Arguments Against the Exclusion of Rats, Mice, and Birds From the Protection of the Animal Welfare Act

Sen. Jesse Helms has succeeded in denying protection to animals in laboratories. He added an amendment to the Farm Bill (H.R. 2646) to permanently exclude rats, mice, and birds from the protection of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which means that the research industry is able to continue to subject them to appalling procedures and conditions that would be illegal for any other warm-blooded animals.

The Helms exclusion amendment amounted to a wholesale gutting of the Animal Welfare Act without one word of debate. This is not the way to make policy or to resolve controversial issues.

The main proponent of the amendment was the National Association of Biomedical Research (NABR), but its arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

Congress specifically amended the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that “all warm-blooded species” used in research would receive humane care. Rats, mice, and birds are warm-blooded species.

Sen. Helms circumvented the decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In the 1992 lawsuit against the USDA, a U.S. District Court found that the USDA was being “arbitrary and capricious” in its exclusion of rats, birds, and mice, and then in 1999, a judge found that the plaintiffs had standing. The USDA then settled because it realized that it was about to lose.

The only “paperwork burden” would have been merely three new lines on the report that most institutions already file.

NABR’s assertion that new regulations would increase the cost of research contradicts its own assertion that the care of rats, mice, and birds in most facilities already meets National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines. If it really did meet NIH guidelines, then it would automatically meet AWA guidelines, so there would be no increase in cost.

NABR argues that inclusion of rats, mice, and birds under the AWA is not necessary because there are already standards and guidelines that cover rats, mice, and birds, namely those used by NIH and those of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). However, these standards differ from coverage by the AWA in that NIH conducts essentially no inspections, and AAALAC only conducts announced inspections once every three years. The USDA conducts unannounced inspections at least once a year. Furthermore, violations of NIH and AAALAC standards do not result in legal consequences. Lastly, NIH standards apply to less than 60 percent of research facilities, and even fewer are accredited by AAALAC. The remaining facilities (between 1,200 and 2,000) need not adhere to any humane standards nor report how many animals they are using and for what procedures.

Contrary to NABR’s assertions, the majority of scientists want birds, mice, and rats covered by the AWA regulations. Support comes from, among others, the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, and DuPont Pharmaceutical Company. Moreover, a “recent survey of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee members reveals that most researchers actually favor AWA regulation of these species. … A clear majority of animal researchers and other IACUC members favored AWA coverage for mice, rats, and birds. Even animal researchers in psychology, psychopharmacology, and behavioral neuroscience support AWA coverage of these animals, despite the fact that these disciplines would be among the most affected by AWA regulation of mice, rats, and birds.” (The survey was conducted by Scott Plous of the Department of Psychology at Wesleyan University and Harold Herzog of the Department of Psychology at West Carolina University, according to Science, vol. 290, October 27, 2000.)

Rats, birds, and mice make up approximately 95 percent of all animals used in laboratories.

It goes against the intent of Congress to exclude rats, mice, and birds. Former Sen. Bob Dole has stated, “As someone deeply involved with the process of revising and expanding the provisions of the AWA, I assure you that the AWA was meant to include birds, mice, and rats. When Congress stated that the AWA applied to ‘all warm-blooded animals,’ we certainly did not intend to exclude 95 percent of the animals used in biomedical research laboratories.”