Programs & Campaigns

A Voice for All Animals

LPAG Responds to Claims by Oregon Regional Primate Research Center and Oregon Health Sciences University

January 16th, 2001

Dr. M. Susan Smith
Director, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center
505 NW 15th Ave.
Beaverton, OR 97006-3499
Mail code L584

Dear Dr. Smith,

We are writing on behalf of Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group (LPAG) with regard to the information that Oregon Regional Primate Research Center and Oregon Health Sciences University have posted at http://www.ohsu.edu/orprc/facts disputing claims made by Matt Rossell on August 28th of 2000. LPAG represents individuals with over 35 years of combined experience working with nonhuman primates at 13 primate research institutions, breeding facilities, sanctuaries, and zoos throughout the United States as well as 2 overseas field sites. LPAG was formed to promote the interests of nonhuman primate research subjects, and is opposed to the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research. Although we would like to see an end to the research, we are dedicated to the well-being of individual monkeys and apes currently held in laboratories. We feel that the status quo of primate care at research facilities in the United States is unacceptable. We believe that the minimum requirements mandated by the Animal Welfare Act are weak and often detrimental to the physical and psychological well- being of lab primates. Research facilities should go well above the minimum requirements to ensure the nonhuman primates used in research are not suffering the distress as seen by the singly caged primates in the video. Even then, keeping non-human primates in research cages does little if anything to ensure a life free of anxiety, boredom, and fear.

It is not the intent of this letter to address statements or claims made by Matt Rossell. The video and photo images of the monkeys at the ORPRC speak for themselves, and LPAG feels that many of ORPRC's explanations for the condition of these monkeys are inadequate, inaccurate, and misleading. Our questions and concerns regarding the images and the ORPRC's explanations will be the focus of this letter.

LPAG would like to emphasize that we know based on our experience that there are compassionate individuals who care for the primates at research institutions, including ORPRC, but we are also aware that most staff members at research facilities are nearly powerless to change situations and conditions that they may find unacceptable. It is up to the directors, managers, and other decision-makers to improve the housing conditions and care practices at each facility and achieve standards well above those mandated by the AWA. Even if the individual animals portrayed in the photos and video are in the minority in terms of their level of suffering and distress, as ORPRC claims, the fact that these individual monkeys were allowed to experience suffering and distress for any length of time is unacceptable. LPAG is calling upon the decision-makers to greatly improve the status quo at ORPRC and other American primate labs.

[  Back to top  ]

LPAG feels that the explanation for the young male's behavior is also inadequate, and furthermore, that the onset of this behavior could have been prevented. Under what circumstances did this infant's mother abandon him? We have never witnessed (even at a breeding facility of 9,000 monkeys) a mother suddenly abandon an infant that is as old as the male in this footage. Studies have shown in the wild that there are a small percentage of mothers that may abandon their offspring early on for a variety of reasons. In captivity, researchers working in this particular area of study, infant abuse, have stated that abandonment, or neglect, a form of abuse can be classified as a behavioral pathology. This maladaptive behavior is often a result of human manipulations (Maestripieri 1998). When abandonment does occur in captive settings, abandoned infants are often temporarily cared for by older siblings. Likewise, with staff intervention mother-infant reunions are often successful and failing that, infants often can be fostered onto another lactating female. What efforts were made to reunite this infant with its mother, or find an adoptive mother for him? If it was absolutely necessary to remove the infant from his group, why wasn't he immediately given a cage mate? ORPRC indicated that a companion was introduced to this infant after the video was taken (and after the penis-sucking behavior was established) and has helped reduce the behavior, although it is likely he'll exhibit this behavior for the rest of his life (Sanchez 1998). It is a shame that this infant did not receive the companionship and care he so desperately needed to prevent the stereotypical behavior he exhibits. It disturbs LPAG that it took national attention for this infant to receive 'adequate' care.

Within the section addressing the behavior of #20631, it is stated that the psychological well-being staff make monthly visits. LPAG feels that monthly visits are inadequate, as stress and stereotypical behaviors can arise very quickly and require immediate attention. The fact that this infant developed stereotypical behavior and lived alone for some period of time before the problem was addressed speaks to our concerns. If the psychological well-being staff is responsible for special needs of infants and juveniles who display abnormal behavior, why was this infant allowed to get into such an extremely depressed state? If it has not done so already, ORPRC must increase its psychological well-being staff, and increase the number of visits the staff makes to each monkey per month.

