[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHIMPANZEE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3514
__________
MAY 18, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-109
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Health and Environment
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, (Ex Officio)
Mississippi
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Material submitted for the record by:
Goodall, Jane, Ph.D. CBE, Director of Science and Research,
the Jane Goodall Institute................................. 1
Nelson, Tina, Executive Director of the American
Antivivisection Society.................................... 33
Prince, Alfred M., Head of Virology, Lindsley F. Kimball
Research Institute, New York Blood Center.................. 31
Strandberg, John, Director of Comparative Medicine, National
Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of
Health..................................................... 17
(iii)
CHIMPANZEE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Health and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:48 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael
Bilirakis (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Greenwood,
Bryant, Brown, and Green.
Staff present: Jason Lee, majority counsel; Kristi Gillis,
legislative clerk; and John Ford, minority counsel.
Mr. Bilirakis. This hearing will come to order. First, I
want to apologize and at least explain the reason why this
hearing is starting almost 50 minutes later than originally
scheduled. That is because we have had a series of votes on the
floor. Additionally, members are waiving their opening
statement to allow Dr. Goodall to testify, since it is so very
important we hear her testimony. Obviously, we will have a
series of votes taking place all day long. It is going to be
one of those days, I am afraid.
Dr. Goodall, we so very much appreciate your taking time to
be here today. Jane Goodall, Ph.D., is the director of science
and research at the Jane Goodall Institute located here in
Silver Spring, Maryland. Please proceed.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, could I have 5 seconds.
Mr. Bilirakis. By all means.
Mr. Brown. Dr. Goodall, when I was a college student 25
years ago, I heard you come to our campus to speak and I have
admired and followed you and been thrilled with the work you've
done ever since.
Ms. Goodall. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Please proceed, Dr. Goodall.
STATEMENT OF JANE GOODALL, PH.D. CBE, DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH, THE JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE
Ms. Goodall. When I began my research in Tanzania's Gombe
Stream National Park 40 years ago, scientific attitudes and
public perceptions toward chimpanzees were very different than
those of today. Then I was criticizeed for giving them names. I
should have given them numbers, talking about their
personalities and ascribing to them intellectual abilities----
Mr. Bilirakis. Please pull that closer, if you would,
Doctor, so we can all hear you better.
Ms. Goodall. I was criticized for giving them names rather
than numbers, describing their vivid personalities and
ascribing to them intellectual abilities and emotional
expressions that were then considered unique to human beings.
Today, however, their biological and behaviorable similarities
to humans, their closest living primate relatives, are widely
accepted. Unfortunately, the biological similarities, the less
than 2 percent difference in the structure of DNA and the
striking similarities in the structure of immune systems,
similarities in blood and anatomy of brain and central nervous
system, mean that hundreds of our closest living relatives in
the animal kingdom are imprisoned in medical research
laboratories.
Mr. Bilirakis. Forgive me, Doctor. Can the audience hear
the doctor well enough? Please pull that mike a little closer.
Ms. Goodall. I'm sorry. My voice isn't good today.
Mr. Bilirakis. For better reason, I guess to have the mike
a little closer, if you would.
Ms. Goodall. Can you hear?
Perhaps it wasn't on. Is that better? Yes. It wasn't on,
was it? Never mind. You didn't miss too much.
Mr. Bilirakis. You are welcome to start all over if you
would like.
Ms. Goodall. Basically what I was saying was that since I
began my study in 1960 at the Gombe National Park, attitudes
toward chimpanzees have changed rather dramatically, and that
when I first began, I was criticized for giving the chimps
names and talking about their minds and ascribing to them
emotions like happiness, sadness and fear because those were
supposed to be unique to humans, but today attitudes have
changed quite considerably and unfortunately, some of the
biological similarities between humans and chimps like the
closeness of the structure of DNA where they differ from us by
only just over 1 percent, and the anatomy of brain and central
nervous system and the structure of blood and immune system
means that they are widely used for medical research, so that
there they are, our closest living relatives, imprisoned in
very often small cages while we try to find out more about the
nature and cures for human disease.
The plight of the chimps in medical research is of
increasing concern to very large numbers of people throughout
the world, as a matter of fact. Now for the first time, the
medical research community has recognized that a cost effective
and humane system is needed for the long-term care of
chimpanzees. This is demonstrated by the growing list of
scientists who have given their support to the permanent
retirement system of Congressman Greenwood proposed in H.R.
3514.
Many supporters of this legislation currently work for or
run facilities that use chimps in biomedical research that is
funded by the National Institutes of Health. These researchers
have begun to realize that it is fundamentally wrong to cage
these amazing animals alone in tiny cramped cells for the
remainder of their long lives, and they can live to be over 60
years. Yet as Thomas Insel, M.D., former director of Yerkes
Regional Primate Center said in a New York Times interview,
until there are those kind of resources such as would be
provided by this bill, there are going to be chimpanzees in
facilities like ours where chimpanzees are basically being
warehoused. A humane responsible alternative is to place the
chimps in a sanctuary, or sanctuaries. Sanctuary accommodations
would be a much cheaper alternative to warehousing chimpanzees
in the back of research facilities as well as being more
humane.
The surplus problem began in the 1980's and 1990's when the
NIH initiated a breeding program that was very productive, but
the combination of an increase in chimpanzees and less
extensive research use that had been anticipated created a
surplus of chimps and a substantial management problem. To
address the management problem, in 1994, NIH asked the National
Academy of Sciences National Research Council to study
alternatives for management of federally funded research
chimpanzees.
In 1997, the National Research Council presented its report
chimpanzees in research, strategies for their ethical care,
management, and use to NIH and to the public. The NRC report,
which I have submitted with my written testimony for the
record, determines that there are surplus chimps who will, for
specific scientific reasons, never be able to be used in
research again. It concludes that these surplus chimpanzees
could go to a sanctuary similar to the one proposed in the
chimp pack. This would be the cheapest and most appropriate way
to care for surplus chimpanzees. This legislation is the only
humane hope for chimpanzees that will never be used in research
again because of the procedures to which they have already been
subjected.
Instead of expending research dollars to warehouse chimps
sometimes for decades, retiring chimpanzees to a sanctuary will
be a humane alternative and it will free financial resources
that can be better used to find cures for human ailments.
How can we, as a supposedly enlightened and intelligent
people, disregard all we know about chimps as our closest
relatives and continue to subject them to cruel standards of
research and inhumane lifetime confinement. If we choose to
ignore their emotions, intelligence and culture, shouldn't we
at least give them a chance to live in peace after giving their
lives in the quest for human life?
We are at a crossroads in our relationship with chimps. We
have the opportunity to make a major difference in the lives of
many chimpanzees to do something now when we realize there is a
need and are presented with a solution. In conclusion, Mr.
Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I wish to
remind you and other Members of Congress that this legislation
and hearing are not about the future of biomedical research
using chimpanzees or the animals used in any research. This
legislation is about doing what is right, retiring chimpanzees
that are being forced into servitude by us.
The bill does not arbitrarily pull chimpanzees out of
research. Quite the contrary. It enables creation of a more
appropriate place for them to live when the scientists have
determined that they are no longer useful for research. The
legislation allows for the creation of sanctuaries which will
provide socially, mentally, and physically enriching
environments in which chimpanzees can live out their lives.
These chimpanzees can never return to the wild, but free from
small cages, they can live in a way that will allow them to
socialize to groom each other, to feel breeze in their face, to
climb trees. That is surely the least we can do for them in
return for their sacrifice.
You are going to hear from NIH about their concern about
monitoring the chimps in the sanctuaries. This bill does permit
that and I am confident that Congress and this administration
will be able to sort out any problems of this sort.
I urge you to pass Congressman Greenwood's bill, H.R. 3514,
as quickly as possible. Every day counts for the imprisoned
chimpanzees. This bill represents the ethically and fiscally
right course of action. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jane Goodall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Goodall, The Jane Goodall Institute, U.S.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to speak before you on this legislation. I have long hoped
the U.S. government would take appropriate steps to provide long-term
care for chimpanzees in biomedical research and ensure the well-being
of these animals who have given so much to help humans. I urge you to
pass H.R. 3514 without delay--every day counts and this bill represents
the morally, ethically and fiscally right course of action. Congressman
Greenwood has presented us with an extraordinary opportunity for the
peaceful, permanent retirement from further experimentation of hundreds
of these very special beings who are so close to my heart.
When I began my research in Tanzania's Gombe Stream National Park,
40 years ago in 1960, scientific attitudes and public perceptions
towards chimpanzees were very different than those of today. Then, I
was criticized for giving them names (rather than numbers), describing
their vivid personalities, and ascribing to them intellectual abilities
and emotional expressions considered unique to human beings. Today,
however, their biological and behavioral similarities to humans (their
closest living primate relatives) are widely accepted. Unfortunately,
the biological similarities--the less than 2% difference in the
structure of DNA and the striking similarities in the structure of
immune systems, similarities in blood and in anatomy of brain and
central nervous system--mean that hundreds of our closest living
relatives in the animal kingdom are imprisoned in medical research
laboratories, used to investigate a variety of human diseases.
The plight of chimpanzees used in medical research is of great
concern to countless numbers of people across the United States and
around the world. Indeed, a number of scientists have expressed concern
as to the validity of using chimpanzees living in highly stressful
situations as models for investigating human diseases since stress is
known to affect the immune system and this, in turn, may invalidate
certain medical tests. Thus it is of great importance to search for and
encourage alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in laboratory testing
for scientific as well as humane reasons.
What of these chimpanzees that end up in medical research
laboratories, some 2,000 chimps imprisoned in labs worldwide--about
1,500 of them in the United States alone? Visiting the labs and looking
into the bewildered, or sad, or angry eyes of the prisoners in their
cages, is the worst kind of nightmare. Animal researchers, to make it
easier for them to do what they feel they must do, often ignore or even
deny the psychological needs of their subjects--needs which are so like
ours. The trouble is that many lab chimps have learned to distrust and
even hate humans; they await the opportunity to spit, to throw feces,
to bite. We cannot blame them. But it means that those who work in the
labs cannot imagine the dignity, the magnificence, of free-living
chimpanzees. So how do we open blinded eyes, bring feeling to frozen
hearts? Perhaps with stories, stories about the chimpanzee in the wild,
the fascination of their lives in the forest.
If we succeed, if scientists start to see into the minds of the
animals for whose plight they are to some extent responsible, they can
no longer be at peace. For once we accept or even suspect that humans
are not the only beings with personalities, not the only beings capable
of rational thought and problem-solving, not the only beings to
experience joy and sadness and despair, and above all not the only
beings to know mental as well as physical suffering, we become less
arrogant, a little less sure that we have the inalienable right to make
use of other life forms in any way we please so long as there is a
possible benefit for us. We humans are, of course, unique, but we are
not so different from the rest of the animal kingdom as we used to
suppose: the line between humans and other animals, once perceived as
sharp, is blurred. And this leads to a new humility, a new respect.
JoJo was the first adult male I met when I visited the former chimp
colony at LEMSIP (the laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery
in Primates, located at New York University). ``He's gentle,'' said the
veterinarian, Jim Mahoney, ``he won't hurt you.'' I knelt and reached
through the thick, cold steel bars of his prison cell with my gloved
hand. I thought of David Greybeard, the first wild chimpanzee to lose
his fear and allow me into his world. JoJo had a similar face, and
white hairs on his chin. As I looked into his eyes, I saw no anger,
only puzzlement, and gratitude that I had stopped to speak to him, to
break the terrible gray monotony of the day. And I felt deep shame,
shame that we, with our more sophisticated intellect, with our greater
capacity for understanding and compassion, had deprived JoJo of almost
everything. Not for him the soft colors of the forest, the dim greens
and browns entwined. Nor the peace of the afternoon when the sun
filters through the canopy and small creatures rustle and flit and
creep among the leaves. Not for him the freedom to choose, each day,
how he would spend his time, and where and with whom. Instead of
nature's sounds of running water, of wind in the branches, of
chimpanzee calls ringing through the forest, JoJo knew only the loud,
horrible sounds of clanging bars and banging doors, and the deafening
volume of chimpanzee calls in underground rooms. In the lab, the world
was concrete and steel--no soft forest floor, no springy leafy branches
for making beds at night. There were no windows, nothing to look at,
nothing to play with. JoJo had been torn from his forest world as an
infant, torn from his family and friends and, innocent of crime, locked
into solitary confinement. No wonder I had a strong sense of guilt, the
guilt of my species. Needing forgiveness, I looked into JoJo's clear
eyes. And he reached out a large gentle finger and touched the tear
that trickled down into my mask.
How should we relate to beings who look into mirrors and see
themselves as individuals, who mourn companions and may die of grief,
who have consciousness of ``self''? Don't they deserve to be treated
with the same sort of consideration we accord to other highly
sensitive, conscious beings--ourselves? For ethical reasons, we no
longer perform certain experiments on humans; I suggest that in good
conscience the least we could do is afford the chimpanzees we have
already used a peaceable life.
Now, for the first time, the medical research community has
recognized that a cost-effective and humane system is needed for the
long term care of chimpanzees confined in laboratory cages. This is
demonstrated by the growing list of scientists who have given their
support to the permanent retirement system proposed in H.R. 3514.
Many supporters of this legislation currently work for or run
facilities that use chimpanzees in biomedical research funded by the
National Institutes of Health. These researchers have begun to realize
that it is fundamentally wrong to cage these amazing animals alone in
tiny cramped cells for the remainder of their long lives (they can live
to be 60 years old). Yet, as Thomas Insel, MD, former Director of the
Yerkes Regional Primate Center said in a New York Times interview,
``Until there are those kinds of resources [H.R. 3514], there are going
to be chimpanzees in facilities like ours where chimpanzees are
basically being warehoused.'' A humane, responsible alternative is to
place the chimps in a sanctuary. Sanctuary accommodations would be a
much cheaper alternative than warehousing chimpanzees in the back of
research facilities.
The surplus problem began in the 80's and 90's when the National
Institutes of Health initiated, according to minutes on Dr. Ray
O'Neill's presentation to at January 2000 National Advisory Research
Resources Council meeting, a ``breeding program that was very
productive, but the combination of an increase in chimpanzees and less
extensive research use than expected, created a surplus of chimpanzees,
and a substantial management problem.'' To address the management
problem, in 1994, NIH asked the National Academy of Science's National
Research Council to study alternatives for management of federally
funded research chimpanzees. In 1997, the National Research Council
presented its report Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for their
Ethical Care, Management and Use to NIH and the public. The NRC Report,
which I have submitted with my written testimony for the record,
determines that there are ``surplus chimpanzees'' who will, for
specific scientific reasons, never be able to be used in research
again. It concludes that these surplus chimpanzees, already retirement
ready, could go to a sanctuary, similar to the one proposed in the
CHIMP Act. This would be the cheapest and most appropriate route to
care for surplus chimpanzees.
This legislation is the only humane hope for chimpanzees that will
never be used in research again because of the procedures to which they
have already been subjected. Instead of expending research dollars to
warehouse chimpanzees, sometimes for decades, retiring chimpanzees to a
sanctuary will be a humane alternative that also frees financial
resources that can better be used to find cures for human ailments.
How can we, as a supposedly enlightened, intelligent people,
disregard all we know about chimpanzees and continue to subject them to
the cruel standards of research and inhumane lifetime confinement? If
we choose to ignore their emotions, intelligence, culture and relation
to humans, shouldn't we at least give them a chance to live in peace
after giving their lives in the quest for human advancement? We are at
a crossroads in our relationship with chimpanzees. We have the
opportunity to make a major difference in many chimpanzee lives; to do
something now when we realize there is a need, and are presented with a
solution.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee I wish to remind you and other members Congress that this
legislation and hearing are NOT about the future of biomedical research
or the animals used in any research. This legislation is about doing
what is right: retiring chimpanzees that have been forced into
servitude to us. The bill does not arbitrarily pull chimps out of
research. Quite the contrary, it enables creation of a more appropriate
place for them to live when the scientists have determined that they
are no longer useful for research. The legislation allows for the
creation of sanctuaries which will provide socially, mentally, and
physically enriching environments in which chimpanzees can live out
their lives.
These chimps can never return to the wild, but free from cages they
can live in a way that will allow them to socialize, feel the breeze in
their faces, climb trees, and groom with their friends. That is,
surely, the least we can do for them, in return for their sacrifice.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much, Doctor.
