The Humane Society of the United States Applauds Findings in Report: Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research 

(May 29, 2009) —The Humane Society of the United States hails a National Academies report released Friday, which concludes that Class B dealers — whose operating licenses from the U.S. Department of Agriculture allow them to round up dogs and cats from animal shelters, auctions, private individuals and other “random sources,” and then sell them for experimentation — are not necessary to provide random source dogs and cats for research.

The report comes in response to a request by Congress through the National Institutes of Health for a critical evaluation of the need to use random source dogs and cats from Class B dealers in NIH-funded research. The report states that, “…testimony provided to the Committee by USDA officials made it clear that despite new enforcement guidelines and intensified inspection efforts, not all origins of animals are or can be traced. The USDA simply cannot assure that stolen or lost pets will not enter research laboratories via the Class B dealer system.”

The findings in the report should provide momentum in Congress to eliminate Class B dealers. Legislation expected to be reintroduced by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Alaska, and U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., will prohibit Class B dealers from selling random source dogs and cats to research facilities. In the last Congress, both the House and Senate approved amendments to ban Class B dealers, but the provisions were stripped in the final version of the Farm Bill.

The committee “concludes that Class B dealers are not necessary for supplying these animals and describes alternative methods through which random source dogs and cats may be acquired for appropriate research purposes,” identifying Class A dealers (who sell dogs and cats bred specifically for the purpose of research), NIH-supported Resource and Research Development, the NIH Request for Proposal mechanism and donation programs among viable alternatives.

“The HSUS highly commends the National Academies report and appreciates the hard work of the expert committee that produced it,” said Martin Stephens, Ph.D., HSUS vice president of animal research issues. “Forty years of Class B dealers rounding up pets and funneling them into laboratories is too long. This dwindling industry has no place in 21st century science or society.”

Facts

• Undercover investigators with animal protection organizations have documented Class B dealers buying pets from “bunchers” (unlicensed dealers who have stolen animals from owners’ yards, cars and farms) and misrepresenting themselves when responding to “free to good home” ads and “adopting” animals from animal shelters. 
• In addition, investigators have documented Class B dealers abusing the animals before selling them to research facilities. The USDA has repeatedly documented the failure of Class B dealers to comply with the minimum requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, including even the most basic requirements for food, water, shelter and veterinary care for the animals in their possession.
• The USDA spends a disproportionate amount of time and resources trying to track the nefarious activities of Class B dealers, but the agency’s oversight system is inherently incapable of ensuring compliance. Agency “trace backs” involve reviewing dealers’ paperwork and calling phone numbers provided by the dealers themselves to determine the source of each animal (relying on an honor system for people with a track record of dishonesty).

Timeline

• 2009: The National Academies Institute for Laboratory Animal Research releases report, “Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research,” finding that Class B dealers are not necessary for research institutions to obtain random source dogs and cats. There are currently 11 Class B dealers registered with the USDA, two of whom are under investigation.
• 2008: The National Academies Institute for Laboratory Animal Research forms an expert committee to address the use of Class B dealer-acquired dogs and cats in research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
• November 2007 – November 2008: Class B dealers sell a total of about 3,000 random source dogs and cats to research facilities.
• 2007 – 2008: In June 2007, language requesting the formation of an expert committee to study whether random source cats and dogs obtained by Class B dealers are necessary for research is included in the Senate Fiscal Year 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee report. In July, the House approves a ban on the use of random source dogs and cats from Class B dealers in its Farm Bill, and the Senate follows suit in December, but study language is substituted in the final version of the Farm Bill in May 2008.
• 2006: An HSUS survey of about 1,200 USDA-registered research institutions indicates that 96 percent of the 192 respondents do not purchase random source dogs and cats from Class B dealers. According to a survey by the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges, at least 19 of the nation's 28 vet schools do not use live, random source dogs and cats from Class B dealers.
• 1970s-1980s: Hundreds of Class B dealers sell tens of thousands of random source dogs and cats per year to research.

By DIONNE SEARCEY

In her fight for the rights of some of the smallest creatures, Stephanie Ernst offers a video of a frolicking, fluffy mammal snuggling up with a pet cat.

"Rats don't get a fair shake," she writes in an introduction to the video on her animal-rights blog. "This one is quite adorable and may lead you to see rats a little differently."

Unfortunately, stripped along the bottom of the video is an ad for an exterminator automatically generated by the YouTube.com service hosting the online clip.

"Immediate rat solutions!" it reads. "Free inspection the day you call."

Says Ms. Ernst: "It's horrible."

