The federal Animal
Welfare Act prohibits subjecting animals to experiments likely to cause
more than �momentary or slight pain or distress,� unless written
evidence has been provided demonstrating that a detailed search for
non-animal alternatives was unsuccessful. In such cases, �appropriate
sedatives, analgesics or anesthetics� must be used, unless
�withholding such agents is necessary for scientific reasons,� in
which case the experiment must not continue for longer than necessary.
The USDA is the federal
agency responsible for inspecting research centers and ensuring
compliance with the Act. The 2005 USDA inspection reports of Charles
River Laboratories reveal serious violations of the Act, including:
�
Six experiments which proceeded despite insufficient
evidence that searches for non-animal alternatives had been
unsuccessful, or that did not include the use of sedatives, analgesics
or anesthetics, despite inadequate scientific justification for
withholding them. These experiments resulted in severe suffering that
was observed and documented by the attending veterinarian. This included
marked neurological, circulatory and breathing disorders, including the
inability to stand, cold extremities and congested mucous membranes
(signs of severe circulatory compromise), and rapid, irregular
breathing. 21 animals were found in a �moribund� state (near
death), and required euthanasia. 21 others died from the effects of the
experimental drugs they were given before euthanasia could be provided.
�
A rabbit with a suspected broken leg that was not provided
with analgesics or other treatment or referred to a veterinarian until
the following day, when the diagnosis was confirmed and the rabbit was
euthanased. The records of this experiment stated that the rabbit did
not experience pain or distress, was properly cared for, and did not
require any additional action.
In total, the USDA
cited Charles River Laboratories for 22 violations of the Animal Welfare
Act in 2005. Other serious violations related to further inadequate
veterinary care and inadequate housing causing a high incidence of feet
injuries in dogs.
Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) are required under the Act to approve
only those experiments in which the expected scientific benefits
outweigh the expected animal welfare costs, and in which unnecessary
suffering is prevented. The experiments cited by the USDA clearly
violate the ethical justifications required for a permissible
experiment.
Additionally, they
raise substantial scientific concerns. Recent comprehensive reviews
published in laboratory animal science journals have revealed that even
routine laboratory procedures such as handling, blood
collection, and gavaging
(insertion of a throat tube for the forced administration of a test
compound) and standardised laboratory housing
cause significant laboratory animal stress, to which animals do not
readily habituate. Inadequacies in housing predisposing to injury,
accompanied by severe, unrelieved suffering, as occurred in these
experiments at Charles River Laboratories, are
likely to substantially elevate such stress levels. The results include
the distortion of normal physiology, disruption of hormonal
regulation, impedance of neuroanatomical development and cognitive
ability, behavioral stereotypies, immunosuppression, and, of particular
significance with respect to these experiments, increased susceptibility
to adverse drug reactions or other pathologies. In short, Charles River
Laboratories� treatment of these animals has damaged them as
experimental models. The scientific outcomes that resulted are likely to
be even further removed from human outcomes than would be achieved by
the use of healthy, non-stressed animals, as intended by the Act. Such
scientific distortion can only compound the already severe biological
and mathematical obstacles inherent in accurate extrapolation of animal
test results to predicted human outcomes.
Consequently, these
experiments not only fail the humane and ethical standards required by
the Animal Welfare Act, but also cannot be expected to provide
scientifically reliable data.
Andrew Knight BSc.,
BVMS, CertAW, MRCVS
Veterinarian
Balcombe J, Barnard N, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal
stress. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science
2004;43(6):42-51.
[2]
Balcombe J. Laboratory environments and rodents' behavioural needs:
a review. Laboratory Animals 2006;40(3):217-35.