ftifiiliili•:• .•••,^;^.":.•:'••"!

i'i'v'''••• • • i -.^.^^»^7,-"toUN'^";::.'H>v;:v;^^;;:V'5::.;; V

Department OfItWi^A^^;•v^^.¥^S'•^^!•-'^'-'•.••.•;^•"•'^'•'''?r^•liiii»

COMPniOUJB^ OCNBRAL OF THE UNriVD STAnBi^vAnfiNQTON. o.e.

B-157334
The Honorable Les Aspin
House of Representatively
Dear Mr. Aspin:Your letter of July 15, 1975, rec^uested us to investigate
the Army's compliance with section 703 of Public Law Sf3-365 !
dated August 5, 1974, which prohibited the use of dbgs: forresearch and development of chemical or biological weapons*(See app. I.) Specifically, you asked us to investigate all
experiments which have taken place since the Passage of thelaw, inspect experiments currently underway, and study f^^^experiments to determine whether the prbvlsion's of sect 1^
703 are being adhered to.
Section 703 states:"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nofunds authorized to be appropriated pursuant tothis Act may be used for research, testin<;[, and/or
evaluation of poisonous gases, radioactiive materials, poisonous chemicals, or biological orchemical warfare agents upon dogs for ;the purposeof developing biological or chemical weapons;"
As noted in your letter, the Department of Defense said it
would adhere to these restrictions even after their expiration on June 30, 1975.
The Senate and House conferees iii their report,pn.!
Public Law 93-365 stated that they did not support^theiuof dogs for research in chemical and biological agents ^;^,^^
whose only purpose is to destroy life. The conferees ber: ^^^^^::
lieved it essential, however, that research to imprbveands
save lives of either man or animal Jbe bonitinuied. ;The cpn-^^^;^:^^^
ferees agreed that certain research should be condiiictedthat would benefit the health and safety^ of :mah>rThe^
language as agreed to by the cohferebai was intendied^ t^^^^^^
prohibit the use of dogs in research for the purppse d|- ideveloping biological or x:hemical weapons^ Roweyerr it ;;:;:
did not prohibit research on dogs fpr other p^
as establishing Imrnunologic levela,; occupantidriii^^^^hazard levels, and other vital medical researdh designed to
improve and save lives.

B-157334
In our opinion, the Army complied with the legal
restrictions imposed on it for fiscal year 1975, and if the
Army's current research continues as planned, we believethat compliance with these restrictions will continue.
In discussing this assignment, your office inidicatefd
a general concern about the humane treatment of the dpgs'
housed at Edgewood Arsenal and the lack of Inspections ofFederal research facilities by the Department of Agriculture
as part of its responsibilities under the Laboratory Animal
Welfare Act. At the Army's request, the Department ofAgriculture inspected the animal facilities at Edgewood ;;Arsenal and found the animals were receiving above average
care and treatment. Dogs being exposed to toxic matbtials'
in exposure chambers were being well cared for during'theexperiment. The problems encountered by the Department Of
Agriculture were related to the facilities in which theanimals were housed. (See p. 6.) At the time of oiir visit,
the dogs appeared to be in good condition, but we believethat the facilities should be improved.
Even though the Animal Welfare Act does not now requireit, we believe that the treatment of animals in Pbderal research facilities might be improved if the Department ofAgriculture is authorized to make inspections. Legislation
would be required.
USE OF DOGS BY BIOMEDICAL LABORATORY,EDGEWOOD"ARSENAL
According to the Army, its experiments involving dogs
to test detoxification of chemical munitions and experiments on new nonlethal riot gases, mentioned in yourletter, were being conducted only at the Army Biomedical
Laboratory, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. Edgewood Arsenal
is an element of the Army Materiel Command.
Dogs are used by the Biomedical Laboratory in different
studies, such as chronic studies Involving low-level dosagieSi
of substances administered over a period'of several'months and acute studies involving dosaiges thiat produce effecta^^^.'
within 24 hours. Such substances are administered in various
ways—intravenously, by inhalation, or directly to the skin.
The Laboratory normally uses only one breed of dbg-- ••beagles—because extensive technical data is available on
the beagle, and various test results from studies, such' as-;'••• 'r'-'-l-^x^jM^^^^iiM:•• ''P,....