 

One Woman's Fight for Rodent Rights

3:15

Amber Allinger is working to shed prejudices against rats. She's even doing her dissertation on the rodents, which she calls sweet and nice. WSJ's Dionne Searcey reports.

Ms. Ernst, a resident of St. Louis, is most concerned about the welfare of lab rodents. Animal advocates say rats and mice make up 90% of animal testing conducted in university laboratories and other research facilities in the U.S. In 2002, the Animal Welfare Act was amended to exclude rodents from protections offered to bigger lab animals including dogs, monkeys and even guinea pigs.

"Rats and mice tend to get a bad rap" that influences people from the time they are children, says Ms. Ernst. "We just have these biases built in that are not really representative of who they are."

Animal-rights advocates in the U.S. have scored coups in recent years for an assortment of uncuddly animals. A new law requires bigger cages for egg-laying chickens in California. Foie gras, a delicacy made from the livers of fattened geese and ducks, has been banished from some restaurant menus.

But public sympathy for rats and mice hasn't grown much in three decades since the animal-rights movement first organized in the U.S. Viewed as pests and greeted with shrieks, rats are much less likely to attract public sympathy than, say, the furry bunnies that serve as the poster critters for cutting back on animal testing.

So, rat lovers have a tough job. Researchers who use federal funds are asked to adhere to basic guidelines for rodents, such as avoiding overcrowded cages. But privately funded research labs are legally bound by no rules in their testing of rats and mice.

View Full Image

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"I used to see rats and think, 'Ew.' Now I see rats and think, 'Those rats have probably got a family somewhere.'" -- Chad Sandusky

"You see people shut down if you talk about how a rat can suffer," says Chad Sandusky, director of toxicology and research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that fights for animal rights and advocates vegetarianism.

Years ago, during his doctorate research on allergic reactions in humans, Mr. Sandusky experimented on and euthanized many rodents. The 64-year-old pharmacologist and toxicologist now works to persuade chemical and pesticide companies to carry out effective experiments using computerized tests or other means that don't involve animals.

"I'm working off my bad karma," he said.

Mr. Sandusky's transformation came gradually as he reviewed studies involving rodents and other animals for the Environmental Protection Agency. He concluded animal studies were too expensive and time-consuming, and the results didn't merit the sacrifice.

"I used to see rats and think, 'Ew,' " Mr. Sandusky said. "Now I see rats and think, 'Those rats have probably got a family somewhere.' "

Mr. Sandusky and other activists have succeeded in getting companies to listen to their concerns about using rodents in experiments. But rarely does anyone actually stop using rats and mice altogether. So activists are left to seek a better quality of life for the rats and mice in the lab.

"These animals are in full view 24-7, and they don't have any ability to do anything other than drink water and eat pellets and, well, you can imagine," says Mr. Sandusky.

Activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who say they want "empty cages not bigger cages," nevertheless have come up with a list of guidelines they shop to private companies in hopes of changing their treatment of caged mice and rats.

The 15-page "environmental enrichment" document calls for nesting materials that rodents can shred for stress relief. It also advocates fresh bedding (but not too fresh because some male rodents like the familiar smell of home), and elevated wire lids, a sort of cathedral ceiling, for cages.

Some activists point to research detailing how toys such as the Translucent Small Animal Shoe, the Toob-a-Loop and the Mouse Igloo can keep the animals happy. Opaque plastic structures provide "a modicum of privacy," for the rodents, as described in the PETA document.

When Jessica Sandler, director of PETA's regulatory testing division, engages companies to push for better treatment of laboratory rodents, she talks about "animals" instead of "rodents."

"I certainly don't emphasize the fact that they are mice and rats," Ms. Sandler says. "A lot of these tests are also done on rabbits and guinea pigs, so I lump them in. I know a lot of people will empathize more with a cute rabbit."

At a meeting a couple of years ago with representatives at General Electric Co., which contracted with companies that use rodents for safety tests in GE's plastics division, activists laid out their simple request: a solid surface for rodent cages.

"To a layperson like me and you, you may think, 'Well, do we really need to do something like that for these animals?' But our scientists certainly thought it was important and relatively easily done," said Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman. "It wasn't something we dismissed as being ridiculous."

GE complied with the request. It has since sold off its plastics division.

Amber Alliger is writing her dissertation for a doctorate in psychology at Hunter College in New York on the benefits to science from improving animal welfare in laboratories.

