Animal Welfare Act Research Articles

Welfare of pet primates for sale in the United States

Welfare of pet primates for sale in the United States Dr. Melissa Seaboch, Professor and Department Chair at Salt Lake Community College, charts the welfare of pet primates for sale in the United States. Despite their unsuitability as pets, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pet primates in the United States (1), and the U.S. ranks third out of 171 countries in the ease of purchasing a pet primate online. (2) Though the pet primate trade is robust, there are few federal regulations addressing the care of companion animals or pets. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), often considered the minimum acceptable standard for animal care and use, governs the care of animals in multiple settings, including research labs, zoos, and commercial breeding facilities. PACT (Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture) prevents the most egregious forms of animal cruelty, and the Lacey Act addresses interstate transportation and illegal wildlife trafficking. (3) None of these regulations address the care or welfare of pet primates.

Conscience of Science: Ethical Imperatives in Zoological Research

Zoological science is an intricate field which requires intimate considerations and guidelines to make sure that limits and boundaries are set for the ethical and humane conduction of research. A number of bioethical laws and international conventions have been designed by bioethical and committees and review boards that serve as moral compass steering towards responsible and humane scientific research. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets standards for the responsible treatment of animals in research, transport, exhibition and animal dealers, handling and research protocols, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals that is published by National research Council of Unites States provides a framework for the proper use and optimal care of animals for in vivo research in laboratory experiments [1]. Similarly, European Union Directive 2010/63/EU is a directive which outlines the standards for the animal protection used for research purposes in the Europe. It states 3Rs of animal testing i.e., Refinement, Reduction and Replacement, and necessitates that researchers consider alternatives before resorting to the animal experiments. An elaborate directive, Declaration of Helsinki, primarily focuses on human research ethics but has principle related o animal research ethics as well [2]. Likewise, another Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora also called as CITES, deals with the trade of endangered animals ensuring that any research which involves endangered species is conducted ethically with proper permits and prevents illegal and unethical exploitation of animals [3]. Last but not the least, the ARRIVE guidelines provide a checklist of essential information which must be included while publishing the research data which describes animal experiments, promotes transparency and improve the quality of reporting in the animal research. The current global conditions necessitate ethical consciousness in zoological research. These considerations extend beyond laboratory settings and encompass wildlife conservation and the prevention of zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19. Innovations in non-invasive research methods, genetic analyses, and data-driven insights pave the way for more ethical and efficient scientific practices. Ethical consciousness aligning with the pursuit of knowledge nurtures a landscape where wonder of discovery and the ethical treatment of animals walk hand in hand.

A Commentary on Fasting of Nonclinical Research Animals.

This commentary discusses the implementation of fasting in nonclinical animal experimental subjects. The short-term removal of food from cages of experimental animals is in all respects innocuous. The term "stress" is ill-defined and the statutes and regulations governing animal research laboratories that exert their authority in the performance of their operations do so without substantive grounds to base compliance. The legislative and administrative history of the implementation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has evolved into the development of laboratory management strategies that focus on the reduction of the biological cost of stress to the animals and the determination of when subclinical stress (eustress) becomes distress. Animal welfare is based on the tenet that in laboratories conducting animal research in compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (Title 21 USC, Chapter 13,§58), it is the study protocol and the study director that establish procedures and processes that are approved by each Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to ensure the humane care and use of animals in research, teaching, and testing and to ensure compliance with guidelines and regulations. This approval process establishes the justification of eustress in the environment that do not rise to the threshold of distress under the AWA.

