[MUSIC] In June of 1965, a boy named Michael Lakavage let the family dog, a Dalmatian named Pepper, out for her usual evening walk around the family's Pennsylvania farm. When Pepper hadn't returned by the following morning, her heartbroken family knew she was gone. They searched for her everywhere. At the time, animal welfare organizations were trying to get the United States Congress to regulate the ways animals used in biomedical research were obtained. Activists knew that dog dealers stole pets, especially at night, and sold them to research laboratories. They also knew that networks of dealers traded animals across state lines to frustrate owners' attempts to locate their missing pets. This exact scenario was unfolding in Pennsylvania that June. While searching for Pepper, Julia Lakavage, Michael's mother, heard from a neighbor that he had seen a man loading a Dalmatian into a truck. The friendly five-year-old Pepper trusted people and loved car rides. When the dog dealer stopped and opened his door, she had probably hopped right in. A week later, and about 200 miles away, police stopped a driver for improperly loading dogs and goats in his truck. The driver, a dog dealer, had to return with a larger truck. The local animal shelter housed the dogs and goats overnight. The local paper ran a story with the headline 18 dogs, two goats seized, ownership proof sought. The next day, the paper followed up with another story, 20 animals resume their trip. The article mentioned the two Dalmatians were among the 18 dogs. On reading the newspaper article, the Lakavage family had no doubt that one of the Dalmatians was Pepper. They rushed to the shelter, but the dealer had already left, supposingly taking the animals to a dog farm, quote, unquote, in High Falls, New York. When Julia Lakavage reached the farm, the dealer turned her away because she had no search warrant. In any case, Pepper had never been at the farm. The dealer had delivered her to Montefiore Hospital in New York City, where researchers would have paid about $15 for her. Before Pepper's family could reach the hospital, she had already been cremated. She had died during a botched experimental procedure with a cardiac pacemaker. An animal welfare advocate who had connections among dog dealers heard about the incident. She notified New York Representative Joseph Resnick about Pepper's fate. Resnick was outraged that someone could steal a cherished family pet, transport her across state lines, and sell her for research. For over five years, bills to protect animals used in research had stalled in Congress. Pepper's story changed everything. Resnick introduced a bill to require licensing and inspection of dog and cat dealers in the laboratories that purchased animals from them. Extensive media coverage of the issue educated a shocked public about pet theft. The Rochester, New York newspaper published an investigative series entitled The Dog Dealers. The widely circulated Life magazine brought national attention to how research facilities procured their animals. Entitled Concentration Camps for Dogs, the article contained little text. It consisted mostly of shocking photos of abuse and neglect at the farm of a Maryland dog dealer. An editorial in the widely read Christian Science Monitor called the treatment of animals in research a national shame, and encouraged its readers to write to their legislators. And write they did. Legislators reportedly received more letters about dognapping than either the Vietnam War or the civil rights movement. In response to media coverage and the outcry from constituents, Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. It authorized the US Department of Agriculture to regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, and certain other animals intended to be used for purposes of research or experimentation and for other purposes. President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law on August 24th, 1966. It was the first federal law protecting the welfare of animals used in research. The act has been amended many times over the years. I'll touch on some of the most significant changes. In 1970, laboratory was dropped from the name and it became the Animal Welfare Act. Initially, the act regulated the transportation, sale, and handling of animals intended to be used in research. It didn't regulate what happened to the animals once they got past the door of the lab. Regulations about their treatment in the lab were introduced following what is known as the Silver Spring monkey case. Undercover research at a biomedical lab in Silver Spring, Maryland led to documented claims of animal mistreatment. The case was highly publicized, and public concern over the treatment of the monkeys in the lab led to amendments in 1985 that regulated the care of animals in research labs. Most notably, the 1985 amendments required the formation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, known as IACUCs, most facilities that use animals in research and education. As part of their oversight, IACUCs review what's being done with animals and require research to justify how the animals are being used. In 2002, the act was amended again to exclude birds, rats, and mice bred for use in research. Although the Animal Welfare Act doesn't apply to these species, there are other regulations that apply to their use in research. Research facilities that receive federal funds also must follow guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In contrast to the Animal Welfare Act, the NIH guidelines do include rats, mice, and birds. The disappearance of Pepper, the Dalmatian, in 1965 changed the fate of at least some animals in research labs.
