Complaints raised by PETA against Princeton

July 21, 2014

Christopher L. Eisgruber

President

1 Nassau Hall

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 08544

Via e-mail: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Eisgruber:

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more

than 3 million members and supporters, I am writing to share very disturbing

information about the mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in Princeton's

laboratories and request that plans be made immediately for their relocation to an

accredited sanctuary.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who provided

information and evidence to us of graduate students and staff members

mistreating and roughly mishandling marmoset monkeys in the federally funded

laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princeton's Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in the

laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey through the

corridors of the laboratory.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014,

sent by Asif Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory staff and

graduate students ([email protected]), in which he wrote: "I was

very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the

respect that they deserve. Recently, one or more (I didn't get the details)

was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of

our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the marmoset."

It's not clear how many marmosets were abused in this activity, but the

marmosetsextremely sensitive and fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become frightened and distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained

injuries. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princeton's

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or other authorities.

The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and irresponsible handling

of marmosets in Ghazanfar's laboratory is widespread, and as a result of this

violent handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of his staffers,

including graduate students Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao and research staffer

Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblower's knowledge, none of these

individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required, apparently because they would then be

asked to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets. The whistleblower also

informed PETA that there have apparently been multiple incidents in which marmosets escaped

from their cages, including one episode as recently as the week of June 30, 2014.

We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health.

These latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. The university has a long history

of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, it was cited by the

USDAand later was issued an official warningfor violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including a failure to provide a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give

birth with adequate care. Her newborn ultimately died, and a veterinarian was not allowed to

investigate the cause of death. The same year, Princeton was cited for an incident in which a

marmoset was injured after escaping from his cage. Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for a total

of 23 AWA violations.

This recent incident and the history of problems related to the treatment of marmosets make it clear

that Princeton is not a suitable place for them and that the staff is unable to care for these sensitive,

intelligent animals adequately.

You may not be aware that marmosets naturally live in rich forests and spend their time high in

trees in family groups spanning three generations. At Princeton, they are locked in cages and used

for experiments to study how they coordinate their vocalizations, something that could be studied in

monkeys in the wild or a sanctuary setting without subjecting them to the fear, distress, and

confinement of a laboratory.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to begin a process to retire the marmosets immediately to a

sanctuary accredited by the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance. PETA is prepared to

provide assistance with coordinating such an effort. Additionally, we are asking that you investigate

the allegations above and swiftly move to ban students and staff who have mishandled these

marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities with animals.

Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look forward to hearing from you and can be

contacted at 202-829-0974 or [email protected].

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Alka Chandna, Ph.D.

Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist

Laboratory Investigations Department

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

cc: David S. Lee, Provost ([email protected])

Valerie A. Smith, Dean of the College ([email protected])

Mary DeLorenzo, Assistant to the President ([email protected])

July 21, 2014

Asif Ghazanfar

Professor

Department of Psychology

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 08544

Dear Dr. Ghazanfar:

I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

and our more than 3 million members and supporters regarding the ongoing

mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in your laboratory and to ask that you make

plans to relocate these animals to an accredited sanctuary.

A whistleblower has reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in your

laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey through the

corridors of the laboratory. It is not clear how many marmosets were abused in

this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have

sustained injuries.

The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and irresponsible handling

of marmosets in your laboratory is widespread and as a result of this violent

handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of your staffers, including

graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego

Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, none of these individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required apparently because they would

then be asked to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

The whistleblower also informed PETA that there have apparently been multiple

incidents where marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as

recently as the week of June 30, 2014.

We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health.

You probably know that Princeton has a history of mistreating marmosets and

other animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.

These incidents make clear that Princeton is not a suitable place for marmosets

and that the staff is unable to adequately care for these sensitive, intelligent

animals.

Further, research on monkeys vocalizationscould be studied in the wild or a sanctuary setting without subjecting them to the fear, distress and confinement of

a laboratory.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to immediately begin a process to retire

the marmosets to a sanctuary accredited by the North American Primate

Sanctuary Alliance. PETA is prepared to provide assistance with coordinating

such an effort. Additionally, we are asking that you investigate the allegations

above and swiftly move to ban students and staff who have mishandled these

marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities with animals.

Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look forward to hearing from

you and can be contacted at 202-829-0974 or [email protected].

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Alka Chandna, Ph.D.




July 21, 2014

Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer

Eastern Regional Director

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal Care

920 Main Campus Dr., Ste. 200

Raleigh, NC 27606-5210


Dear Dr. Goldentyer:


and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request that the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

investigate possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) related to the

use and treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton University (#22-R-

0022), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who alleged and

provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own amusementgraduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled marmoset monkeys in

the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the Princeton

laboratory:

1. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort;

2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties; and

3. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that contain the animals securely.

I. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause trauma,

behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort

Section 2.38(f)(1) of the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) stipulates:

Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling,

behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.

However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in

Asif Ghazanfars laboratory placed a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey through the corridors of the laboratory

for the amusement of the personnel. It is not clear how many marmosets were

abused in this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained injuries.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014, sent by Asif

Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory staff and graduate students

([email protected]), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or

more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the

marmoset. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princetons Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other authorities.

II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are

qualified to perform their duties

Section 2.32(a) of the AWRs mandates: It shall be the responsibility of the research facility to ensure that all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other personnel involved

in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties. This responsibility shall

be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel. Section 2.32(c)(1) of the AWRs further elaborates: Training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in at least the following areas: (1) Humane methods of animal maintenance and

experimentation, including Proper handling and care for the various species of animals used by the facility. In addition, Section 2.32(c)(4) of the AWRs specifies that training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in [m]ethods whereby deficiencies in animal care and treatment are reported.

However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars laboratory mishandle the marmosets, handling the animals roughly and improperly when they are dyed different colors for

protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they are transferred from their

cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling, marmosets have bitten several

staffers in Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently none of these individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required because they would then

be required to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

The incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail written by Asif Ghazanfar also illustrates

Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of personnel involved in the use and treatment of animals. If it is the case, as the whistleblower alleges, that Asif Ghazanfar did not report the

marmoset incident to the Princeton IACUC, this would constitute a violation of Section

2.32(c)(4). Moreover, the failure to report deficiencies in animal care and treatment undermines

the IACUCs ability to comply with Section 2.31(c)(4) of the AWRs, which states that the IACUC must [r]eview, and, if warranted, investigate concerns involving the care and use of animals at the research facility resulting from public complaints received and from reports of

noncompliance received from laboratory or research facility personnel or employees.

III. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that house the

animals securely

Section 3.75(a) of the AWRs stipulates that [h]ousing facilities for nonhuman primates must be designed and constructed so that they protect the animals from injury [and] contain the animals securely. Section 3.80 of the AWRs further specifies that [p]rimary enclosures [for nonhuman primates] must be constructed and maintained so that they [c]ontain the nonhuman primates securely and prevent accidental opening of the enclosure, including opening by the

animal.

However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been multiple incidents where

marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as recently as the week of June 30,

2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously identified by the USDA, as well.

Princetons History of Noncompliance As you know, these latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton has a

long history of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, the school

was cited by your agencyand later issued an official warningfor failing to provide adequate veterinary care to a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give birth. Her newborn

ultimately died and a veterinarian was not allowed to investigate the cause of death. The same

year, Princeton was cited for an incident in which a marmoset was injured after escaping from

his cage.

Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 AWA violations, including failing to search for

alternatives to animal use, failing to provide adequate veterinary care to primates in pain and

failing to justify drastically restricting primates access to drinking water. In May 2011, the USDA Investigative and Enforcement Services took the rare step of issuing an official warning

to Princeton for failing to provide complete descriptions of the use of animals in experiments and

for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant marmoset.

We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this letter and, if the claims are

substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes citing Princeton University for

violations of the AWA and levying fines against the facility for its repeated failure to comply

with federal law.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or [email protected]. Thank you

for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Alka Chandna, Ph.D.




501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

July 21, 2014

Axel V. Wolff, D.V.M.

Director

Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare

National Institutes of Health

RKL1, Ste. 360, MSC 7982

6705 Rockledge Dr.

Bethesda, MD 20892-7982


Dear Dr. Wolff:


and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request that your office

investigate possible noncompliance with the Public Health Service Policy on

Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) and the Guide for

the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide) related to the use and

treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton University (PHS Assurance

#A3434-01), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who alleged and

provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own amusementgraduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled marmoset monkeys in

the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the Princeton

laboratory:

1. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of animals; 2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and

use are qualified to perform their duties;

3. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare concerns; 4. Failure to report bites; and 5. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that

contain the animals securely.

I. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of animals

Principle IV of the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of

Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training emphasizes the

imperative to avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to animals.

However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in Asif Ghazanfars laboratory placed a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified

monkey through the corridors of the laboratory for the amusement of the personnel. It is not clear

how many marmosets were abused in this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained

injuries.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014, sent by Asif

Ghazanfar ([email protected]) to his laboratory staff and graduate students

([email protected]), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or

more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the

marmoset. To the whistleblowers knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princetons Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other authorities.

