This article was originally published in the Academia print issue of The Daily Utah Chronicle, originally in stands in October of 2024. It has not been updated and some information may be out of date.
At the University of Utah, numerous research laboratories contain animals used for scientific testing. In recent years, animal deaths in these laboratories have led many to criticize the university’s treatment of its test subjects.
Animal Research
As a public research university, the U is committed to scientific advancement. The institution focuses on developing medical treatments, discovering protective measures and expanding scientific knowledge, which it claims all require animal research.
The U explains animal research is essential not only in conducting medical research but also in fulfilling requirements set by federal guidelines, and without the information provided by animal testing, many treatments, cures and medical devices would have never been developed.
To address various concerns about animal testing, the U says individuals conducting research with animals must follow “internationally accepted guiding principles called the ‘three R’s’: replace, refine and reduce.”
When it is appropriate, researchers are expected to “choose alternative methods to replace animals … refine their studies by optimizing procedures to maximize the comfort and welfare of animals … [and] reduce the number of animals to the minimum needed in order to obtain accurate and informative results.”
In addition to these guiding principles, animal research at the U is monitored by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which is “made up of scientists experienced in this type of work, on-campus veterinarians and representatives from the community.”
According to the U, the IACUC “aids investigators, laboratory personnel and research facility administrators in developing sound policies while being compliant with federal regulations.”
These federal regulations include the Animal Welfare Act, which was enacted in 1966 and is currently the only federal law that regulates how animals are treated during testing.
Still, even with these established guidelines, some claim the U does not implement enough measures to prevent animals from being harmed.
Michael Budkie, co-founder and executive director of Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN), explained the Animal Welfare Act is limited in its ability to protect animals.
“The vast majority of animals in laboratories are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act … Rats, mice, and some other species are excluded from the definition of the word ‘animal’ as far as the Animal Welfare Act is concerned,” Budkie said.
Budkie explained that since certain regulations do not apply to these animals, there are fewer opportunities to prevent them from suffering during experimentation.
Budkie also said there are numerous alternatives the university could use instead of animal testing.
He lists “organ-on-a-chip technology” and “3-D bioprinting” as superior methods to animal testing because they do not have to account for biological differences between species.
“It’s become much more common now that research is performed without animals … all of these methods provide much more useful information for human medicine,” Budkie said.
Past Incidents
The U said it has continuously attempted to minimize suffering in animal testing. Still, multiple incidents of animal mistreatment have been reported in the past.
In an investigation conducted in 2009, a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) worked undercover for over eight months in a research laboratory. After the investigation, PETA described the “miserable conditions” animals had to live in.
“Rats and monkeys had holes drilled into their skulls in invasive brain experiments. The monkeys were locked in steel cages by themselves, kept constantly thirsty so that they would do what experimenters wanted just for a sip of water … Sick and injured animals were denied veterinary care and left to languish and die,” PETA said.
PETA explained that because of its investigation, the university received nine citations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating animal protection regulations. The organization added its investigation also prompted legislators to amend Utah’s pound-seizure law so that it will prohibit forcing animal shelters to sell cats and dogs to research laboratories. The U has since stopped purchasing cats and dogs from shelters for experiments.
In a subsequent report, PETA said incidents at the university continued years after their initial investigation. The organization listed the deaths of two rabbits, one marmoset monkey in 2015, one lamb in 2017 and numerous mice and rats as evidence of the U’s repeated mistreatment of animals.
According to PETA, the rabbits were euthanized using a carcinogen named urethane, the marmoset monkey died after a brain surgery that was performed without proper anesthesia, the lamb passed away in an unapproved procedure after being given the drug methacholine and the mice and rats were killed by intense heat and dry ice.
PETA explained that the individuals whose laboratories conducted these experiments received taxpayer money for their research, and many were allowed to keep their funds even after violating university guidelines and federal regulations.