Another example of ORPRC dismissing abnormal behavior, and classifying it as normal, involves the group of juvenile macaques clinging together in apparent fear. ORPRC has indicated, incorrectly, that "if startled or frightened.their natural response is to huddle together (as shown) in the corner farthest away from the intruder." Clinging, however, is an abnormal behavior typically exhibited by infants who have been taken away from their mother when too young and housed with peers. Kraemer (1997) found that "..as infants and juveniles, peer-reared monkeys engage in an extraordinary amount of clinging to one another and in self-directed finger and toe sucking. This is especially evident if the peer group is exposed to an external 'threat' such as a human observer. Mother-reared juvenile monkeys, in contrast, cling or huddle together primarily during rest or sleep periods, often threaten in return if threatened, and rarely are found with a finger or toe in their mouths." A normal response for a group of rhesus macaques when threatened would be to go to the highest point possible and/or aggress towards a fearful stimulus. Only infants would cling to their mothers. Notably absent from this photo are adult individuals. The group members appear to be of the same age, indicating that they have been pulled from their natal group, and the abnormal clinging behavior indicates that they were pulled from their natal group at quite an early age.

[  Back to top  ]

WEANING
Many of the abnormal behaviors exhibited by the monkeys in the images are attributable to early forced weaning and separation from the mother. The weaning policy of ORPRC as described on the Center's web site is contradicted by the presence of images of a number of infant macaques living in social deprivation, as well as by questionable statements made on the ORPRC's web site. The weaning policy as written on the ORPRC web site states: "Animals are not weaned too early. Since 1996, no monkeys have been removed from mothers before 6 month of age. In nature, weaning typically begins at about 6 months, and most juvenile monkeys are weaned at 12 months, when the next offspring arrives." Throughout the web site, there are pictures of infants who are less than six months old living in social deprivation without their mothers (http://www.ohsu.edu/orprc/facts/image_gallery .htm). Those of us at LPAG who have worked extensively with macaques can clearly see these infants are younger than 6 months. Based on your own photos, as well as images taken by Matt Rossell, it is apparent that the statement that "no monkeys have been removed from their mothers before 6 months of age" (emphasis added) is untrue, and LPAG asks for an explanation for this attempt to mislead individuals concerned about the welfare of monkeys at the Center.

The ORPRC web site also claims, "weaned monkeys will remain in the matriarchal family group for another 2-3 years, which also happens in corral and group housing at the Center." The numerous photos of solitary infants, and the photo of the clinging juveniles discussed above, indicate that removal of individuals from their natal group at 2-3 years old does not appear to be the standard practice at ORPRC. It is further stated "[w]eanlings are put into standard-sized cages by themselves until they figure out what food is and to learn to feed themselves." This seems to indicate that young monkeys at ORPRC are not naturally weaned from their mothers, and do not remain with their natal group until the age of 2 or 3. Most young monkeys are nutritionally independent from their mother's milk by the age of one year. Why, if monkeys are removed from their natal group at 2-3 years do they have to "figure out what food is" and "learn to feed themselves"? Only infant monkeys who are not allowed to experience the gradual, natural weaning process would have to learn to eat solid foods in social deprivation. The only alternative explanation for this unusual claim that weanlings must learn to eat solid food in a cage by themselves is that the animals are so profoundly distressed as a result of being torn away from their families and put into a single cage that they experience loss of appetite in addition to numerous other damaging effects. "The behavioral response to mother-infant separation in human and nonhuman primates has often been characterized as occurring in two sequential phases, 'protest' and 'despair'.Despair is characterized by inactivity, withdrawal, and an increase in self-directed behaviors such as self-mouthing (finger sucking) and self-clasping, adoption of a fetal-like self-enclosed body posture, and often a failure to eat (emphasis added)" (Kraemer 1997). According to Gust et al. (1992) "the removal of naïve juvenile rhesus monkeys from their natal social group to individual indoor caging is a potent psychosocial stressor." LPAG requests a more detailed explanation from ORPRC as to why a weanling, who should already be nutritionally independent from its mother if the Center's weaning policy is as stated, needs to learn to eat solid food after separation from the natal group.