Obviously, your written statement is a part of the record.
I guess I will start off the questioning very briefly, very
quickly. I understand you are going to have to leave. We will
try to expedite this.
Dr. Goodall, you made a comment in your statement that
these chimpanzees cannot be returned to the wild. Why is that?
Is that because of the domestication of them over this period
of time--can you explain that to me?
Ms. Goodall. It is a whole variety of reasons, but
basically, it is almost impossible to return chimpanzees to the
wild, even in Africa we are struggling with caring for orphan
chimps whose mothers have been shot. There isn't in most places
enough wild forest for the wild chimpanzees, let alone trying
to introduce more, and wild chimpanzees are very aggressively
territorial. They would probably attack and maybe kill any
chimpanzees that we might try to introduce into the wild. Also
these chimps are familiar with people and they'd wander into a
village and either hurt someone or be hurt themselves. There is
also the disease factor. If they are infected, then it would be
entirely inappropriate to even try.
Mr. Bilirakis. How long do they typically live in
captivity?
Ms. Goodall. There are a number that have lived to be 60
and more.
Mr. Bilirakis. You referred, of course, to the sanctuaries
which are part of the Greenwood legislation. How, in your
opinion, should they be structured?
Ms. Goodall. They should be structured probably slightly
different for slightly different chimpanzees because some have
been in captivity for so long it is very hard to resocialize
them in a large group. They might always have to be just in
pairs or threes. Others, especially the younger ones, can be
introduced into much larger groups so they would have places to
sleep at night. It would be rather like a big zoo, really, a
safari park zoo. They would have places to go, things to climb,
a very enriched environment.
Mr. Bilirakis. Doctor, I am not sure if you can respond to
this, so if not, don't worry about it. Mr. Greenwood knows,
though he and I have talked, and there are a number of what I
will refer to as ``sanctuaries,'' for lack of a proper word. I
am not saying that they are all adequate sanctuaries around the
country. I know there is one, in my district in Florida, which
has been rendered by the Agriculture Department, to be not
quite up to standard.
I guess my question is while considering expenses is it
better to have 1 or 2, however many might be required,
sanctuaries, located in Louisiana, which I believe is the
location being considered right now, if I remember correctly,
as opposed to possibly affording the dollars to the current
sanctuaries, which are maybe not fit adequately today? In other
words, would we do as good a job or a better job concentrating
on the sanctuaries that now exist and need to be retrofitted,
if you will, against the one large sanctuary? I don't know if
you get my point.
Ms. Goodall. I do. I don't personally--I think you will
find differences of opinion on this among the people who work
with sanctuary chimps, but I personally don't think one huge
sanctuary would be a very useful thing. For one thing, the fear
of disease spreading through and for another--I don't know--so
many chimps all together might not be good. We are talking in
terms of a couple hundred here. So my feeling would be that
maybe, in some cases, existing sanctuaries can be slightly
enlarged, but that has already been done with all the chimps
that came out of the LEMSIP lab. And in other cases, building
new sanctuaries particularly for those chimpanzees who are
infected, and that's the one you are talking about in
Louisiana.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Mr. Greenwood?
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you
for holding this hearing. I really deeply appreciate it and for
the chairman and other members here who have asked me why I
have introduced this CHIMP bill, you now know all of the good
reasons, but your also having had the opportunity to meet Dr.
Goodall know how impossible it would be to say no to her after
such a request.
There are two points, Dr. Goodall, that I think we need to
have your testimony on. The biggest stumbling block I think
right now between the National Institutes of Health and our
efforts here are this line that we have drawn about permanency.
What we've said in the bill that once, and it is for the
researchers to determine this, but once a researcher says that
this particular chimpanzee is no longer needed for research,
that it would go to the sanctuary and be done, and it would
retire there, and the NIH feels that they need the ability to
pull them back out, I think and we will query them soon, but I
think their focus is if there was some dread disease that
suddenly was newly discovered and we needed to do massive
amounts of research, that we might suddenly wish we could pull
hundreds of these chimpanzees out for research. I would like
your comments about that. Why you think it is important that
the retirement be a one-way street, if you will?
Ms. Goodall. I think it is important for ethical reasons
and once you admit that the similarities in brain and central
nervous system have created a being who is like us in so many
ways, in particular, the expression of emotions and the
intellect, then to take such a being out of some kind of close,
and for them, probably extremely unpleasant confinement, to
give them a slight taste of what it is like to be more like a
real chimp, to have some freedom, to have some control over his
or her life, and then suddenly to take them out again would be
very ethically wrong, in my opinion.
On the other hand, if you had to choose, you know, thinking
from the point of view of the chimp, if you are a chimpanzee
now in a 5-foot-by-5-foot cage, and you have a chance of
getting out, even if meant being pulled back in in 15 years,
probably you would choose to go out for 15 years, but that is
down the road. On principal, I don't think they should be
pulled back in.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. If I have the time, the second
issue which is very related to that one goes to the nature of a
chimpanzee. I think, as you began your statement, that some
time ago people didn't ascribe emotions to these animals and
now that has changed. It has probably changed for many people,
maybe most people but not necessarily for everyone. This is the
thing that I think you know the most about, what these animals
are like in terms of their emotions and their feelings and
their ability to suffer or to feel joy. Could you share your
thoughts on this?
Ms. Goodall. As you know, we have worked for 40 years in
the Gombe National Park as well as some other places. And I
think the thing that really strikes you is how much like us
their behavior is. You have got this long childhood, 5 years of
suckling and 5 years during which the child is quite dependent
on the mother and is, during all this time, learning, learning
by observing the actions of others around and the long-term
bonds that therefore can develop between mother and child as
the child gets older and then between the siblings as the next
child is born when the eldest is 5 or 6.
So you have got these long-term, friendly, supportive bonds
developing between them lasting throughout life and we see the
non-verbal expressions of communication: Kissing, embracing,
holding hands, patting on the back, grinning and anger, and
these are postures and gestures that we use ourselves in our
own nonverbal communication, and they are pretty similar in
different cultures around the world, and the chimps are
triggered by the same kind of things that cause them in us, so
they clearly mean the same kind of thing.
We have seen examples at Gombe of chimpanzee mothers dying
and their offspring, even though they are able to care for
themselves nutritionally, they die of grief, apparent grief
because they show symptoms like clinical depression in small
human children and they give up, they don't want to eat, don't
want to interact with others.
We see amazing examples of altruism. If the mother dies,
the elder sister or brother will adopt the baby. Providing it
can survive without milk, then that will be a successful
adoption. The child may live. The most fascinating one of all,
there was a little infant of 3\1/4\ who had no brother and
sister when his mother died, and he was adopted and cared for
by a 12-year-old adolescent male who waited for him, let him
ride on his back. If little Mel whimpered begging for food,
then Spindle would share his food. When Mel crept up to his
nest at night and sat attentively on the edge because they make
these beautiful, soft leafy beds every night, then Spindle
would reach out and draw him in. Spindle would even risk
rousing the ruff of the adult males by running in to collect
Mel if he got to near to the big males and they were about to
start one of their magnificent charging displays when they may
actually, along with picking up and hurling rocks and branches,
if an infant gets in the way, they may pick the infant up and
throw it, and the mother's job is to take the infant away, and
Spindle did that, even though he was of that age when he is
really hero worshipping the big male. So you see the whole
gamut.
Mr. Greenwood. By contrast, what do you observe when you
see these chimpanzees in captivity in small wire cages?
Ms. Goodall. They have no ability to express their
feelings, their emotions, except rattling the cages or reaching
out a sad little hand and begging you to stop and interact with
them for a moment. I think the worst thing for me in a small
cage, and this includes some zoos as well, is that they have no
ability to control their day-to-day lives. In the wild you get
up in the morning and you choose, do I want to go off with a
big group of other individuals, patrol the boundary, perhaps go
on a hunt or do I want to wander off with one or two females
and be peaceful, or maybe I want to go by myself or perhaps
with a little group of the boys.
So there is this constant choice, and this magnificent
freedom in which they can express themselves as they will and
in a small cage, none of that is possible. You know, they love
that comfort. So when they make these nests at night, sometimes
they will lie down and then they will sit up and reach out and
pick a handful of soft leafy twigs and put it under their head.
So often in these lab cages they have nothing, maybe one
motorcar tire and in some of the cages they can't even stretch
out to their full length.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Green, are you
prepared to inquire or would you defer?
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing. Doctor, it is good to have you here. We really
appreciate your very qualified testimony. I apologize to you
for being late, and I understand you may have to leave also,
but to other members of the panel that may have to leave. Much
like you have just described chimpanzees, Members of Congress
also have to make a lot of choices throughout our day.
Sometimes we have to go out and hunt. Sometimes we have to go
out and play with the boys and hopefully we are not chasing too
many of the females. But we are having to make those decisions
today with our schedule and every day, but I do thank you for
providing such insight into this issue.
As I said, I think we are both going to have to leave
probably before the testimony from the NIH is given in the
second panel, but I did want to follow up and I know you
referenced some of that, some of your responses, but I want to
follow up and give you more opportunity to address that issue,
a couple of issues that are raised actually in the NIH
testimony.
Of course, I think they testify similar to you that
chimpanzees have unique health care requirements and pose
hazards to caretakers and to other unexposed animals in the
colonies and to the public, so therefore, their care must be
done by people with knowledge and expertise specific to their
histories.
One of their concerns is that under this bill, and I am
going to support this bill, but under the bill, the NIH is
going to look to private--not NIH actually, the bill would
require some matching funds from private organizations in NIH's
concern about the well-being of the chimpanzees and if the
funding stream over a long period of time might dry up or be
affected where you are dependent, or a portion of that, at
least, on private entities, is that a concern?
Ms. Goodall. I suppose it could be a concern, but I think
so often in this life we embark on something and are prepared
as best we can be, and the fact that something might go wrong
way down the line I don't think for me is an excuse for not
doing it at all, and I think we have to be very determined that
once we get this going, then the funding will be found. People
become quite emotional about chimpanzees. They have enormous
supporters and even those chimps that are infected with HIV,
they are actually not sick and it is extremely--I am not the
one qualified to talk about this. I think Dr. Prince is, but
you can touch them and play with them and it would be extremely
unlikely that they would infect you unless they savagely bit
you.
So the fact that some money might dry up way down the road,
I would not think is a good reason for not starting.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I like that concept in the bill too
where we do bring the private sector in in addition to the
government. That is a principle I like to see in as much
legislation as possible. The second issue, and my final issue,
has to do with NIH's concern about their ability to access the
chimpanzees and for subsequent followup, I guess research or
after the retirement there might be other unforeseen reasons or
purposes for them to have access.
They mentioned potentially minimally invasive procedures
such as blood draws and urine collection, and even perhaps
conducting postmortem examinations of those who die. I know you
mentioned that under the bill they would have access, but do
you see any conflict in what you are reading in the bill and
what you are testifying to and what the NIH would need from a
medical standpoint in subsequent research.
Ms. Goodall. Again, I am not really qualified on this, but
I do know we used to have chimpanzees at the Stanford outdoor
primate facility, some of whom were adults, and we managed to
train every single one of them to put their arm out to donate
blood, and I was just with the banobo colony in Milwaukee where
I think about half the colony, they put their arm through a
little tube and blood is taken. Urine is pretty easy to
collect. It is quite simple. We even do that in Gombe National
Park in the wild.
Postmortems when they are dead, I don't think anybody would
argue or worry about that. Caring for them when they are sick
and the facilities that take on the chimps that are being
infected, they are going to be staffed by people who are aware
of the condition of the chimps and understand how they should
safely be treated.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still have some time
left and would yield it back.
Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman,
Mr. Green, to inquire.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Goodall, again,
I will follow up my colleague from Tennessee and apologize for
all the schedules we have between votes and constituents and
other meetings. First of all, I believe, as Members of Congress
and as humans, we have a responsibility, and that is why I
think this bill is a good piece of legislation. I have a couple
of questions. One, should the chimpanzees that are not used in
research, such as zoo animals, be eligible to apply for
retirement to a sanctuary, and is there an estimate on the
numbers that we may have and comment on other non-research
sources for these animals so we can see, because again, I think
we have an obligation, not only as Members of Congress, but
also the zoos in the country and the other facilities that are
non-government.
Ms. Goodall. Well, the zoos are trying to get better and
better, and I have seen some facilities in some of the zoos.
That would be the kind of situation that we are envisioning as
a sanctuary, so there is a merging there between a good zoo and
a sanctuary. There are some places that are described as
sanctuaries which are actually not sanctuaries at all. They are
very little better than a bad zoo. You have to go through each
one of these one by one and assess them. There are certain
wayside zoos. There are all the chimpanzees in entertainment.
That is another big problem, but we can't, I suppose, deal with
that here. They should be eligible for retirement in
sanctuaries. Instead, traditionally and typically, the ex-
circus chimps, the ex-pets have ended up in medical research.
Mr. Green. Do you have any kind of idea about the numbers?
It seems like it would be--consider the size of our country,
would it be double what we expect----
Ms. Goodall. There is about 1,500 in medical research and
the figure which used to be bandied around is between 4- and
500 in zoos, but there are so many pets, so many chimps. We are
trying to make a list of them all, but it is very hard, because
it is still legal to buy and sell these closest relatives of
ours. That, in itself, would make a big difference if there was
a bill in the future to make it illegal to buy and sell our
closest relatives. At the moment you can go and buy a chimp
without being asked at all if you know what they are like and
what you are letting yourselves in for. People think they will
never grow bigger than this.
Mr. Green. We have that problem, though, with lots of other
species. Particularly in my home State of Texas, we have people
who keep tigers and lions and they don't realize the
responsibility they have with it. In fact, in the State, we
have actually had to pass laws especially on their liability
that they have, and oftentimes people didn't realize it. They
may not want that liability question just to be able to keep
their pet tiger. Some of us in Congress think we already have a
tiger. One, I appreciate your work for many years, and not only
as a Member of Congress, even before I was a Member of
Congress, I followed your work and I appreciate it and your
suggestions and your statement here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Goodall, if I may, the gentleman maybe will yield back.
Mr. Green. I yield back my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Strandberg, from the NIH, is going to
testify that the NIH can't support this legislation because it
would make the animals permanently unavailable for study or
monitoring. Expand upon that. What is your feeling there? How
strongly do you feel about their not being available for
invasive research procedures?
Ms. Goodall. Well, I think the most important thing here is
can they be left in the sanctuary and there are certain
procedures, even over and above taking blood which could be
carried out--this isn't my field at all, but I imagine there
are some--we even treat----
Mr. Bilirakis. But in your opinion.
Ms. Goodall. My opinion, yes, and there are some things you
can do without taking them away from their sanctuary. They
might require a small operation. You might have to keep them in
a holding facility which would be there, a veterinarian
facility built into all these sanctuaries.
I think the really cruel thing from the point of view of
the chimpanzee, as I know him, would be to take him away from a
place where he has now become resocialized, he has learned to
understand the concept of freedom again, or relative freedom,
and to put him back in the small square lab cage or the
slightly bigger square lab cage, this, in my mind, would be
very cruel.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Any further questions from any
members of the subcommittee?
Doctor, it has been an honor to have you here today. You
obviously have been an awful lot of help and you have given us
a viewpoint that only you can really provide, and you are now
excused, and again, with great thanks on our part.
Ms. Goodall. Thank you. As an ambassador for the chimps, I
am really happy that there is a group of people here who care
the way I do.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Doctor.
The Chair wants to acknowledge and thank Dr. Strandberg,
who is a special assistant to the director of the National
Center for Research Resources with the NIH.
Ordinarily, the administration is the first witness but Dr.
Strandberg very kindly and considerately gave up that to Dr.
Goodall. As Dr. Strandberg comes forward, the Chair will now go
into opening statements.
First of all, of course the opening statements of all
members of the subcommittee will be made a part of the record.
The Chair will proceed with his quick opening statement
thanking all the witnesses who have taken the time to join us.
Also wanting to recognize and thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, for his interest and concern on
this particular issue.
Chimpanzees have been used as research subjects in this
country for many years. Biomedical research and research on
infectious diseases in particular has focused on chimpanzees
because of the similarities, as Dr. Goodall told us, to human
immune systems. In fact, 98 percent of human DNA and chimpanzee
DNA is identical. One direct result of research on chimpanzees
has been the development of the hepatitis B vaccine.
