-
July 21, 2014
Christopher L. Eisgruber
President
1 Nassau Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Via e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Eisgruber:
On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
and our more
than 3 million members and supporters, I am writing to share
very disturbing
information about the mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in
Princeton's
laboratories and request that plans be made immediately for
their relocation to an
accredited sanctuary.
PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who
provided
information and evidence to us of graduate students and staff
members
mistreating and roughly mishandling marmoset monkeys in the
federally funded
laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princeton's Department of
Psychology.
The whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees
in the
laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a
ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified
monkey through the
corridors of the laboratory.
The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated
June 22, 2014,
sent by Asif Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory
staff and
graduate students ([email protected]), in which he
wrote: "I was
very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being
treated with the
respect that they deserve. Recently, one or more (I didn't get
the details)
was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the
entertainment of some of
our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the
marmoset."
It's not clear how many marmosets were abused in this activity,
but the
marmosetsextremely sensitive and fragile animals who are easily
distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would
surely have become frightened and distressed and felt discomfort,
and they may also have sustained
injuries. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to
Princeton's
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or other
authorities.
The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and
irresponsible handling
of marmosets in Ghazanfar's laboratory is widespread, and as a
result of this
violent handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of his
staffers,
including graduate students Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao and
research staffer
Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblower's knowledge, none
of these
-
individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required,
apparently because they would then be
asked to take additional training in the proper handling of
marmosets. The whistleblower also
informed PETA that there have apparently been multiple incidents
in which marmosets escaped
from their cages, including one episode as recently as the week
of June 30, 2014.
We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents
with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health.
These latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in
isolation. The university has a long history
of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories.
In 2011, it was cited by the
USDAand later was issued an official warningfor violations of
the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including a failure to provide a
pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give
birth with adequate care. Her newborn ultimately died, and a
veterinarian was not allowed to
investigate the cause of death. The same year, Princeton was
cited for an incident in which a
marmoset was injured after escaping from his cage. Since 2009,
Princeton has been cited for a total
of 23 AWA violations.
This recent incident and the history of problems related to the
treatment of marmosets make it clear
that Princeton is not a suitable place for them and that the
staff is unable to care for these sensitive,
intelligent animals adequately.
You may not be aware that marmosets naturally live in rich
forests and spend their time high in
trees in family groups spanning three generations. At Princeton,
they are locked in cages and used
for experiments to study how they coordinate their
vocalizations, something that could be studied in
monkeys in the wild or a sanctuary setting without subjecting
them to the fear, distress, and
confinement of a laboratory.
In light of these concerns, we urge you to begin a process to
retire the marmosets immediately to a
sanctuary accredited by the North American Primate Sanctuary
Alliance. PETA is prepared to
provide assistance with coordinating such an effort.
Additionally, we are asking that you investigate
the allegations above and swiftly move to ban students and staff
who have mishandled these
marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities
with animals.
Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look
forward to hearing from you and can be
contacted at 202-829-0974 or [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
cc: David S. Lee, Provost ([email protected])
Valerie A. Smith, Dean of the College
([email protected])
Mary DeLorenzo, Assistant to the President
([email protected])
-
July 21, 2014
Asif Ghazanfar
Professor
Department of Psychology
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Dear Dr. Ghazanfar:
I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters regarding the
ongoing
mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in your laboratory and to ask
that you make
plans to relocate these animals to an accredited sanctuary.
A whistleblower has reported to PETA that in June 2014,
employees in your
laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a
ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified
monkey through the
corridors of the laboratory. It is not clear how many marmosets
were abused in
this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile
animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this
reckless behavior would surely have become frightened, distressed
and felt discomfort, and they may also have
sustained injuries.
The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and
irresponsible handling
of marmosets in your laboratory is widespread and as a result of
this violent
handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of your
staffers, including
graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research
staffer, Diego
Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, none of these
individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required
apparently because they would
then be asked to take additional training in the proper handling
of marmosets.