B-157334
cardiovascular and respiraitory studies, can be projected forhumans.
Dogs are issued to researchers by the Laboratory's
Veterinary Medicine Division. These animals may then be used
for more than one experiment and in more than one fiscal year.
No dog is ever released to be used for other purposesr all
dogs are eventually sacrificed to evaluate the pathologicaleffects of the chemicals administered. The Veterinary Nedi^
cine Division has information readily available on the numberof dogs issued during the year, but not for the number of; ;,;.
times a dog is used during any given year. At the time of^our visit, September 8-11, 1975, 170 dogs were being used inexperiments.
We reviewed pertinent documents on the projects involving
dogs performed by the Biomedical Laboratory in fiscal year
1975, those presently being performed, and those planned,for
future years.
Fiscal year 1975 projects
In fiscal year 1975 dogs were Issued for three research
projects.
Project
Prophylaxis and therapy forincapacitating agents(note a)Number of dogs

2

Prophylaxis and therapy forlethal agents
Parathion safety studie:?
Total

50
72
124

a/See appendix II for a glossary of terms.
The first project, prophylaxis and therapy forincapacitating agents, involves the discovery and evaluationof drugs, methods, and equipment required for prevention andtreatment of poisoning cauued by incapacitating and riot control agents.
The second project is a "search for drugs and othermeans to achieve prophylaxis against or treatment forpoisoning by lethal chemical agents and to devise the mosteffective ways of applying them."B-157334
T h e third p r o j e c t , being done at the request of thd
N a t i o n a l Institute of O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety and H e a l t h , a s s e s s e s the effects of oral and inhalation e x p o s u r e s top a r a t h i o n , a p e s t i c i d e . The results are to be used to d e t e r m i n e toxic effects in man and to e s t a b l i s h safe l e v e l s ofe x p o s u r e to p a r a t h i o n for w o r k e r s and the general p o p u l a t i o n ;Fiscal year 1976 p r o j e c t s
In fiscal year 1976 two p r o j e c t s involve the use ofd o g s . O n e is a c o n t i n u a t i o n of a prior p r o j e c t — t h e studyd e v e l o p i n g p r o p h y l a x i s and therapy for lethal a g e n t s . A sof N o v e m b e r 6, 1 9 7 5 , 40 dogs had been issued for thisp r o j e c t and another 300 d o g s were planned to be Issued.
T h e second p r o j e c t , toxicology of chemical a g e n t s , w a s
issued 202 d o g s in fiscal year 1 9 7 4 , none in 1 9 7 5 , and is tor e c e i v e 96 in fiscal year 1 9 7 6 . The project w a s begun in
1 9 7 0 . Army d o c u m e n t s stated that the o b j e c t i v e s w e r e to as-!sess the lethal or incapacitating e f f e c t s of chemical c o m p o u n d s and select the most promising as p o t e n t i a l filling: fpr
chemical m u n i t i o n s systems and to d e t e r m i n e toxicity ofm i l i t a r y c h e m i c a l s which might pose a hazard to m i l i t a r y
p e r s o n n e l using such c h e m i c a l s .
In recent years the Army has described the p r o j e c t ' s
o b j e c t i v e s as being to assess the lethal and i n c a p a c i t a t i n g
e f f e c t s of c o m p o u n d s and to select the most promising forintensive study. Other biological and m e d i c a l e f f e c t s are
e v a l u a t e d as necessary.
A c c o r d i n g to the Army researcher r e s p o n s i b l e for t h i s
p r o j e c t , the use of dogs has been restricted to technolo<giicals t u d i e s of the toxicity of chemical c o m p o u n d s of binary inant-^
tions to d e t e r m i n e the hazards to personnel using such chemiir
c a l s . The project is directed toward satisfying o c c u p a t i o n a lsafety limits for personnel working in l a b o r a t o r i e s , fieldt e s t s , h a n d l i n g , and transporting of chemical s u b s t a n c e s .
T h e tests include e v a l u a t i o n s of m u t a g e n i c or t e r a t o l o g i ceffects.
Army d o c u m e n t a t i o n states that data from the s t u d i e swill be used to d e t e r m i n e airborne c o n c e n t r a t i o n l e v e l s ,w h i c h in turn will be used to establish human health h a z a r d s .
The e x p e r i m e n t s have been designed to provide animal (includr
ino d o g s ) d a t a which can be extrapolated to m a n .
T h i s particular research project supports the b l n a t y
m u n i t i o n s program but is oriented toward the health hazard•:;:•;•": : H i B s l

