By
Anthony Shelley
May 16, 2007
Last month, UW officials sent the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) a letter outlining improvements initiated and completed in response to concerns raised by the AAALAC.
UW officials said they are confident that the AAALAC will continue to allow the UW to keep its accreditation in lab-animal research. Most of the UW's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research in America. The agency provides nearly $250 million for UW medical research.
If the UW lost its AAALAC accreditation, the University could also lose millions of dollars from the NIH and organizations such as the March of Dimes.
Nona Phillips, director of the UW Office of Animal Welfare, emphasized the importance of UW researchers' compliance with the AAALAC and the University's own rules on animal care.
When People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) released a letter to the AAALAC about alleged animal abuses, Phillips quickly responded against the accusations, maintaining that PETA intentionally released information worded to shed the worst possible light on University researchers.
She denounced an earlier report in the first article of this series that quoted Ruth Hanscom, a veterinary medical officer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, as saying, " ... [C]ause of death for [A01136] was never determined because the researcher, in whose experimentation this animal was used, had cut off the primate's head and refused to allow the veterinary staff of the UW to examine it, despite a specific request for this vitally important organ."
Phillips said the animal was not described by Hanscom.
"Dr. Hanscom did not say this," Phillips said. "The way these USDA reports work is that the USDA inspector quotes the complaint that was made to them and then indicates their own USDA findings."
Phillips is certain that the complaint was written by a member of the animal-rights organization Stop Animal Exploitation Now! (SAEN).
SAEN submitted a press release in October 2006 stating that several UW researchers should undergo investigations and accused one of the researchers of hiding "the head of one primate."
The SAEN member also mentioned that A01136 "died 'clearly because of negligence.'"
Phillips said that both allegations were untrue and were refuted by the USDA.
In contrast to her earlier findings, Hanscom released an updated report to the UW officials last December stating that researchers had not committed any non-compliances.
Phillips said that the AAALAC was not concerned about PETA's letter.
"AAALAC didn't comment about non-compliances," Phillips said. "They didn't comment about anything like that."
John Miller, executive director of the AAALAC, explained that the UW's accreditation with his organization was based significantly on trust.
Because the AAALAC is a nonprofit entity, it is not subject to freedom of information inquiries, open records or meetings.
"We value confidence with our clients," Miller said. "Anything we receive, whether in media or not, it is our basic policy not to comment."
Miller stated that none of the institutions partnered with the AAALAC have ever had their accreditations revoked.
"It's very rare to receive information about an institution that we don't already know," Miller said.
Phillips does not expect the organization to find any surprises.
"We don't have anything to hide," Phillips said.
The AAALAC is expected to make a decision regarding the UW's accreditation later this month.
Reach reporter Anthony Shelley at news@thedaily.washington.edu.
20 Comments
#1 Rick Bogle
on May 16, 2007 at 6:17 a.m.(Exton, PA | Unverified Name)
Thomas Burbacher, seen in the accompanying photos has said:
"The behavioral repertoire of nonhuman primates is highly evolved and includes advanced problem-solving capabilities, complex social relationships, and sensory acuity equal or superior to humans....
Nonhuman primates are capable of advanced behaviors that share important and fundamental parallels with humans. These parallels include highly developed cognitive abilities and binding social relationships. The behavioral repertoire of these animals makes them valuable models for research on the functional effects of exposure to neurotoxic agents."
Burbacher TM, Grant KS. 2000. Methods for studying nonhuman primates in neurobehavioral toxicology and teratology. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Jul-Aug; 22(4): 475-86.
Putting people with this mindset in charge of a nursery is part amd parcel of the mentality of the primate research community. Its time to put these people out of business once and for ever.
#2 Rick Bogle
on May 16, 2007 at 6:37 a.m.(Exton, PA | Unverified Name)
One other thing: the article states: "If the UW lost its AAALAC accreditation, the University could also lose millions of dollars from the NIH..." That isn't true.
NIH has absolutely no requirement concerning AAALAC. Most research labs are not AAALAC certified. Losing AAALAC certification is a PR black eye, nothing else.
And, AAALAC certification has proven itself to mean very little in actual practice. AAALAC certified labs seems as prone to animal abuse and neglect and poor oversight generally, as every other animal lab.
AAALAC is all about public relations; claims to the contrary are spin.