The whistleblower also informed PETA that there have apparently
been multiple
incidents where marmosets escaped from their cages, including
one incident as
recently as the week of June 30, 2014.
We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents
with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of
Health.
You probably know that Princeton has a history of mistreating
marmosets and
other animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.
These incidents make clear that Princeton is not a suitable
place for marmosets
and that the staff is unable to adequately care for these
sensitive, intelligent
animals.
Further, research on monkeys vocalizationscould be studied in
the wild or a sanctuary setting without subjecting them to the
fear, distress and confinement of
a laboratory.
-
In light of these concerns, we urge you to immediately begin a
process to retire
the marmosets to a sanctuary accredited by the North American
Primate
Sanctuary Alliance. PETA is prepared to provide assistance with
coordinating
such an effort. Additionally, we are asking that you investigate
the allegations
above and swiftly move to ban students and staff who have
mishandled these
marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities
with animals.
Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look
forward to hearing from
you and can be contacted at 202-829-0974 or [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
-
July 21, 2014
Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer
Eastern Regional Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal Care
920 Main Campus Dr., Ste. 200
Raleigh, NC 27606-5210
Via e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Dr. Goldentyer:
I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request
that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
investigate possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
related to the
use and treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton
University (#22-R-
0022), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.
PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who
alleged and
provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own
amusementgraduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled
marmoset monkeys in
the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of
Psychology.
The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the
Princeton
laboratory:
1. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause
trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary
discomfort;
2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care,
treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties; and
3. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in
enclosures that contain the animals securely.
I. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause
trauma,
behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort
Section 2.38(f)(1) of the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs)
stipulates:
Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and
carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma,
overheating, excessive cooling,
behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.
However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014,
employees in
Asif Ghazanfars laboratory placed a marmoset in a ferret
exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey
through the corridors of the laboratory
for the amusement of the personnel. It is not clear how many
marmosets were
-
abused in this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive
and fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected
to this reckless behavior would surely have become frightened,
distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained
injuries.
The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated
June 22, 2014, sent by Asif
Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory staff and
graduate students
([email protected]), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was
very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated
with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or
more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret
exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab
members. This could only have been stressful for the
marmoset. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to
Princetons Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or
other authorities.
II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care,
treatment, and use are
qualified to perform their duties
Section 2.32(a) of the AWRs mandates: It shall be the
responsibility of the research facility to ensure that all
scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other
personnel involved
in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform
their duties. This responsibility shall
be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and
instruction to those personnel. Section 2.32(c)(1) of the AWRs
further elaborates: Training and instruction of personnel must
include guidance in at least the following areas: (1) Humane
methods of animal maintenance and
experimentation, including Proper handling and care for the
various species of animals used by the facility. In addition,
Section 2.32(c)(4) of the AWRs specifies that training and
instruction of personnel must include guidance in [m]ethods whereby
deficiencies in animal care and treatment are reported.
However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars
laboratory mishandle the marmosets, handling the animals roughly
and improperly when they are dyed different colors for
protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they
are transferred from their
cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling,
marmosets have bitten several
staffers in Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students,
Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego Cordero.
However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently none of these
individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required
because they would then
be required to take additional training in the proper handling
of marmosets.
The incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail written by
Asif Ghazanfar also illustrates
Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of personnel
involved in the use and treatment of animals. If it is the case, as
the whistleblower alleges, that Asif Ghazanfar did not report
the
marmoset incident to the Princeton IACUC, this would constitute
a violation of Section
2.32(c)(4). Moreover, the failure to report deficiencies in
animal care and treatment undermines
the IACUCs ability to comply with Section 2.31(c)(4) of the
AWRs, which states that the IACUC must [r]eview, and, if warranted,
investigate concerns involving the care and use of animals at the
research facility resulting from public complaints received and
from reports of
noncompliance received from laboratory or research facility
personnel or employees.
III. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in
enclosures that house the
animals securely
-
Section 3.75(a) of the AWRs stipulates that [h]ousing facilities
for nonhuman primates must be designed and constructed so that they
protect the animals from injury [and] contain the animals securely.
