Local Traditions in Gorillas

Posted on August 10, 2011 by Brian Carnell

Interesting study published in Animal Cognition describing the apparenty development of local traditions in gorillas. From the article abstract,

Elaborate manual skills of food processing are known in several species of great ape; but their manner of acquisition is controversial. Local, “cultural” traditions show the influence of social learning, but it is uncertain whether this includes the ability to imitate the organization of behavior. Dispute has centered on whether program-level imitation contributes to the acquisition of feeding techniques in gorillas. Here, we show that captive western gorillas at Port Lympne, Kent, have developed a group-wide habit of feeding on nettles, using two techniques. We compare their nettle processing behavior with that of wild mountain gorillas in Rwanda. Both populations are similar in their repertoires of action elements, and in developing multi-step techniques for food processing, with coordinated asymmetric actions of the hands and iteration of parts of a process as “subroutines”. Crucially, however, the two populations deal in different ways with the special challenges presented by nettle stings, with consistently different organizations of action elements. We conclude that, while an elaborate repertoire of manual actions and the ability to develop complex manual skills are natural characteristics of gorillas, the inter-site differences in nettle-eating technique are best explained as a consequence of social transmission. According to this explanation, gorillas can copy aspects of program organization from the behavior of others and they use this ability when learning how to eat nettles, resulting in consistent styles of processing by most individuals at each different site; like other great apes, gorillas have the precursor abilities for developing culture.

An article in New Scientist about the study says this is the first time evidence of local traditions in gorillas has been found, although such behavior has been documented in other great ape species.

Eurojust and Europol Hold Joint Conference on Animal Rights Extremism

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Brian Carnell

In July, Europol, the European Union\’s official criminal intelligence agency, and Eurojust, an EU agency dealing with cooperation in cross-border investigations, held a joint conference at The Hague to discuss \”the phenomenon of increased violence committed by some extremists in the name of animal rights.\”

The two organizations issued a joint press released afterward saying,

The phenomenon of increased violence committed by some extremists in the name of animal rights is a growing cause for concern. In a major conference organised by Europol and Eurojust 58 experts from law enforcement and prosecution authorities, plus representatives from 35 private sector organisations, met last week at Europol’s new headquarters in The Hague to discuss the issues behind this new trend.While the defence of the rights of animals and their welfare is legitimate and fully supported by European Union institutions, the increase in violence by extremists remains a concern for all of the conference participants. An example is the increased use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and Improvised Incendiary Devices (IIDs).

Violent animal rights extremists do not hesitate in sending threatening emails or making warning phone calls to their targets, often intimidating their family and committing physical assaults on their property, in so-called home visits. This has resulted in arson attacks on cars and property. Single-issue extremist groups are also actively targeting the fur and pharmaceutical industries. This has included the mass release of animals and the destruction of feeding and water installations for the animals. Another tendency is that single-issue extremist groups (including anarchist groups) are supporting each others’ causes more and more.

\”We are concerned by the increasing levels of violence used by animal rights extremists and their tendency to collaborate with other extremists in society. Europol is committed to helping law enforcement authorities in the EU and partners in industry to prevent the further spread of this activity. The conference at Europol\’s new headquarters was an important milestone in these efforts.\” says Rob Wainwright, Director of Europol.

Together with a tactical meeting held at Eurojust in April 2011 on the same topic, the conference clearly identified the need for a wider exchange of information to provide the Member States’ authorities with a clear picture of ongoing criminal activities. There is a tendency to underestimate the importance of the phenomenon and of the links between criminal actions committed in different countries. Forensic analysis clearly demonstrates that some attacks committed in the EU have used the same modus operandi and that the devices used are similarly manufactured.

From the context of the conference, it became obvious that the violent criminal activities are often orchestrated at an international level. To this end, a need for increased law enforcement coordination at an international level was identified, as well as more awareness on a local police and judicial level.