#3 Reece
on May 16, 2007 at 10:40 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"Nonhuman primates are capable of advanced behaviors that share important and fundamental parallels with humans..." ... but without the same rights afforded to their human counterparts. I wonder how parallel "nonhuman primate" pain is to generic human pain.
#4 Linda Foy
on May 16, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I'd like to ask the authors if they have ever recieved
a polio vaccine,a smallpox vaccine,a tetnus shot,a TB
skin test,possibly an antibiotic??? enough said....
#5 Rick Bogle
on May 16, 2007 at 3:50 p.m.(Madison, WI | Unverified Name)
Linda, there are really two questions here:
1. Most of us think that testing drugs on unwilling humans is a wrong thing to do. Why is it ok to do the same thing to a member of a different species?
2. Is research with animals responsible for the advances you mention? (From what I've read, I don't think it is.)
These questions are disjoint, that is, they don't overlap. They both are in need of solid answers.
#6 Ryan
on May 17, 2007 at 9:03 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
Linda, I would like to ask you if you've ever taken penicillin? As you may or may not know, it was tested for years on animals, and had fatal consequences, yet it was one of the biggest medical breakthroughs of the century for humans.
Many of the most important advances in the field of health care can be attributed to human studies, which have led to major medical breakthroughs, such as the development of anesthesia, the stethoscope, morphine, radium, artificial respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the study of bacteriology and germ theory; the discovery of the link between cholesterol and heart disease and the link between smoking and cancer; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. Animal testing played no role in these or many other important medical developments.
#7 Sandy
on May 17, 2007 at 11:11 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Linda is a vivisector, so her comment is understandable. The UW Western Ave. Primate facility she works at houses hundreds of primates and is little known to the local Belltown community - if they knew what that smoke was belching out of the chimney of the big blue building with blacked out windows, it would surely put them off their dinners. Ryan above is absolutely right - the inaccurate results yielded by the animal model has actually hindered finding cures and vaccines for many, many diseases and in fact has actually been responsible for the death and illness of many others - case in point, Thalidomide - tested on animals with no negative response whatsoever. We all know how that turned out for humans. The list is very long. The animal model is still used because it is a billion dollar business lining a lot of peoples' pockets, and tax payers like me and you are paying for it. Of course they are going to try to hang on to their livelihood for as long as possible, who cares if the science is bad?
There is a wonderful book that explodes the myth of biomedical animal experimentation. It's called "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by Ray Greek, an MD. I highly recommend this to anyone who still thinks that it's a necessary evil to experiment on animals. It's extremely eye-opening and full of FACTS, not spin from pharmaceutical and biomedical companies that want you to believe their products are safe because they are tested on animals first.
#8 Rick Bogle
on May 17, 2007 at 11:44 a.m.(Madison, WI | Unverified Name)
If Linda Foy is a primate vivisector, then I am even more interested in hearing her answer to my first question. To expand on it a bit: what characteristics do we have or that monkeys have or lack that makes it ok to harm them, but not harm other humans?
Put another way, what characteristic(s) would need to be demonstrated in another species to warrant its inclusion in our circle of genuine concern and legal protection?
I did a radio debate with a primate vivisector who answered this question like this: "That's way above my pay grade." If anyone should have a well defined theory to explain why only humans should be protected, it is those using other species in ways that cause them harm.
#9 wayne johnson
on May 17, 2007 at 2:43 p.m.(New York, NY | Unverified Name)
The pictures that are missing from story are those of the hundreds of monkeys that Thomas Burbacher has killed as a result of the toxicity studies on infant primates. The Animal Care Comittee is comprised of virtually all researchers. They will approve almost anything submitted to them with only minor changes. I attended every meeting for fifteen years and they never voted no on a proposal before them. There is simply no defense for keeping 16,000 animals a day behind bars and inflicting terrible suffering on them. Thanks to the Daily and Mr.Shelley for covering this story. Wayne Johnson Ph.D
#10 gazaah
on May 17, 2007 at 11:57 p.m.(Bellingham, WA | Unverified Name)
Animal testing isn't so bad if it's for a good purpose AND the animal is treated as well as possible. But I got SHIVERS looking at babies playing on metal and brick. ...To compare, PetSmart pet stores require I think, 2 toys and perches and bedding for each group of tiny little finches they sell. Why does a little finch in our society get lovely little colored toys and soft nesting material to play with while monkys get prison-like conditions?
I think the difference is that the finches are on display and the monkies are not.
I'm currently doing a project with dead birds from window strikes. I was told straight out I had to do it off of main campus as students would protest anything to do with animals as a matter of course.
