July 21, 2014

Christopher L. Eisgruber
President
1 Nassau Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Via e-mail: eisgrube@princeton.edu

Dear Mr. Eisgruber:

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more
than 3 million members and supporters, I am writing to share very disturbing
information about the mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in Princeton's
laboratories and request that plans be made immediately for their relocation to an
accredited sanctuary.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who provided
information and evidence to us of graduate students and staff members
mistreating and roughly mishandling marmoset monkeys in the federally funded
laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princeton's Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in the
laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a ferret
exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey through the
corridors of the laboratory.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014,
sent by Asif Ghazanfar (asifg@princeton.edu) to his laboratory staff and
graduate students (ghazanfar_lab@princeton.edu), in which he wrote: "I was
very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the
respect that they deserve. Recently, one or more (I didn't get the details)
was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the entertainment of some of
our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the marmoset."

It's not clear how many marmosets were abused in this activity, but the
marmosetsextremely sensitive and fragile animals who are easily distressed by
handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become
frightened and distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained
injuries. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princeton's
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or other authorities.

The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and irresponsible handling
of marmosets in Ghazanfar's laboratory is widespread, and as a result of this
violent handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of his staffers,
including graduate students Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao and research staffer
Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblower's knowledge, none of these
individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required, apparently because they would then be
asked to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets. The whistleblower also
informed PETA that there have apparently been multiple incidents in which marmosets escaped
from their cages, including one episode as recently as the week of June 30, 2014.

We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health.

These latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. The university has a long history
of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, it was cited by the
USDAand later was issued an official warningfor violations of the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), including a failure to provide a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give
birth with adequate care. Her newborn ultimately died, and a veterinarian was not allowed to
investigate the cause of death. The same year, Princeton was cited for an incident in which a
marmoset was injured after escaping from his cage. Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for a total
of 23 AWA violations.

This recent incident and the history of problems related to the treatment of marmosets make it clear
that Princeton is not a suitable place for them and that the staff is unable to care for these sensitive,
intelligent animals adequately.

You may not be aware that marmosets naturally live in rich forests and spend their time high in
trees in family groups spanning three generations. At Princeton, they are locked in cages and used
for experiments to study how they coordinate their vocalizations, something that could be studied in
monkeys in the wild or a sanctuary setting without subjecting them to the fear, distress, and
confinement of a laboratory.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to begin a process to retire the marmosets immediately to a
sanctuary accredited by the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance. PETA is prepared to
provide assistance with coordinating such an effort. Additionally, we are asking that you investigate
the allegations above and swiftly move to ban students and staff who have mishandled these
marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities with animals.

Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look forward to hearing from you and can be
contacted at 202-829-0974 or AlkaC@peta.org.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

cc: David S. Lee, Provost (davidlee@princeton.edu)
Valerie A. Smith, Dean of the College (vasmith@princeton.edu)
Mary DeLorenzo, Assistant to the President (maryd@princeton.edu)


July 21, 2014

Asif Ghazanfar
Professor
Department of Psychology
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Dear Dr. Ghazanfar:

I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters regarding the ongoing
mistreatment of marmoset monkeys in your laboratory and to ask that you make
plans to relocate these animals to an accredited sanctuary.

A whistleblower has reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in your
laboratorypurely for their own amusementplaced a marmoset in a ferret
exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified monkey through the
corridors of the laboratory. It is not clear how many marmosets were abused in
this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are
easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely
have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have
sustained injuries.

The whistleblower further alleged that this aggressive and irresponsible handling
of marmosets in your laboratory is widespread and as a result of this violent
handling, marmosets have allegedly bitten several of your staffers, including
graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and research staffer, Diego
Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, none of these individuals
has reported the biting incidents as is required apparently because they would
then be asked to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

The whistleblower also informed PETA that there have apparently been multiple
incidents where marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as
recently as the week of June 30, 2014.

We have shared information about the aforementioned incidents with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health.

You probably know that Princeton has a history of mistreating marmosets and
other animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.
These incidents make clear that Princeton is not a suitable place for marmosets
and that the staff is unable to adequately care for these sensitive, intelligent
animals.

