Petition for Rulemaking U.S. Department of Agriculture

May 7, 2014

To Establish Criteria to Promote the Psychologi cal Well-Being of Primates as Required by the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)( B)), Including Adopting the “Ethologically Appropriate Environments” Accepted by the Nationa l Institutes of Health with Respect to All
Primates Used in Research

Darla at Fauna Sanctuary © NJWight2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. .. 3

2. Description of Petitioners .............................................................................................. 6

3. Current Regulations Addressing the Psyc hological Well-Being of Primates ................ 7

A. The Animal Welfare Act .................................................................................... 7

B. Amendment Mandating a Minimum Standard to Promote the
Psychological Well-Being of Primates .............................................................. 8

C. Current Standards are Unenforceable .............................................................. 10

4. NIH Actions Promoting Psychological Well-Being .................................................... 19

A. Institute of Medicine Conclusions ................................................................... 19

B. Council of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIHSupported Research ......................................................................................... 19

C. NIH-Accepted Recommendations for Chimpanzees ....................................... 20

5. Adverse Effects on the Psychological Well-Be ing of Primates Due to the Lack of

Concrete Standards ...................................................................................................... 33

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 33

B. Manifestations of Psyc hological Distress ........................................................ 35

C. Examples of Nonhuman Pr imate Suffering ..................................................... 42

6. Adverse Effects on Scientific Results and Validity ..................................................... 46

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 48

8. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ 513 1. Introduction

The New England Anti-Vivisecti on Society (NEAVS), the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA), the Laboratory Primate A dvocacy Group (LPAG), and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) petition the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to exercise its authority under th e Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B)) to promulgate clear standards and definitions to promote the psychological wellbeing and appropriate ethological environments for primates used in research. The AWA provides that “[t]he Secretary sh all promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research, facilities, a nd exhibitors;” and that such standards “shall include minimum requireme nts...for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of pr imates.” (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1) - (2)(B)).

Current implementing regulations, 9 C.F.R. § 3.81 et seq, allow facilities to develop their own “plan” for environmental enhancement “adequate to promote the psychological well-being of non-human primates.” Id. To fulfill this requirement of the AWA, the regulations further provide that “[t]he plan must be in accordance with the currently accepted professional standards as cited in appropriate professiona l journals or reference guides.” Id. Unfortunately, this current requirement is so vague that it lacks any enforceable de finition of how to eval uate if such a plan is actually effectively designed or implemented in a way that promotes the primates’ psychological well-being. While so me additional guidance is provi ded regarding social grouping, environmental enrichment, special considera tions, restraint devices, and exemptions ( see 9 C.F.R. § 3.81(b) - (e)), importan tly, a lack of concrete, measureable, and enforceable definitions and criteria within the regulat ions has resulted in almost no meaningful regulation of the psychological well-being of primates used in res earch, and a lack of congruent application across
facilities. For the reasons stated herein, the USDA must take ac tion to promulgate enforceable standards and criteria to promote the psychological well-being of primates.

On June 26, 2013 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) accepted recommendations of an NIHconvened Council of Councils (CoC) concerning the “ethologically appropriate environment” for chimpanzees used in NIH-funded research – e.g. “captive environments that do not simply allow but also, importantly, promote a fu ll range of behaviors that are na tural for chimpanzees.” (78 FR 39741 (July 2, 2013)). The new NIH recommendations are based on scien tific evidence and expertise from some of the world’s lead ing experts on chimpanzee well-being. These recommendations present a substantiated and cl ear definition of key components of what is4 minimally necessary to promote the psychological well-being for primates – i.e. environmental enhancement, access to the outdoors, and opportun ities for choice and self-determination. With this Petition, we urge the USDA to adopt these same, species appropriate standards as the “minimum requirements” for a “physical enviro nment adequate to promote the psychological well-being” of all prima tes used in research . (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B)).

As explained by former USDA Animal and Pl ant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Deputy
Administrator Dale Schwindama n, the USDA and NIH have a hist ory of working “together to
ensure harmonized animal welfar e requirements by those two agen cies,” such as the initial implementation of the 1985 amendments to the AW A and the Interagency Research Animal Care Committee. (Schwindaman, 2011; USDA, 1989). The AWA itself stresses the importance of this relationship by providing that the Secretary of Agriculture “shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services” prior to i ssuing regulations. (7 U.S.C. § 2145).

As a matter of consistency, and to promote harm onization of regulatory a pproaches to the same problems, NIH’s newly accepted re commendations for ethologically appropriate environments for chimpanzees provide standards that shoul d be adopted by the USDA for chimpanzees and provide a baseline that should be adopted with appropriate modifications for all primates held in
laboratories.

As discussed herein, the past two decades have provided ample evidence that clearer, enforceable standards are imperative for the USDA to fulfill its statutory mandate of promoting and protecting the psychological well-being of primates. As APHIS’s Animal Care’s Primate
Environment Enhancement Team concluded 15 years ago:

[E]ducational efforts alone are not sufficient to gain compliance. There always exist some facilities that must be compelled by enforcement. . . Fairness in government requires that if regulations exist, they are enforced uniformly and consistently. . . In order for minimum standards to be enforceable, the standards must have de finition and structure. It must be clear to all facilities when viola tions occur and enforcement action is

necessary . The concept of minimum criteria has been useful in government regulations because it obj ectifies what is unacceptable and
increases fairness.

(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999, emphasis added).5 The necessity of the AWA’s mandate to promote the psychological well-being of primates was clear to Congress when it passed this 1985 am endment; it is even clearer today given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that has been amassed over the last 30 years as to the psychological capabilities and needs of primates, our ethical responsibilit ies towards them, and the implications of psychological well-being for sc ientifically valid research results. Currently, primates often develop pathologi cal behaviors and suffer severe st ress due to confinement, little or no social or mental enrichment, a complete la ck of control over their environments, and living
in an artificial environment wher e stressors are ever-present, unpr edictable, and create learned helplessness given the animals’ complete inability to deter, escape, or fight off harm or hardship. There is a wealth of information concerning the psychological well-being of primates that was not available at the time the USDA regulations for psychological well-being were drafted in 1991. The NIH’s new recommendations for chimpanzee environments provide a valuable and readily available starting point for the USDA to amend Section 3.81 of the AWA regulations to upgrade the “minimum requirements” for a “phy sical environment adeq uate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.” (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1) – (2)(B)).6 2. Description of Petitioners

The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), founded in 1895, is a Boston-based, national animal advocacy organization dedicated to ending the use of animals in research, testing, and science education. Through researc h, outreach, education, legislation, litigation, and policy change, NEAVS advocates for replacing an imals with modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely, and sc ientifically superior.

The North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA) is an alli ance of sanctuaries
which meet the standards of care and accredita tion set forth by the Global Federation of Sanctuaries, and includes Fauna Foundation, Cent er for Great Apes, Chimp Haven, Chimps Inc., Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, Jungle Friend s Primate Sanctuary, Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, and the Primate Rescue Center.

The Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group (LPAG) is comprised of individuals representing more than 60 years of experience working with nonhuman primates. Current human members have worked in 18 laboratories, z oos, field sites, and sanctuaries.

Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) is a non-profit corporation founded in 1979 to protect the lives and interests of animals through the enforcem ent of laws enacted to protect animals, and through the provision of informati on to others desiring to protect the lives and interest of
animals. Based in Petaluma California, ALDF has approxima tely 100,000 members nationwide, including lawyers, law professors , law students, and othe r individuals interest ed in protecting the lives and interests of primates.7 3. Current Regulations Addressing the Psychological Well-Being of Primates

A. The Animal Welfare Act

Congress has recognized the incr easing need to protect animal welfare through regulation over the past five decades. Initially known as the La boratory Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-544), the AWA is the first and predominant federal law regulating animals in research. Originally enacted in 1966, the law was narrowly focused on curtaili ng the buying and selling of stolen dogs and
cats. The statute also directed the Secretary of Agriculture to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transp ortation of animals by dealers and research facilities,” defining “animals” as dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. However, in the original Act, the USDA’s regul atory authority was limited to activities that occurred “pre-research.” (Adams & Larson, 2012).

The AWA was amended numerous times in an attempt to “strengthen enforcement, expand coverage to more animals and activities, or curtail practices viewed as cruel, among other things.” (Cowan, 2012). The 1970 amendment expande d species coverage to include “any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determ ine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet...” (7 U.S.C. § 2132(g), Pub. L. 91–579). The amendment also required a standard requiring “the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or eu thanasia...” (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(3)(A), Pub. L. 91–579). The 1976 amendments formally named th e statute the “Animal Welfare Act” and expanded coverage of the Act in various ways, including to animal s in transport and dogs used for hunting, security, or breed ing purposes. (Pub. L. 94–279).

Further amendments largely aimed to increase standards and protections for animals, including 1990 amendments to prevent the buyi ng and selling of stolen pets ( see Pub. L. 101–624); 2002 amendments to expand animal fighting prohibitions ( see Pub. L. 107–171 1 ); 2007 amendments to prohibit animal fighting activities ( see Pub. L. 110-22); and, 2008 amendments to increase fines for violations ( see Pub. L. 110–246).

1 The 2002 amendment also excluded AWA coverage for birds, rats, and mice bred for research purposes.8 However, the 1985 amendments to the AWA ar e considered the most comprehensive, “provid[ing] major changes rega rding the scope and breadth of USDA’s jurisdiction over animal welfare in the laboratory, testing of animals, animals used in higher education (e.g., not food or fiber related courses), animals on exhibit a nd captive marine mammals.” (Adams & Larson, 2012). Among other critical modi fications, the 1985 amendments mandated standards to minimize pain; exercise requirements for dogs; the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to oversee animal care and use; the consideration of alternatives to animal use when experiments involved pain, suffering, or unnecessary duplication; and “minimum requirements” to “promote the psychological well-being of primates.” (S ee Pub. L. 99-198 § 1752).

B. Amendment Mandating a Minimum Standard to Promote the Psychological Well-Being of Primates

The 1985 AWA amendment provided:

(1) The Secretary shall promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. (2) The standards described in pa ragraph (1) shall include minimum requirements-- (B) for exercise of dogs, as determin ed by an attending veterinarian in accordance with the general standards promulgated by the Secretary, and for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.

(Pub. L. 99-198 § 1752(a)(2)).

Regarding the psychological well-being of prim ates, Montana Senator John Melcher, DVM, who championed the 1985 AWA amendment, commented:

I have seen the types of cages used in many facilities to house primates. These cages are not much wider than th e average shower stall and there is hardly enough room to allow the animal to stand erect. Under the new provisions, I think we are not only providing humane treatment of these9 animals, but assur[ing] more confiden ce in the results in the experiments they are used in

.

(Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005, emphasis added).

As Jodie Kulpa-Eddy, an APHIS veterinaria n, Sylvia Taylor, a former APHIS Field Specialist, and Kristina Adams, a USDA Animal Welfare Information Center Technical Information Sp ecialist, wrote in 2005:

The purpose of the 1985 amendments was to set the bar higher. For example, the writers knew they wanted to see more primates in larger complex cages, housed together with other primates, receiving more mental and physical stimulation, and behaving in a more normal manner

.

(Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005, emphasis added).

The USDA finalized implementing regulations fo r the AWA’s psychological well-being mandate in 1991. ( See Exhibit 1). The regulations require that “D ealers, exhibitors, a nd research facilities must develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuma n primates,” and that the “plan must be in accordance with the currently a ccepted professional standards as cited in appropriate professional journals or referen ce guides, and as directed by th e attending veterinarian.” (9 C.F.R. § 3.81). They require th at “the environment enhancement plan must include specific provisions to address the social needs of nonhuman primates of species known to exist in social groups in nature” and the “physical environment in the primary enclosures must be enriched by providing means of expressing noninjur ious species-typical activities.” (9 C.F.R. § 3.81(a) – (b)).

The regulations additionally state that those prim ates “that show signs of being in psychological distress through behavior or appearance,” infa nts and young juveniles, those who are on a protocol requiring restricted ac tivity, those housed completely alone , and great apes of a certain size require “special considerations.” (9 C.F.R. § 3.81(c)). There is no additional information on what such “special considerations” must be.

