Analysis & Conclusions
The statistics discussed in this report are very
alarming. The fact that 25 labs could account for 559 violations of
federal regulations with respect to the treatment of animals in labs is
scandalous. Many of these labs are large, internationally-known facilities
which receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government
for the performance of animal experimentation. According to our statistics
(in another report) the number 2, 3, 5 & 8 labs in the U.S. for receiving
funding by the National Institutes of Health are in this group.
The majority of these labs violated the law regarding
basic issues like veterinary care. In many instances animals were directly
affected by these violations which even led directly to animal deaths. The
consistent pattern of violations in the area of Institutional Animal Care
& Use Committees indicates that these labs are incapable of enforcing
regulations on their own in any meaningful way. We must begin to wonder if
these labs actually have any interest in following the Animal Welfare Act.
The overwhelming pattern of violations exhibited in
these facilities raises an obvious question: “Is the USDA effective in
enforcing the Animal Welfare Act?” The violation patterns in this report
suggest that the USDA is not effective in regulating labs. While specific
violations are not usually repeated, labs continue to have substantial
violations over extended periods of time. Very often these violations
occur repeatedly in the same categories, violating the same regulations.
On March 4th, 2003 the University of Connecticut
(Storrs) was fined $129,000 for violating the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) –
for infractions which occurred before 3/12/01. The date of the first USDA
inspection document used as a basis for this report is 5/31/01 – which
follows the period of violations for which the University of Connecticut
was fined. In other words, the University of Connecticut had 43 violations
of the AWA in the period immediately following the levying of a $129,000
fine by the USDA for violating the Animal Welfare Act. Apparently the fine
was insufficient to bring this lab into compliance.
It is also significant to note that the facility with
the worst record in terms of numbers of violations, most repeat and direct
violations, and the highest numbers of violations in areas of IACUC, and
Veterinary Care –– the University of California, San Francisco -- has
received only a $2000 fine in recent years. The majority of the violations
discussed in this report occurred after the fine was issued, and according
to a USDA official UCSF is again under investigation. It is apparent that
the fine was far too small to be considered significant enough to cause
any changes. For a facility that receives over $160,000,000 from the
National Institutes of Health for the performance of animal experiments, a
$2000 fine is little more than pocket change.
Other significant findings involve several labs. It is
very odd that a tiny lab, Mount Ida College (who reports less than 100
animals used annually), would come in 11th in terms of AWA violations,
ahead of labs that use as many as 19,000 animals. The
concept that a lab this small could have 25 violations
in a three year period is amazing. It is also surprising that Mt. Ida’s
neighbor in Massachusetts (UMASS, Amherst) was fined $6215, while
receiving fewer violations, yet Mt. Ida has not been fined.
It is also significant to note that certain situations
have not resulted in more substantial reactions from the USDA. For
example, when a dog is killed by accidentally running the animal through a
cage washer substantial enforcement actions should result. The USDA
official who inspected Pfizer after this occurrence simply noted the death
of the animal and said that procedures need to be put into place to
prevent the repetition of such an occurrence. This was a grossly
insufficient response to the death of an animal caused by sheer
negligence.
It is the opinion of this author that the USDA typically
reacts too slowly to violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In some
instances violations are allowed to continue for an extended period before
any regulatory enforcement actions are taken. And when enforcement actions
are taken they are too insignificant to have any meaningful impact. Fines
in the thousands of dollars for institutions which receive income in the
hundreds of millions from animal research are almost laughable.
During 1995 the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
performed an audit of the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service with
regard to enforcement of the animal Welfare act. The findings of this
audit were:
“APHIS does not have the authority, under current
legislation, to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act. For Instance, the agency cannot terminate or refuse to renew licenses
or registrations in cases where serious or repeat violations occur (such
as the use of animals in unnecessary experiments, or failure to treat
diseases or wounds). In addition, APHIS cannot assess monetary penalties
for violations unless the violator agrees to pay them, and penalties are
often so low that violators merely regard them as part of the cost of
doing business.”
It does not appear that this situation has changed. The
OIG report recommended that APHIS initiate legislation to extend its
enforcement powers. This course of action has not been followed, and as a
result APHIS ability to enforce the AWA has not changed in any way. It is
quite apparent that for most labs USDA fines and inspections are still
just a part of doing business.
When the current enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act
is examined we must begin to wonder if the Animal Welfare Act was designed
for purposes other than the protection of animals, or if the
implementation of this legislation has been much less than would have been
faithful to its original purpose. If the legislation is not protecting
animals (clearly it is not), then what does it actually accomplish? It
allows laboratories to say that they are regulated. In other words, the
Animal Welfare Act (however well intended) primarily gives animal
laboratories the ability to say that since they are inspected, and
supervised, so conditions within the facilities must be adequate. Laws
have been passed, inspectors are in place, fines are even paid, therefore
the system is working and needs no changes.
The inspection reports examined for the assembly of this
report clearly indicate that this is not the case. Dogs, cats, primates,
pigs, and animals of many other species are going without veterinary care,
without food and water, and are suffering needlessly.
It is also worthy of note that nowhere in the USDA
documents used to assemble this report were any mentions of violations of
the requirements of the AWA regarding the prevention of unnecessary
duplication of research mentioned. This is particularly alarming since
several labs examined in this report (Johns Hopkins, Emory, Northwestern,
Yale, Harvard, etc.) are engaged in two areas of experimentation (drug
addiction and brain mapping) in primates which are among the most
duplicated areas of experimentation currently being conducted.
Also, there are very few references to issues concerning
the performance of potentially painful or stressful experimentation
without benefit of anesthesia. This is another area of concern, as it is
relevant to many of the same laboratories. The same areas of
experimentation listed above (i.e. brain mapping and drug addiction) often
fit into this category. Harvard Medical School and Emory University, which
collectively reported experimenting on 3927 primates during 2001, reported
only 11 primates experiencing pain during experimentation. This number is
so low as to seem nonsensical.
