Paul White This is Me

 Web References

1. 1. Lab Animal Magazine- Volume 30, 2000

   www.labanimal.com/col/prot0102 - [Cached]

   Published on: 1/11/2001   Last Visited: 7/8/2003

   They had just heard from the Director of the animal facility that Paul White, a Great Eastern investigator, planned to use his home to breed dogs for his research that would then be performed at the University. The research would involve one day of behavioral testing very soon after the animals arrived at the University, and, on the following day, a relatively minor survival neurosurgical procedure. Two days later, there would be more behavioral testing followed by euthanasia on the same day. If the IACUC requested it, White's laboratory team was willing to take full responsibility for the care of the animals during their five-day maximum stay at the University. Of course, and as might be expected, some Committee Members defended White, saying that where his animals were bred should not be a concern of the IACUC, as long as everything was "above board." But what did "above board" mean?
   
   To help resolve these questions, John Gillian, the IACUC Chair, met privately with White and the Director of the laboratory animal facility.
   ...
   But White and his family were willing to do it, at no cost to the University, to help his research.
   
   The facility Director, who was also the Attending Veterinarian, said that she had recently visited White's home, and it was her opinion that the animals were properly cared for and the breeding kennel itself met all federal standards. Gillian then asked White and the Director about USDA inspection records and related questions.
   ...
   White said that he did not apply for a USDA license since he was not selling the dogs. He simply would donate them to the University. He would request a letter from the University thanking him for the donation and estimating the value of the dogs. His intent was to take a tax deduction for contributing the dogs to the University. White said that at this time he would not give or sell any offspring to other investigators around the country who were studying the same genetic defect. He admitted that he wanted an inside track with the federal agency that funds his research.
   
   This situation presented some problems for the IACUC. If White truly does not need to have his home dog-breeding facilities licensed by the USDA, and they need not be inspected by the USDA, should the University allow him to use those dogs in his research?
   ...
   In that case, White may, in fact, be a dealer requiring licensing by the USDA and inspection of facilities. Exactly what he is trying to avoid? If the tax-deductible donation is not construed as a form of compensation, he may be exempt from registration. He may also be exempt from registration if he qualifies in any of the eight categorical exemptions, most of which involve the term "selling."
   
   That White's lab team is willing to take full responsibility for the care of the animals goes without saying, since they are responsible, especially if they are advocating a nonstandard breeding arrangement. Before the IACUC could agree to allow White to use his home, several considerations must be taken into account. Besides meeting the obvious standards for space, water, food, bedding, socialization, activity, sanitation, ventilation, etc., these animals need labor-intensive and constant care due to their defect. White needs to demonstrate to the IACUC how he can take care of the animals while the lab animal facility cannot. How do his available resources, personnel, financial responsibilities, and time equate to similar investments by the University? To ensure his ability to do this, the IACUC should inspect his proposed facility (i.e., his home) to determine if it meets research standards before accepting his proposal of home breeding. (Note that these aren't pets; they are, in fact, lab animals, even if they are not technically in a lab setting.) The IACUC's acceptance of White's at-home breeding should be contingent on allowing unscheduled, surprise inspections of his facility during reasonable hours to ensure proper animal care and health.
   ...
   The crux of this scenario is whether White should be allowed to raise dogs for his own research. He proposes to "donate" these animals to the University with the intention of claiming that donation as a "tax deduction." White argues that he should not be required to apply for a USDA license because he is not "selling" the dogs. Common sense would indicate that he is selling the dogs to himself for a research project that is funded by a grant that the University administers on his behalf.
   
   Rather than pick bones with White, it is easier to turn to the AWA for guidance. Is White a "dealer?" What are the IACUC's responsibilities? The Act defines a "dealer" (9 CFR 1.1) as "any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit…negotiates the purchase or sale (of animals)…for research…or experimentation…or breeding purposes." White is requesting "compensation" through a tax deduction; in addition, this work is driven by his research grant, which, we assume, is his primary form of employment.
   
   If we accept that White is a "dealer," is he then required to obtain a USDA license? According to 9 CFR 2.1(a)(3), he is exempt from this requirement if he "sells fewer than 25 dogs and/or cats per year" and maintains a total of "3 or fewer female dogs" and "derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale…during any calendar year." Typically, dogs purchased for research labs cost between $300 and $500. If White "donates" only one animal per year, then he might be exempt from having a USDA license; but often, genetically unique animals are much more valuable. If he successfully argues that he is exempt, then the IACUC should visit White's kennel to ensure that it meets proper standards as part of their semi-annual inspection of facilities. As presented, it is unlikely that only one dog per year will be "donated."
   
   The scenario states that breeding and caring for the animals was a seven-day-a-week, labor-intensive chore, and the laboratory animal facility simply could not take on the workload. Perhaps the IACUC should question whether White and his wife are adequately trained to cope with the special needs of these animals.
   
   The most perplexing question raised by White's protocol is how he came into possession of the dogs in the first place. Does he have proof of ownership? How was the genetic behavioral abnormality discovered? Has he inbred the animals to exhibit this trait? How does the trait affect the animals' quality of life? As presented, it appears that the research study began long before it was presented to the IACUC. If so, it appears that White has already been conducting unregulated research in his home. He now proposes to transfer the research to the University to use its surgical facilities. As a member of the faculty of Great Eastern University, White appears to be circumventing the rules and policies of his institution. Would the IACUC allow an investigator to raise nude or knockout mice in her home under the rationalization that they would receive better care from the investigator's spouse than from the trained animal care staff?
   ...
   We feel that White was not completely honest with the IACUC: he waited to disclose the information that the dogs were from his kennel and that the facility was not licensed by the USDA. White's behavior suggests a self-serving attitude. He wanted to donate the animals for his study and take a tax write-off for himself. He also wanted the inside track with his federal funding agency.
   ...
   In this scenario, White may or may not require a USDA license. The only exemption that might apply is found in Section 2.1(a)(3)(iv) of the Animal Welfare regulations. The other mentioned exemptions do not apply; if he maintains three or fewer breeding female dogs, he may sell the offspring for pets or exhibition (not to research) and the $500 gross income limit refers to the sale of animals other than dogs or cats.
   
   Section 2.1(a)(3)(iv) allows an individual selling fewer than 25 dogs per year, which were born and raised on his or her premises, to any research facility to be exempt from the licensing requirements. He or she may obtain a voluntary license if so desired, although a proposed change to the regulations (published in the Federal Register in August 2000) would eliminate this option.