Subject: Life Is a Jungle For Some Animals Kept Behind Bars Date: Published: 1/12/89 (141 lines) Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. Life Is a Jungle For Some Animals Kept Behind Bars --- Under New Rules for Labs, Others Get Video Games And Radios to Stay Happy ---- By Carrie Dolan Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal SAN FRANCISCO -- After a long day of medical research at an animal-care facility here, it's time to relax. So the test subjects flip on their radios and listen to a little soft rock on a local radio station. "One of them even danced," says Hal Markowitz, a professor at San Francisco State University who has been working with the monkeys. Yes, monkeys. The cage-side boom boxes, which also dispense banana pellets, were developed by Dr. Markowitz, a scientist who for 20 years has tried to make life behind bars a little more stimulating for animals. This isn't just another animal trick. Interest is growing in the field, spurred by animal-rights groups and new laws that require researchers to "promote the psychological well-being" of caged primates. In trying to discover what animals find amusing, people are allowing polar bears to hunt for food, providing exercise machines for cheetahs, and giving chimps a chance to watch "Donahue." "These animals aren't living normal lives," says Dr. Markowitz. "They're living in isolation, and not being given chances to make their own decisions." Being able to turn their radio off when they've heard enough Barry Manilow, for instance, apparently is just as important as being able to switch it on. Two decades ago, when Dr. Markowitz began advocating that captive animals receive more control over their lives, he says, "lots of people thought I was crazy. Many still do." But he contends, "Other animals besides human beings gain the ability to cope with the world when they think what they do matters." Not everyone agrees with his ideas. In the 1970s, when Dr. Markowitz was director of the zoo in Portland, Ore., animals there used a number of mechanical devices: A mandrill, for example, played computer games with humans. But administrators moved toward allowing the animals to exist as they "would in the wild," says Dennis Pate, general curator of the zoo. "We like them to interact with each other rather than with people." "There was a feeling that what we did was unnatural," says Dr. Markowitz. "But everything about the existence of {captive} animals is unnatural." He says artificial stimulation is better than none at all. These days, Dr. Markowitz is a paid consultant to research institutions. While he believes in the necessity of using animals for research into life-threatening diseases, Dr. Markowitz opposes the use of animals in the cosmetics industry. "We owe it to them to make the best possible life for them," he says. The new regulations, recent amendments to the federal Animal Welfare Act of 1966, are intended to spice up the lives of monkeys, chimpanzees, orangutans and other primates used in research laboratories. Other new rules prescribe regular exercise for dogs used in research. The stricter standards are even prompting zoos to improve living conditions. Says Joseph Spinelli, the head of animal-care facilities at the University of California at San Francisco, "In the wild, animals look for food and avoid predators. We have taken away their two primary activities. We have to find substitutes." Besides making conditions more humane, researchers say lab animals with "richer lives" make better subjects. Some caged animals become aggressive, pluck out their own hair, or even bite themselves. "Animals show stress, anxiety and depression clinically identical to humans," says Kathryn Bayne, a veterinarian at the National Institutes of Health. Perhaps the biggest problem researchers face in complying with the new regulations is measuring the emotional well-being of animals, which can't describe their feelings. "What do we use to measure happiness? " asks Julie McNeal, assistant administrator of the California Primate Center in Davis, Calif. "We can't define happiness for people." One way is to measure physiological responses. At the center, tiny devices are placed under the skin of animals to monitor their heart rates and body temperature. These devices gauge, among other things, the effect of different people coming into the room. Early indications are that the animals prefer the company of janitors over veterinarians. For now, researchers will try just about anything to cheer up their test animals. The buddy system works wonders at the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center in Madison, where placing an infant monkey with an older one seems to inhibit aggression. When scientists need the animals, a companion comes along. "It's more frightening to go to the doctor alone," says Viktor Reinhardt, a research veterinarian. Chimps spend as much as 60% of their day feeding in the wild. Perhaps not surprisingly those in captivity would rather work for their food than accept government handouts. Research chimps at the University of Texas Cancer Center in Bastrop are given sticks to poke into a "simulated termite mound," to retrieve spaghetti sauce and oatmeal. Food puzzles, in which a peanut has to be pushed through a maze, are popular, too. At the NIH in Washington, monkeys part the blades of Astroturf to find bits of food. Since they still get regular meals, such nit-picking is "purely optional," says Dr. Bayne. The NIH also is experimenting with spherical cages, in which monkeys can roll around like acrobats. Then there is the high-technology approach to happiness. At the University of California at San Francisco, for example, monkeys have spent their spare time playing with joysticks to move colors on a computer screen. The University of Texas outfits chimpanzee cages with television sets connected to videocassette recorders. Research labs are finding that entertaining the animals isn't cheap. The Agriculture Department, which will enforce the new regulations, estimates laboratories and other facilities will have to spend more than $100 million to comply, and the National Institutes of Health projects that costs could be as high as $1 billion. Finding cost-effective improvements is crucial. Ms. McNeal of the California Primate Center says that budget constraints are already slowing AIDS research and that animal-care costs only magnify those delays. With enough financing, Ms. McNeal says, one researcher testing effects of a drug there could finish the test within a year. But because of budget limitations, it will take as long as six. [39 lines irrelevant to AIDS have been removed. -- sysop] [This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]