In the early 1980's, the National Institutes of Health
launched a breeding program to ensure that there were enough
chimpanzees for research on HIV and AIDS. However, researchers
soon discovered that chimpanzees were not a good model for this
sort of research since chimpanzees infected with HIV rarely
develop full-blown AIDS.
Today the Federal Government has a surplus as already has
been discussed of research chimpanzees. There are now
approximately 1700 of them in Federal research facilities while
estimates of the number of chimpanzees actually needed in
primate research laboratories range from 600 to 1,000,
therefore a surplus.
The testimony we will hear today will reflect differing
views among experts about how to address the surplus of
research chimpanzees. Some of the issues for consideration
include whether a sanctuary should be established to meet their
long-term needs and whether the NIH should be able to recall
retired chimpanzees for further research.
Again, I would like to welcome and thank today's witnesses,
and we will now recognize Mr. Green sitting in for Mr. Brown as
the ranking member for his opening statement. Please proceed,
sir.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as
possible. One, I appreciate the opportunity to have this
hearing today, and I also thank my colleague, Mr. Greenwood
from Pennsylvania for his excellent work on crafting the ChiMP
Act. I look forward to hearing more from the testimony today
other than Dr. Goodall.
As human beings, supposedly the most intelligent species on
earth, we have a responsibility and moral obligation to ensure
that all of God's creatures are treated with respect. There are
approximately 1500 captive chimpanzees in labs in the United
States today, and the National Research Council advised NIH a
few years ago that a core population of 1,000 chimps should be
transferred to and supported by the Federal Government.
The NRC report recommended that sanctuaries for chimps that
have been retired from research should be created, and that the
NRC suggested a private public approach to governing these
sanctuaries. One, what has NIH done since this report was
released, and unfortunately I don't think enough, and although
the agency recently took steps and rescued some chimps at the
Coulston facility, too many other animals are suffering and
because we have not taken action on this issue.
Again, I was honored to have Dr. Goodall here along with
the other experts today to lend their support to Mr.
Greenwood's bill, and hopefully our hearing will result in a
markup and passage of this bill as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gene Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing today.
I'd like to commend my colleague, Mr. Greenwood, for his excellent work
in crafting the CHIMP act.
I look forward to hearing more about the need for this important
legislation today.
As human beings, supposedly the most intelligent species on earth,
we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to ensure that all of
God's creatures are treated with respect.
There are approximately 1,500 captive chimpanzees in labs in the
United States today.
The National Research Council advised NIH, three years ago, that a
core population of 1,000 chimps should be transferred to, and supported
by, the federal government.
The NRC report recommended that sanctuaries for chimps that have
been retired from research should be created. And, the NRC suggested a
public-private approach to governing these sanctuaries.
What has NIH done since this report was released? Unfortunately,
not enough. Although the agency recently took steps to rescue some
chimps at the Colson facility, too many other animals are suffering
because we have not taken action on this issue.
We are honored to have Dr. Jane Goodall and other experts here
today to lend their support to Mr. Greenwood's bill.
Hopefully, this hearing will result in the mark-up and passage of
that bill as soon as possible.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Greenwood for an opening statement.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I do want to
thank you personally for holding this hearing. And I don't have
a formal opening statement, but would make a couple of points.
Most of the factual statements have been made by Dr. Goodall
and the chairman in his opening statement.
I want to reiterate this quote from the 1997 study of the
National Research Council, and they found that if quote, the
current lack of long range planning and coordination continues,
the combination of excess captive chimpanzees in the U.S.
biomedical population and lack of facilities and resources to
care for increasing numbers adequately will soon become an
insurmountable problem of enormous complexity, cost and ethical
concern, and it was they who recommended the concept of
sanctuaries in four states specifically.
This should be what we call a no-brainer. This is our
opportunity to continue to use these animals for research where
it is warranted; second, to save taxpayers' dollars because we
think we can do this with a combination of public and private
sources at less cost. We are spending millions of dollars now
to keep these animals in inhumane conditions and finally, to do
what Dr. Goodall is most concerned about, and that is, to treat
these animals humanely. There are some difficulties. I am
convinced that we can, and that we will, and that we must
resolve them. We have to get beyond this. I don't think there
is any question.
There is a difference of opinion about the fact that we
need to get these sanctuaries going and get them up and
running, and the importance we place on this, I think, is
really a factor of how deeply we believe in what Dr. Goodall
said about what kind of beings these chimpanzees are. Our
stature is not determined by our ability to decide to determine
how different we are and how superior we are, or inferior
chimpanzees are, and how unlike us they are but rather, I think
our stature is measured by our degree of humanity toward them
and that is what this process is about. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, for
his leadership on this issue, and of course, the Subcommittee Chairman,
Mr. Bilirakis.
Chimpanzees have been used in research studies for decades. Humans
have benefitted, and continue to benefit from research done in primate
laboratories across the country.
However, due to a successful National Institutes of Health breeding
program and changes in the use of chimpanzees for research, a surplus
of chimps has developed.
The testimony we will hear today will reflect differing views among
experts about what to do with the retired chimpanzees.
Mr. Greenwood has introduced a sensible, bipartisan bill that
incorporates many of the recommendations of a 1997 National Research
Council panel. He has also worked with various organizations to find
common ground on this troubling problem. This hearing will be a good
opportunity to air some outstanding issues and to learn more about this
issue.
We have before us two panels of witnesses. I welcome their
testimony and look forward to hearing their views on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sherrod Brown, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our distinguished panel
of witnesses. It's a pleasure to have you testify before us, Dr.
Goodall.
And I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Greenwood, for bringing
Congressional attention to this issue.
Great work is being done in research with the use of animal
subjects like Chimpanzees. Federal agencies including the NIH, CDC, FDA
and NASA rely on chimps for research.
Chimps have proven to be an invaluable resource in the study of
human diseases--breakthroughs in Hepititis B and C can be attributed to
research conducted with these primates.
Ohio State University's Chimpanzee Center is expanding their 17
year old program on cognitive and behavioral research and building a
new facility. They are very supportive of the need for the sanctuaries
outlined in this legislation.
In the mid-to-late eighties, the federal government launched a
vigorous chimpanzee breeding program aimed at finding answers to the
cause of AIDS.
While these animals served us well in research that led to
breakthrough medical treatments for many diseases, researchers
discovered chimps were not a good model for AIDS research.
As a result, there is a surplus of Chimps living with HIV that
deserve our attention in their post-research existence.
Today, chimps no longer needed for research are being housed in
warehouses in laboratories throughout the nation at a price of $7.5
million annually.
Some are living at a facility charged with gross negligence in
their treatment of chimps.
The passage of this bill would establish a cost-effective, public-
private partnership to create a sanctuary system to provide for the
lifetime care of chimps.
These sanctuaries would be staffed by trained professionals and
overseen by a board of professionals with a thorough understanding of
the medical needs of the chimps and the safety requirements of their
caretakers.
There is a moral responsibility for the long-term care of
chimpanzees that are used for our benefit in scientific research.
1 would urge this committee not only to consider, but to mark-up
and pass this bill.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on protecting
chimpanzees which have been part of biomedical research.
The tale of chimpanzee use is a mixed one. Early research using
chimpanzees focused on potential effects to humans from space
exploration. Today, chimpanzees are being used for medical research on
issues such as infectious disease. From levels numbering in the
millions, chimpanzees now have populations of less than 200,000 in the
wild. The United States holds approximately 1,700 chimpanzees in U.S.
laboratories but only needs approximately 600, according to the
National Institutes of Health.
Regardless of one's view on the necessity for this type of
research, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to discuss
ways we can humanely treat these special creatures after they've been
used in biomedical research conducted by the government.
The need for a humane retirement system for chimpanzees no longer
needed in research is vitally necessary if we're to fulfill our
responsibility of being good custodians of these animals. I'm proud to
be a co-sponsor of legislation, H.R. 3514, the Chimpanzee Health
Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act, which would provide for a
system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that have been designated as
being no longer needed in research conducted or supported by the Public
Health Service.
This important bill incorporates many of the recommendations
included in a 1997 study by the National Research Council on ways to
improve the long-term care of chimpanzees. The bill mandates that all
surplus chimpanzees owned by the Federal Government shall be accepted
into the long-term sanctuary system to ensure that they are permanently
managed for their well-being and in an ethical manner.
This bill is necessary, especially considering the continuing and
alarming reports of animal abuse by the Coulston Foundation which
currently houses hundreds of retired chimpanzees. In fact since 1995,
the Agriculture Department has investigated and brought charges against
Coulston for numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including
the death of at least nine chimpanzees.
We should not stand by and allow for this horrendous treatment at
any housing facility for chimpanzees. I ask this Committee to learn
from the testimony given today and move for speedy action on the
Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing to discuss the
role and obligation of the U.S. government for the long-term care of
surplus chimpanzees that were bred and used for biomedical research of
direct benefit to humans. I am pleased that we will be hearing from Dr.
Jane Goodall on this issue. Chimpanzees could not have a more respected
and compassionate advocate.
I am concerned, however, about the message the decision to hold
this hearing, but not to hold others, sends to the American people
about the priorities of this Congress. A multitude of critical problems
in America's research infrastructure and healthcare delivery system
persist, while proposals to deal with them languish without hearings
and action by this Subcommittee. These include: funding
reauthorizations for program administered by the National Institutes of
Health and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration; restoration of federal jurisdiction to control tobacco
use by America's children; access to prescription drugs for senior
citizens; long-term care for the elderly; access for America's children
with rare and/or serious health problems to pediatric specialists,
medications and clinical trials; adequate protection for human research
subjects; and enhanced protection of confidential medical records.
These matters warrant attention too.
Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Strandberg, again our gratitude for
yielding to Dr. Goodall and for being here. Dr. Strandberg is
the director of comparative medicine with the National Center
of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health. Your
testimony is very significant to what we are trying to do here
today. Sir, we have set this at 5 minutes but obviously I will
not cut you off. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN STRANDBERG, DIRECTOR OF COMPARATIVE
MEDICINE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES, NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Mr. Strandberg. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
thank you very much. You have given my background and my
current position, so I won't reiterate that.
When I joined the NIH in 1998, just a bit over 2 years ago,
one of my priorities was to develop a trans-NIH plan to address
how to optimize the care and the use of chimpanzees in
federally funded biomedical research. I welcome the opportunity
to speak to you today about the contributions that chimpanzees
make and have made in selected areas of biomedical research and
why this research is important to the public and its health. In
addition, I will address NIH's continuing efforts to ensure
that the chimpanzees used in biomedical research do receive
proper care and monitoring. Let me assure you that the NIH
takes very seriously its responsibility for the health and
welfare of research animals of all types and that of the people
who care for them.
Animal-based research continues to be a highly productive
and valuable approach to solving human health problems and to
controlling devastating and debilitating diseases. For example,
polio vaccine was developed and safety tested using monkeys. We
would not have a vaccine against polio at this time without
monkeys.
Animal models have also provided critical information for
the development of treatments for cancer, cardiovascular
diseases and a host of others. Significant challenges remain
however in the fields of organ transplantation, inherited
diseases, and infectious diseases, including HIV and hepatitis
C.
There are numerous instances in which only non-human
primates and man's most closely related species, the
chimpanzee, can provide solutions to important human diseases.
Recent examples of these include the successful development of
a vaccine against hepatitis B. Ongoing efforts are trying to
develop vaccines for other infectious diseases such as
hepatitis C, which is extremely important in this country, as
well as respiratory syncytial virus or, RSV, the most common
cause of respiratory infections of infants and young children.
Both of these infections cause significant morbidity and
mortality in this country.
The NIH currently has title to approximately 600
chimpanzees. As noted, there are approximately 1600 chimpanzees
in this country that have participated in biomedical research.
However, not all these chimpanzees fall under the purview of
the Public Health Service. Some have participated in research
conducted in the private sector principally by the
pharmaceutical industry. We estimate that approximately 500
research chimpanzees have been exposed to or are chronically
infected with agents transmissible to humans. These chimpanzees
have unique health care requirements, impose hazards to their
caretakers and to other unexposed animals in their colonies.
Thus, we believe their care must be provided by individuals
with knowledge and expertise specific to their medical
histories. As noted, chimpanzees are highly complex animals
with housing requirements reflecting their mental abilities,
their physical strength, and the inter-animal interactions.
These requirements are very specialized and costly to deal
with.
In response to the AIDS epidemic, a chimpanzee-breeding
program was established in 1986 as has been noted. However,
researchers found that although the chimpanzee can be infected
with HIV, the development of clinical AIDS occurs in
chimpanzees late or not at all. Thus, by the 1990's, concerns
were raised about an apparent surplus of chimpanzees. In
response to a request from the NIH, a National Academy of
Sciences panel produced a series of recommendations and the NIH
has taken several concrete steps to address them. These
recommendations form the basis of the chimpanzee management
program that has been implemented by the National Center for
Research Resources at NIH.
The chimpanzee management plan includes an advisory body of
independent research scientists from outside the NIH with
expertise in ethics, animal behavior, veterinary medicine and
genetics to discuss and resolve issues related to chimpanzees
that have participated in biomedical research.
In accordance with the National Academy Panel
recommendations, the NIH has implemented a breeding moratorium
on NIH supported chimpanzees. In fact, a breeding moratorium
actually began 2 years before the report was officially issued,
as well as a policy that rules out euthanasia as a method of
population control. To provide high quality care while
conserving resources, the NIH will consolidate its existing
five chimpanzee facilities into two sites. In addition, an
improved data base of all chimpanzees that have participated in
research will allow us to track animals more efficiently over
time and to plan for needed resources. The NIH must also
consider biomedical researchers' needs to monitor animals that
have been the subject of research in the past. Followup is
needed to gain further information from the research in which
they have participated. Much of these data can be gathered
through minimally invasive procedures, such as blood draws and
urine collection, as has been noted. In addition, it is
important to conduct postmortem examinations on those that die.
No one can tell what the future will bring. At some future
point in time, a scientist might discover a treatment that
could potentially eradicate HIV and hepatitis virus from the
infected individuals and develop a candidate hepatitis vaccine.
It would be very unfortunate if we did not have access to
animals with long-term infections to assess new treatments and
vaccines. Not only would this be poor stewardship of our
Federal investment in these animals, but it could have a
substantially negative impact on the health of the animals and
the chimpanzees. Thus, NIH believes it would be a mistake to
establish sanctuaries for research chimpanzees that would make
them permanently unavailable for study or monitoring.
The NIH, however, would be pleased to work with the
Congress to enhance the existing network of long-term care
facilities for chimpanzees used in biomedical research that
will allow such animals to remain the subject of further
scientific inquiry should a future need arise. Sometimes there
are situations that require immediate attention. The NIH
recognizes the need for vigilance, flexibility, and action when
problems present themselves.
This is the case with the Coulston Foundation. The Coulston
Foundation is the largest chimpanzee facility in the world with
approximately 600 animals. Let me make it very clear that we
are extremely concerned about the health and welfare of these
animals and have provided the Coulston Foundation with funds to
assure the care and feeding of these animals through closely
monitored administrative supplements. I must stress that there
is no other facility where these animals could currently be
relocated.
The NIH has also worked closely with the USDA and the
Coulston foundation to identify, mitigate, and correct problems
which are identified. NIH has conducted regular site visits
during the past year. I recently participated in such a site
visit, and at that time, witnessed no evidence of significant
hazards to the chimpanzees. This is our major concern at this
point. The NIH has recently taken title to 288 chimpanzees at
the Coulston Foundation, all of which have participated in
biomedical research and are infected with HIV and/or hepatitis
C.
At the same time, the NIH has announced that we will issue
a request for proposals for the operation and maintenance of a
long-term care facility for these animals located at the
Holloman Air Force base. In summary, the NIH recognizes that
both research ethics and good stewardship of public funds
require us to attend to the care of the chimpanzees currently
or formally used in biomedical research. We will continue to
use our resources and leadership to promote the health and
welfare of chimpanzees used in such research and to ensure that
appropriate continuing care is provided to those chimpanzees
for which we are responsible.
Thank you for giving the NIH the opportunity to testify on
this very important topic. I would be pleased to address any
questions that you may have at this time.
