Legal rights for mice and rats

May 16, 2:02 PMAnimal Welfare ExaminerShalin Gala

Previous Next

8 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Animal Welfare Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Mice in overcrowded laboratory cage / PETA

Did you know that rats and mice are not animals? According to the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) specifically excludes mice and rats bred for research from the definition of “animal,” thanks to language inserted into the 2002 Farm Bill by former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC). This means that while these creatures make up more than 95 percent of the more than 115 million animals used in painful and lethal laboratory experiments each year in the U.S., they have no protections under the law.

Why should you care? Watch this video developed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA):

Find out more about mice and rats at peta.org.

Major companies like General Electric (GE) have taken note of these concerns. When approached by PETA several years ago to give rodents in the company’s labs a solid surface on which to stand instead of wire caging that can cause painful sores on the animals’ feet, GE’s spokesperson Gary Sheffer said, “[O]ur scientists certainly thought it was important and relatively easily done. … It wasn't something we dismissed as being ridiculous.” GE has since sold off its plastics division that conducted animal testing.

In addition to working to lessen the suffering of mice and rats in laboratories, PETA strongly advocates the use of non-animal test methods as a complete replacement to the use of animals in reseach, such as in their report to the National Toxicology Program.

PETA also conducts undercover investigations at the nation’s premier laboratories, such as in Helms' home state at the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill. Here is a brief sampling of what PETA says their investigator witnessed in 2002:

• A researcher killed 23 mice in the presence of our investigator by breaking their necks with a metal cage-card holder. When our investigator later removed the mice from the dead-animal cooler in which they were placed, she found one still alive but paralyzed with a broken neck. Finding live animals in the dead-animal cooler was a recurring theme during the investigator’s employment.
• A researcher was fascinated to see a mouse she had placed in a CO2 chamber (recently deprived of oxygen) gasping for air, telling our investigator, “Look!” It was not until our investigator told her to turn the CO2 on that the animal was put out of his or her misery.
• A researcher doused 8-day-old rat pups (pinkies) with ethyl alcohol and cut their heads off with scissors. He admitted that he is supposed to put the pups on ice for four minutes prior to cutting their heads off because “animal rights people” and the “committee” believe it is more humane. He said that when they write up their procedure reports, they say that they put the pups on ice as required by IACUC [Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee] policy.
• Our investigator documented mice who lost eyes as a result of grossly substandard skill in performing orbital bleeding (sticking of a glass pipette into the back of the animal’s eye).

A national campaign is now underway to get mice and rats covered by the AWA, and the animal protection community enjoys support from former Senator Bob Dole (R-KS)—one of the main architects of the 1985 amendments to the AWA—who wrote in 2001:

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. ....  I am aware of efforts by opponents of animal welfare to prevent coverage of birds, mice, and rats as detrimental to research. This notion is preposterous. A similar strategy was employed by opponents of my 1985 amendments to the Act. I am happy to observe that none of their predictions about the dire consequences for research ever materialized. .... [U]niform protections not only are humane, but also ensure consistent experimental results and level the playing field in vital scientific research. Those who oppose [the inclusion of mice and rats in the AWA] are overlooking the long-term benefits to crafting better science.

In an op-ed published in the April 8 issue of the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof declared that “animal rights are now firmly on the mainstream ethical agenda.” Judging by PETA’s recent efforts, this agenda includes rights for all animals, big and small. Learn how you can help rats and mice in laboratories.

 To be notified when I have posted another article, please click "Subscribe to Email" below.