The conference recommendations include:

Encouraging Member States’ authorities to prevent and fight all forms of violent criminal extremism and developing, at an EU level, a renewed dialogue on animal protection and animal welfare to allow all concerned parties to express their needs and concerns in a democratic way

Exploring the possibility of sharing technical data with the relevant parts of the corporate security community and their branch organisations, respecting the data protection regulations within Europol and Eurojust’s existing legal frameworks

Developing a common strategy with the corporate security community to further cooperation between EU institutions and the relevant parts of the private sector.

The above recommendations were supported by a conclusion that called for increased information exchange with Europol and Eurojust on attacks, prosecutions and convictions in animal rights extremism cases. This will lead to the identification of good practice, increased sharing of experience and ultimately a more efficient and coordinated approach in tackling the phenomenon.

Europol and Eurojust are currently supporting ongoing enquiries in a number of Member States that are linked to crimes committed in the name of animal welfare.

How Zoos Satisfy Predatory Animals\’ Hunting Instincts

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Brian Carnell

Natalie Wolchover wrote a fascinating piece for LiveScience.com on how zoos attempt to satisfy the predatory instincts of animals they keep.

Wolchover talks to Smithsonian National Zoo public affairs assistant Jennifer Zoon who says that while predatory animals the zoo keeps are fed a diet comparable to what they would get in the wild, actual hunting by animals has to be simulated. Oddly enough, the primary concern about allowing any sort of live predation (such a releasing a live rabbit in a tiger enclosure) is potential harm to the predator,

As Andrew Circo of the San Diego Zoo told the British newspaper the Guardian in 2008, \”We do not feed live animals for a very important reason. Sometimes those animals fight back and, in exercising their instincts, may injure one of our endangered … animals. And when dealing with many endangered species, you do not want to take a chance that an injury could lead to other health complications. Not even our snakes get live mice.

Zoos apparently try to satisfy the predatory urges of such animals mostly by simulating live animals with cardboard dummies, large balls and similar object to simulate prey, and in some cases causing the dead carcass of an animal intended for feeding to move to give the predator animal the illusion that it still needs to kill its food.

If It Becomes Possible, Should Human Beings End Predation?

Posted on January 3, 2011 by Brian Carnell

One of the more interesting dilemmas that animal rights critiques poses is exactly what role human beings should play as part of the animal kingdom, specifically when it comes to things like predation. After all, if we suppose that birds have rights, not only does the turkey on a farm have a right not to become my Thanksgiving meal, then so does the bird chirping outside my window have a right not to become the victim of the neighborhood serial killer of the feline persuasion.

Occasionally a variety of this argument is used as an attempted reductio ad absurdum against the case for animal rights — that if one were to take seriously the claims made by animal rights theorists that humans should be out there attempting to prevent lions from preying on zebras and antelope. Taking that to a further extreme, perhaps instead of attempting to preserve endangered carnivore species, human beings should instead allow them to go extinct since this would reduce the total suffering in the world on this view.

Some people, especially in the transhumanist community, take this idea very seriously, however. In September, The New York Times published an op-ed by Rutgers University philosophy professor Jeff McMahan on this very topic. Once you get past the tedious introduction referencing Isaiah and whether or not we would be \”playing God\” by making wholesale changes in carnivorous species, McMahan gets to the heart of the matter,

There is an element of truth in this view, which is that our moral reason to prevent harm for which we would not be responsible is weaker than our reason not to cause harm. Our primary duty with respect to animals is therefore to stop tormenting and killing them as a means of satisfying our desire to taste certain flavors or to decorate our bodies in certain ways. But if suffering is bad for animals when we cause it, it is also bad for them when other animals cause it. That suffering is bad for those who experience it is not a human prejudice; nor is an effort to prevent wild animals from suffering a moralistic attempt to police the behavior of other animals. Even if we are not morally required to prevent suffering among animals in the wild for which we are not responsible, we do have a moral reason to prevent it, just as we have a general moral reason to prevent suffering among human beings that is independent both of the cause of the suffering and of our relation to the victims. The main constraint on the permissibility of acting on our reason to prevent suffering is that our action should not cause bad effects that would be worse than those we could prevent.