[The prepared statement of John Strandberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Strandberg, National Center for Research
Resources, National Institutes of Health
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. John
Strandberg, Director of the Comparative Medicine area of the National
Center for Research Resources at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). I joined NIH in 1998 from Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine where I directed the comparative medicine program. One of my
priorities on arriving at NIH was to develop a trans-NIH plan to
address how to optimize the care and use of chimpanzees in federally
funded biomedical research. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you
today about the contributions chimpanzees make in selected areas of
biomedical research and why this research is important to the public
and its health. In addition, I will address NIH's continuing efforts to
ensure that chimpanzees used in biomedical research receive humane
treatment and monitoring.
Let me assure you that NIH takes very seriously its responsibility
for the health and welfare of research animals of all types and that of
the people that care for them, whether directly through an intramural
program or in partnership with extramural organizations.
Chimpanzees and Research
Animal-based research continues to be a highly productive and
valuable approach to solving human health problems. We have discovered
the means of controlling devastating and debilitating diseases using
vaccines developed and tested in animals. The polio vaccine is one of
many examples that might be cited; this vaccine was developed using
monkeys, and the safety testing of vaccines was done in monkeys for
many years. Animal models have provided critical information in the
development of treatments for cardiovascular diseases, such as
hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias. Significant challenges, however,
remain in the fields of organ transplantation, inherited diseases, and
infectious diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C. Animal-based
research will continue to play an important role in meeting the
scientific and public health challenges that lie ahead.
Although there are striking similarities between the physiological
systems of humans and various species of other animals, there is no
single animal species that is appropriate for the study of all
diseases. For example, much of what we know about the immune system has
come from studies with mice, and much of what we know about the
cardiovascular system has come from studies using dogs. There are
numerous instances in which only nonhuman primates and man's most
closely related species, the chimpanzee, can provide the solutions to
important human diseases. Recent examples of these include the
development of a vaccine against hepatitis B virus. Ongoing efforts are
trying to develop vaccines for other infectious diseases, such as
hepatitis C (HCV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), the most
common cause of respiratory tract infections (pneumonia and
bronchiolitis) in infants and young children. Both infections cause
significant morbidity and mortality in this country.
Chimpanzees are the only animal, other than man, that can be
infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). For this reason, it
was hoped that they could provide information on the progression from
HIV infection to AIDS and in the development of treatments and
vaccines. However, despite the fact that chimpanzees become
persistently infected with HIV, we found that the development of
clinical AIDS occurs in chimpanzees late or not at all.Studies using
chimpanzees have produced a cohort of several hundred animals that have
been exposed to viruses, with many persistently infected with hepatitis
C and HIV. These chimpanzees have unique health care requirements and
pose hazards to their caretakers, to other unexposed animals in their
colonies, and to the public. Thus, we believe that their care must be
provided by individuals with knowledge and expertise specific to their
medical histories.
The NIH currently has title to approximately 600 chimpanzees. There
are approximately 1,600 chimpanzees in this country that have
participated in biomedical research. However, not all these chimpanzees
fall under the purview of the Public Health Service as some have
participated in research conducted in the private sector, principally
by the pharmaceutical industry. We estimate that approximately 500
chimpanzees that have been used in research have been exposed to or are
chronically infected with agents transmissible to humans.
Chimpanzees are highly sophisticated animals with housing
requirements reflecting their mental abilities, physical strength, and
inter-animal interactions. Their housing requirements are extensive,
specialized, and costly. Construction of new facilities therefore often
takes considerable time and resources.
NIH Chimpanzee Management Program
The NIH has always monitored the use and humane treatment of
chimpanzees in biomedical research which it sponsors, because
chimpanzees constitute a valuable and scarce research resource. In
response to the AIDS epidemic, the Chimpanzee Biomedical Research
Program was established in 1986. However, researchers found that the
chimpanzee model was not capable of answering some research questions,
and by the 1990's, concerns were raised about the apparent surplus of
chimpanzees. In response to a request from the NIH, a National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) panel reviewed this issue and produced a series of
recommendations. These recommendations form the basis of the Chimpanzee
Management Program (ChiMP) that has been implemented by the National
Center for Research Resources at NIH. The ChiMP includes an advisory
body of independent research scientists to discuss and resolve issues
related to chimpanzees that have participated in biomedical research.
This advisory group is composed of scientists from outside the NIH with
expertise in animal behavior, veterinary medicine, and genetics. The
group advises the NIH on many issues, including the development of
programs for long-term care of chimps and their use in research.
Also, in accordance with the NAS panel recommendations, the NIH has
implemented: (1) a breeding moratorium on NIH-supported chimpanzees
(which the NIH actually began two years before the report was issued),
and (2) a policy that rules out euthanasia as a method of population
control. The NAS panel proposed a core population of 1000 federally
owned chimpanzees to meet research needs. That number seems to be a bit
high today, given limitations of the chimpanzee model in AIDS research,
and is under consideration by the ChiMP advisory group. To provide
high-quality care while conserving resources, the NIH will consolidate
its five existing chimpanzee facilities into two sites. At the
beginning of the next fiscal year, we expect to make the awards to the
entities that will operate these two facilities. These sites are
critical to the placement and humane care of chimpanzees that have
participated in research. Successful applicants will have proven
expertise in long term housing and humane care of chimpanzees in
biomedical research. In addition, a five-year grant was funded in March
2000 to provide an improved database of all chimpanzees that have
participated in research. This will allow us to track animals more
efficiently over time and to plan for resources needed.
In addition to long-term care and housing needs for the
chimpanzees, the NIH must consider biomedical researchers' need to
monitor animals that have been the subject of research in the past.
Follow-up is needed to gain further information from the research in
which they participated. Much of the data needed can be gathered
through minimally-invasive procedures, such as blood draws and urine
collection. In addition, we would also want to conduct post-mortem
examinations of those that die.
No one can tell what the future will bring. At some future point in
time, a scientist might discover a treatment that could potentially
eradicate all HIV from infected individuals, develop a candidate
hepatitis C vaccine, or discover a means of eradicating persistent
hepatitis infection. It would be very unfortunate if we did not have
access to animals with long-term infections to assess new treatments
and vaccines. Not only would this be poor stewardship of our Federal
investment in these animals, it could have a substantial negative
impact on the health of humans and chimpanzees.
Thus, NIH cannot support proposed legislation that would require it
to establish sanctuaries for chimpanzees and would make the animals
permanently unavailable for study or monitoring. The NIH, however,
would be pleased to work with the Congress to enhance the existing
network of long-term care facilities for chimpanzees used in biomedical
research, which will allow such animals to remain the subject of
scientific inquiry should a future need arise. In recognition of this
need, the NIH has taken the initiative to enlarge and improve housing
facilities for NIH-supported chimpanzees at two chimpanzee facilities.
These activities will serve as the basis for responding to the NAS
recommendations as well as our mutual concerns about the health and
welfare of chimpanzees used in research.
Chimpanzee Management: Current and Future Challenges
The continuing use of chimpanzees in NIH-sponsored biomedical
research is subject to extensive oversight at the level of the Office
of the Director. The Interagency Animal Models Committee reviews all
federally supported research protocols that propose using chimpanzees
to promote the conservation and care of chimpanzees when this species
is the best or possibly the only model for conducting the research.
And, as noted above, the NCRR's ChiMP plan is in place. But
sometimes there are situations that require immediate attention. The
NIH recognizes the need for vigilance, flexibility, and action when
problems present themselves. This is the case with the Coulston
Foundation. The Coulston Foundation is the largest chimpanzee facility
in the world, with approximately 600 animals. The NIH has provided
support to ensure the humane care and feeding of the animals through
closely monitored administrative supplements to cover additional
expenses within the scope of the existing grant. Since February 22,
1999, the Coulston Foundation has received supplements of $399,946 from
the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) and $700,000 from
other NIH components.
The NIH is aware of shortcomings at the Coulston Foundation and has
worked closely with the USDA and the Coulston Foundation to identify,
mitigate, and correct identified problems. Furthermore, the NIH has
conducted regular site visits. I recently participated in a site visit
and witnessed no evidence of significant hazards to the chimpanzees.
The NIH will, of course, continue to monitor the Coulston Foundation
facility.
The NIH has recently taken title to 288 chimpanzees at the Coulston
Foundation, all of which participated in biomedical research and are
infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C, to ensure their continued care
and well-being. At the same time, the NIH has announced through the
Commerce Business Daily that we will issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the operation and maintenance of a long term care facility
for these animals. Like all other NIH solicitations, this will involve
a competitive process. Applications will be solicited and subject to
peer review. An award will be made to the most highly qualified
applicant, with expertise in both care of chimpanzees that have
participated in research and in administrative and financial operations
necessary to run a stable organization to care for those animals. We
expect to award that new contract at the end of the summer when the
cooperative agreement with the Coulston Foundation expires. The
applicants will need to demonstrate expertise in caring for HIV and
hepatitis C infected chimpanzees as well as financial stability and
administrative acumen in managing and operating a long term care
facility for chimpanzees.
Conclusion
In summary, the NIH recognizes that both good research ethics and
responsible stewardship of public funds require us to attend to the
humane care of chimpanzees currently or formerly used in biomedical
research. We will continue to use our resources and leadership to
promote the health and welfare of chimpanzees used in such research,
and to ensure that the highest level of continuing humane care is
provided to those chimpanzees for which we are responsible.
Thank you for giving NIH the opportunity to testify on this
important topic. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
may have at this time. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Strandberg, I have heard your testimony.
Would you say that legislation such as H.R. 3514 would
undermine any ongoing research studies as now written?
Mr. Strandberg. It is unclear which animals would go into
the colonies that are proposed. As I noted, the concern that we
have is with animals that are persistently infected; this makes
them hazardous to other animals and to their caretakers and
thus it is difficult to see how a sanctuary that is outlined
could cope with that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, you heard Dr. Goodall's testimony, of
course, and you heard her response to my specific question at
the tail end there. Would NIH support chimpanzee sanctuaries if
they are done so under guidelines developed by scientists in
consultation with animal rights groups so that chimpanzees
could, under limited circumstances, be recalled?
Mr. Strandberg. As I said, NIH will support facilities
which would provide long-term care for chimpanzees that have
been used in biomedical research. I think it is important that
these facilities have many of the characteristics that have
been outlined; that they provide exercise, very good
environmental enrichment, as well as chances for animals to
interact with one another insofar as their health status
permits.
Mr. Bilirakis. Do you know if NIH has any suggested wordage
that might be, to your suggestion, become a part of this
legislation?
Mr. Strandberg. I don't know at this time. We could
certainly work at providing that back to the committee.
Mr. Bilirakis. I think it is important we work together.
Nobody knows what the future of this legislation is going to be
considering this year, being such as it is but it is important
that we work together.
There is a surplus of chimpanzees, is there not?
Mr. Strandberg. There are many chimpanzees that are not
currently being used in biomedical research, at least research
that is funded by the Federal Government.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Green to inquire.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Strandberg, according to the National Research Council
there are about 1500--is that a pretty good estimate--
chimpanzees housed in our five biomedical institutions?
Mr. Strandberg. That is correct. It may be closer to 1600
but that is about what it is.
Mr. Green. Later in the report it recommends that NIH in
its ChiMP program assume ownership or lifetime care for about a
thousand of these?
Mr. Strandberg. That is in the report. At the time that
that report was put together, this was the recommendation made
by the National Research Council. We have, as I mentioned, an
advisory committee which continues to monitor the ongoing use
and needs for chimpanzees. They had revised that figure down to
600, but it is a figure which is constantly under revision and
being looked at as needs and circumstances change.
Mr. Green. But using their numbers, and again, even though
they may not be updated, that would still leave about 500
chimpanzees in other facilities that are not government-owned,
or not controlled by the government?
Mr. Strandberg. That is right. As I pointed out, the
Federal Government owns only about 600 of the total chimpanzee
population.
Mr. Green. And then the report breaks down that 1,000
chimps in research, the 360 posing a potential health threat,
the 260, those needed as crisis breeding models and 168--it is
about 788 total, I guess. Again, these numbers I know--we deal
with numbers up here, and they change every minute much less
every day. The NRC's conclusions that thus 212 of the 1,000
animals may be released to the public sanctuaries or long-term
care facilities, again, is there a number that is close to that
or maybe more or less?
Mr. Strandberg. To give you an example, as you noted, the
anticipated number of persistently infected animals or exposed
animals is already considerably higher than was estimated by
the National Research Council, and this is one of the factors
that we are taking into consideration. So it is really
impossible for me to guess how many would be in this unexposed
population of animals that pose no hazard to the people who
would be caring for them.
Mr. Green. I guess it seems like with the legislation, it
seems like we could work together between permanent chimpanzee
retirement and the ongoing biomedical research needs and since
the researchers are the ones who are making those decisions, we
could have a balance that we could still meet the need and
still create a retirement facility.
Mr. Strandberg. As I said, the NIH is very happy to work
together with the Congress to come up with a solution to a very
significant problem.
Mr. Green. Last week the NIH took title to 288 of the
Coulston chimpanzees, and what was the reason for the taking
the title back?
Mr. Strandberg. These animals have, as I mentioned, been
infected with hepatitis--several types actually--as well as HIV
in varying numbers. Many of these animals have been used in
studies by NIH supported investigators, both people from the
intramural community as well as by grantees. NIH has thus
acquired a responsibility to these animals, and it was felt
appropriate for NIH to own them so that we have more control
over them.
Mr. Green. When you say ``own them,'' you took title to
them, but are they still in the facilities?
Mr. Strandberg. Yes as I mentioned they are still in the
facilities because frankly there is no other place to put these
chimpanzees.
Mr. Green. That answers one of the questions, the concern
over the controversy over the Coulston Foundation and the
treatment. The NIH took title based on the infection and not
based on the treatment of these animals?
Mr. Strandberg. As I mentioned during my testimony, we have
been made aware of problems at the Coulston Foundation. They
are certainly not a secret. We have been working very closely
with the Department of Agriculture which has legal authority to
monitor laboratory animal care and with the people of the
Coulston Foundation to help assure that these animals continue
to receive appropriate daily care.
Mr. Green. So those 288, they will still be at the
Coulston, but they will be used in active research or followup
research?
Mr. Strandberg. It is a combination of active research and
long-term monitoring; the minority are in active research
protocols.
Mr. Green. What type of research?
Mr. Strandberg. This is research related to the development
of vaccines against hepatitis C as well as long-term monitoring
of animals that have been infected with HIV or with both
agents.
Mr. Green. I guess the last question, Mr. Chairman, I know
I am almost out of time. What steps are being taken to ensure
that the 288 chimpanzees now owned by NIH but still in
possession of Coulston are receiving the care in accordance
with the Animal Welfare Act.
Mr. Strandberg. As I say, we are monitoring this very
closely. We have regular site visits which are paid by NIH
staff, to the Foundation and also because of the problems that
have occurred at the Foundation, the Department of Agriculture
is monitoring them on a very frequent basis as well.
Mr. Green. How frequently are they monitored?
Mr. Strandberg. The NIH is monitoring them, I believe, it
is every month.
Mr. Green. So there is no NIH personnel actually at the
Coulston facility?
Mr. Strandberg. There is no one stationed at the Foundation
constantly, correct.
Mr. Green. Will the permanent retirement of these 288 that
are not--part of that 288 that are not part of the ongoing
research be an option under NIH's forthcoming request for
proposals under which a contract for care of the chimps would
be awarded?
Mr. Strandberg. As I mentioned, these animals that are
persistently infected would offer an opportunity to come up
with mechanisms to cure or to clear viral infections. Hepatitis
C is widely spread among the human population, is a chronic
infection, and it is associated with a disease that occurs much
later in life. If these animals, which already have been
infected, can provide some guidance as to how to clear the
infection and thus stop the long-term chronic effects of this
infection, it would be to the animal's benefit as well as to
human benefit, and would also make use of any resources that
rave already been established.
Mr. Green. I guess what I was trying to do is break down
the number of that 288, the ones that were active research and
the ones that maybe would be in a continuing monitoring stage
compared to their infection.
Mr. Strandberg. That would have to be ascertained on an
individual animal basis based on the records of what their
past----
Mr. Bilirakis. If the gentleman would yield. You referred
to the monitoring. Is that monitoring that you have both spoken
about here research-related?