Optimizing tick artificial membrane feeding for Ixodes scapularis

Artificial membrane feeding (AMF) is a powerful and versatile technique with a wide range of applications in the study of disease vectors species. Since its first description, AMF has been under constant optimization and standardization for different tick species and life stages. In the USA, Ixodes scapularis is the main vector of tick-borne zoonoses including the pathogens causing Lyme disease in humans and animals. Seeking to improve the overall fitness of I. scapularis adult females fed artificially, here, we have optimized the AMF technique, considerably enhancing attachment rate, engorgement success, egg laying, and egg hatching compared to those described in previous studies. Parameters such as the membrane thickness and the light/dark cycle to which the ticks were exposed were refined to more closely reflect the tick’s natural behavior and life cycle. Additionally, ticks were fed on blood only, blood + ATP or blood + ATP + gentamicin. The artificial feeding of ticks on blood only was successful and generated a progeny capable of feeding naturally on a host, i.e., mice. Adding ATP as a feeding stimulant did not improve tick attachment or engorgement. Notably, the administration of gentamicin, an antibiotic commonly used in tick AMF to prevent microbial contamination, negatively impacted Rickettsia buchneri endosymbiont levels in the progeny of artificially fed ticks. In addition, gentamicin-fed ticks showed a reduction in oviposition success compared to ticks artificially fed on blood only, discouraging the use of antibiotics in AMF. Overall, our data suggest that the AMF of adult females on blood only, in association with the natural feeding of their progeny on mice, might be used as an integrated approach in tick rearing, eliminating the use of protected species under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Of note, although optimized for I. scapularis adult ticks, I. scapularis nymphs, other tick species, and sand flies could also be fed using the membrane described in this study, indicating that it might be a suitable alternative for the artificial feeding of a variety of hematophagous species.

Differentiating research from management in welfare review of wildlife activities

AbstractA common understanding and clear process to apply the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to wildlife‐related activities is crucial to promote animal welfare when conducting wildlife research and for streamlining review by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Current interpretation of the AWA and United States government policies advise that wildlife research activities be reviewed for compliance by an IACUC; however, guidance regarding which wildlife activities are categorized as research and therefore subject to review and oversight is limited. In our opinion and experience, this lack of clarity creates a challenge, particularly for natural resource agencies that conduct a range of wildlife activities, to ensure that research is properly identified for IACUC review and differentiated from management activities that are exempt from review. To fill the gap in current guidance, we propose a decision‐making model that clarifies research and management activities. We apply our model to case studies involving wildlife to highlight nuanced differences between the 2 types of activities. Wildlife agencies conducting potentially regulated activities could use this adaptable model, which has been successfully employed by the National Park Service IACUC, to clarify when the AWA might apply, streamline IACUC reviews, and promote welfare of wildlife.

Does Accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Correlate with Animal Welfare Act Compliance?

ABSTRACT The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) promotes itself as the “gold standard” for animal welfare in zoos and aquariums; however, no objective evaluation of this claim has been performed. As the only statute providing protection to individual animals in the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) also seeks to assure animal welfare at facilities exhibiting animals to the public. In this study, the incidences of AWA noncompliant items (NCIs) at AZA-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to non-accredited facilities licensed as exhibitors by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Based on our analysis, non-accredited exhibitors had significantly more total NCIs than AZA-accredited facilities, and non-accredited facilities also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, animal husbandry, and record-keeping, but not with respect to personnel qualifications. Additionally, accreditation status and number of regulated species were significant predictors of the number of NCIs. This study revealed that AZA accreditation is correlated with improved compliance with the AWA and perhaps enhanced animal welfare.

Cruelty against Animals’ Welfare (CAAW) Violations: a Study of Animal Welfare Act and Horse Welfare Act Enforcement Actions in the US, 2010–2014

Green criminology has stimulated criminological examinations of crimes against wildlife, discussions of nonhuman animals as victims of crime, and expanded conceptualization of animal rights. In recent years, increased attention has been directed toward studies of wildlife crimes, which have primarily been restricted to studying crimes against animals that occur through animal trafficking and poaching. At the same time, empirical studies of the social control of animal crimes, especially against nonwildlife animals, have been neglected. As a result, empirical knowledge concerning how nonwildlife animal laws are enforced and the extent to which they are enforced is lacking. The present study addresses that gap in knowledge by examining the enforcement of two animal protection laws in the US that apply to nonwildlife animals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The results indicate that these laws have low enforcement rates, and that the majority of enforcement efforts involve the lowest levels of formal social control available in those statutes. Furthermore, there are relatively few fines for such violations, and when fines are meted out, they tend to be small. Quantitative and qualitative data from 3,719 cases for the years 2010–2014 were employed to assess the extent of, and how the AWA and HPA Acts were enforced in the US. The empirical evidence suggests lack of enforcement of these statutes which, as the qualitative data suggests, involves some serious harm outcomes that were accompanied by rather small penalties.

