Conflicts in Labs Send the Fur Flying

They are among Harvard's most loyal citizens, associated with the University's most impressive scientific research accomplishments. They outnumber students by more than three to one, yet they almost never emerge alive from their ultra-secure quarters.

They are laboratory animals, a veritable ark-full--alligators, bats, birds, dogs, mice, rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, monkeys, lizards, sheep zebrafish. And while one might not guess it from examining the average furry inhabitant of a Harvard laboratory, these animals are at the center of a storm of conflict between University officials, government regulators and animal rights activists.

The issues are almost as numerous as the species of animals involved. animal rights activists question that ethical basis and the usefulness of experiments involving animals. Government regulators question some of Harvard's practices. University officials question the need for what they see as excessive and cumbersome government regulation.

The controversy over how laboratory mice are put to death is typical of the mixture of regulation, science and emotion that governs the treatment of Harvard's animals.

Every rodent must die when the experiment it is a part of ends. According to veterinarian Stuart E. Wiles, commissioner of laboratory animals for the City of Cambridge, there is no alternative. Once an animal is used in a study, it is considered worthless for further experimentation, Wiles says.

Killing and disposing of the animals-researchers call it "sacrificing"--is a grim task. Consider Harvard's "Faculty of arts and Sciences Guidelines for Animal Experimentation Regarding Euthanasia Procedures":

"Be certain that all animals are dead before disposal...The use of a guillotine to kill rodents is an acceptabletechnique for euthanasia, with somerestrictions...

"Decapitation should be used only when thestudy design requires this technique, because ofthe potential hazard to personnel and should beperformed by skilled personnel. Many animalspecies react adversely to the smell of blood.Animals should not be decapitated in the presenceof other animals and the investigator shall washhis/her hands between animals."

Wiles says his major accomplishment in almosttwo years as Cambridge's lab animals commissionerhas been to implement carbon dioxide asphyxiationas the method of euthanasia for small rodents.Before, Wiles says, many researchers were usinganother, less humane method of killing mice andsmall rats.

The old method, known as "cervicaldislocation," involved grasping the rodent by thehead and sharply pulling the rest of the animalaway from the head, breaking the rodent's neck.

Wiles demonstrates the method with a woodenmouse on the surface of his desk.

Although he acknowledges that cervicaldislocation is s method of euthanasia accepted bythe American veterinary Medicine Association hesays he has reservations about the practice.

Wiles argues that the problem with cervicaldislocation is that "you have to learn how to doit." And the commissioner, who also has a smallveterinary practice in the city, can't stand theidea of a mouse suffering as some rookie labtechnician struggles to snap the animal's neck.

"There are too many pitfalls in terms of doingit improperly and the discomfort that the animalsmight have to suffer," Wiles says.

Wiles says putting the animas to death in gaschambers is less painful. The gas anesthetized theanimals before suffocating them, he says.

All of the animal rights activists interviewedfor this report agreed with Wiles that carbondioxide is preferable to cervical dislocation.

Capt. Robert Fennessy, who works in theenforcement division of the Massachusetts Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA)said he would rather see the carbon dioxidemethod, if only because it is "more aestheticallypleasing."

Stephen B. Ronan '72 of the Cambridge Committeefor Responsible Research says all the research hehas seen supports the use of carbon dioxidechambers instead of cervical dislocation.

And Donna Bishop '81 of the Alliance forAnimals says "the dislocation method obviously isgoing to be painful and traumatizing."

Bishop, like Wiles, says cervical dislocationis too dependent on the skill of the executioner."One person may screw it up and cause unspeakabletrauma," Bishop says.

Yet while Harvard has stopped killing rates andmice in Cambridge by cervical dislocation, itcontinues to use the method in some facilities atthe Harvard Medical Area. The medical area, homeof Harvard Medical School, the School of PublicHealth, the Dental School and a number of Harvardteaching hospitals, is located in Boston--outsideWiles's jurisdiction.

