On Wednesday, August 17, I tried to review more records regarding researchers’ use of monkeys at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
One of the UW's legal advisors on matters of open records, attorney Ben Griffiths, contacted us two or so weeks prior and informed us that another set of documents we had requested under the state open records statutes was ready for our review.
So we went to look at them. While waiting for my two associates, one an attorney and the other an ex-lab employee, I ran into Michelle Basso, who was there for some reason. Basso is a primate researcher who bolts nasty devices to monkeys’ skulls and experiments on their brains. She was coming out of the building as I stood waiting for my friends.
We said hello to each other; Basso left. My friends arrived and we went up to the third floor to review the documents, just as we have done previously. Basso was there ahead of us speaking with someone in the office; she had gone back into the building (running? through a side door?) She left the room when we showed up but remained speaking with someone out in the hall.
The receptionist ask us what we wanted, we explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us that a set of documents was available for our review, and that we had come to review them. She left the room.
We waited for some time. Suddenly, a campus police officer rushed in, "What's going on?" he asked, clearly out of breath from rushing up the stairs. "Nothing," we replied, "What's up?"
He said that campus police had received a call from Griffith's office about a "disturbance." Apparently, our sitting in the waiting room had totally freaked them out. More cops showed up. At least 6 were in evidence, and it looked like more were stationed at the exits down the hall.
We explained that Mr. Griffiths had contacted us and told us to come review some documents that he had prepared for us at our convenience.
The student worker in the office then piped up that he was the one doing the redacting but that the redacting was not completed after all. Now they tell us we will need to make an appointment with Mr. Griffiths prior to being allowed to review the documents.
It was a total fiasco. I think the cops were wondering why they were called. The UW is giddy with nervousness about such documents, apparently burned by the bad publicity surrounding our discoveries regarding Ei Terasawa.
You should be wondering: why was Michele Basso in the public records attorney's office? Why did she go back in after seeing us? What has Michele been up to or caught doing to the monkeys that motivated her to visit the public records office?
Stay tuned.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Cutting through the Crap
The University of Wisconsin’s reaction to the announced plans to establish a National Primate Research Exhibition Hall wedged between the Harlow primate psychology lab and the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WPRC) has not been surprising. They have attacked on two fronts: they have duped the owner of the property with the allure of riches to the tune of $1,000,000, and thereby placed him at significant risk of lawsuit, and they have disparaged the organizers. Along the way, they have struggled to claim that all is well behind their locked doors.
The legal maneuvering and the ad hominem attacks are diversions intended to cloud the issue at hand, the use of animals in harmful experimentation at the University of Wisconsin and around the world. The WPRC director, Dr. Joseph Kemnitz, has said that all the primate labs operate in the same way. We take him at his word on this point and believe that the Wisconsin labs are good examples of practices and problems industry-wide.
It is very difficult, often impossible, for the average American to learn what is occurring in the labs. Public relations departments work daily to convince an ignorant and trusting public that the labs are curing human diseases through humane research on animals. This message, paid for with tax dollars, is contrary to the public’s best interests. Research failures, the success/failure ratio, and the real suffering caused by the research are kept hidden from the public; as a result, no informed debate can take place, no informed decision-making is possible. The labs have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed and in promoting a false impression.
This vested interest in misleading the public easily explains the university’s concern with the establishment of a permanent facility dedicated to calling attention to the realities they work so hard to keep hidden.
When the Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project exposed part of the Ei Terasawa situation, university spokespersons made a variety claims in defense of the university and Terasawa. The situation and response to the disclosure offers a case study of primate research, university oversight, and propaganda. First, Terasawa as described by the primate center:
Ei Terasawa, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and Primate Center senior scientist, studies the hypothalamic neurons that contain luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). LHRH neurons release the neurohormone in a pulsatile manner. This pulsatility is essential for the synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins in the anterior pituitary gland and, hence, the maintenance of normal reproductive function in mammals. [Centerline, Fall/Winter 1997.]