That is the central issue raised by whether we ought to try to eliminate carnivorism. Because the elimination of carnivorism would require the extinction of carnivorous species, or at least their radical genetic alteration, which might be equivalent or tantamount to extinction, it might well be that the losses in value would outweigh any putative gains. Not only are most or all animal species of some instrumental value, but it is also arguable that all species have intrinsic value. As Ronald Dworkin has observed, “we tend to treat distinct animal species (though not individual animals) as sacred. We think it very important, and worth a considerable economic expense, to protect endangered species from destruction.” When Dworkin says that animal species are sacred, he means that their existence is good in a way that need not be good for anyone; nor is it good in the sense that it would be better if there were more species, so that we would have reason to create new ones if we could. “Few people,” he notes, “believe the world would be worse if there had always been fewer species of birds, and few would think it important to engineer new bird species if that were possible. What we believe important is not that there be any particular number of species but that a species that now exists not be extinguished by us.”

. . .

Yet the extinction of an animal species is not necessarily bad for its individual members. (To indulge in science fiction, suppose that a chemical might be introduced into their food supply that would induce sterility but also extend their longevity.) And the extinction of a carnivorous species could be instrumentally good for all those animals that would otherwise have been its prey. That simple fact is precisely what prompts the question whether it would be good if carnivorous species were to become extinct.

. . .

Here, then, is where matters stand thus far. It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation. The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species. I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.

Transhumanists who go down this road typically posit altering the DNA of carnivores and omnivores so that they no longer need/desire the flesh of other animals (which McMahan does mention), or producing meat in a non-cruel way (for example, growing it in a vat and then distributing it somehow).

An alternative that McMahan seems to ignore might be modifying prey species so that they no longer suffer when they are killed by predators which would allow predation to continue without reducing the number of species or radically changing the ecosystem in other ways.

It is also curious that McMahan and others tend to stop there. After all, predation is not the only cause of suffering in the animal kingdom. For example, in 2009 a 39-year-old chimpanzee kept in captivity at a zoo in Oregon died from what is believed to have been either a heart attack or stroke. Presumably, either way the chimpanzee\’s death involved quite a bit of suffering.

Would human beings also be obliged to then re-engineer animals to prevent the sort of suffering that occurs even from \”natural\” deaths? If we are somehow obliged to prevent suffering due to predation, it becomes difficult to argue that we can still tolerate other forms of suffering that animals experience.

News Subsite

Posted on October 23, 2008 by Brian Carnell

Since I still don\’t find I have the time to return to blogging about animal rights, I\’ve created a news subsite — http://www.animalrights.net/news — which is basically a Digg clone. I\’ll be posting links to news stories related to AR and others are free to submit and discuss stories there as well.

There are some anti-spam filters in place there, so spam should be kept to a minimum.

New Jersey Activists Arrested for Interfering with Bear Hunt and Making Terroristic Threats

Posted on December 23, 2005 by Brian Carnell

As New Jersey\’s bear hunt finally got underway after two years of controversy and efforts by animal rights activists to stop it permanently, four animal rights activists were charged with interfering with the hunt and one was additionally charged with making terroristic threats (and a bizarre threat at that).

Two members of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance — Angela Metler, 49 and Theresa Fritzges, 57 — were arrested on disorderly persons charges. Metler is the director of the NJARA, and Fritzges is the organization\’s legislative coordinator. Both have played a key role in past efforts to prevent a bear hunt from going forward.

Arrested with them were Janet Piszar, 52, who was also charged with disorderly conduct, and Albert Kazemian, 49, who was charged with disorderly conduct and with making terroristic threats.

According to his arrest record, Kazemian allegedly told hunters and a state park officer,

I\’ll get my Arab friends and hunt you down; see how you like it

Making a terroristic threat is a third-degree offense in New Jersey. Obstructing legal hunting is a misdemeanor punishable by fines from $100 to $500.