Arthur L. Lage, a veterinarian who is directorof the Animal Resources center at the MedicalSchool and director of animal resources in theFaculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), defends theuse of cervical dislocation in some facilities atthe medical area.

Lage says that both the carbon dioxide andcervical dislocation methods are "perfectlyhumane."

"Dr Wiles does not have the last word on this,"Lage says.

Such tension over specific procedures, such aswho to kill a mouse, is symptomatic of greatertensions between the research institutions and thegovernment agencies that regulate them.

Harvard animal facilities must comply withfederal, state and, in the case of Cambridge,local regulations. They are inspected by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the MSPCA and, forCambridge, the lab animals commissioner.

Lage says all of these inspections are gettingto be a bit much. He particularly takes to taskthe Cambridge laboratory animals commissioner,whose salary and office budget this year total$40,000.

"I don't think it's worthwhile. I think it'sredundant...I think it's a waste of money," Lagesays of the Cambridge commissioner ordinance.

Lage compares the current Cambridge regulatorysituation, with inspections coming from threelevels, to a street corner with four policeofficers directing traffic. If one officer can dothe job, why pay four, Lage asks.

The Cambridge laboratory animals ordinance andthe commissioner have plenty of defenders,however.

Fennessy of the MSPCA says cumbersomeregulations and inspections are simply the priceresearchers have to pay for running largeanimal-research facilities that are in many casestaxpayer-funded.

"I don't think it hurts," Fennessy says. "Wecan't be there every day and neither can theUSDA."

And Ronan, of Cambridge Citizens forResponsible Research, says having a city labanimal commissioner is "a good idea" that can helpreassure the public about the nature of researchthat would otherwise be kept secret.

Of course, the commissioner himself is quick todefend his usefulness. He says the Cambridge labanimals ordinance of 1989, the first of its kindin the nation, created "a great program" thatshould be a model for other cities. And Wiles saysthat before the Cambridge ordinance was passed,most animals in the city were not being inspectedat all. Federal law does not require the USDA toinspect facilities that only have rodents.

Yet Wiles is in a difficult position. Dismissedas "redundant" by institutional representatives,he also fails to win the wholehearted approval ofanimal rights activists.

Ronan says Harvard's record of appointing weakcommunity representatives to the FAS committee onanimal care has not changed under Wiles'supervision.

Ronan charges that Harvard has tended to pickpeople who are "just rubber stamps." He says hedoubts their ability "to represent the community'sinterest and the welfare of the animals."

"The committees are stacked by theinstitutions," Bishop agrees.

Neither the two community representatives northe faculty representatives on the FAS animalresearch committee returned telephone calls.

No matter how good or bad a job Wiles is doing,there are some who would argue that there shouldbe no animal research-related jobs, because thereshould be no animal research at all.

Steven I. Simmons, spokesperson for People forEthical Treatment of Animals (PETA), makes a moralargument against the use of animals in laboratoryresearch.

"We believe animals are not tools for research,but individuals," Simmons says.

And Bishop, who spent eight years analyzing theresults of animal tests as a toxicologist for theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, says animalresearch is also scientifically questionable.

"Animal data just doesn't transfer to humans,"Bishops says. "It's just not useful information."

It is a fear of militant actions by animalrights extremists--some would say terrorists--thatleads to the security precautions at animalfacilities at Harvard and elsewhere. The FASanimal facility is locked away on the fifth floorof a biology laboratory building, and The Crimsonwas told that "university policy" forbidsphotographs of the facility.

Multiple electronic locks, alarm systems andrequired photo ID's for employees are commonplaceat animal facilities in general.

"They have hidden in these fortresses," saysPETA's Simmons. "It gives credence to the argumentthat they do indeed have something to hide."

Contentions about the uselessness of animaltesting are denied by many prominent Harvardscientists, including Nobel laureate David H.Hubel, Enders University professor ofneurobiology, whose research on vision in monkeyshelped prevent the most common cause of blindnessin children.

Wiles says that as long as animals researchcontinues, all parties involved should try to workto make the animals as comfortable as possible.