Terasawa clearly remembers her first monkey studies. Ironically, one of the earliest things she discovered in monkeys that excited her was never published. She found that reserpine, a drug used to deplete neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine—important signals for stimulating the preovulatory LH release (and presumably LHRH release) in the rodent brain—does not block the LH surge in rhesus monkeys, indicating that signals for the preovulatory LHRH surge in primates and rodents differ.
“This observation was eye-opening for me in realizing the importance of studies using the rhesus monkey as a model for the human,” says Terasawa. From there, her lab’s work took off. Terasawa’s first NIH R01 grant, “Hypothalamic Control of Puberty” was awarded in 1977. Her second, “Hypothalamic Control of Gonadotropin Secretion,” would follow shortly thereafter, in 1980. [Centerline, Fall 2001.]
According to University of Wisconsin internal documents, sometime prior to May 12, 2003, during an annual inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that things were terribly amiss:
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
May 12, 2003
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McEntee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang. Absent: Abbott
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
Compliance Issues
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center. During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in [Terasawa’s approved protocol]. During a 25-minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died.. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter's absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal's death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
[Redacted] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [Redacted] will investigate this inconsistency.
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2003.
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals' health.
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
1- The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of experiments.
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [Terasawa] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03.) [Terasawa’s] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [Terasawa’s protocol] and have the ACUC send a letter to [Dr. Terasawa] to include the committee's acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Vote was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with [Terasawa’s protocol] the USDA investigators also inquired about [her] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern by the investigators.
None of this was made public. But once it became known, through our publication of the July 10, 2003 letter to All Campus Animal Care and Use Committee Chair, Tim Mulcahy, the public relations department began spinning the facts.
Current Chair of the All Campus Committee, and frequent spokesperson, Dr. Eric Sandgren, claimed in the Madison Capital Times newspaper that Terasawa’s subsequent suspension was, “… evidence of the process of oversight working. We investigated, we determined a particular procedure was too risky and could no longer be performed at all.” [Tuesday, August 16, 2005.]
But the university’s oversight had failed completely. Outsiders discovered the situation. Threat of a fine and public embarrassment led to the committee’s subsequent action.
And what of the claim, “we determined a particular procedure was too risky…”
Terasawa first published papers detailing the results of her ‘push-pull perfusion” experiments in 1988, the procedures Sandgren said are too risky. [Gearing M, Terasawa. Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) neuroterminals mapped using the push-pull perfusion method in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res Bull. 1988 Jul;21(1):117-21.]
The committee Sandgren chairs is regulated by federal statute 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et. seq.:
(3) The Committee shall inspect at least semiannually all animal study areas and animal facilities of such research facility and review as part of the inspection--
(A) practices involving pain to animals, and
(B) the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act to minimize pain and distress to animals. Exceptions to the requirement of inspection of such study areas may be made by the Secretary if animals are studied in their natural environment and the study area is prohibitive to easy access.
(4)(A) The Committee shall file an inspection certification report of each inspection at the research facility. Such report shall--
(i) be signed by a majority of the Committee members involved in the inspection;
(ii) include reports of any violation of the standards promulgated, or assurances required, by the Secretary, including any deficient conditions of animal care or treatment, any deviations of research practices from originally approved proposals that adversely affect animal welfare, any notification to the facility regarding such conditions and any corrections made thereafter;
We must conclude that the UW committee felt for the previous seventeen years that Terasawa’s push-pull procedure was not too risky, or else that, as stated in the May 12, minutes, “critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee” for seventeen years. But the federal statute requires the committee to review – as part of the semi-annual inspection – “practices involving pain to animals.”
And consider this: "Once a study begins, care is provided every day to animals by specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers who assume stewardship of the animals under their care." (UW researcher, Wisconsin State Journal, 4/23/05)
Apparently, these "specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers" failed to notice the problems in Terasawa's lab for seventeen years.
It seems clear that the committee did not meet its statutory requirements. This is the situation Sandgren characterizes as, “… evidence of the process of oversight working.”
Sandgren’s claim that the push-pull experiments had suddenly become too risky is disingenuous. Monkeys are killed regularly at the primate center as part of the day-to-day routine. Published papers from the scientists there routinely note that the animals used in their studies are killed after the experiments to provide tissues for further examination.