Even though normal weaning by the mother begins at approximately six months infants are still emotionally dependent upon their mothers for well after six months (Lee 1983, Altmann 1980). Allowing infants to be naturally weaned by their mothers provides crucial interaction that is required for normal behavioral and social development and thus may reduce the development of abnormal behavior (Wallis & Valentine 2001). The first year of life for baboons is a period of helplessness and dependency during which the mother provides important companionship and care (Altman 1980); the same could be said for macaques. Therefore, separation of an infant from his/her mother at six months of age can be detrimental to both the physical and psychological health of the infants as well as the mothers. An abundance of research has been conducted on nonhuman primates in regards to the detrimental effects of mother/infant separation as well as lack of socialization at a young age. "Social deprivation early in development is associated with profound and enduring increases in abnormal self-directed (autistic-like) behaviors, alterations in normal social behavior, deficits in exploration, communication, emotionality and sexual and maternal behaviors" (Sanchez 1998). Separation has profound effects on behavior (Rosenblum 1987); heart rate, temperature, sleep patterns (Reite and Field 1985); and immune system (Coe 1989; Gust 1992; Gordon 1992; Laudenslager 1990), making the individuals susceptible to opportunitistic infection (Bailey 1999). According to Coe, et al., "[f]or the young organism, a supportive and nurturing environment is important not only for successful behavioral maturation but apparently also for the development of normal immune function and for physical health." Primate facilities often claim (as ORPRC has on this website) that research on nonhuman primates contributes to the health and well being of nonhuman primates as well as humans. Why haven't the research findings regarding separation and socialization been applied to the primates at your facility in order to improve their welfare?

LPAG believes, from our experience, that poor rearing conditions, developmental history and/or single-cage housing can also explain the current condition of the self-mutilating monkeys at ORPRC, such as Rodney. The weaning and housing practices at your facility will inevitably continue to result in more individuals with behavioral problems, some as severe as self-mutilation. We truly hope that Rodney has improved as a result of psychopharmacological intervention, but the only way his well-being will truly improve is to rehabilitate him and allow him to live in a social situation unless he is too far gone. Such profoundly disturbed individuals should be removed from research immediately and allowed to live in humane conditions that address their psychological well-being.

[  Back to top  ]

RESEARCH

Dr. Cameron
LPAG is also alarmed about some of the research protocols being conducted at ORPRC, which we understand are being re-assessed by ORPRC's IACUC. For example, there are several factors involved in Dr. Cameron's research that must be addressed. It is said that Dr. Cameron "seeks to determine if infertility in women who lead normal lives might be caused by everyday lifestyle factors.." Monkey #19493 from Dr. Cameron's study is extremely underweight and has severe alopecia. The female in this photo certainly cannot be construed to represent a woman who is experiencing "everyday lifestyle factors". At best she may represent an anorexic woman, or a female athlete with very little body fat, but not the population of women Dr. Cameron purports to be studying. While LPAG would agree with the statement "monkeys, like human infants and pets of several species, like to chew on their toys", we strongly disagree that "this monkey is not 'eating her nylabone toy' because she is hungry" as ORPRC so confidently states. Four biscuits in a feeding are inadequate, especially for monkeys being forced to exercise. It is very likely that this monkey is very hungry, and her hunger may well be the motivation behind her gnawing on the toy.

The ORPRC web site indicates that four biscuits is a moderate reduction from a normal feeding of six biscuits. LPAG believes that six biscuits itself in an inadequate diet for an average adult female macaque, and questions whether the ORPRC colony as a whole is receiving an appropriate amount of food. According to Mazuri Feeds, "Primates generally consume 2% to 4% of their body weight per day." of dry food. LPAG members who work with macaques at other research institutions indicate that healthy adult female macaques living in individual cages generally receive 10-15 Purina Monkey Chow biscuits per feeding, for a total of 20-30 per day, in addition to supplementary produce and food treats. ORPRC does not indicate in USDA reports that any animals are deprived of food; Dr. Cameron's research seems to meet the definition of food deprivation. From our experience, many biscuits can also end up on the floor, for a variety of reasons. If only one of four biscuits falls on the floor, that is a 25% reduction in an already inadequate diet.

