iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Laboratory Animals Regulations: How Much Space Is Needed?

Posted: 01/17/12 05:21 PM ET

From Russell McLendon and Mother Nature Network:

Laboratory animals have done a lot for humanity over the years, helping us find treatments and cures for a variety of human diseases. The U.S. is now trying to repay lab animals for their service -- even if it is involuntary service -- by enacting the first update to its "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" since 1996.

That update, according to the U.S. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, "empowers continued advancement in the humane care and use of vertebrate animals in research, research training, and biological testing."

The guide's latest edition, which was unveiled last year and just took effect this month, includes new space requirements for a wide range of lab animals, from rats and rabbits to chickens and chimpanzees. Animal-rights advocates have spent years pushing for such changes, and they largely welcome the new rules.

But as NPR reports, some researchers are bristling at the idea of buying new cages for thousands of rats.

"The effect would be, we would have to buy more of this caging, and our estimate was somewhere around $300,000 worth of caging, at least," Bob Adams, the head of Johns Hopkins University's main lab-rat complex, tells NPR. "Bottom line is, there is more work, there is more cost for everybody, for our whole operation."

It's not that scientists are ambivalent about animal welfare, adds Joseph Thulin from the Medical College of Wisconsin. "I would not want anyone to think that the research community doesn't want to implement new guidelines because they don't care about their animals," he tells NPR. "That is not the case at all." There's simply a shortage of research on rodent housing, he says, creating doubt that expanding cage sizes "will have any measurable positive impact on the animals."

Research institutions must complete at least one self-evaluation under the new guidelines before Dec. 31, 2012, and there is some confusion about how much wiggle room they'll have. A consultant who helped draft the rules describes them as merely "recommendations," for example, yet the OLAW website warns that "Blanket, program-wide departures from the Guide for reasons of convenience, cost, or other non-animal welfare considerations are not acceptable."

And while critics decry the "uncertainty" this creates, some animal-rights advocates express concern the U.S. may not fully enforce the new rules. "If we are going to be using millions or tens of millions of rodents in this country, we do have an obligation to the welfare of these animals," Kathleen Conlee of the Humane Society of the United States tells NPR. The HSUS and similar groups "hope that the National Institutes of Health will strictly enforce their recommendations in the guide," she adds.

The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare will take public comments on the new rules through the end of this month.

See the full guide (PDF) for a look at some of the updated requirements.

Also on MNN:
U.S. agrees to limit medical research on chimpanzees
Orangutans shed light on obesity in people
Researchers find empathy in rats
Naked mole rat genome may hold key to long life

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

From Russell McLendon and Mother Nature Network: Laboratory animals have done a lot for humanity over the years, helping us find treatments and cures for a variety of human diseases. The U.S. is no...
From Russell McLendon and Mother Nature Network: Laboratory animals have done a lot for humanity over the years, helping us find treatments and cures for a variety of human diseases. The U.S. is no...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
12:51 PM on 01/27/2012
Inhumane behind any means. Doesn't matter how much space is provided... The pain will be suffered and the blood will be spilled. I would've chosen death over bloody medicines if my family did not always insist. I know, a bit fanatic, I just love animals so much and can feel their pain by looking into their innocent eyes...
06:45 PM on 01/24/2012
We have overcrowded prisons full of available "test subjects" why not use them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde
I am no microbe
01:55 PM on 01/18/2012
Here we go again, with animal research bashers that focus on a few, very often quite old, horror stories of animal research.

If we could do it on humans, folks, we would. It's just not possible. Find me a pregnant woman who's willing to test the teratogene effect of a drug. You won't find any. Does that mean we must not develop any treatment for pregnant women, because we can't test it ? Animal models and studies are not perfect, but teratogen drugs in animals don't make it to humans who might want to have children.

