Home » Bulletin 2004
Covance cleared of primate charges
The contract research company Covance was recently cleared of charges that it broke German laboratory animal protection laws with the maltreatment of primates at its facility in Munster. An infiltrator working for the UK animal rights organisation BUAV secretly took video footage which appeared to show staff mistreating the animals. If this had been proven, said Munster's State Prosecutor, it would have made the company liable to prosecution under the German animal protection law.
At the time, Covance stated that careful scrutiny of the key sequences of the video showed that short clips had been edited together showing different technicians working in different buildings carrying out different tasks. The result was a sequence of events that did not take place. The company has also denied BUAV's allegation that most of the primates at the Muster facility are single-housed, saying that BUAV chose not show the group-housing and pair-housing in its film. Covance also said that they have plans to upgrade primate accommodation with a view to meeting future EU guidelines.
Covance stated that no studies had been compromised by the infiltration, no client or confidential data was stolen and there did not seem to have been any violations of German animal protection law. The facility had recently been inspected by the German authorities and showed full compliance with the appropriate regulations.
The Munster authorities visited Covance as soon as the covert video footage was broadcast on German television. Before reaching a conclusion about the evidence, the authorities demanded that Covance should install video cameras to routinely monitor all staff working with primates and make the resulting footage available to them. However, Covance took this to the local courts which upheld their assertion that this was an excessive demand and would infringe the rights of their staff.
Not long afterwards, the public prosecutor's office viewed the film and questioned witnesses before concluding that the company "had not rendered themselves liable to prosecution" and that the state veterinary officer had not failed in his supervisory duties.