Mr. Strandberg. They are monitoring the--the research that
is being done there is being done under protocols that have
gone through peer review and are NIH-funded. So the protocol
itself has been approved. It has standard procedures that are
being followed. The monitoring that is taking place out there
now is specifically looking at the welfare of the animals, the
conditions under which they are housed, making sure that their
diet----
Mr. Bilirakis. Not directly research related?
Mr. Strandberg. That is correct.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Greenwood to inquire.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
published in The Washington Post on Monday May 15, 2000, the
title headline, ``Surplus Chimps Stranded in Research
Controversy.''
Mr. Bilirakis. Without objection, that will be the case.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Monday, May 15, 2000--Special to The Washington Post]
Surplus Chimps Stranded in Research Controversy
By Shannon Brownlee
Deep in the New Mexico desert, there's a state-of-the-art facility
at Holloman Air Force Base. It does not house fighter jets, but instead
serves as home to about 300 chimpanzees.
The animals make up about half of the chimps owned by the Coulston
Foundation, the largest primate research laboratory in the world.
The Alamogordo, N.M., facility has long been embroiled in
controversy, having been repeatedly accused of mismanaging the care of
the animals in its custody.
Since 1995, the Agriculture Department, one of the federal entities
charged with ensuring the safety and welfare of animals used in
biomedical research, has investigated and brought charges against
Coulston's lab on three occasions for violations of the Animal Welfare
Act, ranging from inadequate veterinary care to negligence resulting in
the deaths of at least nine chimpanzees. Another investigation is
underway.
The controversy came to a head last week, when the National
Institutes of Health took title to 288 chimpanzees at the facility.
Given the foundation's record, relieving it of half of its chimps
might seem like a good idea. But instead of relief, there was
frustration among many, including animal welfare advocates, federal
officials and the directors of other primate laboratories.
That's because, despite the NIH action, the animals remain at the
facility. And there's nowhere else to send hundreds of other animals
around the country that are no longer needed for research.
The NIH has funneled at least $10 million into the Coulston
Foundation since 1993, despite the charges leveled at Coulston's
facility by other federal agencies. Some researchers, as well as animal
advocates, believe that the NIH has been propping up the troubled lab
because the agency does not want to deal with a larger issue: what to
do with several hundred chimpanzees that are no longer needed for
biomedical research.
``If these were mice, there wouldn't be a problem,'' says Tom
Gordon, interim director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center
at Emory University in Atlanta, one of several facilities that has more
chimps than it needs.
The glut of chimps began in 1986, when the NIH and other federal
agencies launched a breeding program to ensure there would be enough
animals for research, particularly AIDS studies. By the time the
agencies realized that chimps were not good models for AIDS, there were
approximately 1,800 of them scattered in half a dozen U.S. labs. At the
same time, money for chimp research and the animals' long-term care was
evaporating. Keeping a chimp in a research lab can cost as much as $1
million over the animal's 50-year life span.
The NIH, however, has expressed little interest in retiring any
chimps permanently, especially to sanctuaries that would be run by
animal advocates. NIH officials worry they won't have ready access to
animals should they be needed for research. ``God knows what disease is
going to pop up next,'' says John Strandberg, director of comparative
medicine at the National Center for Research Resources, a division of
NIH that paid for chimpanzee breeding. Yet many animals are infected
with either HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, hepatitis, or both, making
them unsuitable for experiments involving other diseases.
Enter the Coulston Foundation, which by 1995 had acquired 650
chimpanzees at a time when other laboratories were looking to unload
them. By then, Coulston had obtained the lease to the $10 million
facility at Holloman, where more than 100 descendants of the ``space
chimps'' used in NASA tests in the 1960s were housed.
The foundation ran into trouble from the start. Three chimps died
when a heater in their room malfunctioned and pushed the temperature to
140 degrees. Four years later, a 2-year-old chimp named Echo died
during an operation performed by inexperienced veterinarians.
By the time the foundation had agreed to relinquish its animals in
an agreement with the Agriculture Department last September, the
Coulston facility had been charged with negligence in the deaths of
nine chimps and four monkeys. In each case, Coulston agreed to pay
fines while admitting no wrongdoing. Officials are investigating the
deaths of more chimps, according to In Defense of Animals, an advocacy
group.
Through it all, the NIH has maintained that it had no cause for
concern. Last week, Strandberg blamed Coulston's troubles on bad public
relations. ``If you look at USDA concerns, they are looking at wall
surfaces, and record-keeping,'' he said.
But internal NIH documents show that the agency has long been aware
of far more serious problems and ignored them, according to animal
welfare advocates.
In February 1988, the Association for Assessment and Accreditation
of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) inspected the Coulston
facility. AAALAC accreditation is one way a lab can demonstrate it is
caring for animals properly to obtain federal funding. Another is for
the lab to ensure the animals' welfare through an internal committee
that reviews all experiments.
The foundation, which has been chronically short of cash, failed on
both counts. It was rejected by AAALAC in 1998. In 1999, the Food and
Drug Administration and then the Agriculture Department found serious
fault with the foundation's review committee, saying it was simply
rubber-stamping experiments, including at least one that was likely to
lead to long-term injury to animals. Problems with the committee, said
Don McKinney, a Coulston spokesman, were ``corrected immediately.''
According to In Defense of Animals, NIH funding of Coulston
violated federal law and U.S. Public Health Service policy. Without
AAALAC accreditation, or a functioning review committee, In Defense of
Animals says, federal law states that the NIH director ``shall suspend
or revoke'' funding. Yet since last year, the NIH has awarded the lab
at least $2.8 million in ``supplemental awards'' and research
contracts. In a written statement, a spokesman for the NIH said that
Coulston can continue receiving funds because ``in each instance [of]
noncompliance . . . corrective action has been taken.''
Events came to a head late last month, when animal advocates came
to Rep. John Edward Porter (R-Ill.), a staunch NIH supporter, with a
plan to take over half of Coulston's chimps and turn the facility at
Holloman into a sanctuary. The NIH rushed to take possession of the
chimps last week.
The agency does not yet know how it will care for the animals. It
also does not have a new management team in place, leaving Coulston in
charge in the interim.
The NIH move also throws into question the fate of several hundred
other chimps. In response to recommendations by the National Academy of
Sciences, the NIH adopted a Chimp Management Plan, which calls for $4.2
million a year to care for 600 chimps. Strandberg said the 288 animals
obtained from Coulston will be part of that plan, which several lab
directors hope will take care of their surplus animals. The Yerkes
center, for example, needs a home for nearly I 00 chimps. Another NIH
spokesman said money for the Coulston animals will come from other
sources.
On Thursday, the House Commerce subcommittee on health and
environment will hold a hearing on surplus chimps. Animal advocates,
including famed primate researcher Jane Goodall, who is scheduled to
testify, support retiring surplus animals permanently in sanctuaries.
Some scientists have come to agree. ``Going from crisis to crisis is
not ideal,'' said Gordon, the Yerkes center director. ``We need a
national plan.''
Mr. Greenwood. Dr. Strandberg, according to this article,
since 1995, the Agriculture Department, one of the Federal
entities charged with ensuring the safety and welfare of
animals used in biomedical research, has investigated and
brought charges against Coulston's lab on three occasions for
violations of the Welfare Act ranging from inadequate
veterinarian care to negligence resulting in the deaths of, at
least, nine chimpanzees. Other investigation is underway. You
have said in your testimony this morning, the NIH is aware of
shortcomings at the Coulston Foundation and have worked closely
with the USDA and the Coulston Foundation to identify, mitigate
and correct identified problems. I am not clear yet whether NIH
took title to these chimpanzees because, strictly, because of
medical protocols or whether because of concerns about whether
or not they are being treated humanely? Which is it?
Mr. Strandberg. We took title to the animals for a variety
of reasons including our ability to make sure that they are, in
fact, humanely cared for as well as their research potential.
Mr. Greenwood. Was it your observation that they weren't?
Mr. Strandberg. No, but we wanted--because of the financial
instability of the Coulston Foundation, we wanted to provide
some assurance that this would not affect the well-being of the
animal.
Mr. Greenwood. We have paid them about a million dollars in
Federal money, have we not?
Mr. Strandberg. We have indeed. And we have done that in a
way that has been very closely monitored to make sure the
animals' welfare is being protected.
Mr. Greenwood. I still am not clear. You said you took them
for various reasons. One of them is medical protocol. The other
is to ensure their humane treatment but you are saying you are
not aware of inhumane treatment of the animals in Coulston's
facility.
Mr. Strandberg. We have looked--we have been made aware of
the USDA's concerns and have worked with them and with the
Coulston Foundation to make sure that whatever caused these
does not recur and to----
Mr. Greenwood. Whatever caused these what? ``these'' refers
to what?
Mr. Strandberg. Whatever caused the problems that the
Department of Agriculture identified.
Mr. Greenwood. They considered it violations of the Animal
Welfare Act. It is pretty obvious what their concerns were. You
are recorded as saying through it all, the NIH has maintained
that it had no cause for concern last week. Strandberg blamed
Coulston's troubles on bad public relations. Is that your view?
Mr. Strandberg. The quotations that are ascribed to me
there are correct. However, they were taken out of context and
in the course of the 45-minute interview.
Mr. Greenwood. I am sympathetic. That happens to me all the
time. Probably will happen to me before the day is over.
I also, Mr. Chairman, would like unanimous consent to
insert into the record a ``New York Times'' article of
September 14, 1999, entitled ``Foundation Gives Up 300 Research
Chimps.''
Mr. Bilirakis. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[September 14, 1999--The New York Times]
Foundation Agrees to Give Up 300 Chimps
By Shannon Brownlee
The caretaker of the nation's largest colony of research
chimpanzees has agreed to give away almost half of them in an unusual
negotiation with the United States Department of Agriculture, one of
the Federal agencies that monitors the safety and welfare of research
animals.
The settlement, announced on Sept. 1, stemmed from charges that
Frederick Coulston, operator of the Frederick Coulston Foundation,
violated animal welfare regulations when five chimps died in his care.
The settlement ordered the foundation to turn over 300 of its 650
chimps to other centers by January 2002.
``This is an unprecedented consent agreement, and a big win for
these magnificent animals,'' said Michael Dunn, an Under Secretary of
Agriculture.
The department does not normally enter into settlements of this
kind unless it believes the animals are in danger.
The action is the latest in a series of charges leveled at the
foundation in Alamogordo, N.M. Since 1996, the department has
investigated and brought charges in the deaths of at least nine chimps
at Mr. Coulston's center, and has levied fines for violations ranging
from keeping the animals in cages too small--no bigger than a public
bathroom stall--to inadequate veterinary care.
Through it all, Mr. Coulston has denied any wrongdoing, even as he
has paid the fines. The accusations have come not only from the
Department of Agriculture, but also from animal-protection advocates
and biomedical researchers, who say that Mr. Coulston is a throwback to
the days when research animals were treated with callous indifference.
Mr. Coulston has called chimpanzees ``vicious, aggressive animals''
and has suggested that ``you can raise them like you do cattle,'' and
that they could be used as blood donors for humans.
But chimps are disconcertingly similar to people in many of their
habits and needs, a fact that has helped place them at the center of
increasingly explosive political and ethical controversy over what to
do with the nation's 1,800 research chimpanzees.
Beginning in the 1980's, the National Institutes of Health and
other Federal agencies began a breeding program aimed at insuring that
enough chimpanzees would be available for biomedical research,
especially for AIDS.
The program led to a chimp baby boom at time when many researchers
were concluding that the animals were not good models for AIDS
research.
Now, most of those chimps are no longer needed for federally
financed experiments and money for their long-term care has dried up.
``We could always find people who wanted to infect chimps,'' said
Preston Marx, senior scientist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research
Center in Manhattan and professor of tropical medicine at Tulane
University Medical Center, who ran a chimpanzee colony in the early
1990's. ``But not people to take care of them for 45 years.''
Many researchers, including a panel formed in 1994 by the National
Research Council, believe the National Institutes of Health should take
responsibility for the chimps and retire most of them to sanctuaries.
Dr. Thomas Wolfle, a former director of the National Research
Council's Institute for Laboratory Animal Research and member of the
task force, said the National Institutes of Health was ``morally
responsible'' for the welfare of the animals.
``I think they should just bite the bullet and assume lifetime care
for animals they bred and move some out of active research,'' Dr.
Wolfle said.
The agency has shown little interest in the idea. But just how many
chimps the agency should support and whether any of them should be
retired from research are matters of dispute. Providing for retirement
of animals, said Dr. John Strandberg, director of comparative medicine
at the National Center for Research Resources, is ``not in the plans
for the moment.''
Mr. Coulston and his colony of chimps, one of five federally
financed chimp centers in the United States, has served as a lightning
rod for the debate over what to do about surplus chimps. In 1993 he
took over a large colony of primates, including several hundred chimps,
from New Mexico State University.
Within weeks, three chimpanzees were found dead, after a heater in
their room sent the temperature soaring overnight to 140 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Mr. Coulston was charged with violating the Animal Welfare Act, the
law that governs the treatment of research animals, in connection with
the overheating and other problems at the site.
In March 1997, Echo, a 2-year-old female chimp, died after being
operated on by two inexperienced veterinarians. In early 1998, a chimp
named Holly died from preventable side effects of a drug that was being
tested at the foundation. Two more chimps died from the same cause in
June 1998. The most recent death, during a spinal experiment, occurred
in May. The Agriculture Department, partly as a result of
investigations by an animal protection advocacy group, In Defense of
Animals, filed charges in 1997 and then again this year. Mr. Coulston
agreed to pay fines but did not admit any wrongdoing.
Despite his troubles, Mr. Coulston had more than doubled the number
of chimps in his care in the past decade, including more than 100
chimpanzees from New York University, which gave him the animals amid a
swirl of controversy in 1997, along with more than $1.75 million for
their care.
Last year the Air Force sent him 111 of its chimpanzees, many of
them descendants of the ``space chimps'' used in the 1960's to test the
safety of space exploration.
According to the Department of Agriculture, part of the problem at
the Coulston Foundation stems from inadequate veterinary care. Fourteen
veterinarians have left the foundation since 1994, a high turnover
rate. In the last two years, most of the foundation's veterinarians
have had only minimal experience with chimps, according to In Defense
of Animals.
Don McKinney, communications director of the foundation, said,
``They have to get their experience somewhere.'' He added, ``The
reality is, there are not very many primate vets running around.''
Despite the findings by the Agriculture Department, the National
Institutes of Health has continued to support the Coulston Foundation
with approximately $10 million in contracts over the last six years.
Late last year, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New
York, began questioning the agency about its support of the foundation.
But Dr. Wolfle and others say that without Federal money, Mr.
Coulston would be unable to care for the chimpanzees.
Mr. Coulston's troubles highlight the financial straits that many
primate colonies find themselves in: less and less money to care for
their chimps.
The animals have been supported by a combination of Federal money
and private contracts from drug and medical device companies, which pay
primate centers to conduct research and to test drugs and devices.
Several Federal agencies, but mostly the National Institutes of
Health, have paid to breed more chimps, and to infect many animals with
H.I.V., the AIDS virus, and hepatitis. Now with the move away from
using chimpanzees in AIDS research, many centers are scrambling to find
the minimum $15 a day that it costs to keep each primate.
Indeed, agricultural officials said worries about Mr. Coulston's
finances prompted the agency to include a provision in their recent
agreement allowing auditors access to his financial records.
In Defense of Animals said the foundation had lost 30 percent of
its revenue between July 1997 and June 1998. Mr. McKinney of the
foundation declined to respond.
The settlement between the foundation and the Agriculture
Department also stipulates that a full-time consultant be brought in to
act as a go-between, at Government expense, and insure that the
foundation complies with the agreements.
``It's a last ditch effort to get him to clean up his act,'' Dr.
Wolfle said.
The fate of the 1,200 research chimps in other primate centers is
equally murky.
In its 1997 report, the National Research Council urged the health
institutes to set aside $7 million to $10 million for the care of 1,000
chimpanzees, about 600 of which the panel estimated would be needed for
research. Part of that money would go toward placing the other 400
chimpanzees into sanctuaries. The panel also warned the institutes to
move quickly to avoid the possibility that centers would have to start
killing chimps because they could no longer care for them.
In response, the national institutes have started a Chimpanzee
Management Plan, which by next summer will reduce the number of primate
centers it supports to two from five.
