Research Animal Guidelines Spark Outcry From Labs

Ordered by Congress to improve the welfare of animals used in research, the Agriculture Department has proposed regulations, including daily dog walking and enhancement of the “psychological well-being of non-human primates,” that have touched off one of the most emotional and voluminous lobbying campaigns in recent history.

Universities and scientific groups contend that the department’s 133 pages of regulations, which took four years to write, would cost $2 billion to implement. By contrast, animal-welfare activists say the regulations range from “beneath bare minimum” to “simple and moderate.”

The department has already received more than 15,000 formal comments on the two least-controversial parts of the rules, which were published first. And comments are flooding in on the most contentious section--the “standards.”

Among many other things, the proposed rules would require:

* That dogs be housed, preferably in groups, in cages four times as large as the current requirements or be “released for exercise and socialization” for 30 minutes a day.

* That non-human primates be housed in groups that do not fight or that they be released for at least four hours of “exercise and social interaction” per week.

* That isolated apes or monkeys be able to see and hear fellow creatures or have “positive physical contact or other interaction with their keeper or other familiar and knowledgeable persons” for at least an hour a day. Positive physical contact is defined as “petting, stroking or other touching which is beneficial to the well-being of the animal.”

* That standard cages for guinea pigs and hamsters be one-half-inch taller.

Opponents of the legislation “worked so hard to make it sound so expensive,” said Christine Stevens, president of the Animal Welfare Institute. “I don’t know how it’s possible to jack the price up to that extent. We don’t think this is a serious problem for laboratories, so long as they have good will toward wanting to treat the animals well.”

But Barbara Rich, executive vice president of the National Assn. for Biomedical Research, which represents the scientific community, said the regulations require more exercise for dogs than aerobics experts recommend for humans.

“Some of these emotional and sentimental ideas have no scientific foundation,” she said.

‘We Better Be Right’

In many cases, “there is no evidence that spending all this money will benefit the animals,” she said. “We better be right. It will cost billions.”

Four years and one lawsuit after passage of amendments to the 24-year-old Animal Welfare Act that specifically call for exercising dogs and enhancing the psychological well-being of non-human primates, publication of the proposed rules by the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service last March galvanized the biomedical community.

“We have never seen such a concentrated, concerted effort by those who use animals, those who supply animals, others involved in the experimentation community to protect every penny of their livelihood,” said Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Newkirk describes herself as an abolitionist, “working for the day when there will be no animals in cages.”

‘True Moderates’

“One thing we can say for certain,” said Larry Horton, associate vice president for public affairs at Stanford University, “is there are certain elements in the animal-activist community that, while claiming moderation, want to stop and impede research. The true moderates on this issue are the medical scientists who are highly regulated--certainly not unfettered people who believe in a divine right to abuse animals.”

Dale Schwindaman, assistant deputy administrator for animal care at the inspection service, said a task force is opening envelopes containing comments on the latest set of regulations as three veterinarians read and categorize them. They are entered in the computer system, forming a data base that can be used in answering the various categories of objections.

Animal-welfare supporters and agricultural inspectors strongly support the Agriculture Department’s approach of setting detailed standards, which makes enforcement easier and surer. The labs, on the other hand, demand the right to adhere to Congress’ general animal-welfare goals in flexible ways.

$2-Billion Cost

The National Assn. for Biomedical Research has charged that the proposed regulations governing handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter, adequate veterinary care and the psychological well-being of primates will require more than $2 billion in the first year of implementation. Agriculture has estimated the cost at just over $1 billion.

The regulations cover animal dealers, exhibitors, auction operators, research facilities and transporters of animals. Animals are defined as “any live or dead dog, cat, non-human primate, hamster or rabbit.”

Mice and rats, by far the most commonly used animals in biomedical research, are not covered by the rules. Newkirk is among 1,017 individuals or groups who complained of the department’s failure to include rodents.

“All animals who are used must be covered,” she said. “It doesn’t matter to the animals whether their blood is warm or cold, whether they are big or small, ugly or attractive. They all are entitled to minimal protection.”

‘Regulatory Overreach

The American Council on Education, a group of research universities, called the rules a “classic example of regulatory overreach.”

Michael Horowitz, counsel for the group, wrote that the regulations “contain precise specifications for such micromanagement details as animal socialization; daily petting in certain circumstances; play room; exercise periods and individualized supervision and caging (including mandatory cage specifications and toys appropriate for particular species).”

Thomas E. Hamm Jr., director of Stanford’s division of laboratory animal medicine, said the regulations could eat up $1 billion to $2 billion of the $10 billion to $14 billion in total budget for American biomedical research.

“We are providing the best animal care possible based on current data,” Hamm said. “We would have to throw away our current cages and spend half a million dollars on new caging alone that will not benefit dogs one iota.

‘It Would Be Inhumane’

“The average lay person can see that (the idea of) grouping animals together was written by people who have never worked with groups of animals,” he said. “Animals establish pecking orders. They are fighting constantly. Any time one becomes ill or weak, the rest gang up on him. It would be inhumane to group them together.”

Stevens, a primary lobbyist for the animal-welfare community, called it perfectly possible to provide for both the exercise of dogs and the psychological well-being of primates without great expense. “Usually primate cages are two tiers high. You can take the ceiling out of one and the floor of another. This can be done right in the shop of most institutions.

“Primates have to be compatible,” Stevens said. “Not every primate likes every other primate, but the vast majority of primates very much like to have a cage mate. They groom one another and huddle together. They like to spend a lot of time chewing on branches. These are the kinds of things we want to see happening.”

‘Not Even a Question’

As for dog exercise, she said: “It is not something that requires scientific proof. Everybody knows dogs don’t want to sit in cages for years and years. It’s not even a question.”

Stevens said that to comply with the rules, an institution could provide large pens or kennel runways, or when people “clean the cages they can simply lift the dog out on the floor of the room or in a separate exercise area in the corridor and let him run around while the cage is cleaned.”

“We can’t make them exercise,” Stanford’s Hamm said. “When we let them out of the cages during cleaning, they lie down in the corner and go to sleep.”