Therefore, in contrast to other USDA standa rds that mandate enforceable requirements – see e.g., 9 C.F.R. § 3.5(a) “The ambien t temperature must not fall below 45°F (7.2°C) for more than 4 consecutive hours when dogs or cats are present, and must not exceed 85°F (29.5°C) for more10 than 4 consecutive hours when dogs or cats are present” 2 – the only concrete requirement for the psychological well-being of primates is the ex istence of the requisite “plan.” There are no specific minimum requirements define d, nor is there any requirement th at the facility’s plan even be reviewed and approved by the USDA, or, for that matter, that the plan even be submitted to the agency. 3

C. Current Standards are Unenforceable

The lack of defined and enforceable minimum standards for the psychological well-being of primates has had consequences at odds with Congress’s intent in enacting the AWA and subsequent amendments. Valarie Stanley, Univer sity of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law professor and former senior staff attorney at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, recounted at a USDA sponsored symposium that, although the flexib ility for regulated faci lities resulting from a lack of clearly defined minimu m standards was intended to allow facilities to provide the best possible care for the animals it has accomplis hed the opposite result. As she explained:

What we've said is there needs to be very specific standards so that all regulated entities provide at least the minimum of what is required. Even under such a scenario, everyone is fre e to provide and do more for their animals, but when you have a situation where you have so much flexibility, it actually can result in nonenforcement of the Act. I
understand there was one License C w ho told a veterinarian who was inspecting him, “You know, with regard to this plan for the psychological well-being of primates, there's nothing you can do to me because there's nothing in those regulations that tell me what I have to do. So as long as I have a plan, that's all that count s and you can't take any other action against me.” And I'll bet you that attit ude is widely held, especially when there are no prosecutions of violations of that requirement. That message is out there that you can do whatever you want as long as you have a plan

on paper.

(Stanley, 1996).

2 See also, e.g., 9 C.F.R. § 3.6 “(A) Each primary enclosure housing cats must be at least 24 in. high (60.96 cm); (B) Cats up to and including 8.8 lbs (4kg) must be provided with at least 3.0 ft 2 (0.28 m 2 ); (C) Cats over 8.8 lbs (4 kg) must be provided with at least 4.0 ft 2 (0.37 m 2 )...”,
3 As a result, these plans also are not generally available for public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.11 In 1989, the USDA informed the public that “[W]e believe that upon promulgation of a final rule to amend part 3 [the psychologi cal well-being regulations], all regulated entities will have adequate guidance in complying with the Act.” (U nited States Department of Agriculture, 1989). However, several APHIS inspector surveys cond ucted since the regulations were promulgated
have demonstrated that this in tention has not been borne out.

The first APHIS survey of inspectors in 1993 note d grave dissatisfaction with the enforceability of the regulations. As repo rted by Kupla-Eddy et al.:

 One-third of inspectors responded that they were unable to distinguish compliance from violation, or enforce these two standards.

 Nearly half of the resp ondents believed that exem ptions to social grouping were being claimed by facilities for “convenience” rather than legitimate health or protocol reasons.

 The majority of respondents believed that the requirement for “special considerations” for certain primates had failed to generate the needed
increase in enrichment or othe r intervention for these animals.

 More than one-third of respondents i ndicated they were dissatisfied with how research facilities were implementing primate enrichment.

 All respondents said that at least half of the rese arch facilities they were assigned to inspect were still ge nerally single-housing primates.

(Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005).

A December 1996 USDA/APHIS surv ey of inspectors similarly re vealed that approximately 45% of inspectors expressed the op inion that it was unclear what fa cilities needed to do in their enrichment plans to be in compliance with the re gulations, and nearly 50% of inspectors said that criteria were not adequate for enforc ement purposes. (Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005).12 The 1996 survey noted a significant “lack of cl arity and specificity in the standards.” (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice, 1999). In response, APHIS recommended improving regulations rega rding psychological well-being by:

 developing guidelines to provide more structure to the existing standards;
and

 requiring facilities to demonstr ate through documentation continued effectiveness of their primate enhancement plans.

(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999).

In 1996, APHIS acknowledged that the regulatio ns regarding the primate environmental enrichment criteria (in S ection 3.81) were sowing “ confusion among the regulated public concerning on what basis they will be judged by inspectors as meeting or not meeting the requirements. ” ( See 64 FR 38145, 38146 (July 15, 1999), emphasis added).

APHIS conducted follow-up inspector interviews in 1997. The results published in 1999 revealed similar complaints about the unenforcea bility of the regulati ons – i.e., inspectors expressed their view that “ the standards contain few solid cr iteria on which an inspector can judge the content of a plan as ‘in compliance’ or ‘out of compliance ’” and they “had concerns about Agency support for particular interpretations or judgment because of the vague language and nature of the performance standard. ” (Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005, em phasis added). Another problem was the difficulty in proving actual im plementation of an enhancement plan, and the report noted that inspectors recommended clearer requirements for documentation of implementation. Id.

In the 1997 interviews, again insp ectors noted that too many prim ates were unnecessarily singlehoused. (Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005). Inspectors also noted that some f acilities considered enrichment plans adequate simply with the pr ovision of “one perch, one rubber toy, and a few grapes now and then for each singly caged primate.” (Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005). Some facilities only made efforts to fulfill one need for psychol ogical well-being, such as the provision of limited treats, while neglecting other species’ need s, such as social companionship and agency (Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005).13 As April Truitt, the Executive Director of the Primate Rescue Center explains:

Monkeys require a variety of speci es-typical enhancements to their
environments and enrichment measur es. For their psychological wellbeing to not suffer, monkeys ca nnot be provided with just one enhancement or enrichment to their environment, rather their psychological well-being must be addressed through multiple avenues... Currently, the USDA regulations rega rding psychological well-being for primates are not sufficient to prov ide for the well-being of primates. Licensees are not required to enrich primates’ environments by addressing multiple or specific needs of each species, thereby condemning many primates to live out their lives in barren, lonely, and/or substandard
environments.

(Declaration of April Truitt, Exhibit 2 at ¶ 5, 7, emphasis added).

In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report entitled The Psychological WellBeing of Nonhuman Primates , which discussed the essentia l ingredients required for the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates, in cluding social compan ionship; opportunities to engage in species-typ ical behaviors, postures, and locomoti on; freedom from pain or distress; and positive interactions with human caregivers. (U.S. Nati onal Research Council 1998).

The following year APHIS’s own Animal Care ’s Primate Environment Enhancement Team
concluded:

The Animal Welfare Act was intended to promote the psychological wellbeing of nonhuman primates, not just prevent abnormal behaviors from occurring . . . most inspectors feel the lives of primates have been improved some, but that overall not enough is being done to provide a ‘physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates’... Put in a constructive way, facilities should be required to enhance the environment of nonhuman pr imates in a way that promotes the expression of a wide variety of positive, normal behaviors. Prevention is better than treatment, in mental health as in physical health ... The USDA's obligations under the Animal Welfare Act include requiring
standards aimed at prevention of problems.14 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice, 1999, emphasis in original).

In response, APHIS issued a Draft Policy to implement these recommendations. (Draft Policy, 64 FR 38145 (July 15, 1999), Exhibit 3). The Draft Policy included five general elements that
APHIS considered “critical” to e nvironments that adequately promote the psychological wellbeing of nonhuman primates: (1) soci al grouping; (2) social needs of infants; (3) structure and substrate; (4) foraging opportunitie s; and (5) manipulanda – i.e., obj ects that can be moved, used, or altered in some manner by the primate’s hands. (64 FR 38147, 38149). The Draft Policy also cited “novelty,” “sensory stimulation,” and “co ntrol over the environment” as important elements of any environment to promote the psychological well-being of primates. (64 FR 38149). Despite these recommendations and the results of the agencies’ own in ternal surveys, the USDA’s 1991 regulations have yet to be updated. Accordingly, the regu lations still provide significant – unenforceable – leeway in how f acilities meet the psychological well-being requirements.

In addition to the issue of unenforceability, there are numerous other significant problems resulting from the absence of crucial definitional language in the current regulations. Further, the enrichment plans are not publically available a nd the wide variety of plans among facilities can lead to disharmony of plans. The regulations fo r psychological well-being can be easily, even entirely, circumvented.

Social housing is an area where the inability of the current langua ge to meet the goals of the 1985 psychological well-being amendment is especi ally apparent. As explained by Kulpa-Eddy
et al.:

From the Federal Register discussion s up to and includi ng the final rule, one can see that social grouping was meant to become the default housing scheme...Prolonged single caging does not promote well-being, especially when it is started at an early age. In one modified preference test, the value level of social companionship was so hi gh that primates chose it in lieu of
food.

(Kulpa-Eddy et al., 2005).15 Chance French, current Sanctuary Manager of J ungle Friends Primate Sanctuary with experience at multiple primate sanctuaries, concurs with this assessment:

I have been working with primates for over ten years and can say with absolute certainty that primates who ha ve been species isolated or lacking in enrichment, be they from labs or ex -“pets”, show higher levels of stress and exhibit atypical and se lf-injurious behavior. These primates are also harder to socialize, which, unfortunate ly, can lead to a continuation of the negative effects of species isolat ion. Special care and attention are required to ensure a healthy psycholog ical state for these monkeys. I have
seen first-hand that altho ugh harder to socialize, once monkeys who have been species isolated are able to be with their own kind, their psychological health improves dramatically

.
(Declaration of Chance French at ¶ 5, Exhibit 4).

However, unfortunately, social housing is not consistently the defau lt standard. Regulations implementing the AWA’s command for “minimum requirements” to insure “a physical environment adequate to promote the psychologi cal well-being of primates.” (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B)), do not require that primates always be housed in compatible social groups – they only specify that individually housed nonhuman primates must be able to see and hear nonhuman primates of their own or compatible species, unle ss the attending veterinarian determines that it would endanger their health, safe ty, or well-being. (9 C.F.R. § 3.81(a)(3)). This extremely broad interpretation of the concept of “social hous ing” simply cannot adequately meet nonhuman primates’ social needs, which include and are dependent upon touch as one of the primary sensory social experiences by which primates communicate and comfort themselves and each other. Thus, while primates are known to bond through their cages if this is their only opportunity for social interaction, this complete ly unnatural world thwart s the animals’ natural needs and behaviors. As explained by Ned Buyukm ihci, VMD, a veterinarian with 41 years of experience, “meaningful social contact is the core requirement [for psychological well-being] that can then be enhanced by other forms of enrichment.” (Declaration of Ned Buyukmihci, VMD at ¶ 8, Exhibit 5, emphasis added).16 “This juvenile male rhesus macaque shows a behavioral di stress reaction to permanent co nfinement in a barren cage. He bit his upper arms, wrists and thighs 636 times during a 60-minute video recording.” (Reinhardt, 2008). Photo courtesy of Reinhardt, 2008

.

Years after the passage of the 1985 AWA amendm ent for psychological well-being, inspectors still believed that too many primates were unnecessarily single-housed, resulting in “ maladjusted primates that were passed from facility to facility because of their aberrant behavior. ” (KulpaEddy et al., 2005, emphasis added).

Indeed, a 2011 review demonstrated that studie s reporting the amount of time monkeys lived in single cages did not significantly cha nge after the passage of the AWA amendment. (Jonathan Balcombe, Ferdowsian, & Durham, 2011). Two indepe ndent surveys of primat e facilities in the
U.S. demonstrated that in both 1994 and 2003 only about one-third of primates lived with one or more companions and two-thirds lived alone. (K. C. Baker, Weed, Crockett, & Bloomsmith, 2007; Reinhardt, 2008). Another 2003 study documented that 362 rhesus macaques were housed individually at the New England Regional Primat e Research Center (NERPRC), and of those,
321 exhibited abnormal behaviors su ch as pacing and self-injury . (Lutz, Well, & Novak, 2003). In 2010, it was reported that 70% of more than 4,000 cynomolgus (also known as crabeating or long-tailed) and rhesus macaques housed at six facilities live alone. (Reinhardt, 2010 pp. 122).