And at least in Cambridge, it seems thatefforts are being made to that effect. Primatesare given televisions to watch and toys to playwith to ensure their "psychological wellbeing."

"They do keep up the place pretty well,"Fennessy says.

The reports of Wiles's inspections of the FASanimals laboratories verify what Lage call theUniversity's "humane use of animals."

The commissioner's report of a surpriseinspection on April 23,1991 notes, "observedprimates sucking/swallowing studies. Veryimpressed with care."

On May 14,1991, on an announced visit, Wiles"observed a baby monkey being nursed. Happy andbonded to the Prof.--recent surgical procedurefully healed."

And from the most recent commissioner's report,documenting a surprise visit on June 2,1992,"post-surgical rats observed. Nothing seen thatindicated any problems or discomfort. Seemed quitenormal."

However normal or impressive, research inCambridge only constitutes a small percentage ofHarvard's animal research. Most of the workhappens across the Charles River, at the MedicalArea in Boston, where there is one less layer ofregulation, and where government research fundingis plentiful.

Money is a key to animal research, which can becostly.

According to Charles River Breeding inWilmington, prices can range from $2.10 for a 20gram mouse to more than $100 for a high-quality,rare rat. While Harvard qualifies for bulkdiscounts, the prices can add up.

"We do a lot of business with Harvard. They'rea good customer," says an employee of CharlesRiver Breeding.

Simmons says the U.S. spends $8 billion a yearin public funds on animal research.

In fact, copies of Harvard direct cost grantbudgets, obtained by The Crimson from theDepartment of Health and Human Services under aFreedom of Information act lawsuit filed on thepaper's behalf by the public Citizen LitigationGroup, show that many medical school researchprojects include animal costs.

One direct cost itemization form includes abudget item for "radioactive dog disposal."

The actual costs had been blacked out from thereleased documents.

Simmons says he is "outraged "that" ourprecious few health care dollars" are going to payfor items such as radioactive dog disposal.

Lage is upset that precious research money isbeing spent to pay for "redundant" regulators likeWiles.

But the calm in the center of the storm isCommissioner Stuart Wiles. Neither outraged norupset, he sits in his Inman Square office, itswalls decorated with colorful posters of tigers,rabbits, dolphins and guinea pigs.

At times, he appears easygoing, such as when hesays he says the gleaming new animal facilities atmany of Cambridge's new biotech firms are "enoughto make any veterinarian who owns a hospitalenvious."

Other times, though, he is darkly sober as hetouches the wooden mouse on his desk and recallswitnessing the cervical dislocation method.

"I didn't like it," he says.CrimsonDavid E. RosenAbove: copies of Harvard direct costs grantbudgets show the animals used in Medical Schoolresearch. Below: Rodents at the Faculty of Artsand Sciences Biological Laboratories.

"Decapitation should be used only when thestudy design requires this technique, because ofthe potential hazard to personnel and should beperformed by skilled personnel. Many animalspecies react adversely to the smell of blood.Animals should not be decapitated in the presenceof other animals and the investigator shall washhis/her hands between animals."

Wiles says his major accomplishment in almosttwo years as Cambridge's lab animals commissionerhas been to implement carbon dioxide asphyxiationas the method of euthanasia for small rodents.Before, Wiles says, many researchers were usinganother, less humane method of killing mice andsmall rats.

The old method, known as "cervicaldislocation," involved grasping the rodent by thehead and sharply pulling the rest of the animalaway from the head, breaking the rodent's neck.

Wiles demonstrates the method with a woodenmouse on the surface of his desk.

Although he acknowledges that cervicaldislocation is s method of euthanasia accepted bythe American veterinary Medicine Association hesays he has reservations about the practice.

Wiles argues that the problem with cervicaldislocation is that "you have to learn how to doit." And the commissioner, who also has a smallveterinary practice in the city, can't stand theidea of a mouse suffering as some rookie labtechnician struggles to snap the animal's neck.

"There are too many pitfalls in terms of doingit improperly and the discomfort that the animalsmight have to suffer," Wiles says.

