a. Plaintiff challenged the Secretary of Agriculture on the living conditions and well-being of primates in research labs; plaintiff argues that the regulations implemented by the Secretary were inadequate and that the regulations were not properly implemented in the research labs themselves; main challenge to the attending vets and the “plans” that were implemented – attending vets did not set adequate standards; plaintiff asks that the Secretary spell out specifically in the regulations the “adequate standards” for the promotion of the “psychological well-being” of the primates
1. Social Housing for the primates – cage sharing – the Secretary listened to the concerns regarding the social grouping issues and modified the regulations and established minimal standards
2. The engineering standards – the physical cage size proportionate to the weight of the primate; specific floor area per animal (the standards do not address the location or number of cages per facility – i.e., the standards allow for stacking of cages)
(a) The Court of Appeals upholds that Secretary’s standards and vacates the ruling of the trial court that found that the regulations were vague and not properly implementing the purpose of the overall law of promoting the psychological well-being of primates
(4) Final Report on Environment Enhancement to Promote the Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates
a. Environmental Enhancements = the regulations state that the attending vet’s plan must address social grouping, enrichment of the physical environment, special considerations, and restraint devices, but what is required in order to address these in a minimally compliant manner is unclear.
(5) Institutional Care Committees
(6) Appendix D: What is Science about?
a. David Favre and Matthew McKinnon, The New Prometheus: Will Scientific Inquiry Be Bound by the Chains of Government Regulation?
1. The different ways you can define science and talk about science
(a) Does science have to be novel to be science?