Activists accuse University of lab animal violations

In the past month, a number of animal activist groups have criticized the University and other Ivy League schools for their laboratories’ treatments of animals used in medical research, but spokespersons at these schools have rejected the accuracy of these reports and reiterated their emphasis on avoiding incidents.

In a report published by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine on Sept. 21, the University ranked second-worst among schools in the Ivy League for research testing on animals. Author John J. Pippin’s report analyzed past U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection results, which revealed that the University had been cited for six violations in 2011 and 11 in 2010.

The University was not the only school implicated in the report. The University of Pennsylvania ranked worst in PCRM’s Research Misconduct Score, and Yale tied with Princeton for second worst. However, administrators at Yale dismissed the PCRM report as “sensational and misleading.”

“To categorize the PCRM document as a ‘report’ is to assign it more value and importance than it deserves. What PCRM did was to aggregate four years of USDA inspection reports and apply a tortured algorithm of their own invention to arrive at a rank ordering of the Ivy League schools — for the simple purpose of sensationalizing these data,” Yale strategic communications director Charles Hogen said in an email.

“What the ‘report’ conveniently omitted was the fact that most of the incidents of ‘research misconduct’ — a term we find highly misleading and inappropriate — were self-reported to the USDA by the team of dedicated veterinarians and animal technicians who care for these animals,” he added.

The PCRM has been criticized for its anti-meat and anti-dairy agenda, as well as its funding ties to People for Ethical Treatment of Animals and other animal activist groups.

Most recently, the University has again been targeted for animal testing violations. The group Stop Animal Exploitation Now! leaked an anonymous letter from a former University lab employee detailing various violations dating back to 2003 that were never previously reported. SAEN executive director Michael Budkie announced his group’s intent to file a formal complaint with the USDA against the University at a press conference in Trenton on Sept. 29.

The letter included graphic pictures of distressed marmosets and dead rats. Both items are published on SAEN’s website.

The USDA regulates all uses of warm-blooded animals in the United States under the Animal Welfare Act, a code that seeks to protect animals from harm, neglect and inhumane treatment. Specifically excluded from the AWA are mice, rats, cold-blooded animals, horses not used for research, farm animals used for food and birds.

USDA spokesman David Sacks said that an inspector will be sent to Princeton to follow up on the complaint filed by SAEN. “Ideally, our goal is to have full compliance at every facility every day,” Sacks said. “However, it is not uncommon to see violations, since our inspectors are very thorough.”

Sacks added that there are various types of violations and that they range in severity. For instance, a direct violation is most serious, because it directly impacts the animals. On the other hand, an indirect violation or non-compliance item has no impact on the animals.

The University reiterated its stance on improving animal conduct in research. “We address all concerns swiftly and in a manner that helps prevent future incidents,” University spokesperson Martin Mbugua said in an email. “In light of allegations raised by SAEN, we are once again reviewing our procedures to ensure our standards are being met. In terms of the specific and general allegations [in the anonymous, leaked letter] presented without evidence and dating back to 2004, we will determine if we need to conduct an appropriate inquiry.”

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Mbugua added that the University implemented an overall compliance program in 2005 by which individuals could raise concerns over non-compliance and even elect to remain anonymous. “A review of complaints going back to 2007 has confirmed that we have not received any anonymous complaints regarding the allegations raised by SAEN,” Mbugua said.

Budkie could not be reached for comment.