In my last post, Research negligence results in death, I mischaracterized the behavior of UW vivisector Schultz-Darken and UM vivisector Craig Ferris as negligence.
Let me correct myself: They were not negligent.
The marmoset died as a direct result of their willful disregard of federal law, regulations, and the promises they made to the members of the IACUCs that approved the protocol.
The plain bald fact that nothing was done about this speaks clearly about the charade of oversight of animal research at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the Medical College of Wisconsin, and by extension, the industry generally.
Was Ei Terasawa punished for negligence because of some hidden racism? Maybe this explains the penalties for her negligence and the lack of penalties for Schultz-Darken's and Ferris's willful violation of federal law.
5 comments:
"The marmoset died as a direct result of their willful disregard of federal law, regulations, and the promises they made to the members of the IACUCs that approved the protocol."
There is nothing in the law or regulations that requires such monitoring. In fact, you should know that children are routinely anesthetized for MRI studies or oral surgery without any physiological monitoring. This demonstrates that in some areas the requirements for animal research are even stringent that those for human care.
You are right on one thing: if they promised they would do the monitoring then they should have done it.
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=bodymr&bhcp=1
"If sedation is used there are risks of excessive sedation. The technologist or nurse monitors your vital signs to minimize this risk."
"Monitors your vitals signs" means watches your respiration and takes your pulse from time to time.
Most physiology monitors are not compatible with the high magnetic field in the MRI room.
Also, I would not recommend having a "technologist or nurse" to watch over your anesthesia. I suggest you ask for a real anesthesiologist to be present.
Wrong again, Rick, in this and your previous posting. The MRI study was unrelated to the published study for which the press release was issued. After the marmoset death, the MRI study was ended by the UW-Madison investigator. The UW-Madison oversight network did not ignore this incident, even though it occurred at another institution.
No matter how thinly you slice it Eric, the press release amounted to little more than a bamboozle.
It is an uncontested fact that Nancy Schultz-Darken and Craig Ferris' violation of their approved protocol resulted in the monkey's death.
It might be beneficial to UW public relations to segregate out individual studies, but the UW's deadend research on hormonal influences in sexual and parental behavior in marmosets should be viewed as a body of work; particularly so when the same vivisectors are involved.
The UW press release hypes meaningless discoveries, makes them all warm and fuzzy, and mentions nothing about the named scientists' major violations.
Exactly what disciplinary action was taken against Schultz-Darken and Craig Ferris? Nothing too serious, obviously, since they are named in the press release and Schultz-Darken now oversees the committee whose directions she willfully disregarded.
On a similar note--the note of failed oversight--what's up with Lisa Krugner-Higby's brow-beating of the L&S IACUC into letting her poorly written (and probably poorly conceived, but we'll have to wait and see) pain protocol slide through?
Maybe you could explain here just how she intends to spend my tax money.
Post a Comment