Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration, chaired by U.S. Representative Robert W. Ney (Ohio-18th district), is responsible for oversight of the Smithsonian Institution, which administers the National Zoological Park (National Zoo) and the Conservation and Research Center (CRC). Following a hearing held by the Committee on March 5, 2003, in which House Representatives questioned the zoo director regarding concerns about animal care and management, Congress requested a science-based review of the quality and effectiveness of animal care and management at the zoo by the National Academies. In response to this request, the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources and Institute for Laboratory Animal Research convened a committee to conduct the review. The detailed charge to the committee is as follows:

In view of the complexity of the National Zoo, any review of it, even the current one, which is focused narrowly, requires a wide array of expertise. Accordingly, those recruited to form the Committee on the Review of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoological Park included persons experienced in zoo management and operations, nutrition, veterinarian medicine, pathology, industrial management, leadership and group relations, toxicology, safety issues in the workplace, animal disease, zookeeping, animal welfare, and animal physiology. Dramatic changes have occurred in animal care and management at zoos over the last few decades as procedures have become more science-based and as deeper knowledge about the captive needs of individual species has

appeared in peer-reviewed, accessible literature. Accordingly, professional standards have changed, and the bar on accreditation has been raised substantially. More is demanded of staff in training and expertise. The design of exhibits is expected to be educational and humane and to be responsive to the needs of the captive animals they hold. Specific regulatory standards have been established by the Animal Welfare Act and are enforced by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and by the requirements of the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. National Research Council reports provide science-based guidelines for all institutions that maintain animals, including industry, universities, and zoos on animal nutrition (the Animal Nutrition Series) and the care and use of animals used in research (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research publications). Additional standards and guidelines have been developed by professional organizations such as the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, the Zoological Registrars Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Nutrition Advisory Group of the AZA. Many of those organizations have annual proceedings that contain new and revised opinions on how to care for zoo animals and manage them appropriately. The committee has reviewed much of that literature and has judiciously used various sources of information to formulate its findings.

In addition to its reliance on published information on how zoos should operate, valuable information was obtained from experts at two National Research Council-sponsored workshops and from previous evaluations of the NZP by AZA, USDA, and the Smithsonian Institution itself. Committee members visited the zoo’s Rock Creek Park (Washington, DC) and Front Royal, VA, campuses to view the facilities and to meet staff members on all levels of management and animal keepers. The first visit to the Rock Creek Park campus was in August 2003 at the beginning of the committee’s deliberations, the second in April 2004, a few weeks after the publication of its interim report. Some of the meetings were arranged and organized by the Research Council staff; others were informal and spontaneous and occurred as the result of chance encounters when committee members were walking through the grounds and buildings. Committee members had open access to the entire NZP operation and had the opportunity to inspect the facilities much as the public views them but also behind the scenes in areas that the public rarely visits. Many one-on-one interviews with NZP employees were conducted to gain insight into perceived weaknesses and strengths of the NZP operation. In addition to those interviews, NZP staff members were encouraged to submit information to the committee through Research Council staff in such a manner that their identities could be protected. Their impressions were discussed during the committee’s deliberations, and lists of concerns were identified. As a result, several thousand pages of records and documents were requested from NZP management and were carefully reviewed. After its earliest deliberations in the late summer and fall of 2003, the committee decided which concerns were most pressing and described them, with a series of recommendations, in its interim report, Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Interim Report.

The final report of the committee details a more comprehensive evaluation of animal care and management at the zoo. This is an especially opportune time to explore the weaknesses and strengths of operations at the zoo, and the committee hopes that its final report will provide a balanced evaluation to provide a foundation on which the National Zoo can move forward with confidence to make it a first-rate institution. We believe that the report will also be of value to other zoos, many of which may have problems similar to those discussed in the interim and final reports.

R. Michael Roberts, Chair

Committee on the Review of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoological Park

This report represents the integrated efforts of many people. The committee thanks all those who shared their insights and knowledge to bring the document to fruition. We also thank those who provided information at our public meetings and who otherwise participated in our public sessions.

During the course of the committee’s deliberations, many people gave generously of their time to provide advice and information that were considered in its deliberations. The following deserve special thanks:

The committee is especially grateful to the staff members of the National Zoo who took time to speak with the committee about the zoo and its operations and who provided information essential for the committee’s work. The staff’s candid, timely, and thoughtful input greatly facilitated the committee’s efforts. The committee also appreciates the National Academies staff members who worked diligently to maintain progress and quality in its work. The study and the resulting reports would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of the two study directors, Jamie Jonker and Jennifer Obernier. A special acknowledgement is also due to Bill Kearney (director, Media Relations), who helped guide the committee through the challenges associated with a highly publicized subject.

The report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Dowling, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts and Harley Moon, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the author committee and the institution.