B-157334
evaluation of chemical compounds. The Senate and House
Conference Report for Public Law 93-365 said that ths intent
of the law was not to prohibit research on dogs for such
purposes as establishing Occupational safety levels. Therefore, as long as the research on dogs is for the purpose ofevaluating the health hazard of chemical compounds to insure
safe working conditions for personnel handling the compbundsv
we believe that the Army is complying with the intent of thelaw for this particular project.
Future use of dogs
The research tasks currently underway are scheduled
to continue using dogs for the next 3 to 4 years, withthe exception of the parathion study, which is to be completed by June 30, 1976.
In June 1975 the Army projected that it would require
another 20 dogs for an in-house research project to develpp 'C
therapeutic means of detoxifying certain organophbsphbrus ;'compounds. The Army planned to use dogs as test ahimals,
because dogs are similar to human beings in that neither
dogs nor humans are able to detoxify these organophosphbriis
compounds in their bodies. This project has been deferred
but is to be reprogramed at a future date.
Facilities and care of dogs
The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, Public Law
89-544, as amended by the Animal Welfare Act of 1970, Public
Law 91-579, empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to estab-: i!
lish standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment;,
and transportation of animals by dealers, research faclll.
ties, and exhibitors. Although Federal agencies are r e - ^ " 'quired by law to comply with the standards issued under theact, the Department of Agriculture has determined that it ;does not have regulatory jurisdiction over Federal laboratory'
animal facilities. However, it will inspect such facilities.:
if an official written request is received.
We considered whether the Department of Agriculture Is^''required to inspect the facilities of Federal agencies cbn^
ducting research on animal$. In our opinion, the require- ;hments of the act pertaining to inspections do not apply
to Federal research facilities.
In response to a written request from the Office of
the Army Surgeon General, the Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service of the Department of Agriculture inspected the facilities and dogs at Edgewood Arsenal.

B-157334
In its August 20, 1975, report, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service concluded that the animals werereceiving at least above average care and treatment and the
Army's sanitation procedures exceeded minimum standards.
However, the report stated that the structural design andconstruction of the buildings prevented adequate cpntrpl
of rodents and other pests, both in the animal rooms andin the feed storage areas. In addition, some of the facili'ties had inadequate ventilation. This report also statedthat satisfactory sanitation cannot be accomplished in all
rooms and buildings due to the inadequate facilities.
The report stated that sufficient renovation could bedone to comply with Department of Agriculture minimum
standards for animal facilities, but to achieve a long-term
solution, new facilities would be necessary. Several reguests for new animal facilities have been made since 1963
by Edgewood Arsenal, up until fiscal year 1976, the re- _^quests have been turned down by either higher Army coinmands
or the Congress. The Congress appropriated $7 million for
a new research animal isolation facility in fiscal year
1976.
One of the main concerns expressed in the inspection
report was the use of grating for floors in the pens. (Seeexhibit A.) Although the inspectors could find no evidence
that this type of flooring was harming the dogs' feet, they
expcesscci the hope that the grating could be replaced. In
response to this inspection, the Army stated that it had
requisitioned ri«w grating of a different style to satisfy
the inspectors.
Our observations at Edgewood Arsenal
In response to your concern about the humane treatmentof the dogs, we are pioviding you with our observations
from a layman's point ot view on the facilities and cohdition of the dogs at tho Biomedical Laboratory. The facilities used for housing the dogs consisted of four buildings,
one of which is being lenovated. when the new animal facility requested by the Army is completed, two of the fourbuildings are to be denolished (see exhibits B and C)' andone building will be reassigned to the Aberdeen Proving
Grounds. None of these buildings appeared to us tP be entirely satisfactory for housing animals.
The cages anc^ pens ranged in size from a rather small,
plastic and metal cage for a single dog to large pens forB-157334

several dogs. The cages were used in the quarantine period
of about 7 days. These cages in some cases appeared tO; be
too small for the dog. (See exhibit D.) The larger pensheld four dogs, and the smaller pens held one or two dpgs.
(See exhibits E and F.) The size of the pens seemed to beadequate.
The dogs appeared to be in good condition; i.e., none ,of them were lying listlessly in the pens. (See exhibit 6>)
Almost all of the dogs were active and only a few dogs weretimid.
The dogs we observed were involved in various experiments (see exhibit H); however, there were no dogs in thetest chambers at the time of our visit. (See exhibit I.)
USE OF DOGS BY THE U.S. ARMY
ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY
Dogs are also used by the U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency located at the Edgewood area of the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds. The dogs used by the Agency are procuredby the Biomedical Laboratory at Edgewood Arsenal. The work
It the Agency does tot fail within the scope of section 703
of Public Law 93-365, because it is not in the area of chemical and biological ;«arfare.
The Agency's mission is to support worldwide healthand environmental programs of the Army and other Federal
agencies. A recent example of the Agency's use of dogs
was in experiments designed for toxicological evaluationsof insect repellant compounds proposed for use and standardization by the Army. The number of dogs received foreach fiscal year follows.
Fiscal year

Number of dogs

1974
1975
1976

64
0
a/16

a/The Environmental Hygiene Agency will receive a totalof 30 dogs during fiscal year 1976.

