significant tracheal trauma and systemic inflammation.”
One highly-cited study conducted at theUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences found that 29 percent of animals used for intubation training showed trauma to the larynx or trachea after 5 intubation attempts and 100 percent of animals who were intubated 10 times or more experienced trauma.
Another recent paper by faculty at Naval Medical Center-Portsmouth suggested that nomore than 10 intubations be performed on eachanimal before risking serious trauma to the airway.
Talcott’s admission that cats in WUSTL’s PALS course suffer from “[vocal] cord edema” and that catsendure as many as 15 intubations per session confirms that WUSTL is grossly exceeding the establishedveterinary medical practice limits for safely performing intubations without injury, and these injuries are
“unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research.” Such a high number of intubationsand confirmed injury to the animals indicates that WUSTL is allegedly violating AWA regulations for minimizing pain, distress, harm and discomfort to animals.
II. Failure to Provide Adequate Anesthesia to Animals During Painful Procedures
The AWA regulations state, “Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distressto the animals will … [b]e performed with appropriate sedatives, analgesics or anesthetics …” [9 C.F.R.§ 2.31(d)(1)(iv)(A)].During video time mark 00:42 – 00:50, a PALS course participant who had completed the cat intubationsession states, “They had to give Jessie [a cat used in the WUSTL PALS course] more ketamine becauseI was messing with him so much.” During video time mark 00:51 – 01:00, one PALS course participantasks a trainee, “Was he [Jessie] waking up for you?” A PALS course participant replies “mmmhmm”(indicating yes) and another PALS course participant states, “they gave him [Jessie] more ketamine …”The acknowledgement that at least one cat was waking up during a potentially painful intubation procedure indicates that WUSTL provided inadequate anesthesia to the animal, in apparent violation of the AWA’s requirement that animals receive proper anesthesia during painful procedures.
III. Failure to Consider Alternatives and Justify Use of Cats
The AWA regulations require that WUSTL faculty must have “considered alternatives” to the use of animals in painful procedures and “provided a written narrative description of the methods and sources… used to determine that alternatives were not available." [9 C.F.R. §2.31(d)(1)(ii)]. USDA Policy 12goes onto explain, “
Regardless of the alternatives sources(s) used, the written narrative should includeadequate information for the IACUC to assess that a reasonable and good faith effort was made todetermine the availability of alternatives or alternative methods. If a database search or other sourceidentifies a bona fide alternative method (one that could be used to accomplish the goals of the animal
., “Airway Injury Resulting From Repeated Endotracheal Intubation: Possible Prevention Strategies,”
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
(2011) 12.1: e34-39.
., “Use of the Ferret as a Model for Pediatric Endotracheal Intubation Training,”
, “Minimizing Trauma to the Upper Airway: A Ferret Model of Neonatal Intubation,”
J AmAssoc Lab AnimSci
(2009) 48.6: 780-4.