All four arrested activists are members of the Bear Education and Resource Group.

Almost 300 bears black beras were killed in the six-day hunting season that extended from Dec. 5 through Dec. 10. It was only the second bear hunt in 35 years in New Jersey (a similar hunt in 2003 claimed 328 bears).

Source:

Four arrested, 216 bears taken, in N.J. hunt. Douglas Crouse, The Daily Record, December 11, 2005.

N.J. Hunters Killed At Least 297 Bears During Hunt. Associated Press, December 11, 2005.

Paul McCartney: Bambi and Dumbo Turned Me Into an Animal Rights Activist

Posted on December 21, 2005 by Brian Carnell

Typically, it is opponents of animal rights activist who charge that it is popular culture\’s anthropomorphization of animals in animated fare like \”Bambi\” that turns people into animal rights activists. I\’ve seen numerous people say they\’d never let their kids what \”Bambi\” or \”The Rats of NIMH\” for precisely this reason (for the record, I think such concerns are largely absurd).

But along comes Paul McCartney who recently told the UK press that it was movies like \”Bambi\” and stories like \”Dumbo\” that turned him into an animal rights activist.

The Press Association quoted McCartney as saying,

If you think of Bambi, its mum gets killed by a hunter, and I think that made me grow-up thinking hunting isn\’t cool. It always gave me that idea.

You look through a lot of these great stories. Dumbo, his mum is quite badly treated. A lot of these classic stories, through their efforts, kids, as I once was, have grown up feeling it\’s a bad idea to be cruel to animals.

First, if I remember correctly, the animals in all these books also speak remarkably good English. I hope the reporter asked a follow-up question about whether or not McCartney also believes that deer and rabbits speak English to each other when human beings aren\’t around.

Second, there is a qualitative difference in opposing animal cruelty and opposing almost every conceivable animal/human interaction as the group that McCartney shills for, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, does. (Except, of course, McCartney and his late wife Linda opposed things like animal research until she needed the fruits of that research to fight her breast cancer — then, well, screw the animals, that was a matter of life and death).

Source:

\’Bambi\’ turned McCartney vegetarian. The Press Association, December 13, 2005.

HR 3931 – Downer Ban Bill

Posted on October 28, 2005 by Brian Carnell

109TH CONGRESS
                       H. R. 3931
   1ST SESSION

To amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1958 to
    ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock, and for other
    purposes.



        IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                           SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. SIM-
    MONS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. WEXLER, Mrs. TAUSCHER,
    Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms.
    ESHOO, Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr.
    BROWN of Ohio, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. LEE, Mr.
    SHERMAN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. DICKS, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,
    Mr. HOLT, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. LARSON of
    Connecticut, Mr. KIRK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. STARK, Mr. HONDA, Mr.
    MCGOVERN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michi-
    gan, Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. RUSH, Ms. NOR-
    TON, Mr. OWENS, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. WOOL-
    SEY, Mr. SABO, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. UDALL

    of Colorado, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr.
    INSLEE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. ZOE
    LOFGREN of California, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. FARR, Mrs.
    DAVIS of California, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SCHIFF,
    Mr. WEINER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr.
    LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
    JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. UDALL
    of New Mexico, Ms. CARSON, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr.
    CUMMINGS, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. RANGEL,
    Mr. SHAYS, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. FERGUSON,
    Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KING of
    New York, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. WOLF, Mr. GERLACH, Mr.
    ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mrs. KELLY,
    Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill;
    which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
                               2


                       A BILL
To amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act
   of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of non-
   ambulatory livestock, and for other purposes.


 1       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 3   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


 4       This Act may be cited as the ``Downed Animal Pro-
 5 tection Act\'\'.
 6   SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.