B-157334
We did not obtain formal comments on the matters
discussed in this report. We did, however, informally dls-i
cuss the factual content with Army officials at Edgewood
Arsenal.
In view of their concerns regarding the matters
discussed in this report, we believe it should be made'available to the agencies and other interested parties.
Therefore, we will be in touch with your office in the 'near future to discuss distribution.
Sincerely
incepeiy yours.
yours,jComptroller Generalof the United States• • . » . : :««*i^: w:aR::a#iMi^i:Ksiii^

iSlftlAPPEHDIXiill

APPENDIX ILES ASPIN
UT onnneT, WinoM

Congress of tiie lHn|teb#tatef(

iMMaKianalr''

UtouMt of iBleprtfentaHbtf«fau«ftt8ton.»C ^ 1 5
July 15, 1975
Elmer B. Staats
Comptroller General of the U.S.
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Staatsi
I am vnritlng to you today to request that the dJBrtef'ijif - IAccounting Office investigate the Army's compliahce with-; ; y • •section 703 of Public Law 93-365 which prohibits the use,ofdogs for research and development of any new chemical and :;biological weapon.
Section 703 of Public Law 93-365 states "notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no funds authorized to be'.:appropriated pursuant to this act may be used for materlaiB,^,J' ^(poisonous chemicals, or biological chemical warfare agents .'on dogs for the purpose of developing biological or chemical 'weapons."
On June 24th, 1975 Or. Malcolm R. Currie, Directorbfj vl
Defense Research and Engineering wrote to the Chainten: of''' :'the House and Senate Armed Services Committee indicating: !^'that even after the expiri^tion of P.L. 93-365 OH Jiiinib 30th,:
1975, "DOD will, of cours4?, adhere to the restribtlpn^V'^' ; ;;'^
contained in Section 703.
At present, the Army is conducting another aeriesfpfi;
experiments involving dogif to test the methods tia d^^^chemical munitions and some experiments; oh: new njph-lith^^riot gases. I believe that an indepertdiBnt rihqialryl intb; the.
Army's claims of conformity with the law is nee|3e>d^::H!:: 5
Recently, officials of the Humane::i3pcietyyi^lte(^^Edgewood Arsenal to inspect conditionii';. ttiey Airor^lls^
from vievring any of the experiments betliig conducted : b y 1 ^•!i
VMS frATioNcirrraiNmON PMmmatliimm

m^V

•Mm
;ijl!^^:S-;:i3ii§!luJiaa.,

SiffliaeiiMrJlto

APPENDIX I

BLnar B. Staats

APPENDIX I

Jtily 15, 1975

Department of the Amy.
X hops that your staff can. Investigate all of the experinenta which have taken place on dogs since the passage
of Public Law 93-365, Inspect eiqperiaehte currently underway, and study future experiments to d|itffifRII^<i^|ether th6
provisions of Section 703 are belngyimered to oNoot.
Ny staff %<Duld be happy to tu§it «rith your 8l:aff|attheir earliest convenience to disJutsa this matter.
Thank you very much for your Ypoperat^n,
HincerelY,

repiiTiier of Congress
LAtbad3::J':;!;!-.

mmmm

if m^

i;.n'ip-p'M '• S'Ci..;APPENDIX ZIAPPENDIX IIGLOSSARY
Detoxify

To remove a poison or toxin.

Mutagenic

Relating to a relatively permanentchange in hereditary material.

Organophosphorus

Relating to or being a phosphoruscontaining organic pesticide (such asparathion).

Prophylaxis

Measures designed to preserve health - .
and to prevent the spread of dlseaee. .

Teratologic

Relating to developmental malformatiPna
and monstrosities.

Therapeutic

Of or relating to the treatment of' </:disease or disorders by remedial agehts
or methods.

Toxicology

A science that deals with poisons and :their effect and with the problems Inivolved.

:...••'•'•••:.

mmkffm^.iPimm!i;..,,j;:.jii|M

iTCr'vwip-':

METAL FLOOR GRATING
ALL PHOTdGf^APHS WERE FURNISHED BY
EpGEWbbb ARSENAL:cirs^u-'\fs*ww •/' ••^^^^?fmwi-^'i

i-^Sr'/;yAfi'?i'iiTivr;'^i^*-;'<'TIir' T^V!?.:'yS:'-"??^?^

BUJi:EHN6l^$i2i^t-^r-iX-IoA TYPICAL TEST ANIMAL