Gaps in US Animal Welfare Law for Laboratory Animals: Perspectives From an Animal Law Attorney.

Abstract

The use of animals in biomedical, toxicological, and basic research has been common practice, and a tool for scientists and researchers, for many years. And yet, serious conflict continues to exist between those who believe that the use of animals in research will yield scientific results that benefit humans and those who believe such practices are unethical regardless of use or outcome. High-profile undercover cases have further raised public awareness and have put the entire industry under pressure to be transparent, accountable, and aggressive in its adoption of reduction, refinement, and replacement (3R) principles. Many animal law attorneys are deeply frustrated by what they see as weak US laws that are unevenly enforced, especially when compared with legal advances in other countries and regions. This article (1) explores those gaps in US animal welfare laws with an emphasis on the Animal Welfare Act, (2) argues in favor of stronger laws and rigorous enforcement, and (3) suggests steps to advance these goals. These steps include (1) expanding the definition of "animal" in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), (2) improving and expanding minimum care requirements in USDA regulations, (3) instituting mandatory reporting requirements, improving Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, and allowing easier accessibility to laboratory reports and plans, (4) adding a citizen suit provision to the AWA, and (5) continuing education about the emotional and social capacities of animals and a stronger commitment to 3R principles.