Estimating mouse and rat use in American laboratories by extrapolation from Animal Welfare Act-regulated species

Alone among Western nations, the United States has a two-tier system for welfare protections for vertebrate animals in research. Because its Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes laboratory rats and mice (RM), government veterinarians do not inspect RM laboratories and RM numbers are only partially reported to government agencies1. Without transparent statistics, it is impossible to track efforts to reduce or replace these sentient animals’ use or to project government resources needed if AWA coverage were expanded to include them. I obtained annual RM usage data from 16 large American institutions and compared RM numbers to institutions’ legally-required reports of their AWA-covered mammals. RM comprised approximately 99.3% of mammals at these representative institutions. Extrapolating from 780,070 AWA-covered mammals in 2017–18, I estimate that 111.5 million rats and mice were used per year in this period. If the same proportion of RM undergo painful procedures as are publicly reported for AWA-covered animals, then some 44.5 million mice and rats underwent potentially painful experiments. These data inform the questions of whether the AWA needs an update to cover RM, or whether the NIH should increase transparency of funded animal research. These figures can benchmark progress in reducing animal numbers in general and more specifically, in painful experiments. This estimate is higher than any others available, reflecting the challenges of obtaining statistics without consistent and transparent institutional reports.

Opioid-Induced Immunomodulation: Consequences for the Experimental Coxsackievirus B3-Induced Myocarditis Model.

Simple SummaryMyocarditis is an inflammatory disorder of the heart mainly caused by viruses. To investigate viral myocarditis, the Coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3)-induced myocarditis model is the experimental model used since more than sixty years. In the pathogeneses of viral myocarditis, the subtle balance between pro-and anti-inflammatory immune responses is of great importance for disease manifestation. Parallel to the infection of the heart, experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis results in an infection of the pancreas, causing a severe burden for the challenged animals. In frame of animal welfare, application of analgesics is mandatory. So far, positive as well as negative effects of opioids on the immune system have been described. However, the impact of opioid application on the pathogenesis of experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis has not been investigated yet. Since examinations on disease pathways and new treatment options rely on established models to generate reproducible data, applicability of opioids in experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis needs to be carefully evaluated. For this purpose, we summarized published studies for 13 different opioids and discussed their potential impact on the CVB3-induced myocarditis model.Myocarditis is an inflammatory disorder of the heart predominantly caused by infectious agents. Since more than sixty years, the Coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3)-induced myocarditis mouse model is the experimental model used to investigate viral myocarditis. The pathogenesis of viral myocarditis is conceptually a multiphase process, initiated by the infection of cardiomyocytes, followed by activation of the immune system, and resulting in myocardial fibrosis and left ventricular dysfunction. In parallel to the direct infection of the heart, CVB3 replicates in lymphatic organs such as the pancreas. Due to infection of the pancreas, the model of experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis is estimated as a severe burden for the challenged animals. Application of analgesics in frame of the animal welfare act (European directive 2010/63/EU) is more and more becoming a matter of debate. For this purpose, we summarized published studies for 13 different opioids and discussed their potential impact on CVB3-induced myocarditis. In addition, with this summary we also want to provide guidance for researchers beyond the myocarditis field to estimate the impact of opioids on the immune system for their specific model. In the literature, both immunosuppressive as well as immune-activating effects of opioids have been described, but examinations in experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis have still not been reported so far. Based on the existing publications, administration of opioids in experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis might result in more severe disease progression, including higher mortality, or a less pronounced myocarditis model, failing to be used for the establishment of new treatment options. Taken together, the applicability of opioids in experimental CVB3-induced myocarditis and in inflammatory models in general needs to be carefully evaluated and further investigated.

Animal Welfare Act Enforcement

This is an annotated transcript from a panel presentation at The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty conference at Harvard Law School. Delcianna Winders discusses the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and how the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforces it. She also provides a critique of the USDA’s enforcement of the AWA, with particular attention to its heavy reliance on warnings and discounted penalties, which in many cases fail to deter regulated entities from violating the AWA. Varu Chilakamarri discusses how animal welfare issues are incorporated into the work of the Department of Justice (DOJ). She provides an overview of the AWA, noting the specific sections that provide for federal court review. Chilakamarri also discusses some of the programmatic steps the DOJ has taken within the past few years to make animal welfare a larger priority.

