Life as a Monkey in a Research Lab ... Monkeys at UCSF - from First, Do No Harm, August 2006 - Part Two

[Guest guest]

Dear Advocates for Animals: I hope you will read the following two articles from the newsletter "First, Do No Harm" (August 2006, Part Two). The first article, "Life as a Monkey in a Research Lab," was excerpted from International Primate Protection League's NEWS (August 2001). I think you will find it very enlightening as a veterinarian shares his experiences and feelings regarding his work in caring for the animals held at a major primate research lab in the U.S. in the 1980's and 90's. The second article, "The Caging Conditions of Monkeys at UCSF," concerns the conditions under which monkeys are kept at UCSF - and the university's lack of clarity regarding so-called "enrichments" for

nonhuman primates - as well as an action you can take to complain about the inhumane keeping of monkeys at UCSF. I think you'll find these articles extremely informative, and thus I hope you will take the time to read both of them. ___ LIFE AS A MONKEY IN A RESEARCH LAB The following was taken from an article entitled "The Impossible Housing and Handling Conditions of Monkeys in Research Laboratories," by Dr. Viktor Reinhardt, D.V.M., reprinted from International Primate Protection League's NEWS (August 2001). From 1984 to 1994, Dr. Reinhardt worked as an ethologist and clinical veterinarian at the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center, where he cared for the animals' health and

worked to improve their housing and handling. After the research facility hired a new director, Dr. Reinhardt's work was no longer appreciated and his contract terminated in 1994. In the same year he joined the Animal Welfare Institute, where he continues to promote better living conditions for nonhuman primates confined in research labs. Following are the words of Dr. Reinhardt. When I saw a primate research facility from the inside for the first time, I quickly realized that the cruelty against monkeys is much more pervasive than I had concluded from the horrible pictures. The suffering is not restricted to the inhumane experimental procedure itself but extends to every single hour of the animal's life in the laboratory. More than 700 macaques - the prevailing primates in the research laboratory - were locked behind bars, fearfully waiting to be

forcefully removed and immobilized during life-threatening procedures. The situation was reminiscent of a high security prison for convicted criminals, though none of the animals was guilty of any crime, other than being a helpless victim. Each monkey was kept alone, in a cage that was so small that he/she could not take a few steps in one direction, let alone jump or run in monkey fashion. There was no companion to huddle, groom or play with. It should be remembered that macaques are primates, just like us, who have an intensive need for social contact and social interaction. Solitary living conditions are similarly unbearable for them as they would be for us. Most cages were completely barren, offering not even a perch that would have allowed the animals to make use of the arboreal dimension. In the wild, macaques spend most of the day in

elevated sites - away from ground predators - and seek the refuge of trees at night. When kept in cages without a high perch, the animals have no way of retreating to a "safe" place during alarming events, such as when a staff member approaches them. Being cornered in this manner must, indeed, be a very distressing experience for a helpless monkey who associates people with painful and distressing handling procedures. In order to accommodate as many monkeys in one room as possible, cages were arranged in double-tiers with one row stacked on top of the other. This condemned half of the animals to confinement in a permanently shady, cave-like environment. Needless to say, this was not a living quarter that was suitable for diurnal animals. The conditions I witnessed were so depressing that most monkeys had developed stereotypic behaviors such as pacing, rocking, bouncing,

somersaulting, swaying from side to side, biting parts of their own bodies, pulling their ears, tossing their heads back and forth, or smearing feces on the cage walls. When I expressed my concern about these alarming signs of distress, I was told that they are "abnormal" behaviors that the animals develop when kept in cages for a long time. My conclusion was different: the appalling caging environment was abnormal - not the behavior of the monkeys. It was hard for me to believe that the situation I had seen was typical. I therefore decided to contact animal care personnel of other laboratories and survey the scientific literature to find out how macaques are housed and handled in other research facilities. What I heard and what I read confirmed what I had seen myself, leading me now to the following conclusion. In the U.S. there are currently approximately

15,000 macaques imprisoned in double-tier stacked solitary cages waiting in fear to be subjected to distressing procedures. The conditions under which these animals are forced to live are so inadequate that researchers themselves have repeatedly admitted in scientific publications that about 10 out of 100 caged monkeys are so desperate that they mutilate themselves. The recent scandal [in year 2000] at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center - one of the most prestigious facilities in this country - gives the public a rare opportunity to get a sobering look behind the doors and see for themselves that the manner in which most primates are currently being housed and handled is not only inhumane but at the same time counterproductive to good research. Wouldn't it be naive to expect scientifically valid research data from an intelligent, social animal who is forced to live alone in a barren

cage with nothing to do but engage in self-injurious behavior out of utter frustration? Providing monkeys in research institutions with primate-adequate housing and humane handling conditions would be a guarantee that scientific data are not unnecessarily skewed by uncontrolled extraneous variables. There is no doubt that primatological investigators could do their research with fewer animals - and hence avoid a lot of unnecessary suffering and squandering of tax dollars - if they would make sure that the animals are not behavioral cripples as a result of under-stimulation, and that they do not suffer distress during handling procedures. The ethical and scientific concerns arising from the prevailing housing and handling practices of monkeys have been acknowledged by the United States Department of Agriculture [uSDA] in 1991 stipulating in the Regulations and

