match. In the
case of Tulane, Emory, the University of California, and the University
of Wisconsin, the USDA numbers are larger, or the same, so we cannot say
that anything is amiss there. However, Harvard, the University of
Oregon, the University of Washington, and the Southwest Foundation for
Biomedical Research have all reported more primates to the NIH than they
have to the USDA. It appears that these facilities have all violated the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by inaccurately reporting their primate use to
the USDA or the NIH.
Specific examples of these discrepancies (see table at
end of this section, and in Appendix B) abound within these
laboratories. Harvard has already been shown to have misreported their
primate use in 1998, and this has been confirmed by the USDA (see
Appendix A). Harvard reported the use of 336 primates to the USDA in
1998, 2054 in 1999 and 2119 in 2000. However, this same laboratory
reported 1810 primates to the NIH in 1998, 2337 in 1999 and 2826 in
2000. For a 3-year period Harvard reported 6973 primates to the NIH and
4509 to the USDA for a discrepancy of 2464. It appears that the folks
within the primate labs at Harvard need some help with their
mathematics.
Several of the other Primate Centers fared no better.
The Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) reported 2914 primates to
the NIH in 1998, while reporting 2359 to the USDA (a difference of 555).
In 1999 OHSU reported 2612 to the USDA but reported 3543 to the NIH (a
difference of 931). OHSU reported 3437 primates to the NIH in 2000, but
reported 2119 to the USDA (a discrepancy of 1318). The total discrepancy
for the three-year period from 1998 – 2000 is 2804.
The Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SWFBR)
reported 4201 primates to the USDA in 1999 while reporting 4806 to the
NIH (a difference of 605). In 2000 the SWFBR reported 4693 primates to
the USDA, but they reported 4777 to the NIH (a discrepancy of 84). The
officials at the SWFBR had a 2-year discrepancy of 689 primates.
The University of Washington, Seattle has done no
better. For the three-year period from 1998 – 2000 the UW reported 1228,
3075, and 1122 to the USDA (totaling 5425). For the same years the UW
reported 2324, 2632, and 2541 (totaling 7497) to the NIH, for a
difference of 2072.
The potential inaccuracies contained in the reports by
Harvard, the Oregon Health Sciences University, the Southwest Foundation
for Biomedical Research, and the University of Washington (Seattle) are
significant from the point of view of the overall accuracy of the Animal
Welfare Enforcement Report. The facilities that make up the primate
center system reported (during fiscal 1999) 36% of the primate use for
the entire country. And when only 4 of these facilities have 3-year
reporting discrepancies totaling over 7200 primates, then the integrity
of the statistics on primate usage must be questioned, and thereby the
entirety of the Animal Welfare Enforcement Report.
