Initial Examinations
The Animal Welfare Enforcement Report for fiscal 2000
listed overall U.S. primate use in experimentation at 57,518 with 52,031
being used in non-federal facilities and 5,487 used in federally owned
laboratories. The initially reported totals for primate experimentation
in fiscal 2001 would have been welcome, if they were accurate.
USDA/APHIS initially reported 49,382 as a national total with 5544 being
used in federal labs and 43,838 used in non-federal labs.
These totals seemed to show a substantial decrease
(14%) in primate usage. A decline of 8136 seemed too good to be true.
Where did it come from? Federal use of primates actually increased
(slightly – 57), so this was not the source of the drop. A
state-by-state examination of the statistics seemed to be in order. The
logical place to begin was in states where the largest numbers of
primates were traditionally used.
Louisiana contains several large primate labs (i.e. --
the National Primate Research Center at Tulane with 6766 primates
experimented on in 2000 & the University of Southwestern Louisiana at
New Iberia with 6204 primates experimented on in fiscal 1998) and at
least one moderately sized laboratory. (LSU – 112 primates used in
2000). A previous state total for primate use in Louisiana had been 8092
(fiscal 2000). The 2001 AWER reported Louisiana state total of 2913 does
not seem to be credible since all of the aforementioned facilities are
still receiving NIH funding for the projects that used primates in
fiscal 2000. This number has not been corrected.
Maryland has always contained many facilities which
use large amounts of primates (i.e. Johns Hopkins University). For
fiscal 2000 facilities in Maryland used 5460 primates. The initially
reported total for Maryland for 2001 was 2503. After the author of this
report contacted USDA/APHIS and questioned the initial total it was
revised upward to 6062. The initial error for this state was 58.7% of
the final total.
Primate usage in Georgia is always high as a result of
the presence of the Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University.
The Georgia total for 2000 was 3601. The initially reported total for
2001 was 3310. This total was revised upward to 4930 after the author of
this report contacted the USDA/APHIS. The correction was almost half of
the original total.
The District of Columbia is typically not a large user
of primates in experimentation, utilizing only 480 in 2000. However, the
initially reported number for 2001 was 31. This total was later revised
upward to 371. This was a ten-fold error, and the number may still be
too low.
Primate use in Puerto Rico was reported to be 2015 in
2000. The AWER of fiscal 2001 lists primate use in Puerto Rico to be 35.
Puerto Rico is the home of the Caribbean Primate Research Center, and
this facility continues to be funded up to the present day.
Primate use in Arkansas is not typically high, using
only 140 in fiscal 2000. However, the 2001 AWER reported primate use in
Arkansas at 0. This was later revised up to 56, but this number is still
believed to be too low.
The AWER lists the experimental use of 63 primates in
the state of Oklahoma. The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
(UOHSC) is the recipient of NIH grant #RR12317. This grant funds the
Baboon Research Resource Program. The progress report for this grant,
filed with the NIH on 7/31/01 lists experimentation within the program
on 94 primates during the reporting period. It also discusses supplying
24 other primates to separate projects at UOHSC. This report also
discusses providing 11 baboons to the Oklahoma Medical Research
Foundation for use in NIH-funded experimentation. The potential total
for Oklahoma becomes 129 primates, not 63 as was originally reported.
The AWER of 2001 reports 18 primates used in
experimentation in Colorado. However, a USDA/APHIS inspection report
dated 2/28 – 3/1/01 lists a primate inventory at the University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center at 98.
There were significant drops in several other states
including Texas and North Carolina. These drops were partially corrected
by USDA/APHIS after the author of this report contacted them. However,
the funding (i.e. by the NIH) of primate research in these states does
not appear to have decreased. And these states contain major primate
laboratories (TX -- the Southwest Regional Primate Research Center in
San Antonio, the University of Texas facilities in various cities; NC --
the Primate Research Center at Duke, Wake Forest, etc.). It is believed
that these statistics may still be inaccurate.
