The statistics which are the basis of this report are
contained in the table which is in Appendix A. This table lists all
facilities, categorizes the violations at these facilities, and provides
totals for each facility. The table also provides information on the
number of animals used at each facility.
This section will discuss trends in a more overall
fashion. All 25 of these facilities had substantial violations of the
Animal Welfare Act during the three-year period which was analyzed. The
violations were of many different types. Examples of the violations
include: Veterinary care, Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee, Food,
Water, Enclosures, Environmental Enhancement (for primates), Personnel
Qualifications, Housekeeping, Cleaning and Sanitation, etc. Virtually
every aspect of the functioning of a research facility was represented in
the violations by these facilities.
The table lists only five categories of violations. They
are: IACUC, Vet Care, Environmental Enhancement, Food/H2O, and
Miscellaneous (everything not in the first four categories). The table
also lists numbers of repeat violations, and direct violations (violations
which directly impact a specific animal). The significance of these
violations can only be understood if their meaning is explained.
The Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC)
is the body which is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act in a
research facility on a daily basis. This committee performs inspections,
reviews and approves protocols, etc. Only one of the facilities mentioned
did not have a violation in this area. The remaining 24 labs compiled a
total of 151 violations in this category (an average of 6.3 violations per
lab). 96% of the labs examined had violations in this area. 88% of the
labs examined had more than one violation in this category. The most
glaring instance of non-compliance in this area is the University of
California, San Francisco who had 25 violations in this category over a
three year period. The University of Pennsylvania came in second with 12
violations. The University of Connecticut (Farmington) and Mount Ida
College tied for third with 10 violations each.
Veterinary Care is the second area of compliance
discussed in the table. This area covers everything from providing care
for sick animals to the use of expired drugs. 22 (88%) of the 25 labs
examined had violations concerning veterinary care. 76% of the facilities
had repeated violations in this area. The leader in this category was
(again) the University of California, San Francisco with 9. Johns Hopkins
University placed second with 8 non-compliances in this category. The
University of Pennsylvania and the University of Puerto Rico tied for
third with 7 violations.
Environmental Enhancement is the provision of
psychologically stimulating items and activities to keep primates from
developing psychological pathologies as a result of confinement. This
category is relevant to 24 of the 25 labs -- Mount Ida College does not
use primates. There were 46 violations in this category involving 71% of
the eligible labs, with half of them having repeated violations in this
area. The University of Pennsylvania was worst in this category with 7
The category of Food and Water involves providing
adequate and nutritious food and water to animals within labs. There were
15 violations in this category involving 36% of the labs. The majority of
these labs had repeated violations in this area.
The Miscellaneous category of violations
consisted of personnel, housekeeping, sanitation, etc. Every lab examined
had violations in this category. The highest number of violations in this
category was at the University of Florida (33), with the University of
Connecticut coming in second with 28.
Direct is the category of violations where
non-compliances that directly affected animals are reported. 14 labs (56%)
had violations in this category with the University of California, San
Francisco leading with 10. The University of Connecticut (Storrs) came in
second with 7.
Repeat is a category where instances where a
specific violation, (i.e. exactly the same violation -- the same rule
broken in exactly the same place) are reported. The University of
California, San Francisco is again leading the pack with 30. The
University of Connecticut (Storrs) comes in a distant second with 14.
Total is the category that lists the sum of all
violations at a specific facility. This is not a total of all other
columns. The violations listed in the Direct and Repeat columns actually
duplicate violations listed in other categories.
The facilities are listed in the table in descending
order using the statistics in the total column. Therefore, the facilities
listed at the very top of the table have the worst records for violating
the AWA of the facilities which were examined for this report. It is
possible that other labs may have had more violations than the facilities
which were examined for this report, because not every lab in the U.S. was
investigated. However, it is safe to say that the top 10 – 15 labs
mentioned in this table are among the worst facilities in the U.S.