If transparency helps keep animal care high, then the protesters and animal releasers have to tone it done so researches aren't scared to be open.
#11 Rick Bogle
on May 18, 2007 at 5:43 a.m.(Exton, PA | Unverified Name)
gazzah,
If the image of the baby monkeys bothered you, consider this: those monkeys are put in the playground you characterize as a prison for an hour a day, five days a week. The rest of the time, they are alone in a small barren cage. The university used the image because they believe it will fool the public into imagining that the baby monkeys are spending all their time playing with other baby monkeys.
Animal "testing" is always "for a good reason." No one experimenting on animals will say its for a bad reason.
Researchers aren't scared of protestors; that's smoke. They are afraid of public opinion. Transparency would shut them down because the public would see how the animals are actually treated and used.
#12 Susan
on May 18, 2007 at 9:27 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Although Mr. Bogle appears to present a reasoned argument with his comments in this forum, he is known to express his bias with more pointed language. The quotes below are Mr. Bogle’s.
Following Hurricane Katrina, Bogle stated:
"If there were no primate deaths at [Tulane National Primate Research Center in] Covington over the past few days, then this must be the first time in a long time that a monkey hasn't died. We need more Katrinas."
In an email with the salutation, “Greetings, Slimeâ€, Bogle sent the following message to NIH researchers,
“In my opinion - an opinion I intend to make quite public - those who
engage in such activity (primate research) should be permanently jailed. Your elimination is justified. You are a cancer. You are a blight on the progress of
humane ethics and compassion, a pox on our moral and ethical progress.
You are disease.â€
Bogle has aligned himself with the most radical elements of the animal extremist movement but fails to capture the attention of legitimate lay or scientific media.
If students actually read these comments, they may want to investigate Bogle’s rhetoric, methodology and credentials.
#13 Wendy
on May 18, 2007 at 10:13 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Sandy stated a good source was: "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese by Ray Greek, an MD." Who published this book?* I read it and it's hard to find substantive information because:
1 - It's not researched and filled with fallacies.
2 - It's filled with misspellings.
So please, do check that book out.
* Answer: Greek did. No mainstream or fringe publisher would touch his book.
#14 Mike
on May 18, 2007 at 10:34 a.m.(Bainbridge Island, WA | Unverified Name)
Susan,
You keep attacking the person or group and not responding to the questions or arguments they put forward. One would expect a person so respectful of a scientific/academic approach to delight in taking apart an argument rather than a person.
BTW, if people are looking for a good "balanced" book on the subject check out "Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints" from the Opposing Viewpoints Series by Greenhaven Press.
#15 Nell S.
on May 18, 2007 at 10:36 a.m.(Sedro Woolley, WA | Unverified Name)
Critical thinking is one of the most important skills students can master. Evaluating the facts and logic of an argument is a key part of critical thinking, as is the ability to spot a logical fallacy. The ad hominem argument, where the crticism is of the speaker rather than the facts or logic of the claim/argument, is one such fallacy.
In truth, we all have the same credentials when it comes to matters of ethics, Susan. Wouldn't you agree? That's certainly one of the assumptions of our government, justice and educational systems. We all make decisions with moral consequences, embrace and reject opportunities for compassion, and we all get tripped up from time to time in our critical thinking when dealing with emotionally charged topics.
Making mistakes is part of honing one's critical thinking skills. Go ahead and give it another go and challenge yourself to 1) focus on the facts, and 2) use sound logic.
#16 Sandy
on May 18, 2007 at 12:42 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Yes, Nell, totally agree. Would SOMEONE who defends vivisection pa-leeeeze offer a legitimate argument instead of trashing animal rights activists? At least animal rights activists have the stones to stand up for what they believe. Do YOU, vivisector defenders? You can try to discredit them all you want, it still does not change the FACTS that the UW is in serious violation of the most BASIC protocol and got slapped for it. They can blow all the smoke they want and say "we have nothing to hide" but it's in the public records, people! Email and documents written by THEM. Go to an IACUC meeting and see for yourself, it's like a Roberto Gonzales hearing, all of them falling all over themselves to cover their protocol breaches. Is this good science????
p.s. uhhhh....Wendy, what does the publisher of a book have to do with its validity or usefulness? There are tons of animal rights books that have been published by "legitimate" publishers, whatever they are. Also, I have seen typos in books and articles by many authors. The author does not typeset the book pesonally, for God's sake. Another ad hominem when people cannot hold up their end of an argument with the facts.