Another claim made in response to the embarrassment was Sandgren’s assertion that the university will now begin reporting such incidents:
"It just did not come up in discussions," Sandgren said of publicly announcing Terasawa's suspension at the time. "Now we've decided we will start announcing these things."
Starting with the cow incident [a recent situation involving cows dying of malnutrition at the School of Agriculture], the committee has begun making a public statement whenever a researcher is suspended from working with animals, Sandgren said. [Capital Times, August 16, 2005.]
This might explain primate researcher Michelle Basso’s recent (August 18, 2005) trip to Ben Griffith’s office, the university’s attorney who oversees public records requests. Griffith’s office is a couple of miles from the primate center, so Basso’s presence in the office was no coincidence. We can only assume that Basso is worried that records detailing her own research complications will make it into the public arena. If she can keep them out of the activists’ hands maybe she will avoid anything akin to Terasawa’s public humiliation, since Sangren implies that past troubles will remain hush-hush.
A month ago, Basso attended a public lecture put on by the Madison-based Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project showcasing her research. She chose to speak to the audience and made two assertions that turned out to be somewhat less than accurate. Dr. Sandgren was in the audience and chose to say nothing regarding Basso’s claims; we have to assume that he agreed with her.
Her first claim was that levodopa, or L-DOPA, as a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease was a result of primate research. She was videotaped, with her knowledge, when making her statements to the audience. If my neighbor had made this claim, I could have marked it down to the propaganda barrage from the primate center, but coming from a neuroscientist, the only explanation is that she was willfully lying to the public, or, maybe she’s just ignorant, but ignorance of this point is hard to imagine if we accept her explicit and Sangren’s implicit claim regarding her expertise in Parkinson’s Disease research.
It is a widely disseminated fact of basic neuroscience research that Dr. Oleh Hornykiewicz of Vienna developed L-DOPA treatments * as a direct result of his discovery in human cadavers that dopamine was significantly reduced in the brains of people who had been sufferers of Parkinson’s Disease. How could Basso not have known this basic fact of neuroscience research?
Her second point, the one that probably prompted her trip to Griffith’s office, was that nearly everything she does to the monkeys in her labs is also done to human patients. What she neglected to mention, and what Sandgren knew she was not saying, was that in her attempt to play neurosurgeon, she has killed monkeys by over-tightening the screws she drives into their skulls or by choosing screws that are too long, that puncture the skull, the lining of the brain, and lead to brain abscesses.
She was probably at Griffith’s office hoping to make sure that we don’t get the documents detailing these problems. A little too late.
All in all, it is exactly this untidiness and institutional secrecy and spin that need to be exposed. Without constant demonstration of the simple facts, the public has no hope of really understanding the ugliness behind the labs’ locked doors. The university is rightly anxious about the prospect that the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall will shine a spotlight on their work, their claims, and their dirty laundry.
* "See! Animal experimentation led to L-DOPA!" shout the animal research defenders. Maybe, but maybe the discovery that dopamine and L-DOPA have "biological action" could have been made in human tissue or even with human volunteers. There seems no clear necessity for any of the animal studies mentioned by Dr. Hornykiewicz, and in no case does he mention monkeys. Basso was either lying or just plain wrong. The fact that his breakthrough study occurred in human cadavers is not in question.
The legal maneuvering and the ad hominem attacks are diversions intended to cloud the issue at hand, the use of animals in harmful experimentation at the University of Wisconsin and around the world. The WPRC director, Dr. Joseph Kemnitz, has said that all the primate labs operate in the same way. We take him at his word on this point and believe that the Wisconsin labs are good examples of practices and problems industry-wide.
It is very difficult, often impossible, for the average American to learn what is occurring in the labs. Public relations departments work daily to convince an ignorant and trusting public that the labs are curing human diseases through humane research on animals. This message, paid for with tax dollars, is contrary to the public’s best interests. Research failures, the success/failure ratio, and the real suffering caused by the research are kept hidden from the public; as a result, no informed debate can take place, no informed decision-making is possible. The labs have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed and in promoting a false impression.
This vested interest in misleading the public easily explains the university’s concern with the establishment of a permanent facility dedicated to calling attention to the realities they work so hard to keep hidden.
