We Need Stronger Regulations To Improve Animal Treatment

In 1985, Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to recognize two basic facts of life: that dogs need exercise and that primates have psychological needs in addition to physical ones. Any self-respecting ethologist would, of course, argue that all mammalian species have these needs. Yet three years later, these amendments have not been put into effect. Organized science has once again gotten in the way, raising such a storm of protest that proposed regulations have been held up. Scientists would have us believe that improving the lot of experimental animals is raising the costs of research so high that vitally important medical studies are coming to a screeching halt. The underlying assumption is that while animals are complex enough to be models for sophisticated research, they have no basic needs. In other words, if recognizing that the world is round costs us money, then flat will do. This is but the latest chapter in the embarrassing saga of animal research regulations. "The Animal Welfare" Act of 1966, for example, specifically omitted from coverage any animal involved in experiments; only the care before and after experiments is covered. The reason for this, the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Commerce explained when the bill was passed, was “to provide protection for the researcher in this matter by exempting from regulations all animals during actual research or experimentation. After the Animal Welfare Act was passed by Congress, the Department of Agriculture, the agency designated to enforce the act, simplified its task by excluding most animals from coverage. Monkeys are considered to be animals for the purpose of the act; birds are not. Guinea pigs are animals; rats and mice are not. Most other species, including homes and other farm animals, are excluded from legal protection. As the result, noted the Office of Technology Assessment in 1986, "current regulations probably do not affect a substantial percentage of animals used for experimental purposes." The OTA went on to say that the exclusion of many species is inappropriate and contrary to the intent of Congress. Some researchers complain about the inspectors poking through their labs. But in fact, the inspection system is extraordinarily weak. Every year USDA tries to shrug off its dutip by asking Congress to leave inspections out of its budget. President Reagan has been all too happy to agree. Only efforts in Congress have kept a token system operating. National Institutes of Health guidelines do require that researchers who work with animals get approval for all their experiments with their institutions’ animal-care committees. But far too often, the committee is little more than a rubber stamp; there is seldom any real effort to probe into the treatment of the animals or to consider alternatives. Another common complaint of scientists is that animal-rights groups are passing laws preventing the use of pound animals, thus making experimental subjects far more costly. But these laws are necessary; when researchers use pounds as biological supply houses, the public becomes far less willing to take animals in. Instead, people will leave animals on the streets to breed and to die. Medicine should have no part in aggravating the shelters’ already difficult task. The regulations and laws might not be so urgently needed if all scientists treated their animals with care and compassion. But unfortunately, serious failures in the treatment of animals have occurred. Gross violations led to broad shutdowns of animal laboratories at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. The City of Hope research center in Duarte, Calif., and the private Institute for Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Md., were found to have shocking conditions for the animals in their care. In 1987, chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall toured the SEMA lab in Rockville, Md., where NIH-funded AIDS and hepatitis research is carried out. Horn-fled at the barren housing, the deviant behavior of the chimpanzees, and the lax attitudes of the attendants, Goodall described the visit as one of the worst experiences of her life. These are not isolated cases; inspection reports reviewed by the General Accounting Office revealed 114 sites with major deficiencies in 1983. What is to be done? First, all animals should be covered under the minimal provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. That is what Congress wrote into the law and what any scientist should recognize as ethically appropriate. Second, the long-overdue regulations called for by the 1985 amendments to the act should be put into effect. The longer we stall, the more abuses we tacitly endorse. Third, Congress must give the inspection system enough money to do its job. Fourth, researchers should be strongly encouraged to investigate substitute methods for experiments currently done with animals. Finally, scientists in medical research should begin to talk with their fellows in philosophy. For while scientists argue about the cost of regulations, the social scientists are questioning the very ethical foundation of animal experimentation. New regulations and laws will create some dilemmas—and make some kinds of research more costly. But it is a price that we should pay. We can no longer pretend that animals are simply "resources." They are individuals, and they deserve a measure of respect. A member of the faculty of the George Washington University Medical School, Neal Barnard is also chairman of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

We Need Stronger Regulations To Improve Animal Treatment

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of