#17 Mike
on May 18, 2007 at 3:49 p.m.(Bainbridge Island, WA | Unverified Name)
FROM USDA INSPECTION REPORT – DEC-05-2006
PREPARED BY: RUTH HANSCOM, V.M.O., USDA, APHIS
(Last 3 paragraphs of report)
In regard to the P.I. removing the head before the pathologist completed the necropsy, I spoke to both the senior primate center veterinarian, who was not at the facility when the incident occurred and the P.I. separately. The pathologist who perfomed the postmortem is no longer employed at the U of W. The pathologists are part of the clinical veterinary staff. According to both parties, the pathologist insisted on performing an autopsy on the head before the P.I. was to examine it. The P.I. said that it is imporant for the researcher to examine the head and make tissue slides first in order to obtain valuable research data before the pathologist alters it. That is why he took the head. He said that he would have given it to the pathologist when he was finished with it, but he wasn’t asked for it. I asked the senior P.C. veterinarian what is usually done in such cases. He stated that the pathologist involved with this case was very difficult to work with and created problems due to lack of people skills. He said that usuallly the pathologist and veterinary staff work in a cooperative manner with the P.I. so that both ends can be achieved. It could not be determined whether or not, as the complainant alleges, the P.I. was hiding anything from the veterinary staff.
The research protocols were reviewed for the 3 researchers identified by the complainant. With the exception of the researcher referred to in the above paragraphs, the protocols being done by the other 2 were well-written and were being followed as written and approved by the IACUC. Any unexpected adverse events, morbidity, or animal mortality wre identified on the PRF for the IACUC to consider during annual renewals.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Although most of the issues indentified in the complaint were not found to be valid, the items identified concerning animal A01136 and the investigator were found to be valid. During the process of this investigation, many discrepancies were uncovered. These have been documented on an Inspection Report with corrective/preventative actions addressed. The IACUC has suspended the performance of any further surgeries by this investigator until the matters can be resolved.
#18 Mike
on May 18, 2007 at 5:01 p.m.(Bainbridge Island, WA | Unverified Name)
Actually the above is not the DEC-05-2006 USDA INSPECTION REPORT (me bad!) and was in fact called "the response to the formal complaint" by Ruth Hanscom in an email to Nona Phillips. A copy of which can be viewed at http://www.uwkillsanimals.com/fuchs_U...
#19 Nona
on May 19, 2007 at 11:36 p.m.(Kirkland, WA | Unverified Name)
Mike - Thanks for posting the actual information from the USDA report. After the visit I was able to talk to additional people who were at the UW at the time. A more senior pathologist actually instructed the pathologist who did the necropsy to allow the researcher to have the head because the brain was needed for tissue (i.e., data). The pathologist who wrote the necropsy report used, in my opinion, very poor wording in her write-up and it has led to all this silliness about hiding a head. The head was most certainly not hidden. Everyone knew that the researcher had it for taking data.
One more clarification. The Daily article indicates that the subsequent USDA report said there had been no non-compliance. This is an error. The subsequent report said "no non-compliances" meaning that no non-compliances were found during that inspection - because all corrections had been made.
#20 Rick Bogle
on May 20, 2007 at 9:09 a.m.(Madison, WI | Unverified Name)
Susan,
(Why are you posting anonymously?) I absolutely agree with you that students should investigate my "rhetoric, methodology and credentials."
My rhetoric is available at http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/
http://www.primatefreedom.com/
http://www.primatefreedom.com/essays/...
Students can google me to learn about my methods.
My credentials are limited. I became a public school teacher (middle school, special ed, remedial reading) after serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in Liberia. My life changed forever in 1996 upon learning the details of the suffering in the monkey labs.
For over ten years I've been learning and writing about the industry almost nonstop. The deeper one digs, the more outlandish the research appears and the more profound the suffering. The lying coming from the labs is staggering. Here at Washington's sister primate lab, the Wisconsin PRC, scientists recently destroyed 628 video tapes of primate experiments when we asked for tapes on a single one.
No amount of lying, or cover up, or violation, or absurdity coming out of the labs surprises me any longer.
One other thing: Greek and Greek self published (using Trafford) their last book, What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals? Their previous two were published by Continuum Publishing. I believe that their upcoming book (coauthored with Niall Shanks) has been picked up by Routledge.
Post a comment