By
Anthony Shelley
May 9, 2007
A letter recently released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals accusing UW researchers of lab animal abuse has some UW officials crying foul.
The letter compiles a list of alleged violations that are said to have occurred since late last year.
Nona Phillips, director of the UW Office of Animal Welfare, rejected some of PETA's claims and said the letter contained information meant to be hurtful and misleading.
However, Phillips also admitted that a few of the claims were indeed true. At the same time, she mentioned guidelines were set in place to deal with what she described as "non-compliances," events in which researchers failed to follow the rules.
The letter stated that Albert Fuchs, a professor of physiology and biophysics, "had been performing unauthorized surgeries for years and failed to sterilize eye implants [that he used for research]."
Phillips said that Fuchs had inadvertently left out a clause in his protocol that would have resolved problems concerning failed equipment.
Fuchs repeatedly conducted routine procedures — procedures, Phillips said, the University would have approved if Fuchs had included them in his documentation.
"He just wasn't thinking about the fact that he had not put a provision in [his protocol] for replacement, and that is a very serious protocol non-compliance," Phillips said. "It was reported to the [Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee]. It was reported to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, it was reported to his funding institute at [the National Institutes of Health], it was reported to the accrediting agency."
Phillips also said Fuchs had no history of non-compliances.
John Coulter, executive director of the UW Health Sciences Administration said his office regularly keeps track of animal research activities. The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care approved the University's veterinary care, he added.
"We try to find everything that we're doing both right and wrong," Coulter said. "And if we do it wrong, we report it, and then we immediately work with the faculty or staff that are having problems in fulfilling their obligations to treat animals humanely."
Phillips also rejected the accusation that a researcher hid the head of a monkey to prevent authorities from examining it.
"Nobody was hiding a head from anyone," Phillips said. "That was just untrue."
PETA's letter also stated that Andre Lieber, a research professor in medical genetics, was "found to be in violation for administering unauthorized drugs and failing to euthanize mice [that] were suffering terribly from massive tumors."
Yet, Phillips said Lieber was not the violator.
"A lot of times, there will be multiple projects described in one IACUC protocol," Phillips said. "In this particular case, another researcher was doing research under [Lieber's] protocol."
Phillips explained that Lieber himself did not commit the non-compliances; the other researcher was responsible.
The letter also states, "a technician 'practiced' a complicated carotid artery ligation on four mice."
Though Phillips affirmed this was true, she disagreed with the letter's account that the technician "did not use local anesthetics or administer an analgesic after the surgery."
The wording, she said, can be misleading.
"To me, that sounds like the technician did surgery without giving the animals anesthetics," Phillips said. "It's very cleverly written. Of course she didn't give the animals a local anesthetic; she gave them a general anesthetic."
Phillips explained that local anesthetics are given to affect only a specific region of the body, such as during the removal of a mole. General anesthetics are administered during major surgeries like tonsil removal.
Aside from the accusations Phillips hoped to refute, Coulter doesn't believe PETA's claims to be anything extraordinary.
"Our policy is we report everything, and everything we report is publicly available," he said.
Phillips acknowledged that large institutions such as the UW and, similarly, large programs like the animal care program won't always be perfect.
"People are people," Phillips said. "They are going to make mistakes. I'm not saying it's okay to make mistakes, but people are people."
Reach reporter Anthony Shelley at news@thedaily.washington.edu.
8 Comments
#1 Neil Seigel
on May 9, 2007 at 6:11 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
Ms. Nona Phillips: "People are people. They are going to make mistakes. I'm not saying it's okay to make mistakes, but people are people."
Yes, thanks Ms. Phillips for that earth shattering revelation. Indeed, people are people. But on the same token, animals are animals, and they're not meant to be cramped into cages and forced to endure all of the cruel imaginings the human mind can think up. So, please, either stop making mistakes altogether (something I gather you think is an impossible task), or just leave the animals the fuck alone.
#2 Fred
on May 9, 2007 at 9:22 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Isn't it always the same story? PETA makes some horrible claims which are reported almost completely unchecked by an impressionable student reporter at the Daily. Then, the truth comes to light and it turns out that PETA's claims are trumped up or bogus. Why do we allow ourselves to be fooled time and time again by PETA and why do you assist them in demonizing scientists who are trying to do some good! By the way, you know that part one of this series will be used PETA to rally their extremist troops around the globe...even though much of it is rubbish.