Wiles says putting the animas to death in gaschambers is less painful. The gas anesthetized theanimals before suffocating them, he says.

All of the animal rights activists interviewedfor this report agreed with Wiles that carbondioxide is preferable to cervical dislocation.

Capt. Robert Fennessy, who works in theenforcement division of the Massachusetts Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA)said he would rather see the carbon dioxidemethod, if only because it is "more aestheticallypleasing."

Stephen B. Ronan '72 of the Cambridge Committeefor Responsible Research says all the research hehas seen supports the use of carbon dioxidechambers instead of cervical dislocation.

And Donna Bishop '81 of the Alliance forAnimals says "the dislocation method obviously isgoing to be painful and traumatizing."

Bishop, like Wiles, says cervical dislocationis too dependent on the skill of the executioner."One person may screw it up and cause unspeakabletrauma," Bishop says.

Yet while Harvard has stopped killing rates andmice in Cambridge by cervical dislocation, itcontinues to use the method in some facilities atthe Harvard Medical Area. The medical area, homeof Harvard Medical School, the School of PublicHealth, the Dental School and a number of Harvardteaching hospitals, is located in Boston--outsideWiles's jurisdiction.

Arthur L. Lage, a veterinarian who is directorof the Animal Resources center at the MedicalSchool and director of animal resources in theFaculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), defends theuse of cervical dislocation in some facilities atthe medical area.

Lage says that both the carbon dioxide andcervical dislocation methods are "perfectlyhumane."

"Dr Wiles does not have the last word on this,"Lage says.

Such tension over specific procedures, such aswho to kill a mouse, is symptomatic of greatertensions between the research institutions and thegovernment agencies that regulate them.

Harvard animal facilities must comply withfederal, state and, in the case of Cambridge,local regulations. They are inspected by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the MSPCA and, forCambridge, the lab animals commissioner.

Lage says all of these inspections are gettingto be a bit much. He particularly takes to taskthe Cambridge laboratory animals commissioner,whose salary and office budget this year total$40,000.

"I don't think it's worthwhile. I think it'sredundant...I think it's a waste of money," Lagesays of the Cambridge commissioner ordinance.

Lage compares the current Cambridge regulatorysituation, with inspections coming from threelevels, to a street corner with four policeofficers directing traffic. If one officer can dothe job, why pay four, Lage asks.

The Cambridge laboratory animals ordinance andthe commissioner have plenty of defenders,however.

Fennessy of the MSPCA says cumbersomeregulations and inspections are simply the priceresearchers have to pay for running largeanimal-research facilities that are in many casestaxpayer-funded.

"I don't think it hurts," Fennessy says. "Wecan't be there every day and neither can theUSDA."

And Ronan, of Cambridge Citizens forResponsible Research, says having a city labanimal commissioner is "a good idea" that can helpreassure the public about the nature of researchthat would otherwise be kept secret.

Of course, the commissioner himself is quick todefend his usefulness. He says the Cambridge labanimals ordinance of 1989, the first of its kindin the nation, created "a great program" thatshould be a model for other cities. And Wiles saysthat before the Cambridge ordinance was passed,most animals in the city were not being inspectedat all. Federal law does not require the USDA toinspect facilities that only have rodents.

Yet Wiles is in a difficult position. Dismissedas "redundant" by institutional representatives,he also fails to win the wholehearted approval ofanimal rights activists.

Ronan says Harvard's record of appointing weakcommunity representatives to the FAS committee onanimal care has not changed under Wiles'supervision.

Ronan charges that Harvard has tended to pickpeople who are "just rubber stamps." He says hedoubts their ability "to represent the community'sinterest and the welfare of the animals."

"The committees are stacked by theinstitutions," Bishop agrees.

Neither the two community representatives northe faculty representatives on the FAS animalresearch committee returned telephone calls.

No matter how good or bad a job Wiles is doing,there are some who would argue that there shouldbe no animal research-related jobs, because thereshould be no animal research at all.