The management plan has set aside $4.2 million, enough to care for
only 600 animals, most of which will continue to serve in research.
That could leave many of the remaining chimps in the lurch. No one
knows if there is enough private research money to support those
chimps. And while animal welfare groups would like to see them put into
sanctuaries, they do not have the money to do it.
Mr. Greenwood. Would you describe for us the conditions at
the Coulston facilities? These chimpanzees, how are they being
housed? How much space do they have? What are the conditions--
what kind of enclosures are they in? How much time do they get
to spend out of those enclosures?
Mr. Strandberg. There is a range of types of facilities at
the Coulston Foundation. There are two major sites, one of
which is on the Holloman Air Force base. The other--and this
houses probably two-thirds--can house about two-thirds of their
population. The other is at a facility called the Lavelle Road
facility, which is owned by the Foundation. The facilities at
the Air Force base were built within the past decade, I
believe, or shortly before that on funds appropriated for New
Mexico State University to put together a chimpanzee housing
facility. It has extensive indoor/outdoor housing with cages
that will house family groups as well as individuals. It also
has an extensive nursery facility. The Lavelle Road facility is
one that has a variety of animal housing areas. I would say
almost all of them, if not all of them, have indoor outdoor
access, and it has group housing facilities for animals that
are compatible with one another.
Mr. Greenwood. You, in your testimony, also made reference
to the fact that the NIH plans to issue a request for proposals
for the operation and maintenance of a long-term care facility
for these animals. An award will be made to the most highly
qualified applicant with expertise et cetera. We expect to
award a new contract at the end of the summer when the
cooperative agreement with the Coulston Foundation expires. You
are familiar with it because I think you have heard not only
today's testimony, Dr. Goodall, but you follow this issue with
the vision that Dr. Goodall and others have of what a facility
looks like. Is that your vision of what you intend to seek
through an RFP?
Mr. Strandberg. What we intend to seek with the RFP is to
address the concerns of taking care of the infected animals
that are at the facility at this point with a highly trained,
highly competent and well respected animal care staff. The
facilities, as I mentioned, have both indoor and outdoor
enclosures which are highly enriched in many instances. There
are some that are less enriched than others. The goal is to
increase enriched housing. There is--it is New Mexico. There is
not a lot of grass and there are not a lot of trees, but still
the environment is an interesting and intellectually
challenging one and there are ways of handling chimpanzees to
improve their daily experiences.
Mr. Greenwood. You would like to live there, right?
Mr. Strandberg. I am from Minnesota----
Mr. Greenwood. What do you think the goal is? What is the
difference between what Dr. Goodall--you described what you
want to do with an RFP but what do you think it is that she
would consider are the shortcomings of the facility that you
will seek with this RFP?
Mr. Strandberg. I would hope in the final analysis she
would not find too much problem with what we seek.
Mr. Green. Do you think we can--of course, one of the
differences is, is that in my proposal, 71 of us, I think, have
cosponsored it, we use private dollars as well as public
dollars. You will be using exclusively public dollars. Do you
believe we can work this legislation to a point where we can
get the NIH to support it to help set up this kind of a
sanctuary program where we use private resources as well?
Mr. Strandberg. As I said, I would be very pleased--we
would all be very pleased to work very closely to come up with
a solution.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman's time has expired. This might
be a particularly good time to break, since Dr. Strandberg just
made his opening statement. We have a couple of votes on the
floor, so, Dr. Strandberg, thank you so much for being here.
Obviously your written statement is a part of the record. As
soon as we are able to return, we will go into the last panel.
Thank you very much. I can't really estimate the time. Half-
hour, 45 minutes.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Bilirakis. We can get started. I was waiting for Mr.
Greenwood because he wanted to introduce Ms. Nelson, and
possibly when he gets her, we will give him his day in the sun.
Let's proceed with panel 3. Dr. Alfred Prince, head of
virology, Lindsley F. Kimball research institute, New York
blood center. And Ms. Tina Nelson, executive director of the
American antivivisection society out of Jenkintown,
Pennsylvania, which I believe is Mr. Greenwood's district.
Ms. Nelson. Correct.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you both for being here. Your written
statement is a part of the record and we will turn this at 5
minutes. Again, I want to apologize to you. Some of you--I
don't think either of one of you--but some of our witnesses
have testified here before and understand the way it is here.
It is wild. We have votes on the floor and we have to run and
interrupt everything. But Dr. Prince, why don't we start off
with you, sir. Please proceed.
STATEMENTS OF ALFRED M. PRINCE, HEAD OF VIROLOGY, LINDSLEY F.
KIMBALL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER; AND TINA
NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN ANTIVIVISECTION
SOCIETY
Mr. Prince. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I can't
resist first saying how honored I feel being able to testify on
the same panel that Jane Goodall has testified on. Jane is the
first human being to have understood chimps. Without her work
and her understanding, we wouldn't be here talking today
without any question.
I am head of the laboratory of virology at the Kimball
Institute of the New York Blood Center. In addition, I also
have, for the past 25 years, directed a chimpanzee research
facility in Liberia, West Africa, one of the most peaceful
parts of the world. During this time, I started as a
virologist, but as the work went on, I became more and more a
primatologist also, and I have learned from close experience of
the mere human nature of these endangered animals and that it
was absolutely essential for us in research that they be
handled in a humane manner with respect for their social and
physical needs. Thus whenever possible, even during research
protocols, these animals need to be held in large social
groupings with a maximum space and environmental enrichment.
My research corners the development of vaccines and
immunotherapies for hepatitis B and C viruses and is currently
funded by the National Institutes of Health. Chimpanzees are
essential unfortunately for progress in these fields of
research because as said before at this meeting, they are
almost identical to us biologically, and the viruses of great
concern to us, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV do not
replicate in other primates even. They don't replicate in
monkeys, so we have to use chimpanzees for certain experiments.
The studies for which these animals are involved usually have a
duration of 1 or 2 years. After that time the animals must be
resocialized into large groups and retired for the remainder of
their 60- to 70-year life span.
In our laboratory in West Africa, we have used large
islands in a nearby river for this purpose. The resocialization
process is difficult and time consuming, thus once it is
accomplished, we do not bring adult animals back into a
research setting.
I believe it will be necessary for the research community
to maintain a supply of chimpanzees for essential research
needs and feel that the amount proposed for NIH to keep in the
National Research Council report is quite sufficient to
maintain a healthy surplus and breeding colony for future
emergencies.
In addition, any chimpanzees kept by the NIH as surplus and
for breeding I strongly believe should be maintained in a
sanctuary setting for many of the same reasons highlighted in
the legislation before this committee. Sanctuaries are cheaper,
healthier and better for the breeding and the interests of the
chimpanzees, since chimpanzees confined in most medical
research facilities are not, to my mind, a suitable environment
for breeding or for long-term holding.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as a scientist, I strongly
support H.R. 3514 and the necessity for permanently retiring
all chimpanzees not needed for essential research to
sanctuaries where they can live enriched and social lives.
However, I would like to point out that I believe the present
bill, valuable though it is, grossly underestimates the need.
As I understand it, it addresses the need for somewhere around
200 chimpanzees. As we have heard by presentations given today,
a much larger number of chimpanzees will have to go into
sanctuaries and it could be as much as 1,800. 200 is just not
sufficient. But it is much, much better than zero.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Alfred M. Prince follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfred M. Prince, Head of Virology, Lindsley F.
Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Center
I am the Head of the Laboratory of Virology of the Lindsley F.
Kimball Research Institute of the New York Blood Center. In addition, I
have also directed VILAB II, a chimpanzee research, and retirement
facility in Liberia, West Africa for the past 25 years. During this
time I have become convinced that the near human nature of these
endangered animals requires that they be handled in a humane manner
with respect for their social and physical needs. Thus, whenever
possible these animals need to be held in large social groupings with a
maximum space and environmental enrichment.
My research concerns the development of vaccines and
immunotherapies for hepatitis B and C viruses, and is currently funded
by the National Institutes of Health. Chimpanzees are essential for
progress in this field of research. However, the studies in which these
animals are involved usually have a duration of only 1-2 years. After
that time the animals must be resocialized into large groups and
retired for the remainder of their 60-70 year life span. In our
laboratory in West Africa we have used large islands in a nearby river
for this purpose. The resocialization process is difficult and time
consuming, thus once this is accomplished we do not bring animals back
into a research setting.
I believe that it will be necessary for the research community to
maintain a supply of chimpanzees for essential research needs and feel
that the number of chimpanzees proposed to NIH in the NRC report is
sufficient to maintain a healthy research and breeding colony for
future emergencies. In addition, chimpanzees identified as surplus
should also be maintained in a sanctuary setting for the same reasons
highlighted in the legislation before this committee. Sanctuaries are
cheaper and healthier and better.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as a researcher I strongly support
H.R. 3514 and the necessity of permanently retiring all chimpanzees not
needed for this resource to sanctuaries where they can live enriched
and social lives.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Greenwood is now recognized to welcome
Ms. Nelson.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. I apologize for being late for a
moment there. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, it was
impossible for me not to do whatever Jane Goodall asked me to,
but it was a two-prong attack. They sent Tina Nelson to my
home, who is a neighbor to my home office. Tina Nelson is
currently the executive director of the American
Antivivisection Society and the International Animal Protection
Organization, which focuses on the issues related to the use of
animals in laboratories and education.
Ms. Nelson also serves as a program consultant for the
Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, one of the
principal organizations in the United States supporting the
development and use of humane alternatives. A significant
portion of Ms. Nelson's time is spent working with the
scientific community to implement improvements in the treatment
of animals. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biology
from Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture, and a
master's of art degree in environmental science from Beaver
College. She is currently enrolled in a doctoral program in
political science at Temple University. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TINA NELSON
Ms. Nelson. Thank you. I am very happy to be here and
excited that we have movement on this and seem to have reached
a consensus.
Mr. Bilirakis. Is there any significance to moving from
those first two degrees to political science?
Ms. Nelson. Maybe.
Thank you for providing the American Antivivisection
Society the opportunity today to testify on the ChiMP Act. As
Congressman Greenwood said, I am Tina Nelson, executive
director of the American Antivivisection Society and I am also
here today representing the National Chimpanzee Sanctuary Task
Force, comprised of four additional national animal protection
organizations: The American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, the National Antivivisection Society,
Society for Animal Protective Legislation, and the Humane
Society of the United States. Collectively, these organizations
represent approximately 8 million constituents.
I would like to thank Congressman Greenwood for introducing
this bill and for his commitment and support to solving a
serious problem with positive action. I would also like to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as several other members of
the committee for supporting and cosponsoring this legislation.
This important issue has provided a unique opportunity for
the animal protection community to work with the research
community in creating a solution that benefits scientists,
government, the U.S. taxpayer, and chimpanzees. Many in the
animal protection community have received requests to assist in
the retirement of chimpanzees. For example, the recent Air
Force divestiture of its chimpanzee colony and the Coulston
Foundation. The animal protection community cannot continue to
shoulder the burden of this problem, a problem which was
created by our government.
Mr. Chairman, the bill under consideration today is a
viable solution. The bill would authorize a national system of
sanctuaries to permanently retire chimpanzees no longer needed
or suitable for research and at the same time be a cost
effective solution to a serious problem facing the Federal
Government. On behalf of AAVS, the task force and the 106
undersigned members of the scientific academic and zoological
communities, I wish to state our strong support for the ChiMP
Act. I would like to start by elaborating on some points that
Dr. Goodall raised in her testimony.
Currently there are approximately 1500 chimpanzees housed
in biomedical research facilities in the United States. Many of
these animals are not involved in any research protocols, but
are warehoused in these facilities. In captivity, chimpanzees
can live up to 60 years. Thus, this country is faced with an
increasing financial and logistical problem of caring for these
aging chimpanzees. As we have already heard, in 1994, NIH
commissioned the National Research Council to study this issue
and develop recommendations for the long-term care of
chimpanzees in research. The NRC's panel was composed of
experts from the biomedical research community and from other
areas of expertise.
The panel met for nearly 3 years and issued their report in
1997. After defining the nature of the problem, the NRC made
several critical recommendations. One, sanctuaries are an
appropriate solution. Two, there should be a breeding
moratorium, and three, euthanasia is not an appropriate
management solution.
On November 22, 1999, Congressman Jim Greenwood introduced
the ChiMP Act. As of today, the Act has 73 bipartisan
cosponsors, including many members of this committee and we
expect campaign legislation in the Senate to be introduced
shortly. Mr. Chairman, there are several provisions in the bill
I would like to highlight. First, no chimpanzee will be retired
unless the entity holding title to the chimpanzee decides to
retire the animal. This leaves the decision up to the
scientific community. At that point when the decision is made,
retirement must be permanent. Second, the bill allows the
scientific community access to data obtained in the course of
normal veterinarian care as well as necropsy reports.
Contrary to NIH's concerns voiced today by Dr. Strandberg
under the ChiMP Act, retired chimpanzees would, in fact, remain
available for study and monitoring. Third, I wish to emphasize
the cost-effectiveness of this solution. Sanctuaries offer
considerable savings compared to the cost of housing
chimpanzees in laboratories. Ethically, it is also the right
thing to do. The ChiMP Act would establish a nonprofit entity
with a board of directors having the necessary expertise to
ensure the high standards of care for chimpanzees in captivity.
Among others, the board would consist of scientists
specializing in infectious disease. HHS has given the authority
to develop enabling regulations. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this
legislation includes a public private partnership for funding
the sanctuaries, AVS and the task force member organizations
have already donated considerable funds to sanctuaries housing
chimpanzees. Our members have given generously and will
continue to do so as long as they are assured retirement is
permanent. Congressman Greenwood's ChiMP Act provides a win/win
solution.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we believe there are hundreds of
chimpanzees that could be retired to sanctuaries if only they
were available. The American public has shown their respect and
concern for chimpanzees and would find it unconscionable that
their taxpayers dollars are supporting NIH's current management
plan of warehousing surplus chimpanzees. It is time to embrace
a more responsible, a more humane alternative.
On behalf of AAVS, the task force, the American public, I
urge you to enact this legislation this year. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Congressman Greenwood, and members of the committee
for this opportunity to convey to you the urgency of the
situation, the merits of the ChiMP Act as a humane and cost-
effective solution. We stand ready and able to work with you.
And as Congressman Greenwood said earlier, it is a no-brainer.
[The prepared statement of Tina Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tina Nelson, Executive Director, American Anti-
Vivisection Society
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for providing the American Anti-Vivisection Society the opportunity to
testify on House Bill 3514, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement,
Maintenance and Protection Act (CHIMP).
I am Tina Nelson, Executive Director of the American Anti-
Vivisection Society, an international animal protection organization
which was founded in Philadelphia, PA in 1883. We are the oldest animal
protection organization specifically working on laboratory animal
issues in the United States and our membership spans the globe.
I am also here today representing the National Chimpanzee Sanctuary
Task Force that comprises four additional national animal protection
organizations. Those are: the American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the National Anti-Vivisection Society
(NAVS), Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), and the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Collectively these
organizations represent a membership of 8 million constituents.
I would like to thank Congressman Greenwood for introducing this
bill and for his commitment and support to solving a serious problem
with positive action--building community consensus among a diverse
group of people who do not often work together. I would also like to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as several other Members of the
Committee, for supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation.
This important issue has provided a unique opportunity for the
animal protection community to work with the research community in
creating a solution that benefits scientists, government, chimpanzees
and the U.S. taxpayer. Many in the animal protection community have
received numerous requests over the past several years to assist
different entities find a place for chimpanzees no longer wanted by the
research community, for example, Laboratory for Experimental Medicine
and Surgery in Primates (LEMSIP), Buckshire Corp., the recent Air Force
divestiture of its chimpanzee colony, and the Coulston Foundation. The
animal protection community cannot possibly shoulder the entire burden.
Therefore, we have been working with others to develop a common sense
solution.
Mr. Chairman, the bill under consideration today is that solution.
The bill would authorize a national system of sanctuaries to
permanently retire chimpanzees no longer needed or suitable for
research and at the same time be a cost-effective solution to a serious
problem facing the federal government. On behalf of the members and
constituents of the American Anti-Vivisection Society, The National
Chimpanzee Sanctuary Task Force, and the 106 undersigned members of the
scientific, academic and zoological communities, I wish to state our
strong support for the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and
Protection Act.
