From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2007:

SAN FRANCISCO–The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on
November 22, 2006 reinstated a lawsuit seeking to compel the USDA to
adopt guidelines governing primate care in zoos and laboratories.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute,
and three individuals filed the case in 2003, after the USDA refused
to implement regulations which would have required non-human primates
to be housed in social groups, and be given toys to provide mental
stimulation.
The lawsuit alleges that the USDA violated the intent of
Congress in passing 1985 amendments to the federal Animal Welfare Act
that recognized the social nature and intelligence of dogs and
nonhuman primates. The case was dismissed by a federal district
court, but the Court of Appeals sent it back for further review.

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2007:
ATLANTA–“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has spent $3 million on animal care improvements since last year,”
Associated Press medical writer Mike Stobbe reported on November 16,
2006, after the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of
Laboratory Care International “threatened to revoke its approval for
the way the CDC treats lab animals.”
Among other violations of AALAC standards, Stobbe wrote,
“Faulty sipper tubes left some monkeys with no access to water,
leading to the dehydration death of an owl monkey and a rhesus monkey
in 2004. A rhesus monkey was mistakenly killed in 2005 because of
record-keeping and communications problems. Three rhesus monkeys
were given a deadly combination of anesthetic and analgesic
medications. The doses were consistent with published guidelines,
but killed the monkeys, leading to the CDC adopting new standards.

Read more

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2007:

PORTLAND, Ore.–Matt Rossell, Portland representative for
In Defense of Animals, on December 21, 2006 confirmed that he had
at last received 113,000 pages of Oregon National Primate Research
Center monkey care records, eight years after he first applied to
obtain them in 1998, during a two-year stint as a center employee.
The center is operated by Oregon Health & Science University.
After the university refused to provide the records, Rossell and IDA
sued to get them in 2001. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in April
2005 that Rossell and IDA had a right to obtain copies, and that a
copying charge of more than $150,000 proposed by the university was
excessive. However, the court allowed the university to black out
the names of individual researchers and animal caretakers.

Read more