Center for Investigating Healthy Minds

The banner above probably invokes a sense of dark irony and distrust in many of us. It would me, so maybe I am projecting my emotions on my readers, and maybe you are not anymore bothered by it than you probably are by this:The Center for Investigating Healthy Minds, a program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is under the direction of Richard Davidson, who, readers of this blog will know, I have criticized often for his two-faced, misleading, and mutually contradictory positions of promoting himself as a spiritually realized friend of the Dalai Lama who is concerned with the happiness and well-being of all beings (as he expresses by frequently reciting the quote above from Albert Einstein), with his lessor known and rarely mentioned by anyone other than me, research collaboration with UW Department of Psychiatry Chair, Ned Kalin, and Kalin's glorified diener, Steve Shelton.

I find the Center's banner grotesque, like the banner for the Eichmann Center. Compare what they say on their website with the other work Davidson does:But here's another part of his work:

An experienced surgeon made an opening in the frontal bone posterior to the brow ridge to expose the frontal cortex. Both hemispheres were lesioned in a single procedure by lifting the brain to expose its ventral surface. Using microscopic guidance, electro-cautery and suction were applied to the targeted brain area.” From: Role of the primate orbitofrontal cortex in mediating anxious temperament. (Kalin N. H., Shelton S. E., Davidson R. J. Biological Psychiatry. 2007.)

This just doesn't jibe with the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds stated mission:
Goals of the Center include the study of people's brains during contemplative practice and the use of contemplative practice to "nurture positive qualities of mind such as kindness [and] compassion...".

I suspect that there are kind and good people affiliated with the Center who intend to do good work. But imagine that the same could be said of people working at the imaginary Eichmann Center. Would the good works of some good people overshadow Eichmann's crimes or the nastiness of the Nazi's racial policies generally?

Maybe, like the carnage and monstrosities that occurred in South Africa and Rwanda, some forgiveness could be mustered if the perpetrators stepped forward and enumerated their crimes and asked for forgiveness; maybe. But that hasn't happened in the case of Richard Davidson. Davidson wants it both ways.

On the one hand, he wants to be seen and known as someone who has embraced the message in Einstein's quote: "Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty," while on the other, he argues that the potential benefit to humans from his highly invasive brain and behavioral experiments on particularly fearful young monkeys are excusable because he has "good intentions."

These two claims are mutually exclusive. It is highly unlikely that such diametric positions can coexist in a healthy mind. This leads me to wonder about possible research at the Center.

Richard Davidson should identify others who simultaneously hold similar contrary opinions regarding kindness and invasive experimentation (there are a number of such people.) This cohort should be randomly divided into two groups.

Group 1 should engage in a putatively compassion-enhancing contemplative practice while their brain is scanned, and once their brain activity settles and remains static for some period of time, they should be told of the details of Davidson's research on fear in young fearful monkeys and be asked to contemplate the monkeys' experiences.

Group 2 should begin by contemplating the details of the fear experiments and then be asked to stop thinking of that and begin the putatively compassion-enhancing contemplative practice, with their brains being scanned throughout.

Control Group 1 should be composed of random people selected only for age and gender similarity with Group 1. They should repeat the conditions in group 1.

Control Group 2 should be likewise composed and duplicate the the conditions in Group 2.

Post-screening by competent psychologists blinded to the participants' group assignments should attempt to identify those with healthy minds as defined by the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and those who don't. I hypothesize that the psychologists will identify the majority of those in Groups 1 and 2 as individuals with unhealthy minds, and will identify a significantly larger number of individuals with healthy minds from Control Groups 1 and 2.

If my hypothesis is borne out, we will have a collection of brain scans from people with unhealthy minds that might lead us to possible therapies to cure them. There would finally be hope for people like Richard Davidson.

UW Madison Seeks Legal Exemption from Having to Provide Sufficient Food and Water

Update on the post below: Fortunately, AB-747 did not pass out of the Wisconsin State Senate, so died without passage. The university is thus violating the state law requiring adequate food and water for all confined animals in every instance of inadequate nutrition, vitamin deprivation or overdosing, and water deprivation. Primate center vet Saverio “Buddy” Capuano recently reported to the All Campus Animal Care and Use Committee that monkeys used in common brain experiments in which they must perform some task (like tracking a light across a screen) typically lose weight due to, according to Capuano, the severe water restriction they are subjected to. The monkeys are kept chronically thirsty in order to motivate them to perform whatever task the vivisector has invented.

