STORRS, Conn. (February 28, 2002) -- In an unprecedented move made after the USDA had issued multiple subpoenas to compel testimony at a public hearing, the University of Connecticut has formally admitted committing grave violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act and has agreed to the largest fine ever paid by a research facility, In Defense of Animals (IDA) announced today.

It was the first time in the 36-year history of the Animal Welfare Act that a research facility has formally admitted violating the Animal Welfare Act. According to IDA, this admission constitutes incontrovertible proof that UConn has violated the Public Health Service policy, which mandates compliance with the Act. Because compliance with the PHS Policy is required for receipt of federal funds, IDA has demanded that the NIH suspend all funding to UConn, which received more than $35 million from the NIH last year.

In the unprecedented settlement decree signed last month, UConn also agreed to pay $125,000 to settle formal USDA charges filed March 28, 2001, and an additional $4,500 for violating a 1999 stipulation with the agency. UConn also agreed to numerous internal oversight measures. However, the settlement mandates only a $25,000 fine if UConn violates the Act in the next two years.

In a May 15, 2000 article in the UConn newspaper Advance, then-vice provost for graduate education and research Robert Smith claimed that the animal care problems were "limited." However, the March 28, 2001 formal USDA complaint documented 99 separate violations involving severe animal suffering -- including rabbits who had received no veterinary care and no painkillers after UConn had severed their spinal cords -- and a totally nonfunctional system of oversight, veterinary care and training.

In April 2001, P.R. Director Karen Grava claimed that UConn "took very seriously" the USDA charges, and had spent over $20 million to "correct the problems" that were the subject of the formal complaint and to make sure that "they won't recur." However, multiple USDA inspections conducted last May, August, September and November found yet more violations that were so egregious that the agency filed a Motion to add more charges to the existing complaint (the most recent inspection, conducted last month, found no violations). Kleiman said the USDA did not proceed with the additional charges because the agency would have had to show UConn the amended complaint before filing it, and also would have had to delay the public hearing that had been scheduled for January 9, 2002. Kleiman also said that the additional violations provide further evidence why the NIH must suspend funding to UConn.

• Waiting almost one month to inform the attending veterinarian of the surgical deaths of 3 mole rats;
• Failing to allow USDA access to records pertaining to a violation cited two months before;
• Numerous violations resulting in the USDA statement that "It is apparent from this inspection and the past inspections that the facility has not ensured that personnel are qualified to perform their duties";
• Inadequate post-operative records, inadequate protocols, and failing to monitor animals for hours after surgery because of people being in another building, resulting in the death of at least one cat and the USDA statement that "It is apparent from the items noted in this inspection that the facility has not ensured that personnel are qualified to perform their duties";
• The deaths of 22 naked mole rats after "days of husbandry neglect" because the caretaker was on vacation, and the substitute had not been contacted;
• Research procedures again conducted without approval from the Animal Care and Use Committee, or performed in violation of written protocol;
• The death of yet another rabbit who bled to death after a technician failed to contact the attending veterinarian and instead attempted to treat the rabbit himself by performing surgery;
• Yet more failures to ensure that personnel were qualified, resulting in the USDA statement that UConn’s Institutional Official was violating his responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the Act and being truthful with the USDA because "It is apparent from the deficiencies described in this report that these Assurances [signed by the IO stating that UConn was in compliance] are not being met."

Kleiman noted that as late as December 2001, UConn had intended to contest the formal charges in a public hearing scheduled for January 9, 2002. However, ten days after the USDA had issued subpoenas to compel seven UConn employees to testify at the hearing, UConn agreed to the settlement.

"Clearly, UConn was afraid to have its continuing malfeasance exposed in a court of law," said Kleiman. "We will not let UConn get off that easily. We intend to expose in the court of public opinion the evidence UConn was afraid to answer at the hearing." Kleiman said that his group would conduct a long-term campaign to ensure that the public is made aware of UConn’s malfeasance, that UConn is held responsible for causing such egregious animal suffering, and that Connecticut’s anti-cruelty statute be amended so that it no longer exempts research facilities.

IDA is an international animal advocacy and rescue organization based in Mill Valley, California. Its research watchdog program helps to protect whistleblowers and has provided numerous regulatory agencies such as the USDA, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with evidence of violations at research labs across the United States.