Unfortunately, this great preponderance of the sing le-housing of primates remains the case. Over approximately a two-year period from 2010 through 2012, at least 25 instances of single-housing identified as “unjustified” by insp ectors, including the solitary housing of juvenile primates, were noted in inspection reports at various facilities, including pres tigious universities, such as17 Harvard, Georgetown, and Johns Hopkins, and larg e companies, such as Merck, Covance, and Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories (SNBL). ( See Inspection Reports for Harvard Center for Comparative Medicine Site 001 on July 31, 2012 (Exhibit 6), Georgetown University Site 001 on May 26, 2011 (Exhibit 7), The Johns Hopkins Un iversity Site 003 on May 22, 2012 (Exhibit 8), Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Site 005 on Ap ril 6, 2011 (Exhibit 9), Covance Laboratories Inc. Site 003 on March 2, 2012 (Exhibit 10), a nd SNBL Site 002 on July 10, 2013 (Exhibit 11)). In fact, a July 2011 USDA inspection report for SNBL noted that approximately 83% of the primates were single-housed without documented exemptions . ( See the Inspection Report for SNBL Site 001 on July 13, 2011, Exhibit 12).

According to Kendra Buchanan, LVT, the lead ve terinary technician at Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary and a former laboratory veterinary te chnician, “In my experience, it was common for researchers to come up with excuses to avoid th e socialization of prim ates...” (Declaration of Kendra Buchanan, LVT, Exhibit 13 at ¶ 5).

The vast majority of primates at SNBL are single-housed. Photos courtesy of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2011.

Thus, in 2011, at the NIH-sponsored Symposium on Animal Welfare and Scientific Research, a participant lamented the obvious – that the housing for primates has not changed in decades: “If you show a picture of a primate cage from 40 y ears ago and a primate cage now, it’s basically the same: it’s all metal with a perch added. ” (“Animal housing facilities discussion. Proceedings of the symposium on animal welfare and scientific research: 1985-2010,” 2011).18 Clear standards, such as those re quiring social housing, would be far easier to enforce and clearer to understand, and would help to guarantee that the most basic psycho logical and behavioral
needs of these animals are met.

Setting concrete standards modeled on NIH’ s ethologically appropriate environment recommendations for chimpanzees, along with conc rete criteria for sign s of psychological wellbeing and distress, would go a long way to fulf illing the original intent of the 1985 Amendment and help enforce this important mandate for a “physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being” of pr imates used in research.

Confinement at the University of Washington. Photo courtesy of Stop Animal Exploitation Now, 2012.19 4. NIH Actions Promoting Psychological Well-Being

A. Institute of Medicine Conclusions

In December 2010, at the request of NIH, and in response to Congressional inquiry, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in collabo ration with the NRC, convened the Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Resear ch to consider the n ecessity of the use of chimpanzees in NIH-funded research. The Committee completed its report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity , in December 2011. The Report
concluded that “ most current research use of chimpanzees is ‘largely unnecessary’ and that any future research be guided by a set of principles and criteria. ” (National Institutes of Health Division of Program Coordinati on, Planning, and Strategic Initia tives, 2013, emphasis added). It introduced the concept of “ethologically appropriate physical and social environments” (Institute of Medicine, 2011) – meaning “captive environm ents that do not simply allow but also, importantly, promote a full range of behavi ors that are natural for chimpanzees.” ( See 78 FR 39741, 39743 (July 2, 2013)).

B. Council of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIHSupported Research

In response, the NIH Council of Councils (C oC) formed the Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research to advi se NIH on implementation of the IOM findings. NIH requested that the Working Group develo p a plan to implement the IOM’s guiding principles and criteria for chimpanzee researc h, analyze the current use of chimpanzees in research, assess the placement and size of chim panzee populations, and review the potential for future use of chimpanzees in research. (C ouncil of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research, 2013). The Working Group submitted its final report to the CoC in January 2013.

The Working Group recommendations – unanimously approved by the full CoC – concluded that any and all theoretical potential future use of chimpanzees must be subjected to a strict independent oversight committee to assess whether their use is acc eptable, critical, and meets IOM guidelines – including housing in an et hologically appropriate environment.20 The CoC submitted the report to NIH, and, on J une 26, 2013, after considering public comments, the NIH accepted nearly all of the CoC’ s recommendations, including nine of 10 recommendations regarding ethologically appr opriate environments. These recommendations provide concrete minimum standards for environm ents in which chimpanzees are held, including specific physical and social parameters.

C. NIH-Accepted Recommendations for Chimpanzees

In support of the need for ethologically appropr iate environments, the Institute of Medicine explained:

Chimpanzees live in complex social groups characterized by considerable interindividual cooperation [cooperati on between individuals], altruism, deception, and cultural transmission of learned behavior (including tool use). Furthermore, laborat ory research has demonstrated that chimpanzees can master the rudiments of symbolic language and numericity, that they have the capacity for empathy and self-recognition, and that they have the humanlike ability to attribute mental states to themselves and others (known as the “theory of mind”). Fina lly, in appropriate circumstances, chimpanzees display grief and signs of depression that are reminiscent of human responses to similar situations. It is generally accepted that all species, including our own, experi ence a chronic stress response (comprising behavioral as well as ph ysiological signs) when deprived of usual habitats, which for chimpanzees includes the presence of conspecifics and sufficient space and environmental complexity to exhibit species-typical behavior. Therefore, to perform rigorous (replicable and reliable) biomedical and behavioral re search, it is critical to minimize potential sources of stress on the chimpanzee . This can be achieved primarily by maintaining animals on protocols either in their natural habitats, or by consistently maintaining w ith conspecifics in planned, ethologically appropriate physi cal and social environments

...

(Institute of Medicine, 2011, emphasis added).

These conclusions also apply to other species of nonhuman primates for which extensive studies have shown high levels of psyc hological abilities and needs. ( See e.g., Bekoff, Allen, &21 Burghardt, 2002; Bekoff & Sherman, 2004; Be koff, 2003; Bradshaw, Capaldo, Lindner, & Grow, 2008, 2009; Capaldo & Bradshaw, 2011; Ferdowsian et al., 2011; Marino, 2002; Tomasello & Call, 1994).

Further studies of mammalian brains elucidate the complexity and overlap of primate brains. (Bradshaw et al., 2008, 2009; Capaldo & Bradshaw, 2011). For example, other nonhuman primates such as macaques, that are commonly us ed in research, share many cognitive abilities (M. Kavanagh 1984 pp.13); have active minds (S humaker & Beck, 2003 pp.24); have inquisitive natures (Shumaker & Beck, 2003 pp.24); are inventive (M. Kavanagh, 1984 pp.173); are sociable (Cawthon Lang, 2005; M. Ka vanagh, 1984 pp.169; Redmond, 2011 pp.13, 111; Maestripieri and Hoffman, 2012); have caring relationships (Redm ond, 2011 pp.9); make and use tools (Shumaker & Beck, 2003 pp.118,121); ha ve a culture (M. Kavanagh, 1984 pp. 173; Redmond, 2011 pp.13, 20); have complex emoti ons (Shumaker & Beck, 2003 pp.147); analyze past results, imagine different outcomes, a nd experience regret (Melnick, 2011); appear to understand others’ perceptions, th oughts, and feelings (Santos, Nissen, & Ferrugia, 2006); and have a sense of justice and fairness (Brosnan, 2006, 2013).

According to Brian Hare, Ph.D., a biological anth ropologist at Duke Univ ersity, who testified before the IOM, “Most of what you know about great apes is also true about monkeys.” (Keim, 2013). Accordingly, like chimpanzees, the well-being of other nonhum an primates is dependent upon a social and complex environment, foragi ng opportunities, outdoor access, access to vertical dimension, and choice and self -determination, among other things (Chamove, Anderson, Morgan-Jones, & Jones, 1982; Kavanagh, 1984; Redmond, 2011; Reinhardt, 2008). (For more background information, see exhibits 14 – 21.) Therefore, because other nonhuman primates share many of the characteristics that the IOM and NIH believe warrant greater protections and the provision of ethologically appropriate envi ronments for chimpanzees, these other nonhuman primates are, borrowing the words of NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, also worthy of “special consideration.” (Nationa l Institutes of Health, 2011). Theref ore, all laboratories should be required to provide all nonhuman primates such basic ethol ogically appropriate environments, with modifications specific to each species.

Indeed, applying species-appropria te standards based on the NIH- approved recommendations for ethologically appropriate envi ronments for chimpanzees to all primates used in research will help USDA meet one of its orig inally stated aims: “To admini ster and enforce one uniform body of regulations at all resear ch facilities regulated by the Act [AWA].” (USDA, 1989). Accordingly, these recommendations, as discussed below, should be adopted for chimpanzees as22 stated below and accepted by NIH, and, with appropr iate modifications, for all primates held in laboratories as the “minimum standards” necessary to promote the psychological well-being of primates, within the meaning of the AWA. (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1) - (2)(B)).

NIH-ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHIMPANZEES HELD IN
CAPTIVITY AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ALL PRIMATES

Set forth below are those NIH-accepted recommendati ons that should be applied to all primates used in research, as further explained in the discussion following each recommendation.

NIH-accepted recommendation 1: Chimpanzees must have theopportunity to live in sufficiently large, complex, multi-male, multifemale social groupings, ideally co nsisting of at least 7 individuals. Unless dictated by clearly documented medical or social circumstances, no chimpanzee should be required to live alone for extended periods of time. Pairs, trios, and even small groups of 4 to 6 individuals do not provide the social complexity required to meet the social needs of this cognitively advanced species. When chimpanzees need to be housed in groupings th at are smaller than ideal for longer than necessary, for example, during routine veterinary examinations or when they are introduced to a new social group, this need should be regularly reviewed and documented by a veterinarian* and a primate behaviorist. 4

Discussion

In its acceptance of this recommendation, the NIH stated that it “a lso believe[s] that housing chimpanzees in larger groups has the po tential to offer greater social complexity and more environmental stimuli than housing them in smaller groups. At the same time, the agency believes that chimpanzee facilities should evaluate individual chimpanzees to determine their suitability for successful integration into larger social groups...The NIH believes that the recommendation is sufficiently flexible and permits facilities to adjust

4 This recommendation also states that “[t]he Working Gr oup defines a ‘veterinarian’ as a licensed, graduate veterinarian with demonstrated expertise in the clin ical care and welfare of no nhuman primates (preferably chimpanzees) and who is directly responsible for the routine clinical care of the animal(s) in question.”23 the sizes of research chimpanzee social groups as necessary, as long as these facilities support any downward adjustments with prope r documentation and regular reviews by a veterinarian and a primate behaviorist. (National Institutes of Health, 2013 pp.6; Exhibit 22, emphasis added).

Accordingly with very few exceptions, all pr imates should be socially housed. The only exceptions to social housing being those nonhuman primates who are known to be solitary in nature and those very few who would be adversely affected by such an arrangement due to their independently documen ted physical, behavioral , or social state. Even orangutans, which have classically been thought of as a solitary species in the wild, benefit from social housing in captivity (Orangutan Husbandry Manual, Chicago Zoological Society).

For example, rhesus macaques are the primate species most commonly used in scientific research. In the wild, macaques live in large troops that can include up to 200 animals. In captivity, rhesus macaques who are paired with at least one other individual show a significant decrease in abnormal and anxiety -related behavior compared to isolated individuals (Baker et al., 2012).

The critical need for social housing is supported by APHIS’ 1999 Draft Policy, the accreditation standards of the American Zoologi cal Association (AZA), and the standards
of the Global Federation of An imal Sanctuaries (GFAS).

In the 1999 Draft Policy, APHIS stated that:

According to our research, primates ar e clearly social beings and social housing is the most appropriate way to promote normal social behavior
and meet social needs. In order to address the social needs of nonhuman primates under §3.81(a), the plan must provide for each primate of a species known to be social in nature to be housed with other primates whenever possible...Housing should maximize opportunities for a full range of species-appropriate contac t, except that reproduction may be limited or prevented entirely.

(64 FR 38147).24 Similarly, the AZA standards for exhibitors state that:

All animals must be housed in encl osures and in appropriate groupings which meet their physical, psychologi cal, and social needs. Wherever possible and appropriate, animals shoul d be provided the opportunity to choose among a variety of conditions w ithin their environment. Display of single animals should be avoided unl ess biologically correct for the species.

(AZA 2013 Accreditation St andards and Related Policies 1.5.2, Exhibit 23).

GFAS concurs:

Animal group composition shall be appropriate for the species and
sufficient to meet their social and be havioral needs in terms of size, age and sex structure based upon the natura l history of the species housed...

(2009 GFAS General Animal Care Standa rds (I)(o)(i)(b)(iv), Exhibit 24).

NIH-accepted recommendation 2: Chimpanzees must be housed in environments that provide outdoor access year round. They should have access to natural substrates, su ch as grass, dirt, and mulch, to enhance environmental complexity

.