It is just a matter of time before the university renews its efforts to exempt itself from the state's Crimes Against Animals statutes.

---------

For the moment in Wisconsin, it is a violation of one of the state’s Crimes Against Animals statutes not to provide food and water to a confined animal sufficient to maintain good health:

Wisconsin Statutes > Criminal Code > Chapter 951 > § 951.13 - Providing proper food and drink to confined animals

951.13 Providing proper food and drink to confined animals. No person owning or responsible for confining or impounding any animal may fail to supply the animal with a sufficient supply of food and water as prescribed in this section.

951.13(1)
(1) Food. The food shall be sufficient to maintain all animals in good health.

951.13(2)
(2) Water. If potable water is not accessible to the animals at all times, it shall be provided daily and in sufficient quantity for the health of the animal.

A while ago, a bill was introduced by State Rep. Nick Milroy in response to a horrible situation involving an abandoned colt who literally froze to the ground during an especially harsh winter and despite an 11th hour rescue, eventually died. One motivating factor in the bill’s introduction was the fact that a young boy was witness to the colt’s misery and the adults' callous attitudes. The proposal, Assembly Bill 747, is known as Windchill’s Law. The wind chill at the time of his rescue was reportedly 50 degrees below zero.

The bill is laudable and stiffens the penalties for abandonment, the failure to provide adequate food and water, and provides enhanced penalties if a child witnesses the abuse or is forced to participate.

But like many otherwise good ideas, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s self-interested involvement has injected a dark and ugly pathogen into its core with only little notice. [See: Isthumus 04/08/2010. "Will more animals suffer if law is 'strengthened'?"] The State Assembly, accepting the university’s council in good faith, was duped into exempting the university from one of the statutes affected by Windchill’s Law, WI 951.13, quoted above.

Currently, every animal at the university undergoing an experiment in which adequate food and water necessary to good health isn’t being provided, is yet another instance of the university's ongoing violations of the state’s Crimes Against Animals statutes. If Windchill’s Law passes as written, the university will be exempt from providing adequate food and water.

Once again we can see its arrogant belief that it should not be held to the same standards as the rest of the state.

The university genuinely that it shouldn't have to obey the same laws as everyone else. It sees itself above silly concerns like animals’ pain and suffering.

UW-Madison: "Animals in Research and Testing"

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has launched a new website dedicated to defending its use of animals. Only time will tell whether they will update the site or, like a similar page once produced by the Wisconsin Primate Center, it will be quietly removed when the silliness and vacuousness are finally recognized even by its authors.

The university has a tendency to rewrite history to serve its interests so I will take little screen shots to preserve them for posterity, or at least for a while.

They start of with an outlandish claim:
"This university accepts responsibility..." No, it doesn't and never has. It makes excuses for its repeated oversight failures and puts the consequences for its repeated failures squarely on the backs of the animals that were harmed.

Examples of this shirking and transfer of responsibility are too numerous to enumerate, but a few instances will demonstrate the plain facts.

1. When it was discovered that the university had lied in writing to Dane County repeatedly for eight years regarding its use of monkeys from the Henry Vilas zoo, at first they denied the plain undeniable facts, and then "accepted responsibility" for their lies, and then broke their repeated promises not to use the monkeys from the zoo in harmful experiments yet again by sending them to Tulane University to be experimented on there.

2. When it was discovered by the USDA that Ei Terasawa was violating her approved protocols, and as a consequence monkeys were dying, and that she may have been violating her protocol for 18 years, the university "accepted responsibility" by declaring that the discovery demonstrated that the oversight system was working. Although they suspended Terasawa's use of monkeys for two years, there was never an admission that the oversight failure is what led to the problems in her lab.