 7       (a) FINDING.--Congress finds that the humane
 8 euthanization of nonambulatory livestock in interstate and
 9 foreign commerce--
10            (1) prevents needless suffering;
11            (2) results in safer and better working condi-
12       tions for persons handling livestock;
13            (3) brings about improvement of products and
14       reduces the likelihood of the spread of diseases that
15       have a great and deleterious impact on interstate
16       and foreign commerce in livestock; and
17            (4) produces other benefits for producers, proc-
18       essors, and consumers that tend to expedite an or-
19       derly flow of livestock and livestock products in
20       interstate foreign commerce.



      HR 3931 IH
                                 3
 1       (b) DECLARATION OF POLICY.--It is the policy of the
 2 United States that all nonambulatory livestock in inter-
 3 state and foreign commerce shall be immediately and hu-
 4 manely euthanized when such livestock become non-
 5 ambulatory.
 6   SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING


 7                  NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.


 8       (a) IN GENERAL.--Public Law 85765 (commonly
 9 known as the ``Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of
10 1958\'\') (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is amended by inserting
11 after section 2 (7 U.S.C. 1902) the following:
12   ``SEC. 3. NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.


13       ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:
14            ``(1) COVERED                      term `covered en-
                                ENTITY.--The


15       tity\' means--
16                   ``(A) a stockyard;
17                   ``(B) a market agency;
18                   ``(C) a dealer;
19                   ``(D) a packer;
20                   ``(E) a slaughter facility; or
21                   ``(F) an establishment.
22            ``(2) ESTABLISHMENT.--The term `establish-
23       ment\' means an establishment that is covered by the
24       Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
25       seq.).

      HR 3931 IH
                                4
 1            ``(3) HUMANELY                          term `hu-
                                    EUTHANIZE.--The


 2       manely euthanize\' means to immediately render an
 3       animal unconscious by mechanical, chemical, or
 4       other means, with this state remaining until the
 5       death of the animal.
 6            ``(4) NONAMBULATORY                           term
                                         LIVESTOCK.--The


 7       `nonambulatory livestock\' means any cattle, sheep,
 8       swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines, that
 9       will not stand and walk unassisted.
10            ``(5) SECRETARY.--The term `Secretary\' means
11       the Secretary of Agriculture.
12       ``(b) HUMANE TREATMENT, HANDLING,                  DIS-
                                                      AND


13                    Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
     POSITION.--The


14 provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposi-
15 tion of all nonambulatory livestock by covered entities, in-
16 cluding a requirement that nonambulatory livestock be hu-
17 manely euthanized.
18       ``(c) HUMANE EUTHANASIA.--
19            ``(1) IN                       to paragraph (2),
                         GENERAL.--Subject


20       when an animal becomes nonambulatory, a covered
21       entity shall immediately humanely euthanize the
22       nonambulatory livestock.
23            ``(2) DISEASE                           (1) shall
                                TESTING.--Paragraph


24       not limit the ability of the Secretary to test non-



      HR 3931 IH
                               5
1       ambulatory livestock for a disease, such as Bovine
2       Spongiform Encephalopathy.
 3      ``(d) MOVEMENT.--
 4           ``(1) IN                  covered entity shall not
                        GENERAL.--A


 5      move       nonambulatory   livestock   while   the   non-
 6      ambulatory livestock are conscious.
 7           ``(2) UNCONSCIOUSNESS.--In the case of any
 8      nonambulatory livestock that are moved, the covered
 9      entity shall ensure that the nonambulatory livestock
10      remain unconscious until death.
11      ``(e) INSPECTIONS.--
12           ``(1) IN                  shall be unlawful for an
                        GENERAL.--It


13      inspector at an establishment to pass through in-
14      spection any nonambulatory livestock or carcass (in-
15      cluding parts of a carcass) of nonambulatory live-
16      stock.
17           ``(2) LABELING.--An inspector or other em-
18      ployee of an establishment shall label, mark, stamp,
19      or tag as `inspected and condemned\' any material
20      described in paragraph (1).\'\'.
21      (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--
22           (1) IN                        as provided in para-
                       GENERAL.--Except


23      graph (2), the amendment made by subsection (a)
24      takes effect on the date that is 1 year after the date
25      of enactment of this Act.