We all deserve better reporting from the Daily
#3 UWMC employee in the know
on May 9, 2007 at 10:12 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Fred and anyone else that thinks PETA are making false claims. GET REAL! This stuff is ALL public record. The UW (and other research facilities) has been torturing animals for decades and not making any medical breakthroughs. It's all about the grant money. The provosts and researchers will continue to try to make anti-vivisectionists look like idiots - THEY are the propogandists, not PETA and others who object to vivisection. DO SOME RESEARCH yourself before you call people who care about animal torture quacks. We are not the quacks, the "scientists' who practice this outdated and erroneous "research" for fed money are the real quacks. And the public swallows it whole. Read "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by Greek and THEN comment against animal rights groups. If you still think animal experimentation is okay after reading this, you are a cretin of extreme proportions! I work at UWMC, I know, YOU DON'T!!
#4 Claudine Erlandson
on May 9, 2007 at 1:36 p.m.(Marysville, WA | Unverified Name)
I believe that any kind of animal experimentation is wrong and arrogant. It is very wrong to exploit and torture other species in the name of science. I am very thankful that PETA-the-Great is keeping a close check on the UW labs and expose their mistakes and wrongdoings. Time has come to use alternatives instead of animals. Resources on that topic is available at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; it is much safer for our health than vivisection. www.pcrm.org
Down with animal labs!
#5 Doug
on May 9, 2007 at 5:54 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
So lets say, hypothetically, that all animal research is banned (which, face it, is never going to happen as long as the FDA requires several rounds of animal testing before a drug can be approved). What do you propose we do to develop the drugs that are going to cure the serious diseases facing humans today? PETA has good intentions, let's help some animals, but their extremist methods of spreading their messages are all wrong. That's why PETA members have about as much credibility as the LaRouche kids. People, who are not associated with the organization, simply ignore them and label much of their information as propaganda.
#6 Fred
on May 9, 2007 at 9:36 p.m.(Portland, OR | Unverified Name)
UWMC employee - I have read sacred cows - it is poorly crafted propaganda by a former anesthesiologist who himself admits he has never actually conducted biomedical research - yet speaks as if he is an expert on the topic. Greek has to self publish his books - which are so sloppy they contain spelling errors - because no respectable publisher will touch them. Next you will tell us Dr. Jerry Vlasak of the ALF who promotes the murder of scientists is also credible - yeah - OK. Claudine - PCRM is a thinly veiled activist group linked to PETA and has been funded by PETA - read Newsweek's expose on them - just Google it. You folks throw out self-published books (Greeks) and phony organizations like PCRM (which is NOT a physicians organization) and expect that people will be fooled. Who fell for the propaganda? Look in the mirror.
#7 Debra Durham
on May 11, 2007 at 9:43 a.m.(Sedro Woolley, WA | Unverified Name)
Perhaps from Phillip’s point of view, a missing clause on a form was the totality of the monkey violations in question, but the USDA Inspection Report indicates otherwise. The USDA inspector found that three monkeys, A01136, A03082 and A99088, each had two craniotomies with head chamber implants. Having two craniotomies with implants has absolutely nothing to do with failing equipment. Neither did drilling holes in the skull for the eye coil implants. The surgeries in question were not authorized, and the USDA veterinary medical officer indicated that “the [monkey] that (sic) had the two craniotomies and multiple eye coil surgeries died from complications from these procedures,†i.e. monkey A01136.
Further, I fail to see how the description of the carotid artery procedure that a technician practiced on mice was misleading. The administration of local anesthetics was entirely relevant here because the pain that the animals experienced after the procedure was a major concern. The general anesthetic used was isoflurane, which has no analgesic properties. No analgesic was administered after the procedure. According to a UW veterinarian who commented on this incident at the March 22, 2007 IACUC meeting, a long-acting, local anesthetic, like buprenorphine with vivacaine, is sometimes locally infused for this procedure where the use of other analgesics is a concern. Since this alternative approach is apparently common, it seemed prudent to mention that it hadn’t been employed either. There was no question as to whether the animals were “under†during the procedure – the pain and suffering of the mice after the general wore off was the problem.
#8 Jack
on May 12, 2007 at 12:49 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
-
P.E.T.A. --- People for Extortion, Terror, and Aggression.
-
Post a comment