3. In 2003, the university convened a special committee meeting to review and deal with the multiple problems associated with Michele Basso's methods. In 2009, the university finally got around to suspending her protocols and use of monkeys. But after her threat of going public and exposing the Research Animals Resource Center's alleged failure to provide adequate care and follow-up, they "accepted responsibility" and reinstated her and let her go back to work screwing hardware to monkeys' heads.

The university makes a simple argument in defense of its use of animals: the ends justify the means. "... from the discovery of vitamins A and B complex and the elimination of rickets and pellagra, to the stunning promise of stem cell research." This is a bizarre statement. The advances they mention, the "elimination" of rickets and pellagra were not due to the isolation of vitamin A and B complex.

It is a matter of history that observations of variation in human diets led doctors to speculate that the causes of pellagra, beriberi, marasmus, kwashiorkor, scurvy, and rickets were diet-related. Sometimes, these observations were then tested by feeding animals various diets and looking for signs of illness. By 1906, it was recognized that dietary deficiencies were the likely causes of these diseases, and that diet modification could prevent and cure them. The isolation of vitamins A and B complex, though interesting, is not what led to the "elimination" of rickets and pellagra. (For more on the interesting history of the discovery of nutrition and diet related illnesses, see The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity. Roy Porter. 1997. 551-560.)

Beside the false claim regarding the university's role in "eliminating" rickets and pellagra, the new web page points only to its unfulfilled promises: "Today, we conduct research on cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer’s disease, heart and kidney disease, transplantation, diabetes...". Here, we see more wild promises and more suffering: The university argues that it really isn't the ends that justify the means, it is the infinitesimally small likelihood of benefit that justifies the certainty of the animals' misery.

Here's their wildest claim:"Research with animals, like research with people, must pass rigorous scientific and ethical review." This is complete nonsense. There is no ethical review. None. Their silly self-serving claim rests on a single fill-in-the-blank form that is required prior to a project's approval. For those scientists who have a hard time getting the answers just right -- answers that won't cause the USDA to raise an eyebrow in the unlikely event that an inspector happens to choose that particular form to review -- the "oversight" committee provides them with the exact wording they should use. The oversight committee's sole job is to assure that the project comports with the minimal requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

In fact, The IACUC Handbook, Second Edition, Silverman, Suckow, Murthy Eds. CRC 2007, states clearly that the oversight committees can't make ethical decisions regarding the use of animals, let alone a "rigorous review."

Funding agencies and corporate administrators may weigh financial costs against potential benefit in distributing funds, but their is only a limited weighing of benefit against the harm to animals in any setting.

For the most part, the IACUC does not and cannot conduct this explicit ethical review. The IACUC is charged with reviewing the rationale (preferably statistical) for the animal numbers chosen, for instance, but not whether a particular line of research warrants that number. Similarly, the IACUC evaluates a technical claim that nonhuman primates alone are likely to provide the sort of data sought, not whether a particular project ethically merits the use of primates. Because the IACUC does not have the tools (or the regulatory mandate) to conduct a thorough assessment of the scientific merit (i.e., the potential benefits) of a proposed project, it cannot make a thorough cost-benefit ethical analysis. (p 159)

Rigorous schmigorous.

"The ethical foundation is the philosophy of utilitarianism, which deems an action acceptable only if potential benefits outweigh potential harms." They have shot themselves in the foot. There are only actual costs to the animals; musings about the potential costs are distasteful and underscore the hollow claim that the animals' experiences are given even a moment's notice.

"Animal research ethics are applied and taught at multiple places within the university and are built into the review of every proposed use of animals." Gibberish. If anything about the ethics of animal use is "taught" to the aspiring vivisectors it must be by means of rote recitation. Clearly, from the above mealy-mouthed nonsense, nothing approaching critical though is attempted.

I can't wait for the updates.

Dehumanization

I’m just finishing up Phillip Zimbardo’s 2008, New York Times bestseller, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.

Zimbardo, a boyhood friend and schoolmate of Stanley Milgrim, author of Obedience to Authority, was fairly well-known prior to The Lucifer Effect for his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in which normal mentally healthy male college students randomly separated into either “prisoners” or “guards,” almost immediately internalized their roles: “guards” became increasingly abusive and “prisoners” often became obedient to the point of participating in cruel and demeaning tasks designed off-the-cuff by the “guards.”