     HR 3931 IH
                            6
1           (2) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after
2      the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
3      Agriculture shall promulgate final regulations to im-
4      plement the amendment made by subsection (a).



    HR 3931 IH

Dr. Terasawa Response

Posted on August 23, 2005 by Brian Carnell

To: Eric Sandgren, Chair of the Graduate School ACUC

From: [REDACTED]

Date: May 7, 2003

Re: Protocol [REDACTED]

I am writing this memo to clarify the issue regarding \”continuous observation of chaired monkeys during the push-pull perfusion,\” which appears in Questions [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

In [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] we state that \”During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff.\” Concern was raised regarding this statement, because one monkey [REDACTED] died while the scientist who was conducting this project was away for a brief lunch.

This statement was present in a protocol agreement approved in the late 1980\’s. At that time we could eat and drink in the same laboratory where experiments were conducted, and we had to collect samples manually every 10 minutes. Sometime in the 1990\’s the rule changed so that no eating and drinking were allowed in the animal area. Thus, we purchased a fraction collector, with which sample collections can be conducted automatically at 10-minute intervals, and scientific staff can have lunch and supper during the long course (10-16 hours) of sample collection.

As we also stated in [REDACTED], this experiment requires a quiet and stable condition. Especially, during the sample collection, it is important for an experimenter to keep a continuous \”private\” condition in which he/she established a \”rapport\” with a monkey. Many monkeys are very sensitive to strangers or intrusion by other scientific staff, even though they are familiar with those monkeys. Thus, we did not make arrangements to have substitute personnel come in while the experimenter was away for eating, drinking and bathroom necessity. After the death of [REDACTED], we realize that the word \”continuously\” could mislead our situation.

We will make a revision in the protocol stating that \”During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff, except for a few brief breaks of no more than 20 min for bathroom, eating and other incidental needs\”. (The application to the revision will be submitted before the June meeting.) Meanwhile, we will implement the practice of having substitute personnel present while the experimenter is away from the experimental room up to 20 min. The substitute personnel will not be visible to the monkey while in the experimental room.

Finally, I would like to point out the fact that [REDACTED] was in good health prior to cannula insertion followed by chairing as well as during push-pull perfusion experiment until right before the experimenter left for a 25-minute lunch. (The monkey was checked by the vet staff prior to the procedure starting, as is our standard procedure.) The death of [REDACTED] could have occurred in her home cage, rather than in a chair, because she was 31 years old (equivalent to 90 years old in humans), and because she had a pathological condition, specifically cerebral edema or emboli formed from the left atrioventricular valve thrombus, based on the necropsy record.

University of Wisconsin Report on Terasawa Research

Posted on August 23, 2005 by Brian Carnell

To: Christine Parks
RARC
From: [REDACTED]
RE: Protocol G00146
Date: July 1, 2003

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] cross-compared the protocols (see below) and records obtained from all possible sources (e.g., colony records, laboratory note books, check sheets) and compiled a list of discrepancies between approved protocols and actual records. The apparent and potential violations are summarized below. The period of this investigation is from March 2000 to present. The tabulated information in detail is available upon request.

Protocol approval date: 3/13/00 with final amendment on 4/19/00
Major amendment approval date: 10/15/01
Minor amendment date: 05/20/02
Renewal approval date: 04/14/03

1. Apparent Violations

Bret left animals during the push-pull-perfusion (PPP) experiment for lunch 4 times. The protocol states that animals will be attended continuously. One animal died in the chair while Bret was at lunch.
In 24 PPP experiments in 11 animals, 4 different drug challenges were given. The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of drug challenges was added to be three.
Five drugs (the ATP sensitive potassium channel blockers, tolbutamide and glybenclamide; the purinergic receptor blockers, PPADS and suramin; and the ATP hydrolysor, apyrase) that had not been stated in the 10/15/01 protocol were examined with PPP experiments.
In 15 PPP experiments ATP doses exceeded the dose range stated in the protocols.
In 2 animals more than 12 PPP experiments were conducted (1 animal with 13 times; 1 animal with 15 times). The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of PPP was added to 12.
One c-section resulting in a 4th major surgery (the 3/13/00 protocol stated that the maximum number of major surgeries was 3. This confusion occurred because the protocol stated that \”the animals used for the project 1 (puberty-project) with PPP experiment can be used for breeding females in project 2, in which 3 c-sections were allowed\”.