When the Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project exposed part of the Ei Terasawa situation, university spokespersons made a variety claims in defense of the university and Terasawa. The situation and response to the disclosure offers a case study of primate research, university oversight, and propaganda. First, Terasawa as described by the primate center:
Ei Terasawa, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and Primate Center senior scientist, studies the hypothalamic neurons that contain luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). LHRH neurons release the neurohormone in a pulsatile manner. This pulsatility is essential for the synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins in the anterior pituitary gland and, hence, the maintenance of normal reproductive function in mammals. [Centerline, Fall/Winter 1997.]
Terasawa clearly remembers her first monkey studies. Ironically, one of the earliest things she discovered in monkeys that excited her was never published. She found that reserpine, a drug used to deplete neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine—important signals for stimulating the preovulatory LH release (and presumably LHRH release) in the rodent brain—does not block the LH surge in rhesus monkeys, indicating that signals for the preovulatory LHRH surge in primates and rodents differ.
“This observation was eye-opening for me in realizing the importance of studies using the rhesus monkey as a model for the human,” says Terasawa. From there, her lab’s work took off. Terasawa’s first NIH R01 grant, “Hypothalamic Control of Puberty” was awarded in 1977. Her second, “Hypothalamic Control of Gonadotropin Secretion,” would follow shortly thereafter, in 1980. [Centerline, Fall 2001.]
According to University of Wisconsin internal documents, sometime prior to May 12, 2003, during an annual inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that things were terribly amiss:
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
May 12, 2003
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McEntee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang. Absent: Abbott
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
Compliance Issues
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center. During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in [Terasawa’s approved protocol]. During a 25-minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died.. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter's absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal's death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
[Redacted] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [Redacted] will investigate this inconsistency.
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2003.
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals' health.
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
1- The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of experiments.
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [Terasawa] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03.) [Terasawa’s] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [Terasawa’s protocol] and have the ACUC send a letter to [Dr. Terasawa] to include the committee's acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Vote was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with [Terasawa’s protocol] the USDA investigators also inquired about [her] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern by the investigators.
None of this was made public. But once it became known, through our publication of the July 10, 2003 letter to All Campus Animal Care and Use Committee Chair, Tim Mulcahy, the public relations department began spinning the facts.
Current Chair of the All Campus Committee, and frequent spokesperson, Dr. Eric Sandgren, claimed in the Madison Capital Times newspaper that Terasawa’s subsequent suspension was, “… evidence of the process of oversight working. We investigated, we determined a particular procedure was too risky and could no longer be performed at all.” [Tuesday, August 16, 2005.]
But the university’s oversight had failed completely. Outsiders discovered the situation. Threat of a fine and public embarrassment led to the committee’s subsequent action.
And what of the claim, “we determined a particular procedure was too risky…”
Terasawa first published papers detailing the results of her ‘push-pull perfusion” experiments in 1988, the procedures Sandgren said are too risky. [Gearing M, Terasawa. Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) neuroterminals mapped using the push-pull perfusion method in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res Bull. 1988 Jul;21(1):117-21.]
The committee Sandgren chairs is regulated by federal statute 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et. seq.:
(3) The Committee shall inspect at least semiannually all animal study areas and animal facilities of such research facility and review as part of the inspection--
(A) practices involving pain to animals, and
(B) the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act to minimize pain and distress to animals. Exceptions to the requirement of inspection of such study areas may be made by the Secretary if animals are studied in their natural environment and the study area is prohibitive to easy access.
(4)(A) The Committee shall file an inspection certification report of each inspection at the research facility. Such report shall--
(i) be signed by a majority of the Committee members involved in the inspection;
(ii) include reports of any violation of the standards promulgated, or assurances required, by the Secretary, including any deficient conditions of animal care or treatment, any deviations of research practices from originally approved proposals that adversely affect animal welfare, any notification to the facility regarding such conditions and any corrections made thereafter;
We must conclude that the UW committee felt for the previous seventeen years that Terasawa’s push-pull procedure was not too risky, or else that, as stated in the May 12, minutes, “critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee” for seventeen years. But the federal statute requires the committee to review – as part of the semi-annual inspection – “practices involving pain to animals.”