Section 3.80 of the AWRs further specifies that [p]rimary
enclosures [for nonhuman primates] must be constructed and
maintained so that they [c]ontain the nonhuman primates securely
and prevent accidental opening of the enclosure, including opening
by the
animal.
However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been
multiple incidents where
marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as
recently as the week of June 30,
2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously
identified by the USDA, as well.
Princetons History of Noncompliance As you know, these latest
allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton
has a
long history of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its
laboratories. In 2011, the school
was cited by your agencyand later issued an official warningfor
failing to provide adequate veterinary care to a pregnant marmoset
who was in distress and ready to give birth. Her newborn
ultimately died and a veterinarian was not allowed to
investigate the cause of death. The same
year, Princeton was cited for an incident in which a marmoset
was injured after escaping from
his cage.
Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 AWA violations,
including failing to search for
alternatives to animal use, failing to provide adequate
veterinary care to primates in pain and
failing to justify drastically restricting primates access to
drinking water. In May 2011, the USDA Investigative and Enforcement
Services took the rare step of issuing an official warning
to Princeton for failing to provide complete descriptions of the
use of animals in experiments and
for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant marmoset.
We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this
letter and, if the claims are
substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes
citing Princeton University for
violations of the AWA and levying fines against the facility for
its repeated failure to comply
with federal law.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or
[email protected]. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510
-
July 21, 2014
Axel V. Wolff, D.V.M.
Director
Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
National Institutes of Health
RKL1, Ste. 360, MSC 7982
6705 Rockledge Dr.
Bethesda, MD 20892-7982
Via e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Dr. Wolff:
I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request
that your office
investigate possible noncompliance with the Public Health
Service Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) and the
Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide) related to
the use and
treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton University
(PHS Assurance
#A3434-01), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.
PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who
alleged and
provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own
amusementgraduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled
marmoset monkeys in
the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of
Psychology.
The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the
Princeton
laboratory:
1. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of
animals; 2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal
care, treatment, and
use are qualified to perform their duties;
3. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare concerns; 4.
Failure to report bites; and 5. Failure to ensure that nonhuman
primates are housed in enclosures that
contain the animals securely.
I. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of
animals
Principle IV of the U.S. Government Principles for the
Utilization and Care of
Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training
emphasizes the
imperative to avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain
to animals.
-
However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014,
employees in Asif Ghazanfars laboratory placed a marmoset in a
ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the
terrified
monkey through the corridors of the laboratory for the amusement
of the personnel. It is not clear
how many marmosets were abused in this activity, but the
marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are easily
distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would
surely have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and
they may also have sustained
injuries.
The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated
June 22, 2014, sent by Asif
Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory staff and
graduate students
([email protected]), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was
very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated
with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or
more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret
exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab
members. This could only have been stressful for the
marmoset. To the whistleblowers knowledge, the incident was not
reported to Princetons Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC) or other authorities.
II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care,
treatment, and use are
qualified to perform their duties
On the issue of training for staff, the Guide is explicit: All
personnel involved with the care and use of animals must be
adequately educated, trained, and/or qualified in basic principles
of
laboratory animal science to help ensure high-quality science
and animal well-being. The Guide further states: Personnel caring
for animals should be appropriately trained and the institution
should provide for formal and/or on-the-job training to facilitate
effective
implementation of the Program and the humane care and use of
animals. The Guide lists several areas in which all research groups
should receive training, including: animal care and use
legislation, IACUC function, [and] ethics of animal use and the
concepts of the Three Rs.
However, the incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail
written by Asif Ghazanfar
illustrates Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of
personnel involved in the use and treatment of animals in the areas
of animal well-being, the humane care and use of animals,
ethics of animal use, and the concept of the Three Rs.
III. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare
concerns
The Guide states:
Safeguarding animal welfare is the responsibility of every
individual associated with the Program. The institution must
develop methods for reporting and investigating animal
welfare concerns, and employees should be aware of the
importance of and mechanisms
for reporting animal welfare concerns. In the United States,
responsibility for review and
investigation of these concerns rests with the IO and the IACUC
Reported concerns and any corrective actions taken should be
documented.