LPAG is also concerned over an additional contradiction and misrepresentation within the description of Dr. Cameron's research on the ORPRC web site. With regards to the monkeys' willingness to exercise, it is stated: "Most are eager to do it, and those that show resistance are taken off the protocol." This leads a reader to believe that the monkeys choose to run for the sheer joy of it. However, with regards to the accusation that the monkeys are forced to run by showing them a leather glove, ORPRC states: "The gloves constitute a visual clue-comparable to the verbal human clue of 'you're headed for a time out.' Monkeys associate gloves with being caught, and they prefer running to being caught." This indicates that the monkeys do not necessarily enjoy the exercise, and will run only when threatened, contradicting the first statement. To use the ORPRC's own analogy, a human child who obeys a parent only because she is threatened with punishment is not actually eager to obey the parent. Without the threat of punishment, the child would choose to misbehave. A monkey who will not run without seeing the glove is not "eager" to run, but is running only out of fear. These monkeys who must be forced to run by showing them the glove have exhibited resistance to the exercise, and should be taken off the protocol immediately.

[  Back to top  ]

Dr. Casey
LPAG is also troubled by the living situation of the capuchin monkeys used in Dr. Casey's research on psychotropic drugs. ORPRC's own web site indicated that the monkeys involved in this protocol are singly housed, and have been from at least five years up to eighteen years. This is an extremely long time for a non-human primate to live alone. Why are these individuals not at the very least pair-housed? LPAG can think of no reason why the effects of the drugs they receive cannot be observed in a pair-housing or group-housing situation. It is the intent of the AWA that non-human primates be housed with a companion or companions whenever possible, and requires IACUC to maintain and review on an annual basis written justifications for exempting non-human primates from the social housing requirement. LPAG requests copies of these justifications, and asks that IACUC rereview Dr. Casey's protocol. If social housing for the monkeys in this protocol is planned when the study ends, as ORPRC states, why is it not possible now? In addition, LPAG would like to know when Dr. Casey's study will be ending. 18 years seems to be sufficient time to gather a wealth of detailed data on the side effects of psychotropic drugs.

According to the photos taken, Drs. Cameron, Neuringer and Casey all appear to keep the primates used in their research in single cages. Single cage housing can lead to immunosuppression (Lilly et al. 1999), depression, decreased appetite, increased stereotypies, as well as other negative effects. Lilly et al. stated, "we provide evidence to support the view that separation and removal of rhesus females from their natal group to single housing produces long-term stress-related anxiety and depression, with concomitant changes in hematological measures, and immunological changes generally indicative of immunosuppression." Once again, why haven't research findings pertaining to single cage housing been applied to the individuals at ORPRC? At the National AALAS meeting this year, various pharmaceutical companies indicated that animals used for their GLP studies are being pair-housed. Pair housing is not ideal but it would be a great improvement over single caging. LPAG requests that ORPRC immediately socially house all of the individuals who are currently single housed.

[  Back to top  ]

ELECTROEJACULATION
LPAG was appalled that the ORPRC would deny that electroejaculation on an unanesthetized monkey causes a great deal of pain and distress to the monkey. Electroejaculation may be the standard for collecting semen samples from exotic animals in zoos, but the procedure is generally done under anesthesia. Semen collection is often conducted on bulls, and the National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB) web site indicates that the standard semen collection practice is with the use of an artificial vagina (AV) which uses no electric stimulus (http://www.naab-css.org/about_css/practices.html). Electroejaculation, according to the NAAB, "should be limited to those circumstances when the temperament of physical condition of a bull renders collection of semen by AV unsafe or impossible." The article "Collecting and Freezing of Semen" by Tullis Matson describes the use of AV for semen collection from stallions, and makes no mention of electroejaculation (http://www.stallionsdirect.com/mares/collectionandfreezing.html). LPAG believes that ORPRC is misleading the public when it maintains that electroejaculation is a common method of semen collection in domestic animals, and is therefore acceptable in monkeys. We ask that this inaccurate information be removed from the web site.

