Lab animal protection overdue.

Abstract

When the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded in 2011 that most current use of chimpanzees in biomedical research was “unnecessary,” it highlighted systemic deficiencies in the oversight of experiments on animals ([ 1 ][1]). Specifically, harmful and invasive experiments on chimpanzees continued to be reviewed, funded, approved, and conducted at government and private facilities—all of which were accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC)—despite the studies' irrelevance to human health and/or the availability of alternative research methods. It was only when the public, activists, and Congress raised questions that the problem was discovered and rectified, leading to the retirement of most federally owned chimpanzees, the discontinuation of most federally funded biomedical experiments on chimpanzees, and a complete overhaul of the process by which federally funded experiments on chimpanzees are reviewed. Oversight and accreditation from AAALAC certainly did not protect these chimpanzees from painful and unnecessary experiments at laboratories across the country. In his In Depth News story “Animal welfare accreditation called into question” (29 August, p. [988][2]), D. Grimm describes a study led by Justin Goodman, the director of the Laboratory Investigations Department at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Goodman et al. 's study shows that AAALAC-accredited laboratories are more likely to violate animal welfare laws than nonaccredited laboratories. The results lend credence to the idea that AAALAC may not deserve the designation as the “gold standard” for laboratory animal care. This new analysis, the IOM report, and other studies like them [e.g., ([ 2 ][3], [ 3 ][4])] highlight the need for oversight mechanisms that are truly independent, unbiased, and transparent, none of which apply to AAALAC in its current incarnation. 1. [↵][5] National Research Council, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011). 2. [↵][6] 1. L. A. Hansen , J. Med. Ethics 39, 1880 (2012). [OpenUrl][7] 3. [↵][8] 1. S. Plous, 2. H. Herzog , Science 293, 608 (2001). [OpenUrl][9][FREE Full Text][10] 4. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the U.S. Government or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.345.6200.988 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BMed.%2BEthics%26rft.volume%253D39%26rft.spage%253D1880%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DPlous%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%26rft.volume%253D293%26rft.issue%253D5530%26rft.spage%253D608%26rft.epage%253D609%26rft.atitle%253DANIMAL%2BRESEARCH%253A%2BReliability%2Bof%2BProtocol%2BReviews%2Bfor%2BAnimal%2BResearch%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1061621%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11474086%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIyOTMvNTUzMC82MDgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNToiL3NjaS8zNDUvNjIwMy8xNDYxLjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9