2. Inadvertent Violations

Five animals received reheadcap surgeries. This procedure was not described in the 3/13/00 protocol, but it was added in 10/15/01 protocol.
In 15 animals blood draws were conducted on project 2, in which no blood draw was described. In projects 1 and 4 blood drawings are described.
In 12 animals more than 4 ml of bloods were drawn in one week. The protocol stated that taking more than 4 ml/week of bloods requires CBC. (See also related problems in No.3).
Forty-two animals received higher doses (up to 20 mg/kg) of ketamine. The protocol stated that ketamine dose will be 10-15 mg/kg.
Antibiotics were given to 18 animals after PPP experiments. In most cases a staff veterinarian approved the treatment, but consent was not in writing. In fact, Carol Emerson suggested antibiotics after PPP experiments on a regular basis.
Prophylactic antibiotics were given before and after surgeries, such as cranial pedestal implantation as well as cranial pedestal repair and removal, in 59 animals. Staff veterinarians knew of this practice, but we failed to describe it in the protocol.

3. Errors due to Reproductive Services for Breeding in Our Animals

In 7 animals Reproductive Services took blood samples up to 14 ml in a week under our protocol.
Reproductive Services conducted ultrasounds in 8 animals under our protocol. Ultrasound examination was not described in the protocol.

4. Record Errors

Fourteen initials/signatures are missing from check sheets.

Forty-one hourly check sheets for Chairing/PPP experiments conducted by a former postdoctoral research fellow (Dr. Shinichiro Nakamura) are missing. Since the check sheets had to be displayed on the door of room [REDACTED] when the experiment was conducted, they must have been filled out. However, at this time we cannot locate these records.

Errors in computer records are found in the following animals:

r94070 6/15/01 Remark by a veterinary assistant says \"in chair\".
However, this animal did not have cranial pedestal at
this time and there is no chairing record. So, there is no
way that she was in chair.
r96130 7/10/00-7/14/00 Record says she was in chair after cranial pedestal
removal. This is not possible.
r96112 8/8/00 The animal should be 96119. Record has been corrected.
r99046 6/12/01 The animal should be 97046. Record has been corrected.
r98003 6/12/01 The animal should be 98033. Record has been corrected.
r98040 7/10/01 The animal should be 98049. Record has been corrected.
r84108 10/3/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
our protocol.
rhaa56 10/3/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
our protocol.
r87100 12/8/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned
to our protocol.
rhaq36 4/30/01 Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
surgery.
r93061 3/13/01 Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
surgery.
rh1935 10/8/01-10/11/01 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
rh2116 05/14/01 Record states \"out of chair on 5/14\". But it should be 5/4,
because there is no way that she was in chair for 13 days.
rh2118 04/25/01 PPP experiment was conducted on 4/26/01. The date of
the out chair should be 4/26/01.
r93058 12/10/02 PPP experiment was conducted on 12/11/02. The date of
the out of chair should be 12/11/02.
r96082 11/27/00-11/29/00 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
r98033 1/6/03-1/8/03 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
r99031 2/18/02 & 2/19/01 Two records of cannulation. 2/19/01 is correct, based on
chairing record.
r99031 03/12/02 Cannulated three weeks after last time by accident.
However no PPP experiment was conducted.
r99077 09/10/01 Record says that pedestal repair and cannula implantation.
Only cranial pedestal repair surgery was conducted.
r01050 10/14/02 There is no record saying that ketamine was
injected.
rhYO3 05/12/01 Cannulation date should be corrected to 14th, based on
the chairing record and the PPP experiment, which was
conducted on the 17th.

