Editorial: Excellence in research

Despite princeton’s recognized commitment to nationally accepted standards and rules regulating the conduct of research, The University has recently displayed an indefensible neglect of animal rights in its research on primates. As the Daily Princetonian reported on Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the body responsible for monitoring research upon animals, cited the University for 11 violations in 2011 and six violations in 2010. Furthermore, as was reported earlier this semester, the University was given the second-worst Research Misconduct Score in the Ivy League by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Princeton’s violations range from procedural inconsistencies to more substantive complaints, including the failure to provide sufficient water or anesthesia to research animals. The University ought to undertake a concerted effort to immediately address these violations, as they are both morally reprehensible and an anathema to Princeton’s tradition of excellence in research.

We do not deny that work done on primates plays an important role in achieving goals in scientific research. While it is appropriate that the University’s researchers employ primates in their work, we have an obligation to avoid inflicting any unnecessary harm upon them in the course of conducting research. Much of the research misconduct identified by the USDA — depriving monkeys of water, for example, or failing to provide adequate care for pregnant monkeys — seems clearly to violate this obligation. We must stop these violations.

Of course, this is not to say that the University’s failure to comply with its obligations was necessarily intentional; we certainly acknowledge that innocent mistakes are sometimes made. That the University was cited by the USDA for violations two years in a row, however, suggests that a substantial effort was not undertaken to resolve the issues underscored by the USDA’s findings. Redressing wrongs of this nature is of paramount importance, and the University ought to make a greater effort to ensure that no similar violations occur in the future.

As the costs to correct these issues would be minimal, the reappearance of similar violations in the future would be both intolerable and inexplicable. The University should reemphasize its commitment to appropriate treatment of test subjects and foster a lab culture that demands respect for humans and primates alike. A third citation by the USDA would indicate more than mere failure to be sufficiently methodical in checking compliance with regulations; rather, it would be a suggestion that the University fails to properly appreciate the moral implications of its scientific practices.