While electroejaculation may not be equivalent to genital electrocution, the electrical stimulation still holds the potential to be painful to the individual. A member of LPAG received electrical stimulation as therapy following a joint injury, and reported that the stimulus became painful after a certain threshold. The threshold varies from individual to individual, and human patients must report when the stimulus becomes painful. Perhaps even more compelling is this statement from the Center for Male Reproductive Medicine web site (http://www.malereproduction.com/electro.htm); "Electroejaculation is performed with a device known as an electroejaculator. A current generated by the machine is applied to stimulate the nerves and produce contraction of the pelvic muscles resulting in an ejaculation. Electroejaculation must be performed under general anesthesia in all patients who have abdominal and perirectal sensation (emphasis added)." If electroejaculation were not painful, as ORPRC claims, general anesthesia would not be required in humans. LPAG is requesting the IACUC review this protocol, and address the issue of the extreme pain and distress these males are likely suffering. LPAG would like copies of written justifications for allowing electroejaculation to be performed on unanesthetized macaques, when the standard for humans requires general anesthesia.

[  Back to top  ]

CHRONIC DIARRHEA and DYSENTERY
The term "chronic diarrhea" is one that those of us who have worked with primates in captive facilities have heard over and over. It appears that your website does address the issue, but denies there is a problem with the non-human primates at your facility having chronic diarrhea. We have encountered these particular "diagnosis" innumerable times and have been told that the individuals with chronic diarrhea would never again have normal stool. As a result, monkeys with chronic diarrhea are very often euthanized. However, there were occasions when we were allowed to try to improve an individual's condition before euthanasia was performed. In our experience, using proper diagnostic techniques and attempting to improve an individual's living conditions (via appropriate diet changes and/or changes in housing situation) often results in an amelioration of the diarrhea. ORPRC should be attempting to improve the health and well-being of individuals with "chronic diarrhea" by employing these methods.

Finally, the shigella outbreak in question could indeed have come from contaminated vegetables. Shigella appears to be a very difficult organism to prevent. The amount of pathogen necessary for infection with clinical manifestations can be very small (AAP 1997). Freezing or cooking may kill the bacteria, and a simple washing could remove it, but wouldn't be assured to get all of the pathogen. However, LPAG believes the outbreak of shigella discussed on the ORPRC web site cannot be blamed on the actions of Matt Rossell. ORPRC's web site states, "the symptoms of the disease appeared between 10 and 14 days after they had been fed a shipment of vegetables that had not been washed" and indicates that Mr. Rossell was the individual who neglected to wash the produce. However, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the incubation period varies from 1 to 7 days but it is usually 2 to 4 days. In addition, (Haubrich et al 1995) found that the incubation period ranges from 12 to 72 hours. It appears highly unlikely that the shigella came from the particular shipment of vegetables that Mr. Rossell is accused of not washing and is mere speculation on the part of ORPRC. Because the accusation is not based on any sound scientific or medical evidence, we ask that ORPRC remove the accusation from its web site. We do hope that ORPRC immediately contacted public health officials and conducted a thorough investigation to find the true source of the pathogen.

[  Back to top  ]

In conclusion, LPAG requests that:

1. Individuals be kept with their mothers in their natal groups until at least three years of age, most appropriate for male macaques as this is the normal beginning age for the males to transfer out of the group
   
   

2. All of the self-mutilating monkeys, such as Rodney, be immediately taken off the research protocols and be put in social housing
   
   
3. All single-caged animals be pair-housed, if not group-housed
   
   
4. The psychological well-being staff increase the number of visits per month for each individual, not just those displaying obvious signs of psychological distress
   
   
5. Dr. Cameron's study be terminated and the monkeys in Dr. Cameron's study be given a diet to meet nutritional needs.
   
   
6. Dr. Cameron's study, Dr. Casey's study, and electro ejaculation protocols be reassessed by OHSU's IACUC and be terminated immediately.
   
   
7. Those primates thought to have "chronic diarrhea" should undergo additional diagnostic tests, gradual change in diet, and be housed in a less stressful situation.
   
