Media Coverage About SAEN Stop Animal Exploitation Now

Tail necrosis and failed euthanasia: Animal rights group flags USC experiments on rats, mice

ACTION ALERT:

Michael Amiridis, President
University of South Carolina
[email protected]

President Amiridis:

You must end all animal experimentation at the University of South Carolina due to the continuing serious violations of federal regulations by USC staff. These illegal actions must not be allowed to continue!

 

Tail necrosis and failed euthanasia: Animal rights group flags USC experiments on rats, mice

From Ian Grenier, PostAndCourier.com, December 7, 2023

COLUMBIA — Issues with experiments on animals led the University of South Carolina to report multiple cases of its own regulatory non-compliance to the federal government in 2023.

In four letters to the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, USC officials reported the use of an unapproved euthanasia method on mice, improper handling of hazardous materials, failure to euthanize sick rats, improper sanitation and use of an unapproved procedure on mice that might have led to tail amputations.

Those issues follow the November 2022 halting of a university experiment that administered cocaine to rats and then subjected them to electric shocks, which was stopped amid concerns that the shocks went beyond what had been approved by the university’s animal research oversight committee. The experiment was still awarded another $248,216 in federal funding in May, The Post and Courier previously reported.

Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN), the animal rights group that published the letters between the NIH and USC, characterized the experimental issues as “serious violations” in a letter to USC’s President Michael Amiridis. It called for an end to animal experimentation at the university and an independent audit.

“Collectively, these things demonstrate a widespread pattern of significant non-compliances at USC,” SAEN’s Executive Director Michael Budkie said.

University spokesman Jeff Stensland wrote in a statement that “USC strictly adheres to all regulatory requirements,” pointing to its 39 years of accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International and what he described as “excellent standing with federal oversight agencies.”

“USC is committed to upholding the highest standards in the ethical treatment and responsible use of animals on its campuses,” the statement reads. “All research involving animals is highly regulated and subject to rigorous approval and oversight procedures.

Stensland declined to answer questions from The Post and Courier on USC’s history of noncompliance reporting or the possibility of internal changes to research practices.

At USC, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) has oversight over the use of animals at the university and is responsible for reviewing and investigating concerns about their care.

In a February report to the NIH, a USC detailed how one IACUC review concluded that six mice received an unapproved nanoparticle injection procedure, which “might have resulted in unexpected tail necrosis requiring amputation,” though it noted that such a reaction had not previously been documented.

That report was linked to a study aimed at developing a nanoparticle-based Alzheimer’s disease therapy, according to NIH records, which received $366,250 of federal funding.

A month later, another report to the NIH detailed that university veterinarian staff had ordered a researcher to euthanize two rats “experiencing labored respiration” after an oral gavage treatment, which is when liquids are administered to a rat or mouse through a tube placed into its stomach through the mouth.

But one of the rats died before it was euthanized, according to the report, and another was euthanized a day later. The IACUC concluded that the investigator — the lead researcher — failed to follow the veterinary orders to euthanize the mice and also failed to maintain cleanliness standards and cage sanitation records. That report did not link itself to a specific study or NIH grant.

In August, a report explained an incident where university veterinary staff found a mouse who survived a cycle of a carbon dioxide euthanasia device, after they saw a research staffer leave the room “in a period (the vet staff) believed to be too short for the machine to complete a euthanasia cycle.” The experiment’s investigator denied issues with the euthanasia procedure, the report says.

But the IACUC concluded that the investigator “likely failed to ensure euthanasia of a laboratory rodent” and also used an unapproved secondary euthanasia method. The investigator said her employees used “cervical dislocation” — breaking the neck — as the successful method, which was not a part of the IACUC protocol, according to the report.

A second August report said a research lab didn’t follow the university’s procedures for handling a hazardous rodent diet and improperly labeled cages.

The two August reports were linked to multiple different USC-based studies examining vascular aging, digestive issues, treatments for kidney injury and for women suffering “visceral pain” caused by estrogen deficiencies. Combined, they’ve received more than a million dollars in NIH funding.

Such noncompliance reports are “common in research institutions where thousands of animals are housed,” according to a statement from Thomas Coggins, the executive director of USC’s Office of Research Administration who wrote the USC letters to the NIH.
The studies that prompted the reports are just a fraction of the over 200 active projects at USC receiving NIH funding, according to the institutes’ online listings.

Animals in NIH-funded research are protected by federal law and policy, which an NIH statement said “includes ensuring that harm and distress is minimized as much as possible.”

The NIH doesn’t comment on individual institutions or self-reported cases of noncompliance, the agency said. It requires reports of any noncompliance with its animal laboratory policy to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, which then “requires the institution to make appropriate corrections and to prevent further violations.”

See also:
Return to Media Coverage