Monkeys suffered in lab, suit says

But the Cambridge company was not expecting the monkeys to suffer more than necessary.

The firm alleged in a recent lawsuit that it was forced to abandon its medical study earlier this year because more than a third of the monkeys provided by an Oregon research facility suffered illnesses or injuries early in the research period. Four of the monkeys had to be euthanized because of complications they suffered from the surgery that prepared them for the study, InVivo said, and another five suffered setbacks ranging from a broken ankle to a staph infection.

The suit, against the Oregon Health and Science University, was filed in US District Court in Boston earlier this month.

The Oregon facility has denied InVivo’s allegations. It is Oregon’s only medical and science university, and is also host to the Oregon National Primate Research Center, in Beaverton, where the work for InVivo was conducted.

InVivo officials declined to comment.

The lawsuit offers a rare look at the conditions laboratory animals endure in the course of medical research, and the enforcement of the federal law that requires the humane treatment of these animals.

For example, 16 of the rhesus monkeys in InVivo’s study were to undergo surgery at the Oregon facility in which their spinal cords would be severed, leaving portions of their lower body paralyzed. Researchers would then insert a polymer device developed by InVivo into the monkeys to see whether it helped them recover lower body motor skills.

InVivo said the Oregon school failed to provide the number of monkeys required, reducing the pool of animals available for the surgery. The procedure was performed on seven monkeys, all of which developed bladder complications soon after. Four of those were severe enough that researchers concluded the animals had to be euthanized.

InVivo said the bladder problems developed because Oregon staffers failed to provide the proper after-surgery care and necessary medical device to keep their bodily systems functioning, even after being directed to do so by InVivo researchers. InVivo said in its suit that the Oregon “staff chose to ignore this critical advice and over the next few days none of the animals were provided with overnight care.’’

Another monkey, InVivo added, developed “a debilitating staph infection’’ as a result of bacteria in the Oregon facility. InVivo added that the Oregon facility eventually refused to resume surgeries on other monkeys until it was paid an additional $557,000, almost doubling the cost of the original contract.

In a statement, the Oregon school said it “completely disagrees with InVivo Therapeutic Corp.’s assertions in this lawsuit and we plan to vigorously defend ourselves.’’ A university spokesman, Jim Newman, also disputed InVivo’s assertion that one monkey had a broken ankle and said the staph infection was “resolved’’ with treatment and that the bladder complications were “unexpected outcomes’’ of the surgery.

Medical study on lab animals is governed by the Animal Welfare Act, which requires that animals be kept in decent conditions and not suffer unduly in the course of research.

Facilities are required to provide proper food and shelter, alleviate pain from experiments (unless alleviating pain interferes with the study), and provide psychological enrichment for caged animals such as toys or puzzles to keep their minds active.

Failure to comply can result in fines up to $3,750 per violation and eventual closure of a facility for repeated offenses.

Last year the US Department of Agriculture, which enforces the Animal Welfare Act, issued a warning to the Oregon university for violations that included accidentally leaving a surgical sponge in a baboon’s stomach, which led to its death, and performing surgery on the wrong monkey.

Newman, the Oregon spokesman, said the government warning “was a very rare occurrence’’ at the school. “When we received it, we went through our records, which go back a decade, . . . and we could not find another instance of receiving a warning.’’

But animal rights activists complain that violations of the Animal Welfare Act are common, and enforcement by the government is weak. “I would say that it’s hard to find animal research facilities that don’t violate the AWA,’’ said Justin Goodman, a supervisor of lab animal issues for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In 2005, the Agriculture Department’s Inspector General found stricter enforcement of the AWA was needed to reduce violations. Among problems: numerous instances of facilities misreporting the number of test animals they use. In one case, a New York facility reported having three nonhuman primates, when there were 42 additional monkeys. This kept 42 monkeys off the USDA’s radar.

The Inspector General also contended that an Agriculture Department inspection service often reduced the penalties of repeat offenders by as much as 75 percent.

An Agricultural Department spokesman, Dave Sacks, said all infractions are taken very seriously. “We’ll do anything within our power to uphold the AWA,’’ he said.

Although the AWA is described by some as a weakly enforced piece of legislation, Christian Newcomer, executive director of Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International, believes the opposite to be true.

Newcomer says USDA inspections can sometimes be harsher with AWA policy than is reasonable. “It just doesn’t translate to say ‘well they had USDA problems, so animals are less [safe] there than other places’,’’ he said.

Sean Teehan can be reached at steehan@globe.com.