View Full Image

Dionne Searcey/The Wall Street Journal

"Inside my shirt they feel secure... That's how they get really used to their human." --Karen Borga

Once they get to know their handlers, rats are so gentle that some people let them lick their eyelashes clean -- and even their teeth, Ms. Alliger says.

"It's amazing how gentle they are," she says. "You get nipped a few times and if you say 'Ow' loud enough, they're like, 'Oh, that hurts' and will stop biting."

Mr. Alliger has found homes for dozens of rodents she has used in her experiments.

A friend, Karen Borga, adopted seven of them -- black "hooded" rats so named because they look like they're wearing black hooded coats on their white bodies. Ms. Borga totes them in a blue portable cat carrier she has outfitted with a rat hammock and a Schweppes Ginger Ale box to create an extra bedroom.

As she explained the accommodations, three of the rats, named Seven, Eight and Eleven (Ms. Borga kept their laboratory names) scuttled across a couch. Seven hopped over a hurdle created out of plastic tubing, then crawled up Ms. Borga's sleeve.

"Inside my shirt they feel secure... That's how they get really used to their human," she says. "They love it."

Write to Dionne Searcey at dionne.searcey@wsj.com

We need your help to end the use of live animals for medical student training at U.S. military facilities. Live animals are used and killed in medical student courses at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) in Bethesda, Md., and Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. PCRM filed a petition for enforcement with the Department of Defense (DOD) on July 2, 2008, asking for an end to this animal use. The Washington Post recently covered PCRM’s campaign.

USUHS is the country’s only military medical school. The teaching methods it uses impact medical student training at military facilities across the country. There are at least five live animal labs at USUHS. According to the school’s Web site and other documents obtained by PCRM, they include:

• A live pig lab offered to third-year medical students as part of a surgery rotation (this lab also takes place at Wilford Hall). At the end of this lab, the pigs are killed.
• A physiology lab using live pigs, offered to first-year medical students. At the end of this lab, the pigs are killed.
• An intubation lab using live ferrets offered to third-year medical students (also offered at Wilford Hall). Ferrets can suffer fatal injuries during these labs.
• A parasitology lab using live gerbils, offered to students as a means of studying the disease filariasis. For this lab, the gerbils are killed.
• A medical zoology lab using live snakes.

Please call, e-mail, fax, or write a letter to USUHS president Charles L. Rice, M.D., and the dean of the medical school Larry W. Laughlin, M.D., Ph.D., and politely ask them to end the school’s live animal lab program. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. Send an automatic e-mail>

Charles L. Rice, M.D.
President
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
4301 Jones Bridge Rd.
Bethesda, MD  20814-4799
Phone: 301-295-3013
Fax: 301-295-1960
president@usuhs.mil

Larry W. Laughlin, M.D., Ph.D.
Dean
F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
4301 Jones Bridge Rd.
Bethesda, MD 20814-4799
Phone: 301-295-3017
Fax: 301-295-3542
llaughlin@usuhs.mil

A DOD directive renewed in 2005 mandates that nonanimal alternatives be used if they exist. There are nonanimal teaching methods that achieve the educational goals for all five animal labs mentioned above. Many of these alternatives are currently in use at the National Capital Area Medical Simulation Center, a state-of-the-art simulation center operated by USUHS.
 
More than 90 percent of U.S. medical schools have eliminated live animal labs from their curricula altogether. Innovations in medical simulation technology, availability of alternatives, increased awareness of ethical concerns, and a growing acknowledgement that medical training must be human-focused have all facilitated this shift. Only eight out of 154 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the United States still use live animals in their curricula.

Learn more about live animal labs and what you can do to help end them. If you have any questions, please contact me at rmerkley@pcrm.org or 202-686-2210, ext. 336. Thanks so much for your help!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Help End Invasive Research on Chimpanzees

Currently, approximately 1,200 chimpanzees are languishing in nine laboratories across the U.S. But today, we wanted to share the story of two lucky groups of chimpanzees that were recently retired to permanent sanctuaries. Just last month, chimpanzee research ended at Buckshire Corporation in Pennsylvania when the last seven chimpanzees were retired to Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest in Cle Elum, Wash. Also, watch this heartwarming video of a group of chimpanzees being retired to Save the Chimps in Ft. Pierce, Fla.

If you have been a supporter of PCRM for more than a year, you probably know about PCRM’s efforts to support the citizens of Chandler, Ariz., in their fight to stop the construction of Covance’s huge new animal testing facility. Covance is one the largest companies in the world that experiments on animals for drug and chemical companies. Thousands of animals are tortured and killed every year in Covance facilities.