I know it's an emotional debate, and I will never be able to convince those thoroughly against animal research. I just wish they would understand that it is necessary. You don't need to do it yourself. Just let others do the work, and develop better treatments for tomorrow. We do everything we possibly can to make it as easy as possible for animals.
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
08:54 AM on 01/19/2012
I'm sure those against animal testing wish you would understand that no animal deserves to be tortured for anyones benefit.

And if you think being poked, prodded and injected with substances that could cause horrible side effects isn't torture then why not do it on yourself?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde
I am no microbe
02:45 PM on 01/19/2012
I have, in fact, been a volunteer for a couple of clinical physiology trials.

To study dead patients' organs tells us what happens when it's too late. To study what happens before, we can't use humans. So we can't study humans to develop treatments, we need pre-clinical data first.

Quality control studies for already approved drugs and other products are also necessary.

Would you say that no more treatment development, drug development, and many drug stoppage of production is favorable to performing animal research ?
09:26 PM on 01/28/2012
"that focus on a few, very often quite old, horror stories of animal research."

Huh. You don't know or don't want to know what you're talking about. There are an awful lot of abuses and USELESS tests.
Tests for cosmetics, cleaning products and FOOD ar the norm. It's not just medicines. That's a shame. If they didn't put such crap in food and all this wouldn't be needed. Fortunately it seems Europe will forbid tests on cosmetic next year.

An example: Not so long ago (few years) Coca and Pepsi were actively testing on animals... Real shame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/business/31testing.html
"a study involving a Coca-Cola scientist, financed by Nutrasweet, that cut open the faces of chimpanzees to study nerve impulses used in the perception of sweet tastes." (Nutrasweet produces aspartame).
How is this useful? I can agree that research for cancer or suchlike is useful, but this is insanity.
10:56 AM on 01/18/2012
This article leaves out very important information. Most lab animals used in the U.S. have NO protection whatsoever. When the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966, it was passed to "regulate the use of dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and farm animals in research, teaching, and testing." Most lab animals are mice and rats, and there is no law protecting them from any type of cruelty. Researchers are not even required to use pain medication when performing painful procedures on rats and mice, who are highly intelligent animals. What is going on in this industry is simply criminal.

Further, we don't even know how this reliance on animal testing is holding back our ability to fight diseases. Just remember that Guinea Pigs are allergic to penicillin. If Guinea Pigs had been used to test penicillin, we would not benefit from this drug because it would have never been allowed on the market. As a matter of fact, the FDA published a White Paper in 2004 that found that "92 percent of all drugs that pass preclinical testing on animals go on to fail in human clinical trials, either because they are too toxic or not effective. Of the 8 percent of drugs that do pass clinical trials and receive approval from the FDA, half are later withdrawn from the market or relabeled for side effects not identified in animal research." With these numbers, how can anybody even begin to justify testing on animals?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde
I am no microbe
12:28 PM on 01/18/2012
That is false.

All rodents are protected. The use of anesthetics and analgesia is mandatory. I know it, I'm into research myself. Not only is cruelty on rodents, or any lab animal for that matter, morally wrong and appalling, it is also bad research, all researchers know this. The reason rats and mice are most used is because they are easier cheaper models to use, and more readily genetically modifiable with faster life cycles. Not because they are "unprotected".

It's true most drugs who pass animal testing don't make it past human trials. That's because we have so many more ways to test safety and efficiency in humans than in animals, who don't communicate their feelings that well. But animals provide so many options that humans don't that they are vital. Out of the hundreds of thousands of drugs tested on animals, only a few ever make it to human research. The others are either inefficient, or toxic, or both. In vitro studies often don't provide enough physiological information; in any case, the cells and tissues often come from animals anyway. Cell lines are, in essence, cancer cells, not the most useful for studying physiology.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde
I am no microbe
01:46 PM on 01/18/2012
As for guinea pigs and penicillin, there is a reason research uses multiple animal models : so that species-specific effects can be isolated and identified.