Discussion

In its acceptance of this recommendation, NIH stated that it “believes that research chimpanzees need year-round access to natural substrates and the outdoors to enhance their environmental complexity.” (Nationa l Institutes of Health, 2013 pp. 9). This recommendation should apply to all nonhuman primates, subj ect to the temperature and environmental needs of the species, whose psychological well-being would be greatly improved by year-round access to the outdoors. It is supported by GFAS standards which state that “[a]ll animal enclosures shall pr ovide animals access to, and choice between the indoor and outdoor portion of their encl osure unless otherwis e advised by the veterinarian/animal care manager.” (2009 GF AS Operational Standards (f)(8)(a)(ii),25 Exhibit 25). Even for tropical species, such as marmosets and tamarins, outside enclosures can be equipped with heating la mps or easy access to heated indoor spaces when temperatures drop to freezing or below.

NIH-accepted recommendations 3: Progressive and ethologically appropriate management of chimpa nzees must include provision of foraging opportunities and of diet s that are varied, nutritious, and challenging to obtain and process

.

Discussion

APHIS’ 1999 Draft Policy highlighted the im portance of foraging for primates, and both a nutritionally and psychologically-appropriate diet. APHIS’ 1999 Draft Policy explained
that:

In the wild, nonhuman primates spen d a significant proportion of their time foraging for food. ‘Working’ for f ood is one of the most frequently found species-typical activities fo r nonhuman primates. Captive nonhuman primates that are not pr ovided with enough time-consuming foraging tasks may self-mutilate, over-groom, or become aggressive. As part of enriching the physi cal environment [ ], the plan should provide for each primate to have, on a daily basis, some type of time-consuming foraging opportunity...The diet for each primate should contain a variety of tastes, smells, and textures.

(64 FR 38149).

The AZA standards further state that “[t]he institution should have a written nutrition program that meets the behavioral and nutri tional needs of all species, individuals, and colonies/groups in the institution. Animal diets must be of a quality and quantity suitable for each animal’s nutritional and psychological needs.” They further provides that “[t]he institution should assign at le ast one person to oversee appr opriate browse material for the animals.” (AZA 2013 Accreditation St andards and Related Policies 2.6.2 - 2.6.3).26 Likewise, GFAS standards provi de that “animal diets shall be of a quality, quantity and variety suitable for each animal’s nut ritional and psychological needs...Where appropriate, fresh browse and produce shall be provided daily as dietary supplements and enrichment for the animals.” (2009 GFAS Gene ral Animal Care Sta ndards (I)(o)(ii)(a)).

NIH-accepted recommendation 4: Chimpanzees should have the opportunity to climb at least 20 ft (6.1 m) vertically. Moreover, their environment must provide enough climbing opportunities and space to allow all members of larger grou ps to travel, feed, and rest in elevated spaces

.

NIH-accepted recommendation 5: Ch impanzees must be provided with materials to construct new nests on a daily basis

.

Discussion

Cages should provide nonhuman primates sufficient space and complexity to carry out
varied behaviors. In its June 2013 announcem ent, NIH stated that it agrees that “sufficient square footage is needed for chim panzees to travel, patrol, coexist in social groups of 7 or more members, and sometim es separate from others...” (National Institutes of Health, 2013 pp. 7). All nonhuman primates need space for these and similar species-specific behaviors.

The AZA standards likewise pr ovide that “[a]ll animal en closures (exhibits, holding areas, hospital, and quarantine/isolation) must be of a size and complexity sufficient to provide for the animal’s physical, social , and psychological well- being; and exhibit enclosures must include provisions for the behavioral enrichment of the animals. ” (AZA
2013 Accreditation Standards and Rela ted Policies 10.3.3, emphasis added).

APHIS recognized the importance of these recommendations in its 1999 Draft Policy, which provided that:

The most basic components of the physical environment are the enclosure structure (its size, shape, and design) and the substrates within it (flooring, bedding, and furnishings, in cluding perches, nest boxe s, etc.). In order to27 promote psychological well-being for nonhuman primates, primary enclosures for housing and/or exercise need to be of adequate shape and design, and have adequate furnishing , to accommodate species-appropriate behaviors by all inhabitants. Each primate should be able to, at a minimum, engage in:

1. Species-typical postures and positions for resting, sleeping, feeding, exploration, and play;
2. Species-typical locomotion; and
3. Social adjustments...

(64 FR 38148).

The GFAS standards similarly require that “[a] ll animal enclosures sh all be of a size andcomplexity sufficient to maximize the animal’s physical, social and psychological wellbeing.” (2009 GFAS Operationa l Standards (f)(8)(a)(i), emph asis added). GFAS provides that “enclosed areas shall be equipped in accordance with the needs of the animals with bedding material, branch work, burrows, nesting, hide boxes, pools, appropriate substrate, and vegetation and other enrichment materials designed to aid and encourage normal behavior patterns and minimize any abnormal behavior. ” (2009 GFAS General Animal Care Standards (I)(n)(ii)(iv)). In a ddition, it highlights the necessity for adequate space for natural behaviors observed in the wild for the species and for diversity and complexity.

NIH-accepted recommendation 6: The environmental enrichment program developed for chimpa nzees must provide relevant opportunities for choice and self-determination

.

Discussion

Enrichment is a necessity for the well-being of social, intelligent captive animals. APHIS’ 1999 Draft Policy outlined seve ral aspects of enrichment, including manipulanda, novelty, control over the envir onment, and sensory stimulation. The Draft Policy stated:28 The plan should provide indi vidual primates with the opportunity to exercise control over some aspects of their environment . Complex objects
or environments that can be altered or controlled by the animals provide them with enhanced opportunities to utilize their c ognitive abilities. Examples of control include opening doors and peep holes, moving indoors or outdoors, and influencing the temperature and lighting in the cage, as well as avoiding noxious stimuli.

(64 FR 38149, emphasis added).

The AZA standards likewise provide that the “institution must have a formal written enrichment and training program that pr omotes species-appropriate behavioral opportunities,” and that the plan “should in clude the following elements: goal-setting, planning and approval process, implem entation, documentation/record-keeping, evaluation, and subsequent program refine ment.” (AZA 2013 Accreditation Standards and Related Policies 1.6.1).

NIH-accepted recommendation 7: Chimpanzee management staff must include experienced and traine d behaviorists, animal trainers, and enrichment specialists to foster positive human–animal relationships and provide cognitive stimulation. Given the importance
of trainer/animal ratios in ma intaining trained behaviors, a chimpanzee population of 50 should have at least 2 dedicated staff members with this type of expertise. Positive reinforcement training is the only acceptable method of modify ing behaviors to facilitate animal care and fulfillment of management needs. Training plans should be developed for each animal, and progress toward achieving established
benchmarks should be documented.

NIH-accepted recommendation 8: All personnel working with chimpanzees must receive training in core institutional values promoting psychological and behavior al well-being of chimpanzees in their care. These institutional core values should be publicly
accessible.29 Discussion

These recommendations should apply to all nonhuman primates he ld in captivity.

NIH-accepted recommendation 9: Chimpanzee records must
document detailed individual animal social, physical, behavioral, and psychological requirements and these requirements should be used to design appropriate individualized chimpanzee management in the captive research environment.

Discussion

The USDA should adopt a system to measure individual primates’ psychological wellbeing. Much as the psychological state of non-verbal humans can be assessed, studies have shown that the psychological state – incl uding depression and post-traumatic stress – can also be diagnosed in nonhuman primat es. (Bradshaw et al., 2008, 2009; Capaldo & Bradshaw, 2011; Ferdowsian et al., 2011; Mc Kinney, Suomi, & Harlow, 1971; Shively, Laber-Laird, & Anton, 1997).

For example, GFAS requires psychological well-being assessments that document the behavioral and psychological well-being of each animal, and include information on specific measures taken to ensure the we lfare of individual animals. (GFAS, 2009). GFAS standards provide that:

Measures assessed will include: specie s appropriate behavior, interaction with other animals, the animals’ ability to respond appropriately to variable environmental conditions, p hysiological states, developmental stages, and social situations as well as adverse stimuli...Stereotypic behavior, self injurious behavior, inappropriate responses to various stimuli may be evidence of comp romised well being and must be investigated and a plan to address the concerns must be developed...The absence of negative behaviors shall no t be accepted as sole evidence of well being...A copy of the welfare repor t shall be kept in the animals’ permanent file.30 (2009 GFAS General Animal Care Sta ndards (I)(o)(iv)(b), Exhibit 24).

The scientific literature has analyzed and iden tified signs of stress, including the cluster of symptoms known as “post-traumatic stress disorder.” (Bradshaw, 2008). Psychological malady in nonhuman primates can be diagnos ed in a similar manner as applied to humans. The fields of human psychology a nd psychiatry have defined behaviors
indicative of mental disorders that allow for numerous possi ble diagnoses, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of th e American Psychiatric Society. Diagnostic and observable criteria apply to humans both able and unable to verbally articulate specifics regarding their psychological state.

Even among verbal humans, there are varying degrees of being able to describe one’s state of being. Practitioners in the fields of social work, psychology, and psychiatry learn how to assess not only what is said, but the individual’s other behavi ors, and set a course of therapeutic intervention for symptomatic relief or improvement regardless of the patients’ verbal ability to describe their symptoms . A similar set of diagnostic criteria should be developed for nonhuman primates. Such criteria can provide a clear picture of the animals’ psychological well-bei ng or degree of psychopathology.

In fact, this area of diagnos is and intervention now comp rises a relatively new, and expanding, branch of veterinary medical speci alization and board-certification called “veterinary behavior.” ( See American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, n.d.). Indeed, if the diagnosis and treatment of animal psyc ho-behavioral disorders can be successfully applied to domesticated cats and dogs, they certainly can also be applied to captive primates in labs, who are far more similar to humans.

Indeed, in light of the sparse availability of specific and clearly defined information on what constitutes psychological well-being in nonhuman primates, USDA should develop and employ a scale similar to the Global Assessment of Functioni ng Scale (Exhibit 26) used to assess human functioning and im provement. Thus, laboratories should be required to assess primates on their arrival at the lab and periodically thereafter. If such a scale, coupled with behavioral manifesta tions of clearly defi ned indicators of psychosocial stress, indicate that an indivi dual primate is suffer ing, an appropriate intervention must be require d. If that intervention fails to result in a meaningful amelioration of symptoms so that the anim al can live in a state of psychosocial equilibrium, the primate must be sent to a sanctuary for psychological rehabilitation.31 Unfortunately, many research facilities are not fam iliar with the increasing scientific literature regarding psychological well-bei ng, enrichment, and ethologically -appropriate environments for nonhuman primates. Employees may lack knowledge of “normal” behavior and psychosocial needs of different primates, making the identifica tion of pathologies difficult. For example, if several primates in the same f acility are exhibiting stereotypi c rocking or moving in incessant circles, employees may misinterpr et this as “normal” behavior, rather than a well established indicator of stress or psychosis. (H ugo et al., 2003; Brune et al., 2006).

According to current USDA regulations, an environmental enhancement plan "must be in accordance with the currently a ccepted professional standards as cited in appropriate professional journals or referen ce guides, and as directed by th e attending veterinarian." (9 C.F.R. § 3.81). However, the actual plans may va ry significantly from facility to facility, and may not be implemented, partially due to a lack of knowledge in individual institutions and/or an institution’s inability to stay cu rrent with respect to primatolog ical studies of both captive and free-living primates. Current education requireme nts for veterinarians in laboratories require little training in animal behavior and/or enrichments, especially specifically related to nonhuman primates. Even the American College of La boratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) training program does not mention animal be havior or enrichment training. ( See American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, n.d.-b – “Experience should involve r odents, rabbits, primates, and other species that fairly represent the current pr actice of laboratory animal medicine, and must include participation in the following: disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention; clinical and diagnostic pathology; administra tion of the institutional an imal care and use program;
interaction with inve stigators; and animal resource management. ” (emphasis added). 5

Veterinarians are required to receive substant ially less training a nd education regarding enrichment, psychological well-being, and ethologi cally appropriate environments than animal behaviorists such as Associate Certified App lied Animal Behaviorists (ACAAB), Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists (CAAB), and Vete rinary Behaviorists. A far more efficient, harmonized, and effective system would use the c onsolidated knowledge of experts as the basis for enforceable minimum standards for psychologi cal well-being – as was done with respect to the NIH-accepted recommendations for chimpan zees – thus reducing the burden on individual institutions to keep up with this high ly specialized field of literature.