Standards of the Animal Welfare Act that: "The housing arrangement of monkeys must [emphasis added] address the social needs of the animals, the cage environment must [emphasis added] be enriched by providing means of expressing monkey-typical behaviors, lighting must [emphasis added] be uniformly diffused and provide sufficient illumination for the well-being of the monkeys, handling should be done as carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause stress or unnecessary discomfort." These legal requirements are consistent with guidelines promulgated by the International Primatological Society in 1989/1993 and recommendations set forth by the National Research Council in 1998. Many reports have been published in scientific journals outlining well-tested options for addressing the social needs of monkeys in the research

laboratory, for enriching their environment in a species-adequate manner, for assuring uniform lighting conditions, and for training the animals to cooperate, rather than resist, during common handling procedures such as capture, injection, topical drug application, and blood collection. This information has also been compiled in bibliographies and a comprehensive database which can be accessed on the Internet at no cost. How is it possible that investigators keep research monkeys under living conditions and handle them in ways that are in gross violation of federal rules and professional standards? Here are my thoughts. Lack of Interest. A prestigious researcher conceded in an American scientific journal: "Most investigators think only briefly about the care and handling of their animals and

clearly have not made it an important consideration in their work. It is true, for many researchers the monkey is merely an identification number attached to a computer-processed data entry, and they consider it a waste of their time to visit the animals and check for themselves if they are properly housed and handled." Arrogance. To quote from the same article: "Finally, I think that all investigators consider themselves upstanding citizens of excellent ethical and moral character. Their feeling may be that since they are moral and ethical in every sense of the word, they are quite capable of monitoring their own animals without outside interference." Without question, most investigators regard compliance with the minimum housing standards set forth by the federal Animal Welfare Act as a nuisance. Inertia of

Tradition. Many scientists resist any changes in the traditional husbandry practices of research monkeys, probably because of fear that historical data will be invalidated by different, albeit better, housing and handling conditions. Lack of Ethical Concern. It is not uncommon for investigators to treat monkeys with few, or even without, ethical reservations. A world-famous scientist made this quite clear when he explained that experimentation with human patients is hampered by "sound ethical constraints," but that, "no such problems exist for the monkey researcher." The present situation in primate research laboratories strongly suggests that professional judgment is no guarantee that the inhumane housing and handling conditions of laboratory monkeys will ever improve. Progress will be possible only if USDA makes more serious

efforts to enforce the federal law as Congress intended. Until then, the well-being of research monkeys will continue to depend on the mercy of scientists who traditionally view them as research objects and treat them accordingly. - Viktor Reinhardt, D.V.M. For more Information: The Animal Welfare Institute has published the book "Environmental Enrichment for Caged Rhesus Macaques - A Photographic Documentation and Literature Review" by Viktor and Annie Reinhardt. You may order a free copy of it by e-mail to viktor or view it at www.awionline.org/lab_animals/rhesus/photo.htm. Bibliography: www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/primates/primate.htm www.awionline.org/lab_animals/biblio/index.html www.awionline.org/lab_animals/biblio/enrich.htm -- Conditions for Monkeys in UCSF Labs The prevailing caging conditions for monkeys held for use in lab experiments at UCSF are not clear. UCSF's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) on environmental enrichments for nonhuman primates are vaguely

expressed. For example, UCSF's SOP (dated 7/16/03) states "all primate cages should contain at least one perch (elevated resting area) where possible [emphasis added]." Further, "food treats...may [emphasis added] include...dried or fresh fruits and vegetables." In July (2006) a request was made for a more current SOP, with no response from UCSF to this date (8/23/06). And last February a request was made for information on environmental enhancements for monkeys held for use in two UCSF research projects, still with no answer. In recent correspondence with Dr. Viktor Reinhardt, he stated that pair-housing had become a standard arrangement for macaques in the USA over the past two to four years. However, he had no knowledge of the current conditions under which monkeys are kept at UCSF. Nor do we, the authors of this newsletter, have such

knowledge - much because of UCSF's prohibition of public access to facilities that house or use animals, as well as UCSF's poor response to public inquiries. If you care for the well-being of the estimated two hundred monkeys incarcerated at UCSF, please contact the USDA to request an investigation. Ask that the USDA more effectively enforce the Animal Welfare Act's "Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care and Treatment of Nonhuman Primates." Rules and regulations are meaningless unless they are actually followed! You may address your letter to: Dr. Robert Gibbens, Supervisor USDA-Animal Care 2150 Centre Ave, Bldg B, MS 3W11 Fort Collins, CO 80526 _________ For a

hard copy of "First, Do No Harm" (August 2006), please send a stamped self-addressed envelope to me (Bob O'Brien) at 311 - 11th Avenue, #15, San Francisco, CA 94118. BOB O'BRIEN PS: If you do NOT want to continue to receive updates from Vigil for Animals, please send me a return message saying "cancel."

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.