   
8. Inaccurate and misleading information be removed from the ORPRC web site, and replaced with correct, referenced information.

   [  Back to top  ]

Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group seeks to ensure an end to research on nonhuman primates, and to encourage laboratories to adopt a more enlightened view of their care, until such a time as the research is halted. Matt Rossell's place in the animal rights community notwithstanding, the images portrayed in his investigation are an accurate picture of what occurs in primate research facilities. ORPRC, like other labs, repeatedly attempts to distract the public using the claim of benefits to humans to justify its conditions. The truth is, the monkeys don't know the difference. LPAG feels that treating monkeys with respect and compassion and performing biomedical research upon them are mutually exclusive issues, and cannot be truly carried out simultaneously. Based on our experience, we believe that the employees of ORPRC and other research institutions have become desensitized (Arluke 1993), which is why the status quo and AWA's minimum standards have become acceptable. LPAG has been formed to make sure that these problems are recognized. It is also important that the public be informed about what occurs behind closed doors at publicly funded institutions. Let's let the public decide if the research being conducted is worth the sacrifice that these intelligent individuals are forced to make. We look forward to hearing ORPRC's explanation for the many inaccurate or misleading statements found at http://www.ohsu.edu/orprc/facts, and request that ORPRC issue a public retraction of the above contested claims as well as remove the inaccurate information from ORPRC's web site.

Sincerely,

LPAG Representatives

Rachel Weiss
riweiss@mindspring.com

Jessica Ganas
jganas@together.net

[  Back to top  ]

Bibliography

Altmann, J. (1980) Baboon Mothers and Infants. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1997) Red Book; The Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 24th Ed.

Arluke, A. (1992) Trapped in a guilt cage. Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter, Vol 4(2):1-8.

Bailey, M.T. and Coe, C.L. (1999) Maternal separation disrupts the integrity of the intestinal microflora in infant rhesus monkeys. Developmental Psychobiology, 35(2):146-55.

Coe C.L., Lubach G. and Ershler, W.B. (1989) Immunological consequences of maternal separation in primates. New Directions for Child Development 45:65-91.

Goosen, C. (1981) Abnormal behavior patterns in rhesus monkeys: Symptoms of mental disease? Biological Psychiatry, 16(8):697-716.

Gordon, T.P. et al. (1992) Social separation and reunion affects immune system in juvenile rhesus monkeys. Physiol Behav 51(3):467-72.

Gust, D.A. et al. (1992) Removal from natal social group to peer housing affects cortisol levels and absolute numbers of T cell subsets in juvenile rhesus monkeys. Brain, Behavior and Immunology 6(2): 189-99.

Haubrich, W., et al. (1995) in Bockus Gastroenterology Vol. 2 WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Kraemer, G. (1997) Psychobiology of early social attatchment in rhesus monkeys: clinical implications; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; Vol. 807.

Laudenslager, M.L., et al. (1990) Behavioral and immunological consequences of brief mother-infant separation: a species comparison. Developmental Psychobiology 23(3):247-64.

Lee, P. (1983) "Effects of the loss of the mother on social development," in Hinde, R.A. (ED), Primate Social Relationships; Sinauer Associated, Inc., Sunderland, Ma.

Lilly A.A., Mehlman, P.T. and Higley, J.D. (1999) Trait-like immunological and hematological measures in female rhesus across varied environmental conditions. American Journal of Primatology 48(3):197-223.

Maestripieri, D. (1998). Parenting styles of abusive mothers in group-living rhesus macaques. Animal Behavior. 55: 1-11.

Reite, M. and Field, T. (eds.) (1985) Psychobiology of Attachment and Separation. New York: Academic Press.

Rosenblum, L.A. and Paully, G.S. (1987) Primate models of separation-induced depression. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 10(3): 437-447.

Sanchez, M. et al. (1998) Differential rearing affects corpus callosum size and cognitive functionof rhesus monkeys. Brain Research. 812: 38-49.

Wallis, J. and Valentine, B. (2001) Early vs. natural weaning in captive baboons: the effect of timing on postpartum estrus and next conception. 40(1). Laboratory Primate Newsletter.

[  Back to top  ]