5 While animal care makes up 24% of the ACLAM examin ation, enrichment and speci es-specific husbandry are only two of thirteen topics included in the animal care section. (American Co llege of Laboratory Animal Medicine, n.d.-a).32 One reason often offered for the lack of more specific regulations for psychological well-being and environmental enrichment is the difficulty of developing and applyi ng minimum standards for different species and for di agnosing psychological maladies in nonhuman species. However, the NIH’s new recommendations for environments for chimpanzees, APHIS’ 1999 Draft Policy
on Environment Enhancement for Nonhuman Pr imates, and current literature on the psychological well-being of nonhuma n primates all demonstrate th at minimum standards can and
should be identified for the betterment of animal well-being and scientific research. Therefore, including such minimum requirements in the psyc hological well-being standard will also benefit
individual labs that are unable to stay informed about the ex panding and extensive information concerning these issues.33 4. Adverse Effects on the Psychological Well-B eing of Primates Due to the Lack of
Concrete Standards

A. Introduction

All species experience stress, whether it is the resu lt of natural or man-made environments. It is well established that nonhuman pr imates have psychological capaci ties (mental, emotional, and other faculties of subjective expe rience) such as maternal behavi or, facial recognition, moral development, play, sexual be havior, fear, aggression, stress and emotion regulation, empathy, love, and grief. (Narvaez, Pankse pp, Schore, & Gleason, 2012; Panksepp, 1998). Theoretical and empirical studies document that brain struct ures and processes governing consciousness, cognition, emotions, sense of self, and other facu lties are shared among ve rtebrates. (Bradshaw & Sapolsky, 2006). Patterns of thinking, feeling, and be havior that are shaped through relationships, and the associated brain structures affected by trauma (i.e., cortical and subcortical areas of the right brain, including the right orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, amygdala, hippocampus, and posterior areas of the right he misphere) are also cons istent across species. (Capaldo & Bradshaw, 2011). The key point is the now undeniable proposition that nonhuman primates suffer physically and psychologically when subjected to conditions that cause comparable suffering in humans (e.g., forced confinement, so cial and physical deprivation, being subjected to procedures with out willing consent, torture, thre at of death or injury, etc.).

Indeed, nonhuman primates have been used for d ecades to explore the e ffects of environmental stress on mind and behavior. ( See Shapiro, 1998). Experiments and testing comprise not one source, but multiple sources, of physical and ps ychological stressors. Thus, nonhuman primates in captivity routinely sustain one or more trauma tic events: premature separation from biological and cultural context (i.e., separa tion from their natural physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural environment); attachment disruptions; inadequate care-g iving; prolonged deprivation; and, in cases of biomedical experimentation, highly invasi ve psychophysiological insults. Laboratory confinement and experimentation are well known to cause severe stress and
abnormal mental states and behaviors in anim als used for research. (Brune, Brune-Cohrs, McGrew, & Preuschoft, 2006; Morgan & Tromborg, 2007).

This unfortunate fact of life for research prim ates is acknowledged by the IOM, which stated that “[i]t is generally accepted that all species, including our own, experience a chronic stress response (comprising behavioral as well as phy siological signs) when deprived of usual34 habitats ...” (Institute of Medicine, 2011, emphasis added). Common laboratory routines, such as handling, moving and cleaning cages, and bl ood collection, cause rapid, pronounced, and statistically significant elevati ons of physiological stress indica tors such as heart rate, blood pressure, and a variety of hormone levels (includi ng cortisol), indicating si gnificant fear, stress, and distress. (JP Balcombe, Barnard, & Sandusk y, 2004; Meijer, Sommer, Spruijt, van Zutphen, & Baumans, 2007).

In addition, nonhuman primates live in constant fear and uncertainty about if and when they will be subjected to an experime ntal procedure. In the book Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

, neuroscientist and former member of the IOM Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in
Biomedical and Behavioral Rese arch, Robert M. Sapolsky, Ph.D ., discusses the “anticipatory stress response” for which there is evidence in a number of species such as humans, great apes, elephants, dogs, and others. Due to prior adve rse experiences, individual animals become hypervigilant, anticipating the recurr ence of those experiences – much like adopted dogs that have suffered previous traumas flinch when approach ed by people. These individuals have learned from those experiences to identify risks of harm , and to facilitate thei r own safety, healing, and ability to get back to living their lives. (Sapolsky, 2004).

Nonhuman primates also undergo capture from research cages 6 ; separation from their social group and isolation prior to procedure; restra int (“squeeze cage” and stereotaxic devices); various organ (including brain) biopsies; injection of potentially allergenic dyes, viruses, radioactive, and other substan ces; and other invasi ve procedures. This is followed by postprocedure stress: confusion and f ear associated with sedation rec overy, pain, and nausea from the procedure, isolation, and other debilitating stressors associated with serious surgeries and medical procedures. 7 This “direct” stress is compounde d by other traumatic events and by standard laboratory housing conditions that impo se unnatural levels of confinement, and that commonly deprive, limit, or severely alter the oc cupants’ opportunities to engage in essential, varied, expansive, and self-d etermined natural behaviors.

Captivity comprises a fundamental stressor that undermines well-being because of the loss of agency – the ability to make choices su rrounding one’s life and needs. (Herman 1992). Because primates possess inquisitive brains and a strong n eed for stimulation and investigation, sensory

6 For example, marmoset monkeys resolutely try to avoid capture from their research cages, during which they “easily become stressed and agitated and can cause harm to th emselves.” Such routine capt ure “has been associated with increased cortisol, signs of dist ress and decrease in other hormones in various nonhuman primate species.” (Williams, Poole, Katos, & Hilmas, 2008).
7 Some brain, cognitive, and behavioral studies are also associated with some of the same steps and procedures. For examples, see Kerr, Grayden, Thomas, Gilson, & Burkitt, 2013; Kobayashi, Schultz, & Sakagami, 2010; Ma & He, 2010.35 and motor deprivation in barren and uncontrollable labora tory environments constitutes a major stressor. (Brune et al. 2006). The physical conditions of laboratories are harsh and unyielding
relative to the socio-eco logical and psychological conditions to which primates have naturally evolved. Prime stressors include physical (e.g., sma ll concrete or metal cages, limited types of nutritious, non-endemic food, loud noises), social (e.g., lack of natural family groups, changing labs and loss of companions, is olation), and psychologi cal (e.g., boredom and lack of appropriate stimulation) stressors; maternal deprivation; and uncertainty, pa in, and fear when anesthetized and forcibly subjected experiments. In many cases, social interaction with other members of their own species and the stress reli eving comforts primates can a nd do provide each other are not possible. (Hurst, Barnard, To lladay, Nevision, & West, 1999; Ol sson & Dahlborn, 2002). This irregular or lack of regular safe social support (i.e., intra- and inter-faci lity moving as well as moving from the pet or entertainment industry to laboratories), in situati ons where these traumas occurred, constitute additional stressors.

B. Manifestations of Psychological Distress

Laboratory conditions and experien ces involving diverse experiment al procedures and frequent anesthetics commonly lead to acute and long- term mental and physical breakdown. As such, stress can result in both psychological damage as well as severe physiolo gical consequences for an individual. Different species and individuals of any species ha ve different stressors, variable ranges of stress to which they are able to adap t, diverse spectra of to lerance, and dissimilar manifestations of excessive stress. There are, however, commonalities that transcend species, and the inability of an individual to adapt to repe ated and/or chronic stress leads to allostatic overload (excessive wear and te ar on the body). Symptoms of su ch psychological trauma are diverse, including self-mutilation, stereotypic and other abnormal behaviors, post-traumatic stress disorder, learned helplessness, diarrhea, and infant mortality.36 Igor was used in research at the New York Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates (LEMSIP). He developed the habit of self-mutilation at the sight of other gibbons and was kept behind black Plexiglas for many years. In 1987, Igor was the last of several gibbons sent to sanctuary at the International Primate Protection League (IPPL) by this lab. At sanctuar y, he stopped self-mutilating. He now is an especially gentle gibbon and very active considering he is more than 50 years old. (Declaration of Shirley McGreal, Ph.D. at ¶ 5 , Exhibit 27). Photo courtesy of IPPL.

Arun Rangsi was born in a lab using young gibbons in viral cancer experiments at the University of California. He

was removed from his mother shortly after his birth and raised with a swinging wire surrogate. This drove him insane, and he started to self-mutilate by head-banging. He also had frequent bouts of pneumonia and dysentery. When the lab lost funding from the National Cancer Institute, it no longer wanted Arun Rangsi. He was sent to IPPL in 1981, and, after much care, he stopped head -banging. (Declaration of Shirley McGreal, Ph.D. at ¶ 4 , Exhibit 27). Photo courtesy of IPPL.37 Betty, a rhesus macaque, has lost hair due to compulsive self-mutilation. (Reinhardt, 2008). Photo courtesy of Reinhardt, 2008.

Nonhuman primates in laboratories are known to de velop self-injurious, st ereotypic, and other abnormal behaviors in response to laboratory cond itions and experimentation. Examples include over-grooming or hair-pulling to th e point of injury or permanent damage or scarring to skin or follicles, hitting and/or biting one’s self, banging one’s self against the cage, pacing, twirling, rocking, back-flipping, swaying, eye-covering, self-clasping, repetiti ve circling, and digitsucking. (Bayne et al., 1991; Bourgeois, Vaz quez, & Brasky, 2007; Brune et al., 2006; Goosen, 1981; Lutz et al., 2003; Mallapur & Choudhury, 2003; Rommeck, Gottlieb, Strand, & McCowan, 2009; Roy, 1981; Declaration of Ned Buyukmihci, VMD at ¶ 4, Exhibit 5). Abnormal behaviors are those that are not normally seen or are not ha bitual or customary in nature. (Brune et al., 2006).

According to Ned Buyukmihci, VMD, a vete rinarian with 41 years of experience:

In every research institution with wh ich I was involved, I observed first hand considerable stereotypical and other aberrant behavior...[abnormal] behaviors were more marked and more frequently seen in individuals who were singly housed. They indicated ma ladaptation of the individuals to
their environment...I have never seen these behaviors in wild non-human primates of any species nor have I ob served them in individuals who were38 born in captivity in a sanctuary e nvironment where housing was either free-range or expansive and heavily enriched.

(Declaration of Ned Buyukmihci, VMD at ¶ 4, 6, Exhibit 5).

Walsh, Bramblett, and Alford ( 1982) stated that abnormal behavi ors “present[ ] a pattern of chimpanzee behavior radically different from that described for wild chimpanzees by van Lawick-Goodall [1968]...Abnormal behavior may thus be the result of pushing the chimpanzee’s species-typical behavioral plasticity beyond the limits of what can be accommodated without the development of psyc hopathology.” (Walsh, Bramblett, & Alford, 1982). While referring to chimpanzees, this statem ent also is applicable to other primates. According to Debra Durham, Ph.D., an animal be haviorist, “Like chimpanzees, monkeys exhibit behavioural and psychological pathologies when ke pt in a laboratory environment.” (Submitted comments regarding European Union Directive 2010/63).

Stereotypies (captivity-induced excessive repeti tive movements) are abnormal behaviors and are generally considered pathologi cal (maladaptive) and “are the desire for stimulation...and the desire for security...A variety of stereotypies may develop to counter boredom by providing
some kind of controllable stimulation in an otherwise barren and uncontrollable environment.” (Brune et al., 2006; Brüne, Brüne -Cohrs, & McGrew, 2004). Stereotypi es have been compared to “obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum of disorders in humans, particularly those involving stereotypic motor symptoms (such as st ereotypic movement diso rder)...Insofar as they may represent a response to the traumatic stress of captivity...they arguably fall on the spectrum of posttraumatic stress responses.” (H ugo et al., 2003; Brune et al., 2006).

Self-injurious and other abnorma l behaviors are indicators of fr ustration, uncertainty, anxiety, and psychological stress (K. Baker & Aureli, 1997; Garner, 2005), and some can result in severe tissue and muscle damage, lacerations, and di smemberment. (Bourgeois et al., 2007). Reinhardt (2010) reports, “In humans [hair-pulling] is classi fied as a mental disorder, causing clinically significant distress, and occurri ng in the context of depressio n, frustration, boredom, or other emotional turmoil. If hair-pulli ng is associated with similar mi nd states in nonhuman primates, it
seems reasonable to conclude that the cause of this behavior deserv es more attention and potential cures explored.” (Reinhardt, 2010 pp. 168) . He also writes that self-injurious biting
continues to be a common behavi oral problem in laboratories.

