Letter from FRAMEBy Caren Broadhead, Ph.D. On Thursday March 28, the telephones at the FRAME office started ringing at 7 a.m. Our two phone lines were permanently jammed until 5:30 p.m., when the last member of the staff, exhausted from talking to so many angry and upset people, left the office. On that day we received over 200 calls, and we have received almost 100 more since. In addition, other animal welfare organizations, politicians and government bodies were bombarded with calls. The reason for such public outcry was in response to the screening of a documentary film the previous evening. The footage was taken by Zoe during a two-month undercover investigation at one of the United Kingdom's largest contract testing organizations. Zoe was concerned about the way in which laboratory dogs were used, so she applied for a job as a laboratory technician. This is far from the first time such investigations have uncovered horrific practices in research establishments. However, none has previously been shown on television, and few have focused on laboratory dogs. The film clearly showed the following appalling events: - On her first day, Zoe was asked to check the state of the dog's health, and to note any abnormalities. In breach of regulations, Zoe was untrained and obviously not sufficiently competent for the task.
- The dogs were housed individually in pens where the only bedding material was sawdust. This was soaked in excrement, and the dogs were forced to sleep in this. Such housing conditions do not meet the standards set by the U.K. "Codes of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures."
- The dogs received less than one hour of exercise each day, in narrow corridors. This is not sufficient.
- The technicians who prepared the capsules and injections for dosing the dogs were seen to weight the chemicals inaccurately and to administer the wrong dose of chemicals. In one case, the technician became impatient when trying to inject a dog, and he administered a small amount of chemical before throwing the rest away. These inaccuracies in experimental protocol mean that the results were likely to have been meaningless, and the dogs were therefore wasted.
- The most appalling part of the film was seen when a technician was trying to inject a beagle. He was having difficulty getting the needle into the vein because the dog moved. He lost his temper, picked the dog up by its neck and beat it around its head and stomach with his fist. Seconds later, he shook the dog vigorously, whilst shouting at the dog.
The situation was made worse by the fact that none of the other technicians interceded on the dog's behalf; in fact some found the episode amusing. There were other dreadful scenes, including one in which the dog involved could not be seen, but its cries were horrific. Many people, myself included, will never forget those cries of pain. Without this evidence, I would have had difficulty believing that anyone could act in such a mean, uncaring way toward any laboratory animal, but particularly toward a gentle beagle (in the United Kingdom, only purpose-bred beagles are permitted for use in research, unless exceptional circumstances apply.) It is considered by many that Great Britain has some of the strictest legislation to protect standards of animal welfare in research laboratories. However, the TV documentary raises serious concerns about the implementation of relevant U.K. legislation, The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which in this instance at least, was seriously deficient. The film also raises the question about the adequacy of current legislation and levels of government funding provided to ensure its effective operation in safeguarding laboratory animal welfare. If legislation such as that in Great Britain is not effective enough to protect laboratory animals, then I have no doubt that atrocities like those seen in the film are occurring worldwide on a huge scale. It is time for us to set our standards for the protection of laboratory animals much higher than ever before. There can be no excuses for the mistreatment of laboratory animals and we should not need to rely on undercover investigations to show that rules are being broken. We need effective controls in place to ensure that the legislation is strictly implemented by all researchers in all countries. Dr. Broadhead is scientific officer at FRAME. Letters from FRAME are run without editing by CAAT. | 