However, the whistleblower alleges that Asif Ghazanfar did not
report the marmoset incident to
the Princeton IACUC. If this allegation is true, this would
indicate that Ghazanfar was not
adequately trained on the importance of reporting animal welfare
concerns. Moreover, the failure
-
to report animal welfare concerns undermines the IACUCs ability
to investigate such concerns and take appropriate actionincluding
reporting any noncompliance incidents to OLAW.
IV. Failure to report bites
The Guide states: Clear procedures should be established for
reporting all accidents, bites, scratches, and allergic
reactions.
However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars
laboratory mishandle the marmosets, handling the animals roughly
and improperly when they are dyed different colors for
protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they
are transferred from their
cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling,
marmosets bit several staffers in
Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students, Jeremy
Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego Cordero.
However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently none of these
individuals reported the biting incidents as is required because
they would then be required
to take additional training in the proper handling of
marmosets.
V. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in
enclosures that house the
animals securely
The Guide states: The primary enclosure [in which animals are
housed] should provide a secure environment that does not permit
animal escape.
However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been
multiple incidents where
marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as
recently as the week of June 30,
2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously
identified by the USDA, as well.
Princetons History of Noncompliance These latest allegations
against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton has a long
history
of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories.
In 2011, the school was cited by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and later issued an
official warningfor failing to provide adequate veterinary care to
a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give
birth. Her newborn ultimately died and a veterinarian was not
allowed to investigate the cause of
death. The same year, Princeton was cited by the USDA for an
incident in which a marmoset
was injured after escaping from his cage.
Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 Animal Welfare Act
violations, including failing to
search for alternatives to animal use, failing to provide
adequate veterinary care to primates in
pain and failing to justify drastically restricting primates
access to drinking water. In May 2011, the USDA Investigative and
Enforcement Services took the rare step of issuing an official
warning to Princeton for failing to provide complete
descriptions of the use of animals in
experiments and for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant
marmoset.
We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this
letter and, if the claims are
substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes
placing Princeton under enhanced
monitoring and ordering repayment of federal funds used during
the noncompliant period. Given
the seriousness of the allegations, we ask that you closely
investigate the review process that
green lighted the protocol. We contend that the goals of this
projectaimed at studying how
-
marmosets coordinate their vocalizationsdo not justify the pain
and distress suffered by the marmosets used, particularly given the
scofflaw behavior of Princeton employees. We further
contend that the goals of this project do not justify the
expenditure of $2.3 million of taxpayer
money since 2007. As such, we strongly recommend a reevaluation
of Asif Ghazanfars NIH-funded project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or
[email protected]. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510
Cc: Sally Rockey, Director, NIH Office of Extramural
Research
-
Text of email from Asif Ghazanfar (PI), dated June 22, 2014
Dear Lab,
I was very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not
being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or
more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise
ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab members. This
could only have been stressful for the marmoset. None of those lab
members who participated chose to exercise any common sense, sense
of decency or leadership.
Thus, its a pity that I have to do this, but Im reminding you
that these are precious subjects for whom we are responsible. That
means treating them gently, with respect, and in accord with
scientific goals and procedures in our approved protocols. Anytime
you think you want play with the marmosets, try very hard to take
their perspective and ask if yourself [sic] would like that
activity done to you for no reason other than the entertainment of
others.
The marmosets are not in the lab for your amusement. They are
not pets. We are forcing them into experimental contexts that they
wouldnt otherwise choose because that is the only way that we can
address our scientific questions. To force them into contexts for
which there is no scientific justification is reprehensible and,
frankly, unethical.
This message is coming directly from me. This is how I feel
personally; I am not relaying the official sentiment from the
university. I am very much pro-science and pro-animal welfare.
Mistreating the marmosets is both anti-science and
anti-welfare.
If any of you want to talk about this further, we can do so at
the next lab meeting.
Asif