In an article on abnormal behaviors, Corrine Lu tz, Arnold Well, and Melinda Novak, of the New England Regional Primate Research Center and the University of Massachusetts concur, stating that there is a “relatively high incidence of stereotypies and SI Bs [self-injurious behaviors],39 particularly in macaques...” (Lut z et al., 2003). Another study of 188 rhesus macaques housed at the New England Regional Primate Research Ce nter showed that approximately 30% of the monkeys engaged in self-biting or se lf-wounding. (Novak, 2003). Regarding macaques, commonly used in research, a NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare publication, for example, states, “It is well-known that raising a macaque alone, without [housing with] other macaques of the same species, will result in th at animal expressing a pattern of abnormal
behaviors that can become self-destructive. Even the behavior profiles of adult animals housed alone can degenerate into these abnormal be haviors, which may include repeated pacing, circling, or somersaulting; hyper- aggression; depression; and self -injurious behavior, including hair plucking or self-biting.” (Bayne, 2005 pp. 47).

Conditions in laboratories, incl uding confinement and lack of autonomy, can also lead to a phenomenon known as “learned helplessness” – th e extreme passive reac tion of an individual
who has come to learn that he or she cannot ch ange the environment and, therefore, must endure an aversive situation because avoidance attemp ts are futile. (Brune et al., 2006; Solomon, Ginzburg, Mikulincer, Neria, & Ohry, 1998; Wortman & Brehm, 1975). “Repeated exposure especially to unpredictable and in escapable stress can lead to l earned helplessness in humans and nonhuman species, a state that is characterized by anxiety, inac tivity and neophobia, as well as chronically increased cortisol values.” (R eimers, Schwarzenberger, & Preuschoft, 2007). Examples of learned helplessness in laborator ies include mothers freely handing over their babies to humans and an unnatural over-depende nce on laboratory staff. Learned helplessness and dependency has been demonstrated in human s (Gatchel, Paulus, & Maples, 1975; Gatchel & Proctor, 1976; Thornton & Jacobs, 1971), including in prisoner of war re search (e.g., Solomon et al., 1998) and in research on vi ctims of physical and psycholog ical assault (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 1983). Helplessness has been proposed to be part of a vicious cycle that disturbs coping mechanisms in a variety of situations because it inhibits responding to an aversive environment and, therefore, produces emoti onal disturbances. (Solomon et al., 1998).40 Conditions in labs include severe confinement, including in stereotaxic devices (pictured). (L) Photo courtesy of Reinhardt, 2008.

Gastrointestinal problems are another symptom of stress, are common in nonhuman primates in labs, and can be chronic, severe, and intractab le. (Hird, Anderson, & Bielitzki, 1984; Lewis, n.d.). Chronic diarrhea may cause significant pain, dehydration and asso ciated problems, and even death if not treated properly. Studies ha ve shown chronic diarrh ea to be significantly associated with stress. (Chang, 2011). Co-morbidi ty with mood disorders such as anxiety and depression is common, with accumulating eviden ce indicating a role for a maladaptive stress response in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). (O ’Malley, Quigley, Dinan, & Cryan, 2011; Sapolsky, 2004). Further, it is known that changes in gastrointestinal function are mediated by
stress-induced secretion of cor ticotropin-releasing factor, an d associated inflammation and immune activation are implicated in the genera tion of IBS symptoms (O’Malley et al., 2011), and also in significant increas es in visceral sensitivity. (Kanazawa, Hongo, & Fukudo, 2011). Other manifestations of gast ro-intestinal problems include anorexia and weight loss.

Finally, infant mortality is associated with ch ronic stress in nonhuman primates in labs and indicates poor welfare. Labor atory captive-bred nonhuman prim ates are often prematurely weaned or taken from their mothers by coercion or force at infancy, bot tle fed by one or more humans, and experience irregular peer socializati on and little to no adult sa me-species interaction during infancy/childhood. Studies have shown that “[i]nfant mortality can be related to parenting behavior in many primate species.” (Bloomsmith et al., 2003). Infanticide has been seen in the wild at times of socio-ecological stress. In the laboratories, the st ress of captivity could also be a factor. (Capaldo & Pe ppercorn, 2012).

While sanctuaries are able to alleviate the psychological harm caused in laboratories for the small number of primates who are re scued, unfortunately th ese severe injuries41 can never be completely erased. Thus, the prevention and minimization of such injuries is critical. As explained by Gloria Grow, Founder and Director of the Fauna Foundation, home to many primates retired from laboratories:

Despite their many years living a sanc tuary life, the time spent at the laboratory has forever scarred them, a nd they still suffer, psychologically, behaviourally and physiologically. All th e primates at Fauna display some
form of abnormal behaviour. Some pace, circle, and spin; are shy, nervous, and flee frantically when peopl e approach or walk into the room; some cover their eyes with their ha nds; some carry/hold inanimate objects close to their chest refusing to give them up; some masturbate with inanimate objects while showing no intere st in or ability for normal sexual interaction with conspecifics; so me show unprovoked aggressiveness towards conspecifics and/or an inab ility to respond appropriately to normal circumstances; others display phantom limbs, leading to selfinjurious behaviours like se lf-biting and other ster eotypic behaviors that can be triggered by any change in their environment, no matter how positive, when new people approaching, or in response to other unidentifiable stimuli to which they react with excessive vigilance and terror. These traumatic injuries, while vastly mitigated by the safety and stimulation of life in sanctuary, ar e unfortunately at best dormant, continually threatening to be re-stimulated.

(Declaration of Gloria Gr ow at ¶ 4, Exhibit 28).

In summary, the key criteria for promoting the psychological well-being of primates must be an absence of behavioral or affec tive symptoms of stress, traum a, and/or accompanying physical maladies of a psychogenic nature . If an animal in a lab continually exhibits such symptoms, then the lab is not operating in a way th at promotes the psychological we ll-being of the primates in its care. Again, such symptoms include, but are no t limited to, stereotypic behavior, self-mutilation, post-traumatic stress disorder, learned helplessn ess, withdrawal and depression, persistent diarrhea, infant mortality, hyper vigilan ce, anorexia, and excessive aggression.

A proactive approach to promoting the psychologi cal well-being of these primates is imperative.
As the APHIS Animal Care's Primate Environm ent Enhancement Team su ccinctly explained, the
claim that laboratories’ “environment enhancem ent programs are adequate because there are no42 distressing behaviors or appearances of ill health w ith [the] primates. . . is a short-sighted view
since waiting to improve a minimally enriched envi ronment until a primate starts showing signs of psychological distress was not the intent of the Animal Welfare Act. ” (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999). The Team stated that the intent of the AWA was “to provide nonhuman primates with the opportu nity to express a wide ra nge of non-injurious, speciesappropriate behaviors” and “to re-emphasize attention to ade quate environmental conditions before abnormal behaviors develop.” (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999).

The USDA must actively address the AWA mandate for a standard to promote the psychological well-being of primates. Unfortunately, the current lack of clear, enforceable minimum standards to accomplish this objective has contributed to the proliferation of severe maladaptive behaviors and other psychosocial and cognitive symptoms in nonhuman primates that are held in captivity.

C. Examples of Nonhuman Primate Suffering

The lack of any meaningful psychological we ll-being standard has permitted the prolonged, significant, and unnecessary suffering for thousands of primates held in U.S. labs. Unfortunately, because the vast majority of cases involving th e disregard for the psychological well-being of primates in labs are not publicly documented, the examples pr ovided here are just the tip of the iceberg.

Recent examples of psychological distress, for whic h none of the facilities appear to have been fined or faced disciplinar y action from the USDA, 8 include:

 A February 2012 inspection report for Virg inia Commonwealth University notes, “Numerous animals in the primate colony par ticipating in protocol AM10123 have areas of hairloss on their bodies, possibly due to overgrooming. In nonhuman primates, overgrooming can be an indicator of psyc hological distress. There is not sufficient evidence that personnel have fully recognized and addressed this problem.” (Exhibit 29).

 A September 2011 inspection report for Wash ington University School of Medicine notes, “There were two adult, male macaques (‘Mason’ and ‘George’) with excessive hair loss on their arms. ‘Mason’ was missing appr oximately 85% of the hair from the front

8 These inspection reports and additional violations can be found using the Animal Care Information System Search Tool at <http://acissearch.a phis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx>.43 half of his forearms. Documentation from 25 July 2011 noted that he was ‘plucking’ so his enclosure was changed back to a previ ous orientation (horizontal as opposed to vertical) in an attempt to decrease his stre ss. There was no documentation since that date showing the animal received any special attent ion with regards to the enhancement of his environment, although his behavior was still re sulting in hair loss. ‘George’ was missing approximately 95% of the hair from the front half of his forearms. A clinical record documented that he was ‘plucking’ but th ere was no treatment plan to correct the
behavior. There was no evidence that either of these animals was provided with any additional enrichment beyond the standard enri chment that all the adult macaques in the room were receiving. Hair plucking is a co mmon sign of distress in nonhuman primates which may decrease with enhan ced psychological enrichment.” See Exhibit 30 for the report and USDA photographs of th e macaques’ living conditions.

 A July 2011 inspection report for the University of Kansas Medical Center states that
there were “two animals with excessive hair loss...Neither animal was currently under a treatment plan at the time of the inspection.” See Exhibit 31 for the report and USDA photographs of the prim ates’ living conditions.

 An August 2010 inspection report for Drug Resear ch Laboratories in Pennsylvania states, “The environment enhancement plan for the f acility states that th e animals will receive some type of fresh fruit or vegetable daily. The plan is not being followed. According to the enrichment logs reviewed the 16 animal s are only receiving fresh produce twice a week.” (Exhibit 32).

 A July 2010 inspection report for Boston University states, “Protocol AN-14560, which has been closed since Dec. 2009, used Nonhu man Primates (NHPs) that were housed individually in isolation chambers whic h provided limited inter- and intra-species interaction with light cycle changes which for 3 month peri ods included constant dim light. Two animals were reported as having be haviors indicating psychological distress in
their health records and behavioral assessments in the form of hair plucking (2/06 and 11/07) and various stereopathic displays (10/ 06-4/08). Based on the facility’s Plan for
Environmental Enrichment for NHPs these animals should have been put on special enrichment or removed from the study.” (Exhibit 33).

 A July 2010 inspection report for the University of Nebraska Medica l Center notes, “At least one singly housed, nonhuman primate (Animal #70193) was observed to somersault44 at least six times, then rock back and forth numerous times, then somersault at least six times during the inspection. These stereotypica l behaviors are indicative of psychological distress, and therefore the facility must provide this animal with special attention regarding environmental enhancement. Acco rding to the facility’s Nonhuman Primate Behavior Management Program, primates showing signs of psychological distress will be placed on ‘special enrichment protocols’ wh ich will provide ‘increased positive social
interaction with human caret akers on a daily basis, and increased environmental
stimulation and variation.’ Th e facility was unable to present documentation that this animal was receiving additional environmental enhancement.” (Exhibit 34).