For clinical trials, 92% of drugs that pass pre-clinical tests fail clinical trials. Yep. Companies put on 10-20 compounds to test in early clinical studies, to select the best one to push for commercialization. So, in the event of a successful drug launched, still 90-95% of compounds that made it to human studies "failed".
photo
golions
Real Americans drink coffee, not tea.
06:20 PM on 01/18/2012
Very well stated; would fan you a second time if that were possible.
09:14 AM on 01/18/2012
Laboratory testing on animals is an antiquated and barbaric practice. Hopefully with increased education it will finally come to an end.

-Igor Purlantov
fuzzychickens
The higher the power, the bigger the lies
11:32 AM on 01/18/2012
Fine, we'll use your children to test new treatments.
12:57 PM on 01/27/2012
why, you don't need to be rude! Opinion, that's what it is. And I agree with you Igor Purlantov.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karen lyons kalmenson
i poem/paint, sometimes, i ain't
05:13 AM on 01/18/2012
space OUTSIDE, in freedom!!!
01:23 AM on 01/18/2012
Animal testing should be banned. No excuses and so many of them are NOT treated humanely. Do a google search to see some of the horrors of animal testing. Cruelty free is the only way to be and yet so many folks are completely ignorant of what they buy. Check it out and become an informed, caring consumer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde
I am no microbe
01:48 PM on 01/18/2012
Yep, Google animal research horror stories and you'll find them, those from the past 30-50 years. You'll miss, because they don't make news, the 99% who are not horror stories.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Just4theHalibut
11:29 PM on 01/17/2012
Seems to me there's a huge difference between being concerned about chimpanzees vs lab rats.
I can't see any justification for using higher, self-aware primates in experiments, period. (By the way, as far as I can ascertain through Google-scholar, the horrific experiments described by poster below were done in the 1970s and are NOT "going on to this day"). Lab rats are a different matter. Experimentation is the only reason they exist. As far as I could ascertain from the NPR interview, there's no scientific basis for requiring the increased space for rat cages, it's just pandering to PETA.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
10:46 PM on 01/17/2012
Oh geez....I can see it now:

expensive "Organic" medications developed in "cage-free" labs.

What's next? Pastured-raised lab rats?
10:01 PM on 01/17/2012
There shouldn't be testing on animals, period. For all those naysayers out there, I would like to relay some images I have seen firsthand from a study on lung cancer due to cigarette smoking.

Since chimpanzees are too intelligent to inhale a known carcinogen into their lungs, the "scientists" had to devise a method to force the chimps to smoke. The chimpanzees had holes bored into their chests right through to their lungs. A device was surgically installed into their chests with a little hole in the middle. The chimps were then strapped into restraint chairs so they could not move their arms or legs. The "scientist" would place a lit cigarette into the device in their chests, so they were forced to inhale the smoke directly into their lungs. Cigarette after cigarette, day after day, week after week, month after month. Strapped into the restraint chair, forced to inhale cigarette smoke, until they were riddled with lung cancer.

Those are the "scientists" everyone loves to gush about as such brave and giving life savers. They're not. They're torturers. I've seen the video and pictures from the above experiments, which I'm certain are still going on to this day. Why? Because there's lots of profits to be made. All because humans are too stupid to smoke, don't have the guts to quit, and demand that helpless animals suffer unimaginable brutality for their sins. Shame on anyone who supports this sick and deranged system of brutality.
evecaren
Every cloud has a silver lining
08:25 AM on 01/18/2012
I agree with you, Master - T. There should not be testing on animals. These images of the
scientists torturing the chimpanzees is beyond horrifying and must be stopped. I had no idea
these sorts of things were being done to chimpanzees and I am appalled. No further studies
need to be done to prove that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer. Chimpanzees are so
intelligent and chimpanzees and all animals have feelings and emotions. This is barbaric and
extremely cruel what they are doing to these chimpanzees which are the closest to humans in
DNA. All testing on animals must stop. There are other ways for the scientists to conduct
studies without using animals.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doodlebug2
07:47 PM on 01/17/2012
they should get 401K's. If they are working for the govt, why do they get such good benefits???