5. Others

Three animals had skin lesions after chairing.

* * * * * *

All \”Apparent Violations\” were recognized during the review process for the renewal of recent protocol (approved on 04/14/03) and discussed with the Graduate School IACUC. Also, my letter date 6/5/02 in response the Dr. Eric Sandgren\’s letter date 5/13/03 dealt with some of the issues. Thus, they have been resolved.

Most of the \”Inadvertent Violations\” are due to unrealistic descriptions in the previous protocol or absence of our recognition, e.g., the activity by the Reproductive Services Unit. We will submit an amendment to correct these errors:

1. A series of 3 ml blood draws up to 12 ml in an experiment will be added to project 2 and project 4.
2. Ketamine dose will be changed from 10-15 mg/kg to 10-20 mg/kg.
3. Prophylactic antibiotic treatments before and after surgeries such as cranial pedestal implantation, cranial pedestal repair and removal, will be added to the protocol.
4. Activities of the Reproductive Services Unit, such as blood draw up to 14 ml/week, ultrasound examination and possible artificial insemination, will be added to the protocol.

Examination of clinical records from 2000 – 2003 by Christine Parks and Amanda Crumbaugh.

Unsual number of death/serious illness in animals used late 2000 – mid 2002 (23 monkeys used; events of use included even if outside above date range.) Some of the animals were aged. The following are summaries/quotes from the clinical records.

rhap53-Died 6/17/02, 6 days after experiment (push pull perfusion). Necropsy report in clinical record said : \”The infarct and thrombus most likely occurred during the experimental procedure 6 days prior to death. They could account for the latered mentation reported clinically, but the ventricular hemorrhage and acute brain swelling are the most probable reason for the monkeys rapid clinical decline and demise.\”

rhao21 – In 2001, animal had problems such as lethargy, inappetence, lying down in cage after experiment, cannula implant infection, holding hand stiffly, ulcers. Was noted to have a guarded prognosis but recovered (3/2001). Used again in late 2001 and January 2002; ulcers on 1/29/2002.

95105 – 3/11 cannulated On 03/15/2002 – poor recovery after experiment (vomiting, lethargy, laying down in cage, dehydrated). 5/28/02 cannula placed. 5/31/2002 – \”lethargic and not eating post procedure; evolved to apnea; good hr and pulse; no spontaneous respiration; pc02 61.4 mmttg; pupils fixed and dilated; elected euthanasia – by i.b.\” Necropsy: Cerebral/cerebellum edema but no histological diagnosis due to accidental freezing of tissue.

rh2116 – 03/06/2002 – \”received emergency (sic) call that chaired animal had died; dead at least 5 minutes (no crt), attempted chest compressions; no heart beat/blood pressure; called pathologist on duty, left message – by [REDACTED]. Three moderate to severe ulcers on caudal thigh, pressure point in chair; blood on ulcers – by [REDACTED] . . .\” Blood clot in heart found on necropsy: probably throwing thrombi into circulation. Laboratory notebook noted that something unspecified is \”bloody\” or \”pinkish\” while in the chair.

00046 – 11/08/2002 \”in chair on experiment; ulcer (1cm) noted on left foot; cleaned and applied ointment; some swelling of foot, foot is warm; able to use foot and is eating; plan-observe – by [REDACTED]\” \”removed from cahir (sic) procedure 11-7 p.m.; left ankle appears irritated with open sore present on lateral surface; appears bright, alert, responsive and hydrated with good attitude; discuss treatment with vet- by j.b.\”

00040 – 12/20/200 – \”post push-pull observation-animal is lethargic\” 12/21/200 – \”down in cage; eyes open; will move if touched; push-pull procedure ended 12/20; antibiotic started 12/20; plan- collect cbc/chemistry; monitor closely; [REDACTED] \” Lethargic for a few more days but improved by

AnimalRights.Net

Category Archives: Uncategorized