Although legal efforts were unable to halt construction of the project, our friends in Chandler have submitted a citizen-led initiative to ban the importation of nonhuman primates into Chandler. Covance is the largest importer of nonhuman primates in the United States for experimentation and is already building cages to house them at its Chandler facility. While this initiative would not stop Covance from performing all of its cruel tests on animals, it could spare hundreds, if not thousands, of animals’ lives. 

More than 15,000 signatures from among the 150,000 registered voters in Chandler must be collected by July 7, 2008, in order to put this initiative on the November 7 ballot. This is a very short timeframe for this effort and there is much work to be done.

Here is how you can help today:

We will keep you updated on the success of the signature collection effort, and if it succeeds, how you can assist in efforts to have this initiative succeed at the polls on November 7 in Chandler.

Battling Cruel Animal Experiments

PCRM is moving forward with a lawsuit filed against the University of California, San Francisco, on behalf of six California doctors alleging that the school unlawfully uses state funds for animal experiments that violate the federal Animal Welfare Act.

PCRM’s lawsuit centers on the university's use of taxpayer dollars to perform duplicative experiments on monkeys in violation of the Animal Welfare Act and to pay fines arising out of those violations. PCRM filed an appeal in early May after the judge ruled that a state court cannot take action on activities that may be subject to the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit was originally filed last year.

Many of the experiments mentioned in the lawsuit are invasive experiments involving macaque monkeys. One study involved researchers drilling holes in the monkeys’ skulls, bolting metal restraining devices into their heads, and using attached recording devices to track their eye movements and brain function while the monkeys “worked” to receive such rewards as water.

Under California law, taxpayers are entitled to sue if state resources are funding illegal activities or being used wastefully. The PCRM lawsuit asks the Superior Court of California to cut off the funding for these experiments until the school can come into compliance with the law.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit at the trial court level, reasoning that the Animal Welfare Act is so broad and pervasive that it disallows states from independently taking any action that might affect the same subject matter. But on appeal, PCRM’s legal counsel pointed out that the Animal Welfare Act and the state law upon which the lawsuit is based are complementary, and that the Animal Welfare Act explicitly welcomes parallel state regulation such as this lawsuit.

Reducing Animal Experiments Across the Globe

PCRM is working on a global scale to save animals from use in toxicity testing—and our work is paying off. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released its three-year working plan, and thanks to efforts by PCRM and others, the plan contains numerous humane alternatives to toxicity tests using animals.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an international body that coordinates testing policies from various countries. In 2002, the International Council for Animal Protection in OECD Programmes (ICAPO) formed to incorporate alternative methods that can replace, reduce, and refine animal use in chemical testing. PCRM has served as the elected secretariat of ICAPO since 2006, a position that has given PCRM scientists the opportunity to organize ICAPO’s efforts to comment on proposed test guidelines and policies, nominate scientific experts to OECD meetings, and advocate for the adoption of nonanimal test guidelines.

The OECD recently published its Test Guidelines Program work plan, which outlines activities to create or revise more than 80 internationally harmonized guidelines and guidance documents that impact the use of animals in toxicity testing. More than one-quarter of these documents follow the “Three Rs”: They replace the use of animals in scientific experiments; they reduce the number of animals used; and/or they refine experiments so the animals experience less pain and suffering. Specifically, new in vitro (in a test tube) guidelines will include a human skin model test guideline for skin irritation (which could replace part of what’s known as the Draize test, performed in rabbits), human cell line assays for endocrine-disruption testing, and in vitro tests for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity prediction. ICAPO experts are very excited by progress in the endocrine disruption area, as thousands of animals could be killed under implementation of the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program without the development of these alternatives.

The new work plan also includes a new test guideline and guidance document, both of which will reduce the number of fish used in acute aquatic toxicity testing, and a plan to draft two new in vitro test guidelines for identifying and classifying substances that might be harmful to the eyes. These tests could replace the eye portion of the Draize skin and eye test, which is currently conducted by pouring substances into the eyes of un-anaesthetized rabbits. After a long wait, these in vitro assays were recently validated by the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

Since PCRM became secretariat, ICAPO has added the Dr Hadwen Trust, a British research organization that focuses on promoting nonanimal testing methods, to its membership. Several proposals ICAPO submitted to the OECD for consideration since PCRM became secretariat have been taken up by member countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, including the revision of reproductive, carcinogenicity, and chronic toxicity tests. These and other proposed revisions could save hundreds—even thousands—of animals each year.