II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are

qualified to perform their duties

On the issue of training for staff, the Guide is explicit: All personnel involved with the care and use of animals must be adequately educated, trained, and/or qualified in basic principles of

laboratory animal science to help ensure high-quality science and animal well-being. The Guide further states: Personnel caring for animals should be appropriately trained and the institution should provide for formal and/or on-the-job training to facilitate effective

implementation of the Program and the humane care and use of animals. The Guide lists several areas in which all research groups should receive training, including: animal care and use legislation, IACUC function, [and] ethics of animal use and the concepts of the Three Rs.

However, the incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail written by Asif Ghazanfar

illustrates Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of personnel involved in the use and treatment of animals in the areas of animal well-being, the humane care and use of animals,

ethics of animal use, and the concept of the Three Rs.

III. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare concerns

The Guide states:

Safeguarding animal welfare is the responsibility of every individual associated with the Program. The institution must develop methods for reporting and investigating animal

welfare concerns, and employees should be aware of the importance of and mechanisms

for reporting animal welfare concerns. In the United States, responsibility for review and

investigation of these concerns rests with the IO and the IACUC Reported concerns and any corrective actions taken should be documented.

However, the whistleblower alleges that Asif Ghazanfar did not report the marmoset incident to

the Princeton IACUC. If this allegation is true, this would indicate that Ghazanfar was not

adequately trained on the importance of reporting animal welfare concerns. Moreover, the failure

to report animal welfare concerns undermines the IACUCs ability to investigate such concerns and take appropriate actionincluding reporting any noncompliance incidents to OLAW.

IV. Failure to report bites

The Guide states: Clear procedures should be established for reporting all accidents, bites, scratches, and allergic reactions.

However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars laboratory mishandle the marmosets, handling the animals roughly and improperly when they are dyed different colors for

protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they are transferred from their

cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling, marmosets bit several staffers in

Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently none of these individuals reported the biting incidents as is required because they would then be required

to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

V. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that house the

animals securely

The Guide states: The primary enclosure [in which animals are housed] should provide a secure environment that does not permit animal escape.

However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been multiple incidents where

marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as recently as the week of June 30,

2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously identified by the USDA, as well.

Princetons History of Noncompliance These latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton has a long history

of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, the school was cited by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and later issued an official warningfor failing to provide adequate veterinary care to a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give

birth. Her newborn ultimately died and a veterinarian was not allowed to investigate the cause of

death. The same year, Princeton was cited by the USDA for an incident in which a marmoset

was injured after escaping from his cage.

Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 Animal Welfare Act violations, including failing to

search for alternatives to animal use, failing to provide adequate veterinary care to primates in

pain and failing to justify drastically restricting primates access to drinking water. In May 2011, the USDA Investigative and Enforcement Services took the rare step of issuing an official

warning to Princeton for failing to provide complete descriptions of the use of animals in

experiments and for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant marmoset.

We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this letter and, if the claims are

substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes placing Princeton under enhanced

monitoring and ordering repayment of federal funds used during the noncompliant period. Given

the seriousness of the allegations, we ask that you closely investigate the review process that

green lighted the protocol. We contend that the goals of this projectaimed at studying how

marmosets coordinate their vocalizationsdo not justify the pain and distress suffered by the marmosets used, particularly given the scofflaw behavior of Princeton employees. We further

contend that the goals of this project do not justify the expenditure of $2.3 million of taxpayer

money since 2007. As such, we strongly recommend a reevaluation of Asif Ghazanfars NIH-funded project.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or [email protected]. Thank you

for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Alka Chandna, Ph.D.




501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

Cc: Sally Rockey, Director, NIH Office of Extramural Research

Text of email from Asif Ghazanfar (PI), dated June 22, 2014

Dear Lab,

I was very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the marmoset. None of those lab members who participated chose to exercise any common sense, sense of decency or leadership.

Thus, its a pity that I have to do this, but Im reminding you that these are precious subjects for whom we are responsible. That means treating them gently, with respect, and in accord with scientific goals and procedures in our approved protocols. Anytime you think you want play with the marmosets, try very hard to take their perspective and ask if yourself [sic] would like that activity done to you for no reason other than the entertainment of others.

The marmosets are not in the lab for your amusement. They are not pets. We are forcing them into experimental contexts that they wouldnt otherwise choose because that is the only way that we can address our scientific questions. To force them into contexts for which there is no scientific justification is reprehensible and, frankly, unethical.

This message is coming directly from me. This is how I feel personally; I am not relaying the official sentiment from the university. I am very much pro-science and pro-animal welfare. Mistreating the marmosets is both anti-science and anti-welfare.

If any of you want to talk about this further, we can do so at the next lab meeting.

Asif

Complaints raised by PETA against Princeton

Documents

Transcript of Complaints raised by PETA against Princeton