Legislators Need to Develop a Backbone for Animals that Lack One: Including Cephalopods in the Animal Welfare Act

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only piece of federal legislation to protect animals used in research, is insufficient to the task. It excludes rats, mice, birds, and all invertebrates — animals, many of which are capable of feeling pain and possibly even suffering. One particular class of animals completely excluded by the AWA and indeed by any kind of U.S. humane research regulation is cephalopods. But, the evidence shows cephalopods are intelligent and complex animals clearly deserving of protection. Such protection would align with public consensus and could be accomplished by including cephalopods in the protective provisions of the AWA. This paper argues for their inclusion: first, because a look at the legislative history of the AWA demonstrates that legislators enacted and amended the law in order to minimize animals’ pain and suffering; second, because the preponderance of the evidence shows that cephalopods can feel pain and may be capable of suffering; and finally because, on balance, including cephalopods in the AWA would ensure their protection to a far greater extent than does the status quo.

Animal Welfare Act: Interaction with Other Laws

This is an annotated transcript from a panel presentation at The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty conference at Harvard Law School. Ani B. Satz discusses the interaction of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) with state laws, specifically focusing on perceived preemptive effects of the AWA on state anti-cruelty laws. Delcianna Winders discusses how these perceived preemptive effects play out on a federal level, focusing on how the AWA interacts with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). She expands upon how both laws apply to captive animals, who have been identified as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Beyond Rights and Welfare: Democracy, Dialogue, and the Animal Welfare Act

The primary frameworks through which scholars have conceptualized legal protections for animals—animal “rights” and animal “welfare”—do not account for socio-legal transformation or democratic dialogue as central dynamics of animal law. The animal “rights” approach focuses on the need for limits or boundaries preventing animal use, while the animal “welfare” approach advocates balancing harm to animals against human benefits from animal use. Both approaches rely on abstract accounts of the characteristics animals are thought to share with humans and the legal protections they are owed as a result of those traits. Neither offers sustained attention to the dynamics of legal change in democratic states, including the importance of public access to the facts of animal lives, opportunities for affective storytelling, and multi-faceted public deliberation. This Article offers an alternative avenue for theorizing animal legal protections, drawing on Laurence Tribe’s articulation of law as governed by an “evolving ethic,” wherein successive shifts in legal and public consensus build upon one another in ways that are dynamic and not entirely unpredictable. Drawing on feminist, critical, and relational approaches to law and social change, this Article elaborates a vision of animal law as governed by an evolving ethic wherein legal transformation is deeply connected to the public availability of particular facts of animal use, emotional storytelling, and broader social relationships and power dynamics. The evolving ethic here proposed helps us to shift our focus from a precritical understanding of rights as hard boundaries to a view of rights as a product of dynamic social relationships; and to shift our focus from welfarist balancing calculations to more open-textured dialogue. By conceiving of animal law through the lens of the evolving ethic, we can break free of stale debates about the virtue of rights versus welfare and instead embrace both as tools in a dialogic toolbox deployed in a field of legal transformation that is better characterized by dynamism and dialogue than by teleological advancement toward a predefined goal. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)—the central legal regime governing the experimental use of animals in the United States, forms the central case study. The AWA regime in its current form works to foreclose public deliberation over concrete cases. The history of this same regime, however, demonstrates that affective storytelling grounded in the particular facts of animal use has been a major driver of democratic legal change protecting animals used in experiments. This Article explores the current structure and historical development of the AWA scheme, demonstrating that the evolving ethic offers insights, beyond those allowed by rights and welfare approaches, into the practical dynamics of animal law and the shortcomings of the current AWA scheme. Informed by the evolving ethic and the AWA’s history of sociolegal transformation, this Article offers AWA law reform proposals that aim to facilitate public deliberation grounded in the concrete facts of animal use—including the introduction of ethical merit review of proposed experiments, changes in the applicable rules of standing, and product labeling. While each proposed reform may yield incremental improvements in the treatment of laboratory animals in the immediate term, the core insight of the evolving ethic is that there is a distinct value in the potential of such proposals to nourish public conversations rooted in particular stories of animal use—conversations that are likely to spur new questions and new conversations, none of which can be fully determined in advance.