Dissection Alternatives Victory

PCRM has worked for more than two decades to promote humane alternatives to the use of animals in science education. That hard work has paid off as more and more states around the nation pass dissection choice policies, and young students everywhere ask for—and receive—humane alternatives to dissection. Now the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has announced a revision to its classroom dissection position statement in support of dissection alternatives.  

The new statement from NSTA, the largest science education association in the world, acknowledges the educational value of nonanimal learning methods as replacements for animal dissections and supports student dissection choice for all classrooms. And because schools often base their science curricula on guidelines from NSTA and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), PCRM is now urging NABT to revise its policy on dissection alternatives to support nonanimal learning methods as equivalent or superior to traditional animal dissections for primary and secondary science education. NABT’s current position states that “no alternative can substitute for the actual experience of dissection or other use of animals. NABT urges teachers to be aware of the limitations of alternatives.”

Schools around the country are increasingly using computer-based programs, including DFI’s Digital Frog, Tangent’s DryLab Fetal Pig, Neotek’s DryLab Rat, ScienceWorks’ CatWorks, and many others (including human dissection software). Fourteen states now have either statutes or administrative policies mandating student dissection choice, and others have similar measures pending.

American medical schools have also seen a rapid decline in the use of animals. As of June 2008, only eight out of 154 U.S. medical schools still use live animals to teach students. The last of the traditional dog labs ended in 2007, and PCRM is working diligently to end the remaining labs using pigs and other animals. All nine new medical schools opening from 2007 through 2009 have established animal-free curricula, confirming that the medical education standard no longer includes the use of animals. The American College of Surgeons, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the American Medical Student Association now actively support the replacement of animals in medical education.

With the acknowledgement that medical students don’t need to learn by using animals, nursing schools and other medical training programs likely will follow. As these postgraduate programs move beyond animal use, it will be even more difficult for college, high school, and middle school educators to justify classroom dissection.

Fighting Animal Abuse in New Jersey

Many physicians, medical students, and emergency responders go through a crucial training program during their careers called Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Regulated by the American College of Surgeons, the course teaches lifesaving procedures used to treat acute trauma injuries, such as how to relieve an obstructed airway and how to remove fluid from the sac surrounding the heart.

Years ago, most of these training courses used animals to teach such procedures. The only approved alternative was human cadavers. However, thanks to the development of new technology, most courses these days use human simulators such as the TraumaMan System. These realistic simulators come with lifelike human skin, fat, and muscle. They even bleed. Unlike animals, the mannequins duplicate human anatomy and allow students to practice all the necessary procedures over and over again.

An ongoing PCRM survey shows that out of 166 U.S. facilities offering ATLS courses, more than 90 percent exclusively use nonanimal models for instruction. Despite the superiority of human simulators, at least 14 institutions continue to practice on live animals and then kill them. This spring, PCRM began a major campaign to reform the ATLS programs at these 14 institutions, including University Hospital.

UMDNJ’s University Hospital in Newark is the only institution in New Jersey that still uses animals to teach an ATLS course. Four other ATLS programs, including two within the UMDNJ system—Cooper University Hospital in Camden and Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick—all use TraumaMan.

On July 2, PCRM took action. Our Research Advocacy Department filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture requesting that its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) investigate the unlawful use of live pigs at University Hospital. The complaint charges that the hospital is violating the Animal Welfare Act because nonanimal technologies are available that would alleviate pain and suffering. These technologies are endorsed by the American College of Surgeons.

A major story in the Newark Star-Ledger let the community know about the controversy, as did an opinion piece in the same paper by John Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C., PCRM’s senior medical and research adviser.

A week later, PCRM's campaign got some help from Hollywood. Actor Lisa Edelstein, who plays Dr. Cuddy on FOX’s acclaimed medical drama House, wrote Dr. William F. Owen Jr., the president of UMDNJ. Edelstein, who was also raised in New Jersey, asked Dr. Owen to replace the pigs with more humane teaching methods.

“I only play a doctor on television,” she wrote. “But my father is a real doctor, a pediatrician. He was always gentle and sincere in his approach and taught me how important compassion is in the practice of medicine. Even as a young girl, it made me think: Shouldn’t this compassion extend to nonhuman animals (including pigs, who are intelligent and social creatures)?”

Please join Lisa Edelstein in PCRM’s campaign to end the use of live pigs at University Hospital in Newark. Watch future issues of PCRM Online for updates on the New Jersey campaign, our APHIS complaint, and our efforts to stop the use of animals in all ATLS courses. If you are a graduate or employee of the UMDNJ system, please contact Ryan Merkley at rmerkley@pcrm.org or 202-686-2210, ext. 336.