In his time as a University of Connecticut graduate student, Justin Goodman, the current director of laboratory investigation for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, protested UConn’s practices of experimenting on animals. He strongly opposed violations in monkey research in 2007, which eventually led to a fine and a return of federal grant money.

“It is no secret that individuals at the University of Connecticut Health Center and elsewhere are experimenting on animals,” Goodman said.

Between 2009 and 2012, the UConn Health Center was found to be in violation of the Animal Welfare Act or the National Institute of Health guidelines more than 20 times, Goodman said. When PETA filed a Freedom of Information Act request against the Health Center, he said the response they received was missing both the grant numbers for the offending projects and the names of the researchers involved.

According to a Dec. 30 PETA press release, the Freedom of Information Commission ruled in favor of UConn in PETA’s original lawsuit attempting to obtain the names. The FOIC thought that releasing the information would endanger the researchers involved. PETA is now appealing the decision to the Connecticut Superior Court under the argument that the UConn Health Center was unable to provide adequate evidence of safety threats to researchers.

Goodman listed different ways that researchers publicly share their work, including personal websites, research papers and presentations at conferences.

“To suggest that giving us the information about people who violated the law somehow presents a risk to them is outrageous because these experimenters and the university are perfectly happy to trumpet these experiments on animals when they have the opportunity to,” Goodman said.

Carolyn Pennington of the UConn Health Center said in an email that the Health Center was unable to comment on pending litigation. In another email, Stephanie Reitz, a spokesperson for the university itself, added that after the FOIC made its decision, it became responsible for the case.

The FOIC could not be reached for comment.

The FOIC’s decision was based on the safety exception of the FOIA. They concluded that the researchers would be at risk if their names were released and that, by redacting their names from the released reports, UConn was, in fact, protecting the researchers. PETA argues in its lawsuit that “there was no dates, names, or other specifics put to this alleged phenomenon.”

According to PETA’s press release, in the past, the university and the UConn Health Center have been asked to pay fines and sanctions for previous violations. In 2001, more than 90 violations were exposed at the university and they were required to pay a fine of $129,000.

In 2012, the Health Center was fined more than $12,000 for more violations. Most of the violations between 2009 and 2012 were committed against mice and rabbits, according to the release.

Pennington said the practices in violation no longer take place.

“The non-compliance issues raised in this case have all been resolved,” she said.

Goodman said he believes that it is important for organizations to take responsibility for violations such as these.

“These are people and projects that are being funded by state and federal tax dollars and we just believe there should be a degree of accountability and transparency,” Goodman said. “If you’re willing and happy to take the public’s money then you should own up to it when you don’t abide by the very, very minimal rules that apply to your work.”

Published on January 16, 2014 at 2:24 am

Contact: clmoran@syr.edu