And consider this: "Once a study begins, care is provided every day to animals by specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers who assume stewardship of the animals under their care." (UW researcher, Wisconsin State Journal, 4/23/05)
Apparently, these "specially-trained scientists, veterinarians, technicians and animal caretakers" failed to notice the problems in Terasawa's lab for seventeen years.
It seems clear that the committee did not meet its statutory requirements. This is the situation Sandgren characterizes as, “… evidence of the process of oversight working.”
Sandgren’s claim that the push-pull experiments had suddenly become too risky is disingenuous. Monkeys are killed regularly at the primate center as part of the day-to-day routine. Published papers from the scientists there routinely note that the animals used in their studies are killed after the experiments to provide tissues for further examination.
Another claim made in response to the embarrassment was Sandgren’s assertion that the university will now begin reporting such incidents:
"It just did not come up in discussions," Sandgren said of publicly announcing Terasawa's suspension at the time. "Now we've decided we will start announcing these things."
Starting with the cow incident [a recent situation involving cows dying of malnutrition at the School of Agriculture], the committee has begun making a public statement whenever a researcher is suspended from working with animals, Sandgren said. [Capital Times, August 16, 2005.]
This might explain primate researcher Michelle Basso’s recent (August 18, 2005) trip to Ben Griffith’s office, the university’s attorney who oversees public records requests. Griffith’s office is a couple of miles from the primate center, so Basso’s presence in the office was no coincidence. We can only assume that Basso is worried that records detailing her own research complications will make it into the public arena. If she can keep them out of the activists’ hands maybe she will avoid anything akin to Terasawa’s public humiliation, since Sangren implies that past troubles will remain hush-hush.
A month ago, Basso attended a public lecture put on by the Madison-based Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project showcasing her research. She chose to speak to the audience and made two assertions that turned out to be somewhat less than accurate. Dr. Sandgren was in the audience and chose to say nothing regarding Basso’s claims; we have to assume that he agreed with her.
Her first claim was that levodopa, or L-DOPA, as a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease was a result of primate research. She was videotaped, with her knowledge, when making her statements to the audience. If my neighbor had made this claim, I could have marked it down to the propaganda barrage from the primate center, but coming from a neuroscientist, the only explanation is that she was willfully lying to the public, or, maybe she’s just ignorant, but ignorance of this point is hard to imagine if we accept her explicit and Sangren’s implicit claim regarding her expertise in Parkinson’s Disease research.
It is a widely disseminated fact of basic neuroscience research that Dr. Oleh Hornykiewicz of Vienna developed L-DOPA treatments * as a direct result of his discovery in human cadavers that dopamine was significantly reduced in the brains of people who had been sufferers of Parkinson’s Disease. How could Basso not have known this basic fact of neuroscience research?
Her second point, the one that probably prompted her trip to Griffith’s office, was that nearly everything she does to the monkeys in her labs is also done to human patients. What she neglected to mention, and what Sandgren knew she was not saying, was that in her attempt to play neurosurgeon, she has killed monkeys by over-tightening the screws she drives into their skulls or by choosing screws that are too long, that puncture the skull, the lining of the brain, and lead to brain abscesses.
She was probably at Griffith’s office hoping to make sure that we don’t get the documents detailing these problems. A little too late.
All in all, it is exactly this untidiness and institutional secrecy and spin that need to be exposed. Without constant demonstration of the simple facts, the public has no hope of really understanding the ugliness behind the labs’ locked doors. The university is rightly anxious about the prospect that the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall will shine a spotlight on their work, their claims, and their dirty laundry.
* "See! Animal experimentation led to L-DOPA!" shout the animal research defenders. Maybe, but maybe the discovery that dopamine and L-DOPA have "biological action" could have been made in human tissue or even with human volunteers. There seems no clear necessity for any of the animal studies mentioned by Dr. Hornykiewicz, and in no case does he mention monkeys. Basso was either lying or just plain wrong. The fact that his breakthrough study occurred in human cadavers is not in question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