 A November 2009 inspection report for the Un iversity of California, Davis notes, “Animal 34313 had an extensive history of me dical issues including gastrointestinal (GI) problems, numerous injuries, and self-injuri ous behaviors (SIB), and yet it was placed on four studies before being euthanized. The animal was placed on the fourth study despite the progressive worsening of medical and be havioral problems that lead to unnecessary discomfort, distress and pain to that anim al. The animal was sedated 15 times between the third and fourth studies. Veterinary staff questioned the suitability of the animal for study on 11/5/07, noting moderate hair loss of the arms and legs with a few scars they suspected were caused by biting or hair picki ng, as well as a history of gastritis. Between
that date and the date the animal was placed on a fourth study on 2/11/08, the medical record noted two episodes of vomiting, a suspect ed hole in the trachea , and self injurious behavior that prompted the staff to sedate the animal for examination due to blood in the cage. On 1/30/08 staff found excessive blood in cage. The 7.2 kilogram animal was sedated and found to have an approximately one centimeter laceration to the penis. The facility began pharmacologic inte rvention of the SIB on 2/7/08, four days prior to starting the fourth study. The animal continued the SIB over the course of the study. The animal
was sedated an additional 16 times between th e beginning of the fourth study on 2/11/08 and 8/13/08, primarily for study purposes. On 8/8/08 staff noted that the ‘Monkey appears to become agitated during observati ons. Agitation appears to lead to increase mastirbatory behavior thus causing the bleed ing observed.’ Pharmacologic treatment was changed after this entry and on 8/13/08 the bleeding reoccurred. The animal was sedated, a one centimeter laceration of the penis wa s sutured, and the an imal’s hands were bandaged to keep it from further self-m utilation. The animal removed one of the bandages and bleeding at the site continued to be noted in the record intermittently. The facility decided to euthanize the animal a few days after the end of the fourth study. According to the daily observations, the condi tion of the animal had not worsened just45 prior to euthanasia and appeared to be in similar condition at the end of the study as it was at the beginning of the study.” (Exhibit 35).46 5. Adverse Effects on Scientific Results and Validity

Chronic stress and psychological suffering not only severely impact primates’ well-being, but also impair their physiological su itability for research. The seve re stress that laboratory life imposes on primates and the physio logical responses to such psyc hological, cognitive, and social
stress confounds research data and calls into seri ous question the validity of any research results. This section discusses how the phys ical manifestations of stress can adversely affect research results. For further details, please see Exhibit 36.

The stress experienced by primates undeniably adversely affects th e experimental results derived from such research. (Balcombe et al., 2004) . The impact of stress on immunological and inflammatory responses is criti cal, as these alterati ons exacerbate and compound crucial immune differences that already exist between humans and other animals. (For a discussion and
references see Bailey, 2011; Baldwin & Bekoff, 2007).

For example, genomic duplication is one of th e most significant causes of genetic variation among primates (Armengol, Knuutila, Lozano, Madr igal, & Caballin, 2010), and at the root of many aspects of diversity between and within sp ecies. It differentially affects many human and chimpanzee genes involved in immune and inflammatory responses. (Perry et al., 2008). Indels (genomic insertions and deletions) also affect major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes that are critical to immune responses and are associated with differen ces in the handling of various infections including HI V, hepatitis B and C viruses, and the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum, as well as in differi ng susceptibility to autoimmune diseases. Additionally, the greater abundance of inhibitory Siglecs in chimpanzees dampens chimpanzee immune responses relative to humans, which may be further impaired as a result of psychological stress. This may explain species differences in diseases that involve immunopathology, including HIV, hepatitis C, asthma , psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis. (Soto, Stein, Hurtado-Ziola, Hedrick, & Varki, 2010).

Published literature warns, for example, that “animals subjected to the environmental changes that occur during transportation...r eact with changes in their phys iology, such as body weight, plasma hormonal levels, heart rate and blood pressure changes...When measurements of physiological parameters are performed using co nventional measurement techniques, the results must be interpreted with cauti on as these conventional techniqu es also have effects on the animals.” (Capdevila, Giral, Ruiz de la To rre, Russell, & Kramer, 2007). Most important,47 “Suffering in animals can result in physiological changes which may increase the variability of experimental data.” (Capdevila et al., 2007; National Research Council Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care a nd Use of Laboratory Animals, 2011).

Kozorovitskiy et al. (2005) showed how “environm ental complexity influences the structure and biochemistry of adult nonhuman primate brains.” The authors reported that “the structure of the adult primate brain remains highly sensitive even to modest levels of experiential complexity. For adult primates, living in standard laborator y housing may induce revers ible dendritic spine and synapse decreases in brain re gions important for cognition.”

Many scientists are well aware of the effects of psychological suffering on research, and have cautioned against disregarding such impacts. ( See, e.g., Brenner, Cohen, Ader, & Moynihan, 1990; Mason et al., 1968; Roberts, Soames, James, Gill, & Wheeldon, 1995). Yet, although the negative effects of pain, stress and distress, and their adverse influence on study outcome have all been acknowledged, such effects are nevertheless often either not reported or underreported in published scientific papers. (Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 2000).48 6. Conclusion

As set forth in this Rulemaking Petition, the Secr etary has the authority and responsibility under
the AWA to issue defined criteria for the e nvironmental enrichment and psychological wellbeing of nonhuman primates. This Petition reques ts that the Secretary perform the following
actions:

1) Include in AWA implementing regulations the NIH-accepted recommendations for ethologically appropriate environments for chimpanzees as accepted by NIH; 2) Adopt clear regulations for etho logically appropriate environments for all primates using NIH’s recommendations for such environments for chimpanzees as a baseline, with species-specific modifications for other primates, and; 3) Adopt regulations for determining how and wh en chimpanzees and other primates exhibit psychological distress and what “special attenti on” must be brought to bear to ameliorate these symptoms.

As also explained, if an animal in a lab continua lly exhibits these symptoms, then the lab is not operating in a way that is in compliance with the AWA requirement for a “physical environment adequate to promote the psychol ogical well-being” of such animals. (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B)). If repeated violations occur and maladaptiv e behavior(s) continue unresolved, the primate exhibiting such behavior(s) should be removed to the care of a sanc tuary where it can be psychologically rehabilitated.

As stated by APHIS’s own Animal Care Pr imate Environment Enhancement Team, “USDA inspectors have found that many current enhan cement programs are narrow and address only one or two aspects of the animal’s life. To correct this problem, USDA must stimulate the addition of diverse environmental elements that can prom ote a wider repertoire of species-appropriate behavior.” (Animal and Plant Heal th Inspection Service, 1999).

As further explained by Lynn Cuny, Founder and Pr esident of Wildlife Re scue & Rehabilitation, “Since the primates at Wildlife Rescue who were formerly in labs all come from legally sanctioned settings, and since so many arrive in poor psychological condition, it is apparent that present regulations and/or enforcement are inadequate to meet the animals’ psychological and
behavioral needs. Both observation and an abunda nce of scientific studies of primate cognitive, emotional, psychological, and social characteristics reveal that the conditions which they49 experience in laboratories are consistently contrary to their nature and innate needs. ” (Declaration of Lynn Cuny at ¶ 6, Exhibit 37, emphasis added).

As discussed in this Petition, there is preced ence for interagency coope ration between NIH and USDA to implement the AWA. The adoption of NIH’s ethologically appropriate environment guidelines for all primate species would help r ectify the current problems with implementation and enforcement of regulations, and assure that research facilities are meeting the 1985 AWA mandate that the agency issue standards to prom ote the psychological well-being of primates.

Implementing specific minimum standards to enforce the AWA’s mandate for psychological well-being would be in the best in terest of the primates, USDA in spectors, laboratories, research, and the public, which expects and relies upon th e USDA to effectuate the AWA mandate.

Newton at Fauna Sanctuary © NJWight50 Respectfully submitted by:

New England Anti-Vivisection Society 333 Washington Street, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108

North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance 3435 NE 45th Street, Suite G Portland, OR 97211

Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group 1326 Hepburn Avenue #1 Louisville, KY 40204

Animal Legal Defense Fund
170 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 9493151 7. Literature Cited

Adams, B., & Larson, J. (2012, March 26). Legisl ative history of the Animal Welfare Act. United States Department of Agriculture Na tional Agricultural Library Animal Welfare Information Center. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/awi c/pubs/AWA2007/intro.shtml

American College of Laboratory Animal Medici ne. (n.d.-a). ACLAM test template. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.aclam.org/content/files/files/public /active/certificati on_test_template.pdf

American College of Laboratory Animal Me dicine. (n.d.-b). Training program recognition. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.acl am.org/education-and- training/trainingprogram-recognition

American College of Veterinary Behaviorists. (n.d.). For the public: Wh y should you seek help from a board-certified veterinary behavi orist? Retrieved January 13, 2014, from http://www.dacvb.org/res ources/for-the-public/

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (1999). Final report on environment enhancement to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates . United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/enrichmen t/Enviromental_Enhancement_NonHuman_Pri mates.htm

Animal housing facilities discussion. Proceedin gs of the symposium on animal welfare and scientific res earch: 1985-2010. (2011). ILAR Journal

, 52 Supplement , 433.

Armengol, G., Knuutila, S., Lozano, J., Madrigal, I ., & Caballin, M. (2010). Identification of human specific gene duplications relative to other primates by array CGH and quantitative PCR. Genomics

, 95 (4), 203–209.

Bailey, J. (2011). Lessons from chimpanzee-based research on human disease: the implications of genetic differences. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

, 39 (6), 527–540.

Baker, K.C., Bloomsmith, M.A., Oettinger, B., Neu, K ., Griffis, C., et al. (2011). Benefits of pair housing are consistent across a diverse population of rhesus macaques. Applied Animal Behaviour Science , 137(3): 148-156.

Baker, K., & Aureli, F. (1997). Behavioural in dicators of anxiety: an empirical test in chimpanzees. Behaviour , 1031–1050.

Baker, K. C., Weed, J. L., Crockett, C. M., & Bloomsmith, M. A. (2007). Survey of environmental enhancement progr ams for laboratory primates. American Journal of Primatology

, 69 (4), 377–394.52 Balcombe, J., Barnard, N., & Sandusky, C. (2004). Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci

, 43 (6), 42–51.

Balcombe, J., Ferdowsian, H., & Durham, D. ( 2011). Self-harm in laboratory-housed primates: where is the evidence that the Animal Welfare Act amendment has worked? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science: JAAWS

, 14 (4), 361–370.

Baldwin, A., & Bekoff, M. (2007). Too stressed to work. New Scientist , 24.

Bayne, K. (2005). Macaques. In Enrichment for nonhuman primates . Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://grants.nih.gov/gran ts/olaw/Enrichment_for_Nonhuman_Primates.pdf

Bayne, K., Mainzer, H., Dexter, S., Campbell, G., Yamada, F., & Suomi, S. (1991). The reduction of abnormal behaviors in individually housed rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with a foraging/grooming board. American Journal of Primatology

, 23 (1), 23– 35.

Bekoff, M. (2003). Consciousness and se lf in animals: Some reflections. Zygon
, 38 (2), 229–245.

Bekoff, M., Allen, C., & Burghardt, G. M. (2002). The cognitive animal: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition . MIT Press.

Bekoff, M., & Sherman, P. W. (2004 ). Reflections on animal selves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution

, 19 (4), 176–180.

Bloomsmith, M., Kuhar, C., Baker, K., Lambeth, S., Brent, L., Ross, S., & Fritz, J. (2003). Primiparous chimpanzee mothers: behavior and success in a short-term assessment of infant rearing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science

, 84 , 235–250.

Bourgeois, S., Vazquez, M., & Brasky, K. (2007) . Combination therapy reduces self-injurious behavior in a chimpanzee ( Pan Troglodytes Troglodytes ): a case report. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

, 10 (2), 123–140.

Bradshaw, G., Capaldo, T., Lindner, L., & Grow , G. (2008). Building an inner sanctuary: complex PTSD in chimpanzees. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation

, 9 (1), 9–34.

Bradshaw, G., Capaldo, T., Lindner, L., & Grow , G. (2009). Developmental context effects on bi-cultural post-trauma self repair in chimpanzees. Developmental Psychology

, 45 (5), 1376–1388.

Bradshaw, G., & Sapolsky, R. (2006). Mirror, mirror. American Scientist

, November-December

, 487–489.53 Brenner, G., Cohen, N., Ader, R., & Moynihan, J. (1990). Increased pulmonary metastases and natural killer cell activity in mice following handling. Life Sci.

, 47 (20), 1813–1819.

Brosnan, S. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their imp lications for fairness. Social Justice Research

, 19 (2), 153–185.

Brosnan, S. (2013). Justice- and fairness- related behaviors in nonhuman primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

, 110 (Supplement_2), 10416–10423.

Brüne, M., Brüne-Cohrs, U., & McGrew, W. (2 004). Psychiatric treatment for great apes? Science

, 306 (5704), 2039–2039.

Brune, M., Brune-Cohrs, U., McGrew, W., & Preu schoft, S. (2006). Psychopathology in great apes: Concepts, treatment options and po ssible homologies to human psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev

, 30 (8), 1246–1259.

Capaldo, T., & Bradshaw, G. (2011). The bioethics of great ape well-being: Psychiatric injury and duty of care. Animals and Society Institute

, Policy Paper . Retrieved from http://www.animalsandsociety.org/pages/t he-bioethics-of-grea t-ape-well-being

Capaldo, T., & Peppercorn, M. (2012). A review of autopsy reports on chimpanzees in or from U.S. laboratories. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

, 40 , 259–269.