Further, research on monkeys vocalizationscould be studied in the wild or a
sanctuary setting without subjecting them to the fear, distress and confinement of
a laboratory.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to immediately begin a process to retire
the marmosets to a sanctuary accredited by the North American Primate
Sanctuary Alliance. PETA is prepared to provide assistance with coordinating
such an effort. Additionally, we are asking that you investigate the allegations
above and swiftly move to ban students and staff who have mishandled these
marmosets from continuing to work in any Princeton facilities with animals.

Will you please contact me to discuss this matter? I look forward to hearing from
you and can be contacted at 202-829-0974 or AlkaC@peta.org.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals




July 21, 2014

Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer
Eastern Regional Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal Care
920 Main Campus Dr., Ste. 200
Raleigh, NC 27606-5210

Via e-mail: Betty.J.Goldentyer@usda.gov

Dear Dr. Goldentyer:

I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
investigate possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) related to the
use and treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton University (#22-R-
0022), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who alleged and
provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own amusement
graduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled marmoset monkeys in
the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the Princeton
laboratory:

1. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause trauma,
behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort;
2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and
use are qualified to perform their duties; and
3. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that
contain the animals securely.

I. Failure to handle animals in a manner that does not cause trauma,
behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort

Section 2.38(f)(1) of the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) stipulates:
Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible
in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling,
behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.

However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in
Asif Ghazanfars laboratory placed a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled
the ball containing the terrified monkey through the corridors of the laboratory
for the amusement of the personnel. It is not clear how many marmosets were
abused in this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and fragile animals who are
easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would surely have become
frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained injuries.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014, sent by Asif
Ghazanfar (asifg@princeton.edu) to his laboratory staff and graduate students
(Ghazanfar_lab@princeton.edu), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was very disappointed to learn
that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or
more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the
entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the
marmoset. To our knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princetons Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other authorities.

II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are
qualified to perform their duties

Section 2.32(a) of the AWRs mandates: It shall be the responsibility of the research facility to
ensure that all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other personnel involved
in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties. This responsibility shall
be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel. Section
2.32(c)(1) of the AWRs further elaborates: Training and instruction of personnel must include
guidance in at least the following areas: (1) Humane methods of animal maintenance and
experimentation, including Proper handling and care for the various species of animals used
by the facility. In addition, Section 2.32(c)(4) of the AWRs specifies that training and
instruction of personnel must include guidance in [m]ethods whereby deficiencies in animal
care and treatment are reported.

However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars laboratory mishandle the
marmosets, handling the animals roughly and improperly when they are dyed different colors for
protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they are transferred from their
cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling, marmosets have bitten several
staffers in Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao,
and research staffer, Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently
none of these individuals has reported the biting incidents as is required because they would then
be required to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

The incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail written by Asif Ghazanfar also illustrates
Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of personnel involved in the use and treatment of
animals. If it is the case, as the whistleblower alleges, that Asif Ghazanfar did not report the
marmoset incident to the Princeton IACUC, this would constitute a violation of Section
2.32(c)(4). Moreover, the failure to report deficiencies in animal care and treatment undermines
the IACUCs ability to comply with Section 2.31(c)(4) of the AWRs, which states that the
IACUC must [r]eview, and, if warranted, investigate concerns involving the care and use of
animals at the research facility resulting from public complaints received and from reports of
noncompliance received from laboratory or research facility personnel or employees.

III. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that house the
animals securely

Section 3.75(a) of the AWRs stipulates that [h]ousing facilities for nonhuman primates must be
designed and constructed so that they protect the animals from injury [and] contain the
animals securely. Section 3.80 of the AWRs further specifies that [p]rimary enclosures [for
nonhuman primates] must be constructed and maintained so that they [c]ontain the nonhuman
primates securely and prevent accidental opening of the enclosure, including opening by the
animal.

However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been multiple incidents where
marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as recently as the week of June 30,
2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously identified by the USDA, as well.

Princetons History of Noncompliance
As you know, these latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton has a
long history of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, the school
was cited by your agencyand later issued an official warningfor failing to provide adequate
veterinary care to a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give birth. Her newborn
ultimately died and a veterinarian was not allowed to investigate the cause of death. The same
year, Princeton was cited for an incident in which a marmoset was injured after escaping from
his cage.

Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 AWA violations, including failing to search for
alternatives to animal use, failing to provide adequate veterinary care to primates in pain and
failing to justify drastically restricting primates access to drinking water. In May 2011, the
USDA Investigative and Enforcement Services took the rare step of issuing an official warning
to Princeton for failing to provide complete descriptions of the use of animals in experiments and
for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant marmoset.

We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this letter and, if the claims are
substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes citing Princeton University for
violations of the AWA and levying fines against the facility for its repeated failure to comply
with federal law.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or AlkaC@peta.org. Thank you
for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510


July 21, 2014

Axel V. Wolff, D.V.M.
Director
Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
National Institutes of Health
RKL1, Ste. 360, MSC 7982
6705 Rockledge Dr.
Bethesda, MD 20892-7982

Via e-mail: wolffa@od.nih.gov

Dear Dr. Wolff:

I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request that your office
investigate possible noncompliance with the Public Health Service Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) and the Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide) related to the use and
treatment of animals at the laboratories of Princeton University (PHS Assurance
#A3434-01), located at 200 Elm Drive in Princeton, NJ.

PETA was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who alleged and
provided evidence thatincluding for purposes of their own amusement
graduate students and staff mistreated and roughly handled marmoset monkeys in
the laboratory of Asif Ghazanfar in Princetons Department of Psychology.

The whistleblower has attested to the following problems in the Princeton
laboratory:

1. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of animals;
2. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and
use are qualified to perform their duties;
3. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare concerns;
4. Failure to report bites; and
5. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that
contain the animals securely.

I. Failure to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain of animals

Principle IV of the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of
Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training emphasizes the
imperative to avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to animals.






However, the whistleblower reported to PETA that in June 2014, employees in Asif Ghazanfars
laboratory placed a marmoset in a ferret exercise ball and rolled the ball containing the terrified
monkey through the corridors of the laboratory for the amusement of the personnel. It is not clear
how many marmosets were abused in this activity, but the marmosetsincredibly sensitive and
fragile animals who are easily distressed by handlingsubjected to this reckless behavior would
surely have become frightened, distressed and felt discomfort, and they may also have sustained
injuries.

The whistleblower shared with PETA a copy of an e-mail, dated June 22, 2014, sent by Asif
Ghazanfar (asifg@princeton.edu) to his laboratory staff and graduate students
(ghazanfar_lab@princeton.edu), in which Ghazanfar wrote: I was very disappointed to learn
that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. Recently, one or
more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise ball solely for the
entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful for the
marmoset. To the whistleblowers knowledge, the incident was not reported to Princetons
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other authorities.

II. Failure to ensure that personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are
qualified to perform their duties

On the issue of training for staff, the Guide is explicit: All personnel involved with the care and
use of animals must be adequately educated, trained, and/or qualified in basic principles of
laboratory animal science to help ensure high-quality science and animal well-being. The Guide
further states: Personnel caring for animals should be appropriately trained and the
institution should provide for formal and/or on-the-job training to facilitate effective
implementation of the Program and the humane care and use of animals. The Guide lists several
areas in which all research groups should receive training, including: animal care and use
legislation, IACUC function, [and] ethics of animal use and the concepts of the Three Rs.

However, the incident discussed in the June 22, 2014, e-mail written by Asif Ghazanfar
illustrates Princetons failure to ensure adequate training of personnel involved in the use and
treatment of animals in the areas of animal well-being, the humane care and use of animals,
ethics of animal use, and the concept of the Three Rs.

III. Failure to report or investigate animal welfare concerns

The Guide states:

Safeguarding animal welfare is the responsibility of every individual associated with the
Program. The institution must develop methods for reporting and investigating animal
welfare concerns, and employees should be aware of the importance of and mechanisms
for reporting animal welfare concerns. In the United States, responsibility for review and
investigation of these concerns rests with the IO and the IACUC Reported concerns
and any corrective actions taken should be documented.

However, the whistleblower alleges that Asif Ghazanfar did not report the marmoset incident to
the Princeton IACUC. If this allegation is true, this would indicate that Ghazanfar was not
adequately trained on the importance of reporting animal welfare concerns. Moreover, the failure


to report animal welfare concerns undermines the IACUCs ability to investigate such concerns
and take appropriate actionincluding reporting any noncompliance incidents to OLAW.