Let me start by providing the Committee with background on the
surplus chimpanzee problem.
Because of the similarities between chimpanzees and humans,
chimpanzees have been used since the 1950's as models for
physiological, biomedical and behavioral research. After the
importation of wild chimpanzees was halted in 1975, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated a program, the Chimpanzee Breeding
and Research Program, to breed captive chimpanzees for biomedical
research, specifically for AIDS research. However, the chimpanzee
proved to be a poor model for AIDS research. For this reason and
others, we are now faced with a ``surplus'' of chimpanzees.
Currently, there are approximately 1,500 chimpanzees housed in six
biomedical research facilities in the United States. Many of these
animals are not involved in any research protocols but are warehoused
in these facilities, some living in isolation in small cages. In
captivity, many chimpanzees can live up to 60 years. Thus, this country
is faced with the increasing financial and logistical problems of
caring for these aging chimpanzees.
Over 6 years ago, this problem became significant enough to command
the attention of NIH which in 1994 commissioned the National Research
Council (NRC) to study the and develop recommendations for the long
term care of chimpanzees in research. The NRC's panel was composed of
diverse representatives from the biomedical research community and
other interested parties. The panel met for nearly three years, held
multiple public meetings, and produced their report in 1997. The NRC
report, Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care,
Management and Use, found that if
. . . the current lack of long-range planning and coordination
continues, the combination of excess captive chimpanzees in the
US biomedical population and lack of facilities and resources
to care for increasing numbers adequately will soon become an
insurmountable problem of enormous complexity, cost, and
ethical concern. (p.6)
After defining the nature of the problem, the NRC made several
critical recommendations. The NRC report recommended the concept of
sanctuaries and recommendation 4 states specifically, ``the concept of
sanctuaries capable of providing for the long-term care and well-being
of chimpanzees that are no longer needed for research and breeding
should become an integral component of the strategic plan to achieve
the best and most cost-effective solutions to the current dilemma.''
The NRC Report also recommends the imposition of a breeding moratorium
and opposes euthanasia of chimpanzees as a management solution.
On November 22, 1999, Congressman James Greenwood introduced the
CHIMP bill that would establish a sanctuary system--facilities where
hundreds of surplus chimpanzees will live in social groups and in
natural settings and will be permanently retired from biomedical
research. The bill mandates funding from both the private and public
sectors.
The CHIMP bill has attracted strong bipartisan support in the House
with 71 cosponsors, including many Members of this Committee. We expect
companion legislation in the Senate to be introduced shortly and to
also receive bipartisan support.
Mr. Chairman, there are several additional provisions in the bill I
would like to highlight. First, no chimpanzee will be retired unless
the entity holding title to the chimpanzee decides to retire the
animal. Then and only then, will the chimpanzee go to a sanctuary. At
that point, retirement must be permanent. Sanctuaries by definition
must be a safe haven for the chimpanzees where they can be
rehabilitated and resocialized where possible.
Second, the bill allows the scientific community access to data
obtained in the course of normal veterinary care as well as necropsy
reports. By providing this data, the chimpanzees remain of value to
research while living humanely in cost-effective sanctuaries. This
concept is consistent with the NRC report's recommendation of rejecting
euthanasia as a management solution. Under the CHIMP bill, euthanasia
would only be acceptable in cases in which it was in the best interest
of the chimpanzee.
I wish to emphasize the cost effectiveness of this solution. By
creating sanctuaries for chimpanzees to live in more social situations,
sanctuaries obtain economies of scale and offer considerable savings
compared to the cost of housing chimpanzees in laboratories. Ethically,
it is the right thing to do.
The CHIMP bill specifies the establishment of a nonprofit entity
with a board of directors composed of representatives of the research,
animal protection, and zoological communities with the necessary
expertise to ensure high standards for the care and management of
chimpanzees in captivity. To protect the government's interests, HHS is
given the authority to develop enabling regulations.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation includes a public/private
partnership for funding the sanctuaries with the private sector raising
matching funds for the care of the chimpanzees. AAVS and the Task Force
member organizations have already donated considerable funds to
sanctuaries housing chimpanzees retired from the federal space program.
Our members have given generously and will continue to do so as long as
they are assured that retirement is permanent. This approach provides a
responsible, cost-effective, and humane alternative to current
government policy of expensive laboratory warehousing of chimpanzees.
It also holds the federal government accountable for a problem created
under its program. Congressman Greenwood's CHIMP Act provides a win-win
solution.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we believe there are hundreds of
chimpanzees that could be retired to sanctuaries today if they were
available. It is imperative that action be swift with regard to this
ever increasing problem. On behalf of the American Anti-Vivisection
Society and the National Chimpanzee Sanctuary Task Force, I urge you to
enact this legislation this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Greenwood and members of the
Committee for this opportunity to convey to you the urgency of this
situation and the merits of the CHIMP Act as a humane and cost-
effective solution.
Mr. Bilirakis. We have all used that term, and found that
others disagree sometimes. Well, the concern, of course, is for
the chimpanzees and their well-being after they have been
basically used, while ensuring that we do not interrupt ongoing
research studies. In the process of discussing this with Dr.
Goodall and with Dr. Strandberg, my feeling is that somehow
these two concerns can be worked out rather than either one
extreme or the other. It seems to me that we can find a middle
ground. Would you agree, Ms. Nelson?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Prince you would agree?
Mr. Prince. I think the differences are getting smaller and
smaller.
Mr. Bilirakis. That is good to hear.
I have never seen a sanctuary. I think they call it the
``chimp farm'' in my congressional district--it is actually
pretty close to where I live. And we have always enjoyed it.
The chimps there sometimes sit on the walls and wave to our
cars as they zoom on by, and I know that the owners of the farm
have taken the chimps to various schools and talking to the
students and doing an awful lot of good things, but the chimps
are kept in cages. We are contemplating, are we not, any
sanctuary including cages, or are we?
Ms. Nelson. No.
Mr. Bilirakis. We are not contemplating that?
Ms. Nelson. Well, there are certain standards that are
being drafted.
Mr. Bilirakis. But cages of different sizes; isn't that
right?
Ms. Nelson. Well, large areas is my understanding, large
areas where they can live in social groups.
Mr. Bilirakis. But they would be caged, but it might be an
area as large as this room; is that right? I am trying to get a
picture in my mind.
Ms. Nelson. I believe the picture is to have several acres
of area and how the enclosure actually will be constructed, I
am not sure.
Mr. Bilirakis. They would be enclosed is what I am saying.
Ms. Nelson. They would be enclosed in very large areas.
Mr. Bilirakis. In discussing this with Mr. Greenwood at
some length, I brought up the point this particular chimp farm
that I mentioned which has been, I guess, closed down. I know
it was closed down a while back. I am not sure if the situation
has changed there by the Department of Agriculture because it
was considered to be unfit and I don't disagree with that.
However, it seems that there are an awful lot of facilities
like that around the country and should we, not in conflict
with what Mr. Greenwood is trying to do, but considering Dr.
Prince, you made a comment about the large number of chimps
that need to go into sanctuaries, should we take into
consideration the fact that these facilities are located around
the country, and possibly use some of our resources to
refurbish those to the point where they can meet standards and
serve as sanctuaries in addition to the contemplation of one or
two large sanctuaries that may be central locations in the
country?
Ms. Nelson. I believe under the bill, they could submit a
proposal.
Mr. Bilirakis. They can do that now, as I understand it,
but I guess the process is a very difficult one.
Mr. Prince. I think it is a very complicated question
because many of these facilities are for profit, private zoos,
and many of them have really inadequate facilities that
shouldn't be supported but some may be fine. I think it has to
be an individual----
Mr. Bilirakis. There have to be standards, there has to be
oversight, things of that nature. But that is a doable thing,
isn't it, and it would help, would it not?
Ms. Nelson. Yes. May I ask you? Are chimpanzees still
there?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. They are just closed to the public. In
other words, the past use of them is basically closed to them,
but they are still there, right?
Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow up on in the
Houston area, we don't have what I consider the place for some
type of facility. Doctor, you mentioned that at your laboratory
in West Africa, you actually use large islands in a nearby
river for that purpose. When you say ``large islands,'' is that
to say putting an enclosure? Obviously, the chimpanzees are
then on that island and they can create their socialization.
Mr. Prince. They have to be resocialized before they go on
the island, otherwise mayhem would ensue, but the islands are
10- to 30-acre environments. Chimps don't swim and therefore
one doesn't have to build walls and they are covered with
tropical rain forest and chimps are quite happy living in that
environment.
Mr. Green. When you envision--and I haven't talked to
Congressman Greenwood about it--but do you envision these
facilities being in the United States or maybe using some fate
like you have obviously in West Africa that we would create a
sanctuary?
Mr. Prince. We are creating a sanctuary in West Africa, but
it would be totally impractical to bring animals from outside
of Africa into that, and it is not our intent. It is our intent
to provide a good life for the animals that are in our setting.
Mr. Green. You would assume the legislation would create
these sanctuaries within the United States?
Mr. Prince. Yes.
Mr. Green. And maybe the chairman's facility in Florida by
coming up to standards could be a facility.
Mr. Prince. Africa, as you know, has some political
instability which does not support such activities too well.
Mr. Green. We hear about it every day. I guess I was
thinking about it and I have told my staff and the chairman, we
had a situation in South Texas, and it wasn't with chimpanzees,
but it was Japanese snow monkeys, that the facility south of
San Antonio, which is not what I would consider user friendly
except a native born animal there, but they lost their funding
and then they really abandoned them and they have escaped and
living, and I don't know how they survive in the scrub oak in
Mesquite in south Texas, but some are and that would be my fear
that, you know, obviously we need to have a facility that is
funded and not just on an annual basis, but has some surety
that they are going to be there both for the animal's
protection but also, you know, so that there is not a problem
within the region, although again, from what I understand, the
snow monkeys are adapting very well to the dry climate of south
Texas.
Ms. Nelson. I have actually been to that sanctuary. It is
great.
Mr. Green. Is it really?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Green. My only experience with it, and I tell this
story is my son and I have hunted in south Texas and he came
back 1 day and he was I guess his first year in college, he
tried to explain to us. He said dad, I think I saw a monkey in
the tree. And typical hunting experience I said, don't tell
these other guys because you will not live it down the next few
days. Low and behold, a month later there was an article in the
Houston paper that talked about the number of animals that
escaped and are now in ranches around south Texas. I am glad to
hear that because that bothered me that facility they escaped.
I thought they lost their funding and just abandoned it.
Ms. Nelson. No, they moved to Dilley. And it is up and
running. It is really a great sanctuary. They have a lot of
acres.
Mr. Green. And they are adapting?
Ms. Nelson. Yes. They seem fine. I have been there twice.
Mr. Green. Glad to hear it. If you have any information, I
would appreciate it. Of course we don't have monkeys in Texas,
the ones that were native born.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I have one other question
concerning the permanent retirement, and I know the concern
from NIH, and I don't think there was a question about the
permanent retirement, but the continued ability to monitor.
Does that seem to be a problem? The chairman said it seems like
we are close enough we could come to some agreement on it.
Ms. Nelson. The bill provides for that.
Mr. Green. But it needs to be once a chimpanzee is retired,
they don't need to be able to be used again?
Ms. Nelson. Right.
Mr. Green. I don't think there was any opposition from NIH
to that except----
Ms. Nelson. There is, I believe.
Mr. Greenwood. There is. They don't like it.
Ms. Nelson. Maybe we can convince them to like it.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
introducing the bill.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. And if you are worried, we are
not going to move them into your district and register them
Republican.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I could make some comments on
that.
Mr. Greenwood. They would have more sense to register
Republican in your district.
Two questions. One for each of the witnesses. And then
let's go to Dr. Prince first on this whole question. Biggest
stumbling block is whether or not these chimps will be able to
be called back for research purposes. From what I gathered from
what the NIH has said formally today as well as other
discussions I have been involved in, my sense is that No. 1,
you take the number of chimpanzees that are ready for
retirement now, and at the speed at which we can move things
through Congress and raise the money privately and publicly and
fund the creation of the first of these sanctuaries and move
the first most likely population out, for the foreseeable
future, it is my estimation that is going to leave a continued
surplus available for research.
So in terms of numbers, my assumption is that we are a very
long way from getting to the point where that would be an
issue, and in any instance, it is the research community that
decides when to relinquish them. Now, is there an issue,
putting the numbers aside, do we have an issue here where we
have a specific chimpanzee that might be selected for
retirement and then something happens in terms of the
technology of research? There is a breakthrough of one kind or
another and a research says, you know, I think I can really
learn something about XY disease if I bring that specific
chimpanzee, or the 12 that I used for my earlier experiments,
and brought them back and did some kind of invasive research.
Is that, in your view, a very likely scenario? Obviously it is
a hypothetical scenario.
Mr. Prince. It could happen, but it doesn't have to happen.
Basically, there are not that many generic groupings here.
There are HIV-infected chimps. There are HIV-recovered. There
are HPV-infected and recovered, and HCV-recovered. It is my
view that NIH and its advisors should decide on what is a
reasonable resource for them to have that would take into
account the possibility of unanticipated needs in the future
and so on, and that would be a number. That number could be
600. It could be 1,000, I don't know. I don't think it has
actually been very carefully assessed. I think it needs more
careful study. And then within that number it should be
sufficient for lookbacks at animals that were experimented on 5
years ago and so on and anything that is reasonable and those
that are above that number should be out of the system and in
retirement. That is my view.
Mr. Greenwood. I suppose that cuts both ways because to the
extent that you make it a strictly one-way street, you do
minimize the number of chimpanzees that might be kept back from
the sanctuary for that very reason. I think about that
sometimes that----
Mr. Prince. I really think that the NIH should have its own
sanctuary system for breeding, for maintenance in case of
emergencies. It is a different sanctuary system from the one
that this bill addresses.
Mr. Greenwood. That's a perfect segue for my question for
Ms. Nelson. If you noticed in the NIH's testimony today, they
talked about their intentions to put out a request for proposal
to actually build different, better, more housing for
chimpanzees, and I tried to press the witness on what that
would be like. I didn't completely succeed, except we learned
that he didn't want to live there. Can you go into as someone
who spends her whole life interested in the humane treatment of
animals, what are the worst parts about our current system and
what are your concerns that NIH would fail to do going out
without the aid of this legislation, just going out and
contracting with someone to build housing?
Ms. Nelson. One of my major concerns is that retirement
would not be permanent if NIH was in control. I don't think
that the facilities would be anything that we envision. They
wouldn't be sanctuaries. The nature of this bill is that it is
a safe place for these chimpanzees to retire and not have any
invasive research done. And that is just not NIH's plan.
Mr. Greenwood. And I think that is an important point to
make. I think some of the members were trying to have, in
working on this issue, try to envision what a sanctuary looks
like and my understanding is that in the ideal situation, you
would have a very large natural enclosure filled with natural
habitat. You probably would have walls that would be fairly
high and unscalable, and then you would have some distance
between trees and those walls so you couldn't have a chimpanzee
leap, so therefore you would have a very natural setting. The
only exception to that being there is a limit to the range and
there would probably be some kind of shelter and then some kind
of facilities in there to deal with the health needs, newborns
if there are those, and those kinds of things. That is very
different than a strictly artificial setting. I think that is
what we are trying to create here, and I am not convinced that
going to the lowest bidder is going to get you there. But the
other thing that is important seems to me it is easy to forget
that it is inhumane, and it is cruel to allow a chimpanzee to
go out and form bonds and socialize and have the relief of a
certain number of years or time in that kind of a setting, and
then come for him and say, you know, it is time for him to go
back into a cage in a laboratory that that is, in itself, cruel
and unusual punishment.
Ms. Nelson. And I can comment on this personally because I
had an experience with a chimpanzee when I worked for the
Humane Society of the United States years ago, and there was a
chimpanzee that was held in a cistern-type area underground at
a bar and he was entertainment. He had a small caged area where
he could come up. I eventually got down under there to see him
and took the chimp away with a search warrant. It was a long,
involved case, but one thing that sticks in my mind were his
eyes. It was like staring into a blank nothing, I mean, just
right through him. We had primatologists look at him, and one
of the comments that Jane Goodall made that I will never forget
is it is like locking a 16-year-old human being in a closet.
