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?
No comments:
Post a Comment