By JIMIN KANG
Princeton University
In late January of this year, two Princeton University researchers were restricted from conducting experiments involving animals after failing to follow protocol on the ethical use of animals in research.
In a letter Pablo G. Debenedetti, the Dean for Research at Princeton University, addressed to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Feb. 28, 2018, he wrote that 20 mice developed limb paralysis due to a procedure that had not been approved by the university’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
The purpose of the committee is to ensure that the “care and welfare of all animals” are considered during the “planning, review and implementation” of research involving animals.
All of the mice were eventually euthanized at the recommendation of a clinical veterinarian. The details of the incident were presented to the IACUC at a meeting held on February 8, 2018.
“It was determined by the IACUC that this incident constituted a protocol non-compliance, as well as an animal welfare concern,” the document reads. One researcher was restricted from animal work for a three-month period, while another was restricted for a one-month period. The Principal Investigator (PI) of the experiment agreed to refund the money provided by the National Institutes of Health to support the unapproved procedure.
The incident was brought to the media’s attention by Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN), an organization that aims to “force an end” to the “abuse of animals in laboratories.” In a letter addressed to both Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber and the Board of Trustees, Michael Budkie—Executive Director of SAEN—described the incident as “simply shocking.”
“Not only is this a totally cruel and unnecessary process, the fact that this was done without IACUC approval indicates this PI ignores standard research practices, and believes they are essentially above the law,” he wrote. “Not only are animal lives at stake, but the credibility and reputation of Princeton University is on the line.”
In order to “restore the credibility” of research at Princeton, Budkie called for the University to “permanently terminate” all animal protocols associated with the researchers who conducted the experiment, prohibit the publication of its results, return all funding for the project to the funding source, and launch an “independent investigation” of the “entire animal experimentation program at Princeton University.”
University Spokesperson Ben Chang confirmed that Debenedetti’s initial letter to the NIH “contains the University’s position.”
“As noted, the University is committed to protecting the welfare of animals used in research and teaching, and adheres to the highest standards regarding the humane care and responsible use of animals,” he wrote in an email. He added that the research program received “full accreditation” in a recent review conducted by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALACi), as well as “commendations” for “an exemplary program of laboratory animal care and use.”
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a routine, unannounced inspection in June that found no non-compliant items,” he added.
Budkie believes that the University’s official response to the letter, which was sent three days after SAEN wrote to President Eisgruber and the Board of Trustees, was “a whitewash.”
“What we would’ve wanted was for Princeton to admit that this project was extremely flawed and should not have been performed,” Budkie said. He said that allowing the relevant researchers to work on animals again after a brief suspension is “simply astonishing.”
SAEN focuses exclusively on the use of animals in experimentation, and obtains reports from research facilities across the United States by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the federal government. Most recently in November, SAEN wrote a letter to representatives of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) about a procedure that led to the paralysis of two mice, and received a response similar to the one received from Princeton.
