Proposed USDA Regulations Feed Dispute Over Care Of Primates In The Laboratory

Forced by court action brought by animal rights activists, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials have had to rush into print a draft of new regulations for improving the lot of apes and monkeys living in the nation’s research facilities. Now they are bracing under a deluge of complaints from primate researchers. As called for by 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act, the regulations compel researchers to provide “a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.” Proposed are increases in cage size, housing primates in social groups when possible, and varying the methods of feeding them, as well as providing a more naturalistic and complex environment, with perches or swings, and objects to manipulate. But there is a big difference between what humans think will make monkeys and apes happier in captivity and what is really best for their welfare, says a group of researchers who have reviewed scientific tests of various types of primate housing. The scientists—from the University of Chicago, G.D. Searle and Co., Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Minnesota—conclude that a mandated increase in cage size and changes in social environment may prove useless to the animals the federal government intends to protect, as well as prohibitively costly to researchers and, ultimately, to the public. In an article in Life Sciences (44 [14]: 901, March 1989), the researchers write, “The expense of many changes that humans might feel would be nice could be overwhelming.” Some researchers agree with the reviewers that housing primates in groups has pitfalls, and that an increase in cage size may not be justified by available scientific evidence. Requirements for larger cages worry primate facilities, which claim they have no room to expand. But other primatologists disagree, saying the new rules haven’t gone far enough. “It’s a step in the right direction,” says Roger Fouts, who studies chimpanzee language capabilities at Central Washington University. “But the cages [will still be] too small. Chimps aren’t toasters. Fouts served as one of 10 experts for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which was convened to help formulate the proposed rules. He was also a plaintiff in the suit brought against the USDA. Other members of the panel are also critical of the results of their collaboration, but for other reasons. Studies done by committee member Hal Markowitz, a primate researcher at San Francisco State University, indicate that “increasing cage size by 40% makes not one iota of difference on stress indicators.” “It’s not size of the environment,” says Markowitz, “but the quality of life within that environment” that counts. “The money that will go into the pockets of the cage makers would be better spent improving the lot of the animals.” As they stand, the draft rules will also sabotage an alternative to group housing, adds another committee member, Melinda Novak, a University of Massachusetts psychologist who studies rhesus monkeys. Pairing previously isolated monkeys has shown promise in studies at the University of Wisconsin, she says. But the regulations, as proposed, mandate that paired monkeys be given a floor-to-ceiling pen. "Thus, a cheap option is out,” Novak says, referring to the possibility of simply removing the partition between two individually caged animals. Even pairing would not work, however, for W.L. Woolverton, a drug abuse researcher at the University of Chicago and coauthor of the Life. Sciences review article. Woolverton’s monkeys are fitted with intravenous tubes and run a risk of injury and infection if they pull out each other’s cannulas. For the same reason, an exercise period in a larger enclosure, as directed by the proposed regulations when primates have to be housed alone, could endanger his I.V. fitted animals. “They’d have to be anesthetized and a jacket put on so they can’t pull their cannulas out,” says Woolverton. “My monkeys can see and hear each other, and we’re well within the [current] cage size limits,” he adds. “They interact with their technicians each day.” Opportunities For Variance In that case, says Dale Schwindaman of APHIS, Woolverton’s attend- ing veterinarian could judge if an exception is warranted, document the medical reasons, and keep a file at the researcher’s institution. “Whatever the final rule is,” Schwindaman says, “there will be opportu- nities for variance and for attending veterinarians to make ‘a decision.” The ability to apply for variances says Valerie Stanley, a lawyer for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, “is a feature that points out the reasonableness of the regulations.” Yet, well aware that the regulations as drafted are viewed by many researchers as unreasonable, Schwmdaman emphasizes that the proposals were meant simply to recruit their comments. The rules, as well as other proposed changes in the handling of animals by researchers and in zoos, were forced into print because of court action by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Fouts, and two members of institutional animal care and use committees, who accused the USDA of dragging its feet in implementing the 1985 amendments. While the ALDF has argued that a deadlinefor final wording of the primate regulations be set for the end of the year, says Schwindaman, “We were able to convince the court not to” impose such a strict time limit on the revision process. However, the legal decision left ALDF with the option to return to U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., if final regulations “are not out within a reasonable period of time,” says Stanley. Stanley declined to comment on what ALDF considers as reasonable time. However, Schwidaman predicts: “It’ going to be a long process.” Roberta Freidman is a freelance writer base in Santa Cruz, Calif.

Proposed USDA Regulations Feed Dispute Over Care Of Primates In The Laboratory

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of