The Animal Welfare Act and the Conduct and Publishing of Wildlife Research in the United States.

In the US, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and its enabling regulations (AWAR) cover all warm-blooded animals used for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition. The only exceptions, made in the enabling regulations, are for two genera of rodents and for birds, bred specifically for research (meaning even those exceptions do not apply to wild birds and wild rodents of those genera) and for farm and agricultural animals. Research using animals covered by the AWA and AWAR must be reviewed and approved by an Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) properly constituted according to AWA and AWAR. A review of Instructions to Authors and policy statements offered by 106 journals classified by their content as containing articles that were oriented largely toward disease, ecology, or general, showed that disease-oriented journals originating in the United States and those produced by professional societies and government agencies have a higher explicit requirement for ACUC review than do disease-oriented journals produced outside the United States or those produced commercially. Journals with a general orientation that are produced outside the United States or commercially had much higher rates of requiring explicit statements for ACUC review than generally-oriented journals produced in the United States or those produced by professional societies and government agencies. Ecology journals had low rates of explicit statements for ACUC review regardless of geographic origins or sources.

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

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.

Administrative License Renewal and Due Process A Case Study

Scholars have recently noted the paucity of scholarship on administrative licenses as especially significant given the prevalence — indeed ubiquity — of administrative licenses today. This Article contributes to filling that void by tackling an aspect of administrative licensing that has received especially little attention and, as a result, has been a source of serious confusion: license renewals. As this Article details, administrative license renewal practices raise interesting and important questions about administrative law and procedural due process. Does one have a property interest in a license after that license expires by its terms? Is an agency’s decision not to renew a license more akin to denying an initial license application or to suspending or revoking an active license? This Article answers these questions and then applies those answers to one particular context — the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Our nation’s most important animal protection law, the AWA governs more than 2.5 million animals held by nearly eleven thousand locations. And yet, by all accounts, it is woefully underenforced. As this Article discusses, that underenforcement is seriously aggravated by the practice of automatically renewing AWA licenses, even in the face of egregious violations. After analyzing recent litigation that has tried to challenge this practice, the Article concludes with policy proposals to address the automatic renewal problem while also assuring fairness.

Administrative Law Enforcement, Warnings, and Transparency

Warnings are one of the primary ways that administrative agencies enforce the law. Yet there is virtually no scholarship interrogating the role that warnings play in an agency’s arsenal. Are they effective in motivating compliance? If so, under what circumstances? Is reliance on warnings warranted at all? This Article tackles these important but overlooked questions. Economic models of public enforcement suggest that warnings have no role in motivating compliance. Published data on the effectiveness of warnings is virtually non-existent. Yet, in an apparent act of faith, administrative agencies rely heavily on warnings—often as their primary enforcement mechanism. This Article scrutinizes this use of warnings, through both a theoretical assessment and a case study of their efficacy in one particular context—the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). After showing that that warnings issued under the Animal Welfare Act appear to frequently fail to incentivize compliance, the Article then assesses why this might be and discusses the implications of this failing for the many administrative agencies that rely on warnings. It also makes policy recommendations for improving the efficacy of warnings, including recommendations about disclosure that are especially timely given recent moves by the federal government to delete thousands of enforcement-related records from its websites.

Does Accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) Ensure Greater Compliance With Animal Welfare Laws?

Accreditation of nonhuman animal research facilities by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is widely considered the “gold standard” of commitment to the well being of nonhuman animals used in research. AAALAC-accredited facilities receive preferential treatment from funding agencies and are viewed favorably by the general public. Thus, it bears investigating how well these facilities comply with U.S. animal research regulations. In this study, the incidences of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) at AAALAC-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to those at nonaccredited institutions during a period of 2 years. The analysis revealed that AAALAC-accredited facilities were frequently cited for AWA noncompliance items (NCIs). Controlling for the number of animals at each facility, AAALAC-accredited sites had significantly more AWA NCIs on average compared with nonaccredited sites. AAALAC-accredited sites also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, personnel qualifications, and animal husbandry. These results demonstrate that AAALAC accreditation does not improve compliance with regulations governing the treatment of animals in laboratories.

