If you asked members of the public what they are most concerned about when it comes to the use of animals in research, the most common answer would likely be the suffering—the pain and distress—that the animals are forced to endure.
A recent poll demonstrates that public opposition to animals in research greatly increases as the pain and distress in research animal experience increases. Despite this public concern for animal welfare, and a mandate within the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to minimize pain and distress, distress in research animals is neither defined nor adequately regulated under the AWA, which is the main law governing animal research.
Defenders of animal research argue that the AWA, enacted in 1966 and enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), adequately protects animals in research, teaching and testing, and that the public need not be concerned about animals suffering in laboratories. However, as minimal as those protections are, they virtually overlook distress, though that term appears throughout the legislation. The USDA recognizes the problem, but has failed to take simple actions that could easily improve research and the lives of research animals.
The HSUS, which has been pressing the USDA to formally define distress and propose a new/revised scale of pain and distress, is currently awaiting a response to its June, 2005 letter urging action.
Animal Welfare, Scientific Concerns
"Apart from compelling animal welfare concerns, distress, distinct from pain, is vital for researchers and regulators committed to uncompromised scientific research to address," says Kathleen Conlee, director of program services in the Animal Research Issues at The HSUS.
Conlee points to the example of nonhuman primates used in research. Primates kept in conditions far removed from what they would experience in the wild may not experience 'pain' as defined by the USDA, but they can suffer depression, anxiety, and frustration, and may display self-injurious behavior or stereotypical behavior such as rocking or pacing in circles—all behaviors which could compromise data.
Three Decades to Define 'Pain'
Thirty-one years after the AWA came into effect, the USDA addressed pain in research animals by defining “painful procedure.” Research animals are still waiting for the agency to do the same regarding “distress.” Though the USDA provides examples of painful procedures, the policy addressing pain remains general, stating only: “Painful procedure as applied to any animal means any procedure that would reasonably be expected to cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress in a human being to which that procedure was applied, that is, pain in excess of that caused by injections or other minor procedures.”
'Distress' Conspicuously Absent
In a July 10, 2000 Federal Register notice, the USDA stated that the agency was considering incorporating a definition for the term "distress" into the AWA regulations "to promote the humane treatment of live animals used in research, testing, and teaching.…" The agency realized that though the minimization of pain and distress was the overarching goal of the AWA regulations governing animal research, those regulations defined pain but not distress.
When institutions begin to address distress, not only will the welfare of the animals improve, but the quality of the research will improve as well. |
The agency stated that a definition of distress "could help assist research facilities to recognize and minimize distress in animals in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)."
The HSUS agrees. "The absence of a definition of 'distress' provides a subtle message to institutions that the USDA is less concerned about distress than it is about pain," says Conlee. "It discourages institutions from expending efforts to tackle distress like they have in addressing pain."
Adoption of a definition of distress would also stimulate discussion on distress, aiding institutions in addressing distress. When institutions begin to address distress, not only will the welfare of the animals improve, but the quality of the research will improve as well. Distressed animals experience physiological and psychological changes which can compromise study results, thereby invalidating findings and ultimately producing "bad" science.
A Better Model for Science and Animals
Each research facility using animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act is required to report annually to the USDA the number of animals, by species, used in research. These numbers are further divided into three categories which specify use or withholding of anesthetics, analgesics, or tranquilizers.
In the same announcement of five years ago, the USDA also stated that the agency was considering a related change, namely, modifying its widely criticized classification system of the pain and distress that animals experience in research. The announcement described two other systems that it was considering, one of which was developed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
The USDA published in the Federal Register notice that "a different categorization system could produce data that more accurately depict the nature of animal pain or distress and provide a better tool to measure efforts made to minimize animal pain and distress at research facilities."
The HSUS agrees with these statements, and argues that the current system focuses on pain and does not, in any way, address distress that is not caused by pain.
The current system also does not address the intensity or duration of pain and distress, the effectiveness of the relief, nor the timeliness of the relief. This, as well as various other shortcomings of the categorization system, misleads the public to believe that there is far less pain and distress in animal research than is the case.
The agency called for comments from interested parties on the two issues under consideration—defining distress and modifying the pain and distress classification scheme. The HSUS submitted its recommendations, as did 2,838 other parties.
To date, the USDA has failed to take action on either issue under consideration, despite initiating this project and stressing its importance throughout the Federal Register announcement.
What's Taking So Long?
After receiving over 2,000 comments from the research community on its proposal, the USDA concluded that they could not define “distress” or change the categorization system, because there wasn’t a consensus among those who submitted comments.
The effort came to a standstill.
The HSUS examined all of the comments submitted by the research community. Even though a majority of these respondents opposed the adoption of a definition of distress, 97% supported a definition developed by the National Research Council (NRC) should the USDA decide to adopt a definition.
In other words, although the research community doesn’t want the USDA to define distress or otherwise expand its authority over research practices (their standard response when enhancements of the AWA are considered), they nearly all agree on the definition that should be used if the USDA does decide to move forward.
The NRC’s definition of distress is: “an aversive state in which an animal is unable to adapt completely to stressors and the resulting stress, and shows maladaptive behaviors”. (National Research Council, 1992)
Nearly nine out of ten comments [from the research community] were supportive of a revised categorization system. |
"The NRC definition has serious limitations, but we hope the USDA will use it as a starting point in negotiating and adopting a regulatory definition of distress, which would provide greater oversight of animal distress in research," says Conlee.
The HSUS also analyzed comments from the research community regarding a revision of the pain and distress categorization system. Nearly nine out of ten comments were supportive of a revised categorization system.
Scale of Pain and Distress Needed
The HSUS urges the USDA to formally propose a new/revised scale of pain and distress that reflects levels of severity, such as minor, moderate, and severe—a system that is used by a number of other countries and would allow researchers and others to focus on development of alternatives to those procedures that cause the most severe animal pain and distress.
This would be a step forward and would ultimately provide greater oversight of research animal pain and distress. The HSUS has met and corresponded with the USDA several times since July 2000, including May 2001, March 2003, and November, 2003 urging them to move forward on the proposal. We are awaiting a response from our latest letter sent in June, 2005.
Animals in laboratories will continue to suffer with poorly defined and enforced regulations unless the public compels the federal government to action. Since taxpayer money is what largely funds animal research, the current, haphazard system of pain and distress categorization and lack of distress alleviation adds insult to injury. No American should accept the continued malaise of the USDA in developing more humane standards for animals in laboratories.
What You Can Do
You can email or write to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, and urge him to move the issue forward.
Secretary Mike Johanns
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
