![\"University](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-05-05_20-57-21-509-e1746503882609.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n SEATTLE, Washington<\/strong>\u2013\u2013Responding to March 2025 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,\u00a0 \u00a0members of the University of Washington Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee on May 28,\u00a0 2025 agreed to drop a three-year legal effort to keep their identities secret.<\/p>\n The outcome is expected to have ripple effects throughout the U.S. animal-based research sector.<\/p>\n Explained Science<\/em> online news editor David Grimm,\u00a0 who has followed the convoluted case from the start,\u00a0 \u201cThe University of Washington,\u00a0 home to one of the largest animal research programs in the United States, \u00a0must now hand over the names,\u201d of Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee members, \u00a0\u201csparking fears that other universities could soon be forced to do the same.\u201d<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This could potentially open up animal experimentation to closer scrutiny than any other development since the passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966,\u00a0 followed a year later by the 1967 passage of the federal Freedom of Information Act.<\/p>\n Understanding why requires understanding what an Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee does,\u00a0 which in turn explains why identifying the membership matters to the 80-million-or-so animals per year used in experiments.<\/p>\n An Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee,\u00a0 required by the Animal Welfare Act,\u00a0 called an IACUC for short,\u00a0 reviews research protocols and supervises the care and housing of animals kept for research use.\u00a0 This includes inspecting all animal use facilities every six months.<\/p>\n NIH chief Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D. (NIH photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Each IACUC reports to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare annually, \u00a0and is required to promptly report any significant noncompliance with animal use requirements to the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare.<\/p>\n These records are accessible to animal advocates through the federal Freedom of Information Act.\u00a0 Obtaining and reviewing IACUC records,\u00a0 and seeking stiff penalties for egregious violations of Animal Welfare Act care standards,\u00a0 is almost the entire program of Stop Animal Experiments Now!,\u00a0 SAEN for short.<\/p>\n Reviewing IACUC records is also a frequent activity of other antivivisection organizations including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA],\u00a0 White Coat Waste Project,\u00a0 and many others.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n IACUC reviews of animal use protocols are to be done by the full IACUC committee at least once every three years,\u00a0 in the case of long-running experiments,\u00a0 and can be done more often,\u00a0 as the IACUC deems appropriate.<\/p>\n The reviews include considering the rationales for animal use in each experiment,\u00a0 including the appropriateness of the species and numbers used,\u00a0 the procedures used to ensure that discomfort and injury to animals will be limited to whatever is unavoidable in pursuit of the research goals,\u00a0 and euthanasia methods to be used in terminal studies.<\/p>\n Each IACUC is supposed to ensure that euthanasia methods are consistent with the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia, \u00a0\u201cunless a deviation is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator,\u201d\u00a0 says the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals<\/em>.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n An IACUC is required to have a minimum of three members, \u00a0appointed by the chief executive officer of the research facility,\u00a0 including a chairperson,\u00a0 a veterinarian,\u00a0 and a member who is not affiliated in any other way with the institution hosting the research.<\/p>\n The non-affiliated member is often an academic ethicist,\u00a0 attorney, \u00a0or member of the clergy,\u00a0 as recommended by the NIH,\u00a0 but animal advocates who have no philosophical objection to animal use in experiments,\u00a0 for example officers of mainstream humane societies and animal control agencies, \u00a0sometimes are appointed to fill this role.<\/p>\n Traditionally,\u00a0 the identities of IACUC members have been kept secret,\u00a0 presumably to spare them from academic peer pressure and activist protest.<\/p>\n Secrecy,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 has allegedly enabled animal-using institutions to pack IACUCs with members who simply rubber-stamp approval of any proposed experiment,\u00a0 and overlook any cruelty or neglect inflicted on laboratory animals unless it comes to light in some other manner.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Because IACUC members are not identified,\u00a0 they have historically not often been held accountable,\u00a0 either.<\/p>\n Wrote Grimm,\u00a0 \u201cFor several years, \u00a0PETA has alleged that the University of Washington\u2019s IACUC is biased toward individuals who support animal research. \u00a0But because most major IACUCs keep their membership confidential,\u00a0 PETA was unable to prove this. So in 2020, it began to file a series of public information requests with the school,\u201d\u00a0 specifically to the Washington National Primate Research Center,\u00a0 housed within the University of Washington, \u00a0\u201casking for the names of current and former committee members.<\/p>\n \u201cIn early 2022,\u00a0 the University of Washington announced it would comply with the requests, \u00a0citing Washington state\u2019s open records law.\u201d<\/p>\n Jane Sullivan.