See PDF
April 16, 2012
FROM:
SAEN
1081-B St. Rt. 28 #280
Milford, Ohio 45150
513-575-5517
www.saenonline.org
TO:
Dr. Robert Gibbens
Director, Western Region
USDA/APHIS/AC
2150 Center Ave.
Building B, Mailstop 3W11
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117
Dr. Gibbens,
I am
contacting you today because I have received information from a
whistleblower connected to the Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute (LRRI). This source has made me aware of a
potentially very disturbing experimental project at LRRI, which may
well be violating the Animal Welfare Act.
According to
this whistleblower, LRRI staff are about to launch an experiment
which will study blast induced head injury in primates, and a
related project may study the relationship between survival of blast
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The proposed
section of this research which will deal with PTSD is scheduled to
subject the primates to blast-induced head injury without
anesthesia.
I am
concerned about this study for several reasons. In all aspects
of this study non-human primates will be subjected to blast injury.
This issue alone is clearly very distressing, and could give rise to
multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act. This must be
questioned in terms of scientific necessity and in terms of
scientific validity. I am very concerned that all procedures
have been totally evaluated to minimize the potential
pain/discomfort of the animals, that alternatives have been
adequately considered, that this research does not unnecessarily
duplicate previous projects involving head injury in primates, and
that adequate anesthesia will be used.
This last concern
regarding anesthesia is particularly important because it has been
reported to us that the PTSD portion of this experimentation, once
begun, will not utilize anesthesia during the blast injury to the
primates. Please address these issues ASAP so that this
experiment will not be conducted without proper approval and without
making certain that all relevant regulations are followed. (see code
sections below). And if this project is not in compliance with
all Animal Welfare Act regulations, I officially request that it be
at least temporarily halted.
I am also very concerned about this kind of experimentation at LRRI
because this facility has previously been fined for violating the
Animal Welfare Act, and because at last report this facility was
under a second investigation relevant to the deaths of several dogs
at LRRI due to situations which violated the Animal Welfare Act,
after having paid a previous fine for killing a non-human primate
through negligence.
I am aware
that the initial procedures of this project have begun. The
baseline MRI measurements of the primates, which were to be done
pre-blast injury have been started. Obviously, this matter is
of the utmost urgency. I respectfully request that your office
send an investigator to LRRI immediately to determine that this
project is being conducted in accordance with all relevant sections
of the Animal Welfare Act. If I can provide you with any
additional information please don’t hesitate to contact me.
I expect that
your office will reply to this correspondence within five business
days.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T.,
Executive Director, SAEN
Attachment:
CC: Office of the Inspector General
Sec. 2.31 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
(8) Be authorized to suspend an activity involving animals in
accordance with the specifications set forth in paragraph (d)(6) of
this section.
(d) IACUC review of activities involving animals. (1) In order to
approve proposed activities or proposed significant changes in
ongoing activities, the IACUC shall conduct a review of those
components of the activities related to the care and use of animals
and determine that the proposed activities are in accordance with
this subchapter unless acceptable justification for a departure is
presented in writing; Provided, however, That field studies as
defined in part 1 of this subchapter are exempt from this
requirement. Further, the IACUC shall determine that the proposed
activities or significant changes in ongoing activities meet the
following requirements:
(i) Procedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort,
distress, and pain to the animals;
(ii) The principal investigator has considered alternatives to
procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or
distress to the animals, and has provided a written narrative
description of the methods and sources, e.g., the Animal Welfare
Information Center, used to determine that alternatives were not
available;
(iii) The principal investigator has provided written assurance that
the activities do not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments;
(iv) Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or
distress to the animals will:
(A) Be performed with appropriate sedatives, analgesics or
anesthetics, unless withholding such agents is justified for
scientific reasons, in writing, by the principal investigator and
will continue for only the necessary period of time;
(B) Involve, in their planning, consultation with the attending
veterinarian
or his or her designee;
(C) Not include the use of paralytics without anesthesia;
See also:
Rats, mice, birds, amphibians and other animals have been excluded from coverage by the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore research facility reports do not include these animals. As a result of this situation, a blank report, or one with few animals listed, does not mean that a facility has not performed experiments on non-reportable animals. A blank form does mean that the facility in question has not used covered animals (primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, pigs, sheep, goats, etc.). Rats and mice alone are believed to comprise over 90% of the animals used in experimentation. Therefore the majority of animals used at research facilities are not even counted.
We welcome your comments and questions