Criminal act of killing and torturing of animals from article 269 of the criminal code of the Republic of Serbia from the perspective of the animal welfare act

Biologija i krivično pravo imaju malo dodirnih tačaka. Jedan od njih je 24. glava Krivičnog zakonika RS koja nosi naziv 'Krivična dela protiv životne sredine'. Pored tradicionalno prisutnih u njoj se nalazi i jedno novo krivično delo 'Ubijanje i mučenje životinja'. U inkriminisanju ovog dela zakonodavac je pošao od razumne pretpostavke da pojmove koji pripadaju drugim oblastima naučnog saznanja ne treba da određuje već ih treba prepustiti njihovim izvornim naukama. Takva je situacija sa pojmom 'životinje' koji je ovde ključan. Iako bi na prvi pogled pojmovi 'ubijanja' i 'mučenja' trebalo da pripadaju krivičnom pravu, zakonodavac se uzdržao da ih odredi kada su u pitanju životinje. Ovo stoga što su oni jasni kada je objekt ubijanja ili mučenja čovek i bez naročitih poznavanja biologije čoveka. Međutim kada su u pitanju životinje stvari se menjaju. Životinje nisu subjekti, već objekti prava (stvari), pa samim tim nemaju 'ljudska prava i slobode' koje Ustav RS garantuje ljudima, pa tako ni pravo na život niti pravo na nedodirljivost telesnog integriteta. Stoga je zakonodavac u ovom krivičnom delu odredio da se ubijanje i mučenje životinja može biti krivično delo samo kada je učinjeno 'kršenjem propisa'. Pošto su ovakvi 'propisi' koji su uređivali kako se postupa sa životinjama bili malobrojni (zakonodavstvo koje je uređivalo veterinarstvo ili lovstvo) u vreme kada je donet KZ (2006. godina), ali i iz brojnih drugih razloga, zakonodavac je 2009. godine doneo 'Zakon o dobrobiti životinja' kao neku vrstu opšteg zakona koji uređuje odnose ljudi i životinja. Naravno da bi bilo potpuno pogrešno reći da je ovaj zakon neka vrsta ustava za životinje, jer ovaj zakon ne poznaje nikakva prava životinja. Ono što ovaj zakon ostavlja za raspravu jeste da li je njime u pravni poredak uneta kategoriju interesa životinja. Pisac staje na stanovište da jeste s obzirom da zakon zabranjuje različita ponašanja ljudi koja štete životinjama i stvara čitav niz obaveza ljudima u njihovim odnosima sa životinjama. Na ovaj način, smatra pisac, zakonodavac je otišao ispred ustavotvorca. Naime, ustavom garantovana prava i slobode ljudi aktima niže pravne snage kao što su zakoni ne mogu se ograničavati. Izlaz za ovo stanje treba tražiti u izmeni Ustava kako bi interesi životinja našli svoje mesto u članu 74 koji garantuje pravo na zdravu životnu sredinu. Dok se to ne desi najbolje bi bilo da se u našem društvu izgrađuje i neguje jedna nova vrsta senzibiliteta prema životinjama koja bi uključila i brigu o njihovim, a ne samo o ljudskim interesima.

Self-Harm in Laboratory-Housed Primates: Where Is the Evidence That the Animal Welfare Act Amendment Has Worked?

The 1985 amendment to the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well being of primates in the laboratory represents an acknowledgment of an important welfare problem concerning nonhuman animals. How effective has this amendment been? Perhaps the best-known contributor to psychological distress in primates in the laboratory is nonsocial housing; yet, available analyses suggest that little progress has been made in avoiding single-caging of these animals. Another way to assess psychological well being is to examine rates of self-abusive behavior in laboratory primates. If the AWA has been effective, then post-AWA self-harm rates might be lower than pre-AWA rates. However, when we attempted to determine those rates from published studies, data were too sparse to allow a rigorous statistical analysis; of 139 studies reporting primate self-harming behavior, only 9 contained data allowing estimation of self-harming behavior rates. We conclude that the current system of laboratory animal care and record keeping is inadequate to properly assess AWA impacts on primate psychological well being and that more is required to ensure the psychological well being of primates.