<\/strong><\/em> However,\u00a0 explained Seattle Times<\/em> data journalist Manuel Villa,\u00a0 Washington National Primate Research Center IACUC committee chair Jane Sullivan \u201cand over 70 former members\u201d of the IACUC,\u00a0 obtained an injunction preventing the University of Washington from disclosing their letters of appointment, \u00a0\u201cwhich contain personal identifying information, arguing it would violate their right of expressive association under the federal and state constitutions.\u201d<\/p>\n In February 2025, \u00a0the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals \u201cruled the letters relate to the members\u2019 service on an official committee, \u00a0an activity not protected by the right of expressive association,\u201d\u00a0 Villa summarized.<\/p>\n Sullivan et al filed an appeal,\u00a0 rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have lost our lawsuit, \u00a0and it is the end of the fight,\u201d \u00a0conceded Sullivan, \u00a0a neuroscientist who contended,\u00a0 she told Grimm,\u00a0 that \u201cprotests and threatening emails to scientists and university officials had created a \u2018climate of fear\u2019 in which release of their names could compromise their safety.\u201d<\/p>\n Kathy Guillermo. (Facebook photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The various courts,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 concluded that \u201cReleasing the information that PETA requests is unlikely to substantially and irreparably harm the University of Washington IACUC\u2019s ability to function.\u00a0 Plaintiffs also do not show any IACUC member will likely be substantially and irreparably harmed if this information is disclosed.\u201d<\/p>\n Claimed PETA Foundation director of litigation Asher Smith,\u00a0 to Grimm,\u00a0 \u201cThis sets an incredibly important legal precedent.\u00a0 It\u2019s going to make it much harder for any IACUC to make legal arguments for anonymity.\u201d<\/p>\n Continued Grimm,\u00a0 \u201cPETA has been pursing similar records from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, \u00a0as well as details about a research project there using marmosets to study menopause. \u00a0Smith said that after the University of Washington decision, \u00a0UMass \u201cnegotiated with us to give us all of the records we wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n This was confirmed,\u00a0 Grimm said,\u00a0 by University of Massachusetts at Amherst vice chancellor of research and engagement Michael Malone,\u00a0 who stated that,\u00a0 \u201cThe release of our IACUC membership records was done with the full consent and knowledge of those members.\u201d<\/p>\n Lisa Jones-Engel. (PETA photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n PETA senior vice president Kathy Guillermo told Grimm earlier that, \u00a0\u201cThe IACUC is the last line of defense for animals in\u00a0laboratories. \u00a0IACUC members\u2019\u00a0supposed fear of releasing their names would appear to be more about hiding a flawed\u00a0process than anything else.\u201d<\/p>\n The PETA pursuit of the names of University of Washington IACUC members began with PETA senior science adviser Lisa Jones-Engel, \u00a0previously a University of Washington biological anthropologist for 17 years, \u00a0a member of the IACUC herself from 2017 to 2019.<\/p>\n \u201cToward the end of her tenure,\u201d\u00a0 Grimm recounted, \u00a0\u201cshe filed complaints with the university alleging that the committee\u2019s nearly 20 members,\u201d\u00a0 six times more than the required number, \u00a0\u201cdid not contain an ethicist, \u00a0and that it was \u2018stacked\u2019 against individuals who might question animal experiments.\u00a0 She argued that some members considered to be nonscientists in fact had close ties to animal research. \u00a0Such concerns eventually led her to leave the University of Washington and join PETA.\u201d<\/p>\n (Harriet Brown of The Guardian in May 2022 published an extensive profile of Jones-Engel and her professional turnabout:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2022\/may\/31\/primates-monkeys-scientific-experiments-peta-stop-testing<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n PETA lab monkey campaign<\/strong><\/em> Grimm in 2022 mentioned that,\u00a0 \u201cIn addition to staging on-campus demonstrations at the University of Washington\u2014whose animal use program is\u00a0among the largest in the country\u2014PETA supporters have recently protested outside the\u00a0homes of two officials affiliated with the school\u2019s primate facility.<\/p>\n \u201cIndividuals wearing monkey masks held signs showing animals in cages, \u00a0asking, \u00a0\u2018Do your neighbors know you torture monkeys?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Said Malone,\u00a0 \u201cIf\u00a0people start showing up at your house, \u00a0where is that going to leave us in terms of staffing\u00a0IACUCs?\u201d he says. \u00a0\u201cPeople on these committees should be asking, \u2018Is it a good animal\u00a0model?\u2019 \u00a0Not, \u00a0\u2018Am I going to be accosted on the way to the grocery store?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\nUniversity of Washington faculty lose three-year court battle to keep anonymity<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nBiggest break for lab accountability in nearly 60 years<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nIACUCs report to the NIH<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSupposed to monitor lab animal welfare<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSecret tribunals<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSecrecy equals non-accountability<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
(University of Washington photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nInjunction overturned<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cIncredibly important legal precedent\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cHiding a flawed process\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
(PETA photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nProtests in monkey masks<\/h2>\n