Steven I. Simmons, spokesperson for People forEthical Treatment of Animals (PETA), makes a moralargument against the use of animals in laboratoryresearch.

"We believe animals are not tools for research,but individuals," Simmons says.

And Bishop, who spent eight years analyzing theresults of animal tests as a toxicologist for theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, says animalresearch is also scientifically questionable.

"Animal data just doesn't transfer to humans,"Bishops says. "It's just not useful information."

It is a fear of militant actions by animalrights extremists--some would say terrorists--thatleads to the security precautions at animalfacilities at Harvard and elsewhere. The FASanimal facility is locked away on the fifth floorof a biology laboratory building, and The Crimsonwas told that "university policy" forbidsphotographs of the facility.

Multiple electronic locks, alarm systems andrequired photo ID's for employees are commonplaceat animal facilities in general.

"They have hidden in these fortresses," saysPETA's Simmons. "It gives credence to the argumentthat they do indeed have something to hide."

Contentions about the uselessness of animaltesting are denied by many prominent Harvardscientists, including Nobel laureate David H.Hubel, Enders University professor ofneurobiology, whose research on vision in monkeyshelped prevent the most common cause of blindnessin children.

Wiles says that as long as animals researchcontinues, all parties involved should try to workto make the animals as comfortable as possible.

And at least in Cambridge, it seems thatefforts are being made to that effect. Primatesare given televisions to watch and toys to playwith to ensure their "psychological wellbeing."

"They do keep up the place pretty well,"Fennessy says.

The reports of Wiles's inspections of the FASanimals laboratories verify what Lage call theUniversity's "humane use of animals."

The commissioner's report of a surpriseinspection on April 23,1991 notes, "observedprimates sucking/swallowing studies. Veryimpressed with care."

On May 14,1991, on an announced visit, Wiles"observed a baby monkey being nursed. Happy andbonded to the Prof.--recent surgical procedurefully healed."

And from the most recent commissioner's report,documenting a surprise visit on June 2,1992,"post-surgical rats observed. Nothing seen thatindicated any problems or discomfort. Seemed quitenormal."

However normal or impressive, research inCambridge only constitutes a small percentage ofHarvard's animal research. Most of the workhappens across the Charles River, at the MedicalArea in Boston, where there is one less layer ofregulation, and where government research fundingis plentiful.

Money is a key to animal research, which can becostly.

According to Charles River Breeding inWilmington, prices can range from $2.10 for a 20gram mouse to more than $100 for a high-quality,rare rat. While Harvard qualifies for bulkdiscounts, the prices can add up.

"We do a lot of business with Harvard. They'rea good customer," says an employee of CharlesRiver Breeding.

Simmons says the U.S. spends $8 billion a yearin public funds on animal research.

In fact, copies of Harvard direct cost grantbudgets, obtained by The Crimson from theDepartment of Health and Human Services under aFreedom of Information act lawsuit filed on thepaper's behalf by the public Citizen LitigationGroup, show that many medical school researchprojects include animal costs.

One direct cost itemization form includes abudget item for "radioactive dog disposal."

The actual costs had been blacked out from thereleased documents.

Simmons says he is "outraged "that" ourprecious few health care dollars" are going to payfor items such as radioactive dog disposal.

Lage is upset that precious research money isbeing spent to pay for "redundant" regulators likeWiles.

But the calm in the center of the storm isCommissioner Stuart Wiles. Neither outraged norupset, he sits in his Inman Square office, itswalls decorated with colorful posters of tigers,rabbits, dolphins and guinea pigs.

At times, he appears easygoing, such as when hesays he says the gleaming new animal facilities atmany of Cambridge's new biotech firms are "enoughto make any veterinarian who owns a hospitalenvious."

Other times, though, he is darkly sober as hetouches the wooden mouse on his desk and recallswitnessing the cervical dislocation method.

"I didn't like it," he says.CrimsonDavid E. RosenAbove: copies of Harvard direct costs grantbudgets show the animals used in Medical Schoolresearch. Below: Rodents at the Faculty of Artsand Sciences Biological Laboratories.