Capdevila, S., Giral, M., Ruiz de la Torre, J., Russell, R., & Kramer, K. (2007). Acclimatization of rats after ground tr ansportation to a ne w animal facility. Lab Animal

, 41 (2), 255–261.

Cawthon Lang, K. (2005, July 20). Primate factsheets: Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) behavior. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/rhesus_macaque/behav

Chamove, A., Anderson, J., Morgan-Jones, S., & Jones, S. (1982). Deep woodchip litter: Hygiene, feeding, and behavioral enhancement in eight primate species. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems

, 3 (4), 308–318.

Chang, L. (2011). The role of stress on physiologi c responses and clinical symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology

, 140 (3), 761–765.

Council of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research. (2013). Report (January 22). Re trieved February 15, 2013, from https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/counc il/working_group_message

Cowan, T. (2012). The Animal Welfare Act: Background and selected legislation (Congressional Research Service No. 7-5700). Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www.nationalaglawcente r.org/assets/crs/RS22493.pdf54 Ferdowsian, H., Durham, D., Kimwele, C., Kr anendonk, G., Otali, E., Akugizibwe, T., Johnson, C. (2011). Signs of mood and anxiety disorders in chimpanzees. PLoS ONE

, 6 (6), e19855.

Garner, J. P. (2005). Stereotypies and other abno rmal repetitive behaviors: Potential impact on validity, reliability, and replicab ility of scientific outcomes. ILAR Journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources

, 46 (2), 106–117.

Gatchel, R., Paulus, P., & Maples, C. (1975). Learned helplessness and self-reported affect. Journal of Abnormal Psychology

, 84 (6), 732.

Gatchel, R., & Proctor, J. (1976). Physiologi cal correlates of learne d helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology

, 85 (1), 27.

GFAS. (2009, September 1). Globa l Federation of Animal Sanctuaries general animal care standards. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/pdf /standards-general-animal-care.pdf

Goosen, C. (1981). Abnormal behavior patterns in rhesus monkeys: Symptoms of mental disease. Biological Psychiatry

, 16 (8), 697–716.

Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery . New York: Basic Books.

Hird, D. W., Anderson, J. H., & Bielitzki, J. T. (1984). Diarrhea in nonhu man primates: a survey of primate colonies for incide nce rates and clinical opinion. Laboratory Animal Science

, 34 (5), 465–470.

Hugo, C., Seier, J., Mdhluli, C., Daniels, W., Harvey, B., Du Toit, D., ... Stein, D. (2003). Fluoxetine decreases stereotypi c behavior in primates. Progress in NeuroPsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry

, 27 (4), 639–643.

Hurst, J., Barnard, C., Tolladay, U., Nevision, C ., & West, C. (1999). Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: Effects of cag e stocking density and behaviou ral predictors of welfare. Anim Behaviour

, 58 (3), 563–586.

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity . The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13257

Kanazawa, M., Hongo, M., & Fukudo, S. (2011). Viscer al hypersensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

, 26 Suppl 3 , 119–121.

Kavanagh, M. (1984). A complete guide to monkeys, apes and other primates . New York: Viking Press.55 Keim, B. (2013, July 1). Medical experimentation on chimps is nearing an end. But what about monkeys? Wired Science . Retrieved August 5, 2013, from http://www.wired.com/wiredscie nce/2013/07/what-about-monkeys/

Kerr, R. R., Grayden, D. B., Thomas, D. A., Gilson, M., & Burkitt, A. N. (2013). Requirements for the robust operant conditioning of neural firing rates. BMC Neuroscience

, 14 (Suppl 1), P48.

Kobayashi, S., Schultz, W., & Sakagami, M. ( 2010). Operant conditioning of primate prefrontal

neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology

, 103 (4), 1843–1855.

Kozorovitskiy, Y., Gross, C., Kopil, C., Battagl ia, L., McBreen, M., et al. (2005). Experience induces structural and biochemical changes in the adult primate brain. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 102 (48), 17478-17482.

Kulpa-Eddy, J., Taylor, S., & Adams, K. (2005). USDA perspective on environmental enrichment for animals. ILAR Journal / National Resear ch Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources

, 46 (2), 83–94.

Lewis, A. (n.d.). Gross morbid anatomy of pathology of nonhuman primates. Oregon National Primate Research Center.

Lutz, C., Well, A., & Novak, M. (2003). Stereot ypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: a survey and retrospective analys is of environment and early experience. American Journal of Primatology

, 60 (1), 1–15.

Ma, C., & He, J. (2010). A method for investigating cortical c ontrol of stand and squat in conscious behavioral monkeys. Journal of Neuroscience Methods

, 192 (1), 1–6.

Maestripieri, D., & Hoffman, C. L. (2012). Behavi or and social dynamics of rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago. In Q. Wang (Ed.), Bones, Genetics, and Behavior of Rhesus Macaques (pp. 247–262). Springer New York. Re trieved September 12, 2013, from http://link.springer.com/ch apter/10.1007/978-1-4614-1046-1_12

Mallapur, A., & Choudhury, B. C. (2003). Behavioral abnormalities in captive nonhuman primates. Journal of Applied An imal Welfare Science

, 6 (4), 275–284.

Marino, L. (2002). Convergence of complex cogn itive abilities in cetaceans and primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution

, 59 (1-2), 21–32.

Mason, J., Wool, M., Wherry, F ., Pennington, L., Brady, J., & Beer , B. (1968). Plasma growth hormone response to avoidance sessions in the monkey. Psychosom. Med.

, 30 (5), Suppl:760–73.

McKinney, W. T., Suomi, S. J., & Harlow , H. F. (1971). Depression in primates. The American Journal of Psychiatry

, 127 (10), 1313–1320.56 Meijer, M., Sommer, R., Spruijt, B., van Zutphe n, L., & Baumans, V. (2007). Influence of environmental enrichment and handling on the acute stress response in individually housed mice. Lab Anim

, 41 (2), 161–173.

Melnick, M. (2011, May 31). Monkeys, like humans, make bad choices and regret them, too. Time . Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/31/monkeysplay-rock-paper-scissors-and-show-regret-over-losing/

Morgan, K., & Tromborg, C. (2007). Sources of stress in captivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science

, 102 (3), 262–302.

Narvaez, D., Panksepp, J., Schore, A., & Gleason, T. (2012). The value of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness for gauging children’s well-being. In Evolution, Early Experience and Human Development From Research to Practice and Policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

National Institutes of Health. (2011, December 15 ). Statement by NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins on the Institute of Medicine report addr essing the scientific need for the use of chimpanzees in research. NIH News. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://www.nih.gov/news/h ealth/dec2011/od-15.htm

National Institutes of Health. (2013, June 26). Announcement of agency decision: Recommendations on the use of chimpanzees in NIH-supported research. NOT-OD-13- 078. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from http://gra nts.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOTOD-13-078.html

National Institutes of Health Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives. (2013, June 26). Working group submits its report. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from http://dpcpsi.nih.gov/council/working_group_message.aspx

National Research Council Committee for the Upda te of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. (2011). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th ed.). Washington (DC): National Academie s Press (US). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54050/

Novak, M. (2003). Self-injurious behavior in rhesus monkeys: Ne w insights into its etiology, physiology, and treatment. American Journal of Primatology 59 : 3-19.

O’Malley, D., Quigley, E., Dinan, T., & Cryan, J. (2011). Do interactions between stress and immune responses lead to symptom exacer bations in irritabl e bowel syndrome? Brain, Behavior, and Immunity

, 25 (7), 1333–1341.

Olsson, I., & Dahlborn, K. (2002) . Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: A review of “environmental enrichment”. Lab Anim

, 36 (3), 243–270.57 Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience : The foundations of human and animal emotions

. New York: Oxford University Press.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2 011). Photos taken inside SNBL animal testing lab. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from h ttp://www.peta.org/features/imprisonedpoisoned/photos-taken-ins ide-animal-testing-lab/

Perry, G., Yang, F., Marques-Bonet, T., Mur phy, C., Fitzgerald, T., Lee, A., ... Redon, R. (2008). Copy number variation and evol ution in humans and chimpanzees. Genome Res.

, 18 (11), 1698–1710.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (1983). Lear ned helplessness and victimization. Journal of Social Issues
, 39 (2), 103–116.

Redmond, I. (2011). The primate family tree: The amazi ng diversity of our closest relatives

. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.

Reimers, M., Schwarzenberger, F., & Preuschof t, S. (2007). Rehabilitation of research chimpanzees: Stress and coping after long-term isolation. Hormones and Behavior

, 51 (3), 428–435.

Reinhardt, V. (2008). Taking better care of monkeys and apes: Refinement of housing and handling practices for caged nonhuman primates . Washington D.C.: Animal Welfare Institute. Retrieved from http://awion line.org/pubs/PRIMATES/prim-refine.html

Reinhardt, V. (Ed.). (2010). Caring hands: Discussions by the Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum . Washington, D.C.: Anim al Welfare Institute.

Reinhardt, V., & Reinhardt, A. (2000). Blood co llection procedure of laboratory primates: A neglected variable in biomedical research. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

, 3 (4), 321–333.

Roberts, R., Soames, A., James, N., Gill, J., & Wheeldon, E. (1995). Dosing-induced stress causes hepatocyte apoptosis in rats primed by the rodent nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogen cyproterone acetate. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol

, 135 (2), 192–199.

Rommeck, I., Gottlieb, D. H., Strand, S. C., & Mc Cowan, B. (2009). The effects of four nursery rearing strategies on infant behavioral development in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Journal of the American Associati on for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS

, 48 (4), 395–401.

Roy, M. A. (1981). Abnormal behaviors in nursery-reared squirrel monkeys ( Saimiri sciureus ). American Journal of Primatology

, 1 (1), 35–42.

Santos, L., Nissen, A., & Ferrugia, J. (2006). Rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta , know what others can and cannot hear. Animal Behaviour

, 71 (5), 1175–1181.58 Sapolsky, R. (2004). Why zebras don’t get ulcers (3rd ed.). Holt Paperbacks.

Schwindaman, D. (2011). Synergy of working together. Proceedings of the symposium on animal welfare and scientific research: 1985-2010. ILAR Journal

, 52 Supplement , 469.

Shapiro, K. (1998). Animal models of human psychology . Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Shively, C. A., Laber-Laird, K., & Anton, R. F. (1997). Behavior and physiology of social stress and depression in female cynomolgus monkeys. Biological Psychiatry

, 41 (8), 871–882.

Shumaker, R. W., & Beck, B. B. (2003). Primates in question: the Smithsonian answer book

. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books.

Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., Mikulincer, M., Neri a, Y., & Ohry, A. (1998). Coping with war captivity: the role of attachment style. European Journal of Personality

, 12 , 271–285.

Soto, P., Stein, L., Hurtado-Ziola, N., Hedrick, S., & Varki, A. (2010). Relative over-reactivity of human versus chimpanzee lymphocytes: implications for the human diseases associated with immune activation. J. Immunol.

, 184 (8), 4185–4195.

Stanley, V. (1996, September 12). Humane groups viewpoints . Presented at the Animal Welfare Act: Historical perspectives and fu ture directions, Riverdale, MD.

Stop Animal Exploitation Now. (2012). Univer sity of Washington, Seattle photo gallery. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http: //www.all-creatures.org/saen/pics-uws2012.html

Thornton, J., & Jacobs, P. (1971). Learned helplessness in human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Journal of Experimental Psychology

, 87 (3), 367.

Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1994). Soci al cognition of monkeys and apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology

, 37 (S19), 273–305.

USDA. (1989, August 31). Final Rules: Animal We lfare; 9 CFR Parts 1 and 2. Retrieved from Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 168, P. 36112-36163

Walsh, S., Bramblett, C., & Alford, P. ( 1982). A vocabulary of abnormal behaviors in restrictively reared chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology

, 3 (1-4), 315–319.

Williams, P., Poole, M., Katos, A., & Hilmas , C. (2008). A new device for the capture and transport of small nonhuman primates in scientific research. Lab Anim (NY)

, 37 (3), 116– 119.59 Wortman, C., & Brehm, J. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. Volume 8, pp. 277–336). Academic Press.