Housing chimps alone in single cages, that was a different
situation from a laboratory but that quote sticks in my mind,
and that is exactly what he looked like.
Mr. Greenwood. One of the great things I learned from Dr.
Goodall is that there is a tendency to ascribe the expressions
on the face of chimpanzees and interpret them
anthropomorphically, and to think that if they are bearing
their teeth in what appears to be a grin, that that is a happy
chimpanzee. She showed me a picture from Life Magazine, and I
think it was Ham, the chimpanzee returned from space and the
headline was happy astronaut returns to earth or something, and
she said that is the most terrified chimpanzee I have ever seen
in my life. So sometimes we see these television shows and
circuses and what not what appears to be smiling chimpanzees,
and what you are seeing is terror, which is certainly an
emotion that they feel.
Mr. Prince. Could I just comment on the statement that you
made of cruel and unusual punishment. I don't agree. We bring
up our kids to the age of 18 they are thoroughly socialized.
They have elaborate lives and then under certain circumstances,
they are pulled into the Army and they go for a year or 2, and
they come back and they are resocialized in a different way. It
is our experience that we can take a chimpanzee born on an
island in a resocialized community, say 4 years old, take him
back into the lab for a year or 2, and back out to the same
community and they will reintegrate. I am not saying that one
should bring the adults back. I think that is impossible. That
would be wrong, but 5-year-olds I think it is possible.
And what I am visualizing is the NIH should have breeding,
or potentially breeding sanctuaries with fertile females maybe
not with fertile males if they don't want breeding, but then if
they--we should have a sudden absolute need for chimpanzees,
those communities could start breeding, the juveniles could be
put into an experiment. Chimps remarkably almost never get sick
with anything, so experiments are not that severe for chimps.
So I have certain reservations about that.
Mr. Greenwood. Fair enough. One housekeeping duty. Without
objection, the record will be held open for 7 days for members
to submit additional questions and statements for the record.
The letter with 106 signatures on it, is that part of the
record or do we need a unanimous consent agreement to add that
to the record? Let me, just to be doubly sure, I ask unanimous
consent that the letter with the headline, ``we, the
undersigned members of the scientific and academic community
endorse H.R. 3514, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement
Maintenance and Protection Act, which would authorize the
Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System for chimpanzees no longer
needed in research,'' that that letter be made a part of the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
WE, the undersigned, members of the scientific and academic
community, endorse H.R. 3514, the ``Chimpanzee Health Improvement,
Maintenance and Protection Act'', which would authorize a federal
chimpanzee sanctuary system for chimpanzees no longer needed in
research: Jonathan S. Allan, D.V.M., Scientist, Department of Virology
and Immunology, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (San
Antonio, TX); American Zoo and Aquarium Association (Silver Spring,
MD); James Anderson, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University
of Stirling (Stirling, Scotlang); Kate Baker, Ph.D., Research
Associate, Yerkes Regional Pnmate Research Center, Emory University
(Atlanta, GA); Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental,
Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado (Boulder,
CO); Carol Berman, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of
Buffalo (Buffalo, NY); Tammie Bettinger, Ph.D., Curator of Conservation
and Science, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo (Cleveland, OH); Joseph T.
Bielitzki, MS, DVK NASA, Chief Veterinary Officer (Mountain View, CA);
Mollie Bloomsmith, Ph.D., Director of Research and Director of TECHlab
Zoo Atlanta, Affiliate Scientist Yerkes Regional Primate Research
Center, Emory University (Atlanta, GA); Carolyn Bocian, Ph.D.; Sarah
Boysen, Ph.D., Director of Primate Cognition Project and Associate
Professor of Comparative Psychology, Ohio State University (Columbus,
OH).
Hilary O. Box, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of
Reading, Vice President for Captive Care, Primate Society of Great
Britain and the International Primatological Society (Reading, UK);
Linda Brent, Ph.D., President Chimp Haven, Inc. (San Antonio, TX);
Betsy Brotman, Director, Vilab II (Robertsfield, Liberia) and the New
York Blood Center (New York, NY); Hannah Buchanan-Smith, Ph.D.,
Lecturer in Psychology, University of Stirling, (Stirling, Scotland);
Thomas Butler, D.V.M.; Richard W. Byrne, Ph.D., Professor of
Evolutionary Psychology, The University of St Andrews, Vice President
for Membership, International Primatological Society (St Andrews,
Scotland); Nancy Caine, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, California
State University San Marcos (San Marcos, CA); John Capitanio, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California at Davis,
and Staff Scientist at the California Regional Primate Research Center;
Gary Comstock, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious
Studies & Coordinator, Bioethics Program, Iowa State University (Ames,
Iowa); Robert Cooper, D.V.M.; Colleen Crangle, Ph.D., Computer Science
(Palo Alto, CA); Steve Davis, D.V.M., Professor of Animal Sciences,
Oregon State University (Corvallis, OR); David DeGrazia, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Philosophy, George Washington University and
Senior Research Fellow, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown
University (Washington, DC); Frans de Waal, Ph.D., Chandler Professor
of Primate Behavior, Psychology Department, and Director of LIVING
LINKS CENTER, Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Emory University
(Atlanta, GA).
Wendy Dirks, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology, New York
University (New York, NY); Merelyn T. Dolins, Ph.D., Director of
Physical Therapy, Department of Child Development and Rehabilitation,
Valley Hospital (Paramus, NJ); Francine L. Dolins, Ph.D., Program
Scientist for Research, Behavioral Primatologist, Animal Research
Issues, The Humane Society of the United States (Washington, DC);
Alessandro Duranti, Editor, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles
(Los Angeles, CA); Stephen Easley, Ph.D., Director, Easley and
Associates, Professional Consultants (Alamorgordo, NM); Sian Evans,
Ph.D., The DuMond Conservancy (Miami, FL); Brian Fay, Ph.D., Professor
of Philosophy, Wesleyan University (Middletown, CT); Jo Fritz,
Director, Primate Foundation of Arizona (Mesa, AZ); Member, National
Research Council Committee that produced 1997 Report, Chimpanzees in
Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, Management, and Use; Randy
Fulk, Ph.D., Curator of Research, North Carolina Zoological Park
(Asheboro, NC); Paul A. Garber, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology,
University of Illinois (Urbana, IL); Michele L. Goldsmith, M.S., Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of Environmental and Population Health, Center for
Animals and Public Policy, Tufts University School of Veterinary
Medicine (North Grafton, MA); Jane Goodall, Ph.D., Jane Goodall
Institute (Silver Spring, MD); Thomas Gordon, Ph.D., Director, Yerkes
Regional Primate Research Center, Emory University (Atlanta, GA).
Lisa Gould, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University
of Victoria (Victoria, Canada); Victoria Hampshire, D.V.M., Director,
Advanced Veterinary Applications (Bethesda, MD); Beatrice H. Hahn,
M.D., Professor of Medicine and Microbiology, University of Alabama
(Birmingham, AL); Lynette Hart, Ph.D.; Ned Hettinger, Ph.D., Professor
of Philosophy, College of Charleston (Charleston, SC); Robert A. Hinde,
Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Cambridge University, Fellow of the Royal
Society, Honorary Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences
(Cambridge, UK); William D. Hopkins, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology,
Berry College (Rome, GA); Research Associate Yerkes Regional Primate
Research Center, Emory University (Atlanta, GA); Sue Howell, Ph.D.,
Research Director, Primate Foundation of Arizona (Mesa, AZ); Robert
Hubrecht, Ph.D., University Federation for Animal Welfare, United
Kingdom; Ellen Ingmanson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Anthropology,
Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA); Thomas Insel, M.D., Director, The
Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, Emory University (Atlanta, GA);
Joseph Jacquot, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Grand Valley State
University (Allendale, MI); Alicia Karas, D.V.M., Dipl. ACVA, Assistant
Professor of Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Veterinary
Medicine, Foster Hospital for Small Animals (North Grafton, MA);
Michael Kastello, D.V.M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Research
Resources, Merck & Co., Inc. (Rahway, NJ).
James King, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, University of Arizona
(Tucson, AZ); Bette Korber, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Santa Fe
Institute (Santa Fe, NM); A. Lanny Kraus, D.V.M., Dipi. ACLAM,
Professor Emeritus, Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine, University
of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, (Rochester, NY); Susan P.
Lambeth, Environmental Enrichment Director, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
(Bastrop, TX); Louise Lamphere, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology,
University New Mexico (NM); Virginia Landau, Ph.D., Staff
Primatologist, The Jane Goodall Institute (Silver Spring, MD); Director
ChimpanZoo (Tucson, AZ); Clark Larsen, Ph.D., Amos Hawley Professor of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC); Alecia
Lilly, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Department of Anthropology, State
University of New York (Stony Brook, NY); Orla Mahoney, D.V.M., Tufts
University, School of Veterinary Medicine (North Grafton, MA); Terry
Maple, Ph.D., President and CEO, Zoo Atlanta (Atlanta; GA); Linda
Marchant, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Miami University (Oxford,
OH); Preston A. Marx, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Professor of Tropical
Medicine, Tulane University Medical Center (Covington, LA) and Aaron
Diamond AIDS Research Center (New York, NY); William C. McGrew, Ph.D.,
Professor of Zoology, Miami University (Oxford, OH); Patrick Mehlman,
Ph.D., Director of Mondika Primate Research Center, Department of
Anthropology, State University of New York (Stony Brook, NY).
Robert Mitchell, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology, Eastern
Kentucky University (Richmond, KY); John Moore, Ph.D., Scientist, Aaron
Diamond AIDS Research Center, The Rockefeller University (New York,
NY); Toshisada Nishida, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, President of
the International Primatological Society, Kyoto University (Kyoto,
Japan); April Nowell, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of
Victoria (Victoria, Canada); John Oates, Ph.D., Professor of
Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York (New York,
NY); Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.; Senior Research Fellow, Kennedy Institute
of Ethics, Georgetown University (Washington, D.C.); Sue Taylor Parker,
Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology Sonoma State University (Rohnert Park,
CA); Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, Director, Tufts Center for Animals and
Public Policy (North Grafton, MA); Andrew Petto, Ph.D., Editor and
Assistant Professor, National Center for Science Education, University
of the Arts (Philadelphia, PA); Evelyn Pluhar, Ph.D., Professor of
Philosophy, Penn State University (University Park, PA); Trevor Poole,
Ph.D., University Federation for Animal Welfare (England); Alfred M.
Prince, M.D., The New York Blood Center (New York, NY); Jill Pruetz,
Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Anthropology, Miami University
(Oxford OH); Anne E. Pusey, Ph.D., Distinguished McKnight Professor of
Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, University of Minnesota (St Paul, MN);
Ed Ramsey, D.V.M., University of Tennessee.
Viktor Reinhardt, Ph.D., Laboratory Animal Specialist, Animal
Welfare Institute (Washington, DC); Vernon Reynolds, Ph.D., Professor
of Biological Anthropology, Institute of Biological Anthropology,
Oxford University (Oxford, UK); Anthony Rose, Ph.D., Director, The
Biosynergy Institute (Hermosa Beach, CA); William E. Roudebush, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Molecular Cell
Biology & Pathobiology, Treasurer, International Primatological
Society, Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, SC); Andrew
N. Rowan, D. Phil., Senior Vice President of Research, Education &
International Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States
(Washington, DC); Thomas Jefferson Rowell, D.V.M., Director, University
of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette-NIRC (New Iberia, LA); Duane
Rumbaugh, Ph.D., Director, Language Research Center, Georgia State
University (Atlanta, GA); Lilly-Marlene Russow, Ph.D., Professor of
Philosophy, Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN); Member, National
Research Council Committee that produced 1997 Report, Chimpanzees in
Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, Management, and Use;
Anthony Rylands, Ph.D., Conservation International and IUCN/SSC,
Primate Specialist Group; Dale Schwindaman, D.V.M.; Jack F. Sharp,
President, Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest Louisiana
(Shreveport, LA); James Serpell, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Humane
Ethics & Animal Welfare, and Director, Center for the Interaction of
Animals & Society, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary
Medicine, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA).
Yukimaru Sugiyama, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University
and Dean of Faculty of Humanities of Tokai-gakuen University, President
of Primate Society of Japan; Ema Toback, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
Psychology, Santa Monica College (Santa Monica, CA) and University of
Stirling (Stirling, Scotland); Joel Trupin, Ph.D. Professor of
Biochemistry, Meharry Medical School (Nashville, TN); Caroline Tutin,
Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Centre International de Recherches
Medicales, (Franceville, Gabon); and Department of Biological and
Molecular Sciences, University of Stirling (Stirling, Scotland);
Augusto Vitale, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour, Section of
Comparative Psychology, Laboratorio de Fisiopatologia di Organo e di
Sistema, Instituto Superiore di Sanita' (Rome, Italy); Janette Wallis,
Ph.D., Associate Professor of Research, Department of Psychiatry &
Behavioral Sciences, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
(OK); Lyna Watson, Ph.D. Affiliated Scientist, Zoo New England (Boston,
MA); Francoise Wemelsfelder, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Animal Welfare,
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College (Edinburgh,
Scotland); Brent C. White, Ph.D., Matton Professor of Psychology,
Centre College, Danville, Kentucky; Roger D. White, M.D.,
Anesthesiology (Rochester, MN); Thomas Wolfle, D.V.M., Retired
Director, Institute of Laboratory Animal Research, National Research
Council, Program Director, National Research Council Committee that
produced 1997 Report, Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their
Ethical Care, Management, and Use.
Richard Wrangham, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Department of
Anthropology, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA); Stephen L.
Zawistowski, Ph.D., Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, Senior Vice
President and Science Advisor, The American Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals; Co-Editor, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare
Science (New York, NY).
Mr. Green. One last question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greenwood. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. Green. One last question. Because of the experience we
have had with the Coulston Foundation, the NIH is not in the
business of creating sanctuaries and I can't think of an
example where they would do it, but if they went out for an
RFP, would groups like yours, the Humane Society, be willing to
create that and work with them? Because again, I don't know if
I feel comfortable with NIH doing it themselves, but they would
contract with someone, so we don't have a repeat of what has
happened with Coulston where we find out that there is
obviously, it is not a sanctuary, it is not something that we
would feel comfortable with.
Ms. Nelson. I think that would be difficult to work with
NIH on that level.
Mr. Prince. I think that NIH did embark in a breeding
program in Texas, which was part of the reason we have too many
chimps now, but that was a very well-run breeding program. It
was not quite what we would call a sanctuary. There are various
spacious group housing. I don't see any reason why NIH
shouldn't, if it is concerned with having available chimp
resources, why they shouldn't have their own semisanctuary, not
quite sanctuary, but along the same lines, and they can
certainly give contracts to appropriate people to run that in
an appropriate way, I would think. They are not bad people.
Mr. Green. I know they are not bad people. I just was
wondering if they had that experience in dealing with actually
retirement of a chimpanzee, instead of bringing them back,
actually retirement and running an expansive sanctuary. I don't
know if they have that experience.
Mr. Prince. None of us have all that much experience.
Sanctuary is a new thing and we are all learning and we are all
going to learn together by communicating. NIH people can learn
with us.
Mr. Greenwood. If I may, I assume, Ms. Nelson, you are not
suggesting that the animal welfare organizations would not want
to participate on the advice--as advisory boards?
Ms. Nelson. No, I am not suggesting that.
Mr. Green. They wouldn't want to actually be the ones that
would contract and provide for the sanctuaries? Again, I would
feel more comfortable with someone who has the interest you
have than someone who may be in a nonprofit like Coulston, but
particularly for profit, may have some concerns about it,
because once the legislation goes from here, we lose control
over it, except for our hearing process and an annual
appropriations.
Ms. Nelson. I have been given a note that says funds.
Mr. Greenwood. It is something we never do up on this side.
Mr. Green. To continue, I understand the funding base. That
is the problem, but if this bill did pass and we created that
funding base where NIH would have that ability to go out to the
private sector or sector that obviously has an interest to
manage a competent sanctuary.
Ms. Nelson. Maybe I am misunderstanding. So the funds would
come from the animal protection?
Mr. Green. No, would come from NIH. Again, there may be
some--just like we do with lots of things, you know, there are
things you can do with funding from the private sector but
there would be basic funds through NIH for appropriations for
it.
Mr. Greenwood. Okay. I thank both of the witnesses for your
attendance. I thank the members who have attended today. This
hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Nelson. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]