The reports made by PETA are not the only incidents that have occurred in the U’s research laboratories.
In 2015, a macaque monkey died after being burned by a heater after researchers tried to raise its body temperature. In the same year, another marmoset monkey died after researchers conducted a procedure that took them longer than the recommended amount of time.
In 2017, a rabbit died after miscommunication between researchers caused the animal to be deprived of oxygen for nearly four minutes.
In 2019, 2020 and 2021, several monkeys died in separate research laboratories, including some that overheated in their enclosures and others that underwent failed procedures.
Recent Deaths
Although many incidents happened in the past, some have occurred more recently. According to documents obtained through a GRAMA request by SAEN, two cases of animal deaths in research laboratories were reported earlier this year.
One document said a canine died on March 22, 2024. The dog “presented in lateral recumbency with significant salivation and regurgitation … On post-mortem examination, a septic effusion (pyothorax) was found within the pleural space. A single surgical gauze was found adhered to the left lateral thoracic wall.”
Another document said a rhesus macaque died on April 18, 2024. The monkey’s “collar had become attached to a standard metal alloy non-locking (straight) carabineer used to suspend a primate hammock from the ceiling of the enclosure. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation secondary to hanging strangulation.”
In his letter to U President Taylor Randall, Budkie said these incidents were a result of negligence. He explained if researchers had taken appropriate precautions, the animals would still be alive.
“If rigorous guidelines were followed, then a dog wouldn’t have died because a forgotten surgical gauze caused a pyothorax,” Budkie said. “Neither do facilities that follow the ‘highest standards of animal welfare’ allow monkeys to be hung by the neck until dead.”
According to both documents, “corrective actions” were taken after the animals’ deaths. In the case of the dog, this included replacing surgical gauze with “sterile surgical towels,” keeping a count of the surgical gauze and ordering “radiopaque sterile surgical gauze” to be able to confirm the count. In the case of the macaque, no longer providing “suspended enrichment” for macaques with collars and providing “appropriate training” to animal care staff was implemented.
Budkie said these measures were not enough to prevent future complications. He explained that the university must take further action to promote the values it claims to uphold.
“If the University of Utah wants to maintain any pretense of living up to the lofty statements on the website, then those who are responsible for the deaths of these two animals must be fired,” Budkie said.
University Response
Despite concerns about incidents in research laboratories, the U has continuously emphasized the importance of using animals in its experiments.
In a May 2024 press release titled “Animal research matters,” Vice President for Research Erin Rothwell said animal research is necessary for scientific development.
“Animal research is an irreplaceable step for scientists to develop treatments for diseases and disabilities, advance scientific understanding, and find ways to protect the safety of people, animals and the environment,” Rothwell said.
Julie Kiefer, director of research communications, said in a written response that the recent deaths of the canine and the rhesus macaque were unfortunate yet infrequent examples of research laboratory incidents.
“We are saddened by these unexpected events and want to assure you that we take them very seriously … Incidents like this are extremely rare, and we are committed to reducing the number even further to ensure humane animal care in every research study,” Kiefer said.
Budkie said there is also a financial incentive that makes the U biased in its support of animal testing. He said because the university received funding for animal research, they have an incentive to defend it.
“When you have an entity like the University of Utah espousing the need for animal research … you have to keep in mind that places like the University of Utah are paid to perform that research,” Budkie said.
According to Kiefer, the U has taken additional measures to prevent animal deaths in research laboratories since the recent incidents involving the canine and the rhesus macaque.
“In response, the University of Utah proactively notified local and national animal welfare agencies. Our teams have also taken proactive steps to update protocols, equipment and training to minimize the chance of reoccurrence,” Kiefer said.
Budkie said that the university’s actions were still not sufficient. He said because of its repeated mistakes and the existence of better alternatives, the university should cease animal testing entirely.
“If they can’t even perform a basic surgical procedure correctly, why should we believe they can do science,” Budkie said.