IV. Failure to report bites

The Guide states: Clear procedures should be established for reporting all accidents, bites,
scratches, and allergic reactions.

However, the whistleblower alleges that workers in Ghazanfars laboratory mishandle the
marmosets, handling the animals roughly and improperly when they are dyed different colors for
protocols, when they have nametags placed on them, and when they are transferred from their
cages into transfer boxes. As a result of this violent handling, marmosets bit several staffers in
Ghazanfars laboratory, including graduate students, Jeremy Borjon and Diana Liao, and
research staffer, Diego Cordero. However, to the whistleblowers knowledge, apparently none of
these individuals reported the biting incidents as is required because they would then be required
to take additional training in the proper handling of marmosets.

V. Failure to ensure that nonhuman primates are housed in enclosures that house the
animals securely

The Guide states: The primary enclosure [in which animals are housed] should provide a secure
environment that does not permit animal escape.

However, the whistleblower informed PETA that there have been multiple incidents where
marmosets escaped from their cages, including one incident as recently as the week of June 30,
2014. As we discuss below, this is a problem previously identified by the USDA, as well.

Princetons History of Noncompliance
These latest allegations against Princeton do not stand in isolation. Princeton has a long history
of mistreating marmosets and other primates in its laboratories. In 2011, the school was cited by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and later issued an official warningfor failing to
provide adequate veterinary care to a pregnant marmoset who was in distress and ready to give
birth. Her newborn ultimately died and a veterinarian was not allowed to investigate the cause of
death. The same year, Princeton was cited by the USDA for an incident in which a marmoset
was injured after escaping from his cage.

Since 2009, Princeton has been cited for 23 Animal Welfare Act violations, including failing to
search for alternatives to animal use, failing to provide adequate veterinary care to primates in
pain and failing to justify drastically restricting primates access to drinking water. In May 2011,
the USDA Investigative and Enforcement Services took the rare step of issuing an official
warning to Princeton for failing to provide complete descriptions of the use of animals in
experiments and for the aforementioned issue with the pregnant marmoset.

We urge you to investigate the concerns summarized in this letter and, if the claims are
substantiated, to take swift and decisive action that includes placing Princeton under enhanced
monitoring and ordering repayment of federal funds used during the noncompliant period. Given
the seriousness of the allegations, we ask that you closely investigate the review process that
green lighted the protocol. We contend that the goals of this projectaimed at studying how


marmosets coordinate their vocalizationsdo not justify the pain and distress suffered by the
marmosets used, particularly given the scofflaw behavior of Princeton employees. We further
contend that the goals of this project do not justify the expenditure of $2.3 million of taxpayer
money since 2007. As such, we strongly recommend a reevaluation of Asif Ghazanfars NIH-
funded project.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-829-0974 or AlkaC@peta.org. Thank you
for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Senior Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

Cc: Sally Rockey, Director, NIH Office of Extramural Research

Text of email from Asif Ghazanfar (PI), dated June 22, 2014
Dear Lab,
I was very disappointed to learn that our marmosets are not being treated with the respect that
they deserve. Recently, one or more (I didnt get the details) was/were placed in a ferret exercise
ball solely for the entertainment of some of our lab members. This could only have been stressful
for the marmoset. None of those lab members who participated chose to exercise any common
sense, sense of decency or leadership.
Thus, its a pity that I have to do this, but Im reminding you that these are precious subjects for
whom we are responsible. That means treating them gently, with respect, and in accord with
scientific goals and procedures in our approved protocols. Anytime you think you want play
with the marmosets, try very hard to take their perspective and ask if yourself [sic] would like
that activity done to you for no reason other than the entertainment of others.
The marmosets are not in the lab for your amusement. They are not pets. We are forcing them
into experimental contexts that they wouldnt otherwise choose because that is the only way
that we can address our scientific questions. To force them into contexts for which there is no
scientific justification is reprehensible and, frankly, unethical.
This message is coming directly from me. This is how I feel personally; I am not relaying the
official sentiment from the university. I am very much pro-science and pro-animal welfare.
Mistreating the marmosets is both anti-science and anti-welfare.
If any of you want to talk about this further, we can do so at the next lab meeting.
Asif