ROAR: Reno Outreach for Animal Rights

SPREAD THE WORD

One reason these cruel practices continue is because most people don't know they're happening. In fact, it's very difficult to learn what goes on behind closed doors at research laboratories. But we do know it isn't pretty. Tell everyone you know...together we can make a difference.

If you would like to see video footage of what happens in research labs, click here.

CONTACT RENO CITY GOVERNMENT

As a concerned citizen, you can write or call Mayor Bob Cashell and city councilperson Sharon Zadra to let them know you're concerned about the humane treatment of laboratory animals in Reno and would like to see independent, random inspections of CRL facilities in Sparks and Reno performed by local veterinarians, plus public availability of CRL's IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) reports. Call 334-RENO for contact information.

VOLUNTEER

If you would like to participate in peaceful protests outside the new facility at 6995 Longley Lane (at the corner of Maestro), please contact Tania at 852-3506.

ROAR can always use help with fact-finding and research. Please contact us at info@arreno.com if you're interested in helping.

If you work at Charles River
or any other facility that
conducts testing or
experiments on animals:

If you observe violations of the Animal Welfare Act or other laws, click here to report them.

Confidentiality is guaranteed.

LISTEN TO YOUR CONSCIENCE

When you work in a research laboratory that uses animals, you have a tough job. You're seeing terrible things every day, but you may be afraid of reprisal, losing your job, or feel you're not qualified to judge if what you're seeing is right. Trust your conscience - don't ignore that little voice that's telling you to do something.

$10,000 fine levied against Charles River for monkeys roasted to death

Charles River Sparks A horrifying tale of negligence (or "accident," as Charles River spokespersons call it) has surfaced: on May 28, 2008, 32 monkeys died of overheating at Charles River Sparks. The incident happened sometime during the night; no alarm system went off and the monkeys roasted to death inside their cages.

Couple this with Charles River's ongoing history of flagrantly violating the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and what do you have?
A BUSINESS WE DON'T WANT IN OUR TOWN.

UPDATE: Charles River was fined $10,000 after the USDA investigation into this incident - although nothing financially to Charles River fat cats, enough to show that the USDA thinks something went seriously wrong here.

Other Charles River Sparks incidents:

Over the course of three days in 2006 at Charles River's Sparks facility, two non-human primates suffered injuries to their fingers as they were being moved; both required amputation. A third non-human primate's tail was injured had to be treated.

The December 2006 report shows that yet another animal broke a front leg trying to get out of a cage.

Wearing white doesn't make you one of the good guys

Other Charles River facilities

From 2006 and 2007 USDA inspection reports:

Adverse clinical effects were observed for [two animals]... These animals were not euthanized and there were no requests for a veterinarian to exam [sic] the animals. Both of these animals were found dead the following day.
No written explanations as to why non-animal protocols are not being used.
…the principal investigator did not provide justification for not using anesthetics, analgesics or tranquilizers.
[Two] proposals state that animal pain and distress can not be relieved…but both proposals in other sections state that if adverse effects occur then a plan of action will be developed to ensure that no more than momentary pain or distress will occur. [same thing with an additional proposal as well]. The inconsistencies were noted in April and were not corrected by the time of the August inspection.
The principal investigator…did not provide a scientific justification for not relieving animal pain or distress and did not provide a written narrative description of the methods and sources used to determine that alternatives were not available to the painful/distressful procedure.
At least 6 rabbits had significant skin lesions from the injection of an irritation drug…the inflammatory reaction necessary to produce the skin lesions would be expected to cause the animals pain/distress. No treatment was given. These animals were not reported in Category E.
[A non-human primate] was noted by the inspector to be exhibiting the stereotypic behavior of saluting at the time of the inspection [note: this can occur when no enrichment is provided and animals go insane in their cages]. The condition had not been previously noted by facility personnel.
Guinea pig protocols…are skin sensitization tests. The PI [principal investigator] has not considered approved potential alternative methods (eg LLNA) as an alternative to these tests that may cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress to animals. [Note: LLNA stands for Local Lymph Node Assay: The Mouse Local Lymph Node Assay is now accepted by the EPA, OECD, and FDA as the preferred "stand-alone alternative" to the Guinea Pig Sensitization Test.

Quick links More about Charles River Laboratories, Inc. Full text of Charles River's 2006 and 2007 USDA inspection reports
Mark Robison's Mostly Dogs blog (from the Reno Gazette-Journal): all posts about animal testing and Charles River Laboratories

Animal testing doesn't work. Even the FDA says so.

According to the FDA's own figures, 92 percent of all drugs that pass preclinical testing on animals go on to fail in human (clinical) trials.
Of the remaining 8 percent, half are later withdrawn or relabeled for side effects not identified in animal research. These side effects can be lethal: 106,000 hospitalized Americans die each year as a result of adverse reaction to approved drugs. A recent case is that of Vioxx (made by Merck for the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms and pain): the FDA says it may have caused as many as 139,000 strokes or heart attacks, of which 30 to 40 percent might have died as a result.
75 percent of the drugs the FDA approves offer no new therapeutic value in comparison to those already on the market.
These statistics show that out of every 100 drugs tested safe on animals, we get just one that is safe, effective, and unlike any other.

Let's get real: If any other scientific endeavor paid for by the government had this abject failure rate, would it continue to be funded? Take the space shuttle for example: do you really think shuttles would be launched if there was a 92% failure rate? Or even a 9.2% failure rate?

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Would you like to contribute to or comment on this site? Write to contribute@arreno.com.