The SPE, I learned from the book, is but one data point in the body of social psychology research that has looked at the behavior of otherwise normal people who find themselves in situations or working in systems that condone, encourage, or fail to stop behavior that would ordinarily be deemed cruel or monstrous.

The early part of the book is dedicated to a reenactment of the SPE, replete with much transcribed dialog and comment. It is a bit tedious. The middle section of the book is engrossing and provides insight into the characteristics of situations that can and have led to many instances of abuse and widespread atrocity. The latter part of the book is a look at the system and situation that led to the abuses that occurred during the Bush administration’s War on Terrorism.

For anyone with an interest in the factors that lead to the expression of the dark side of human behavior, The Lucifer Effect will be worth your time.

One commonality in many of the instances of abusive behavior, both in the controlled scientific studies and the historic episodes surveyed by Zimbardo is the dehumanization of the enemy, prisoners, or intended victims. Seeing someone as less-than-human apparently invites ill-treatment and even extermination. Zimbardo says repeatedly throughout the book that dehumanization goes far in explaining how and why someone feels motivated and empowered to harm someone else.

I was struck by this observation and Zimbardo’s consistent reliance on it to explain so many people’s abusive and even murderous behavior. Zimbardo does not need to explain to his readers why dehumanization is synonymous with the permission to inflict harm because it is an a priori assumption that hurting and killing non-humans isn’t a very serious matter and that it is even to be expected.

This deep and largely unexamined assumption is the bedrock upon which rest institutional guidelines governing animal care and use.

This goes a long way in explaining why, in an institution like the University of Wisconsin-Madison, animals are treated so poorly, situations that contribute to their detriment and suffering are allowed to continue for so long, why the internal inspections are so cursory and ineffectual, and why job performance related to the quality and efficacy of oversight of animal care and use is of little concern to the administration.

The system itself is intended to exploit to the fullest those who don’t need to be dehumanized because they aren’t human. Given the key role that dehumanization has played in atrocities like the Holocaust, the Rwandan massacres, the Rape of Nanking, the Melai massacre, the hundreds of instances of abuse and murder of prisoners during the War on Terrorism, and so very many others cases, it should come as no surprise that animals are abused so often in situations designed specifically for their systematic exploitation.

What Zimbaro’s and others’ work demonstrates is that those who are generally kind and compassionate easily transform into monsters in the right situation. The people involved in the atrocities named above were not exceptionally bad people; they were and are you and me. The evidence seems clear that our behavior is controlled to an overwhelming degree by the circumstances we find ourselves in. This explains why no one did anything about the boar who was unable to walk without falling down because of the inappropriate and slippery surface in the pen he was being kept in by researchers at UW-Madison. It is the "normal" behavior of those who work around the animals -- created and condoned by the system and situation they find themselves in -- to ignore the animals’ plight.

A recurring argument defending the use of animals is that they were made to be used by us; first, it is sometimes argued, by God, but now through our breeding programs. So not only are they less than human, and thus OK to harm, but additionally, they were made by us to be harmed, plastering on a further layer of justification for the suffering we heap upon them.

In the vernacular of the labs (and in most other industrial settings using animals), animals raised to be used as experimental subjects (or as food or fiber) are termed: purpose-bred. Using purpose-bred animals, it is argued, is less odious than using wild-caught ones. [See for instance: This Monkey Died for You. OHSU animal researchers fire back at their critics. Willamette Week, March 31st, 2010.] Set on a human stage, the weakness and ugliness of this argument becomes clear: would it be less immoral to raise children for the sex trade than to kidnap them off the street?

If dehumanization explains in large part our inhumanity to one another, it isn't difficult to see why people who hurt animals are confused by the arguments and outrage of their critics.

WSJ: Much more than a day late

My last post, Basso: Cover-Up? Conspiracy? Scandal. generated some (unpublished) letters to the Wisconsin State Journal asking them why they had not made the details of the Basso case public after having received at least 180 pages of documents from the university.

Perhaps embarrassed by their apparent soft-pedaling of the hard truth about the failures of their patron, the paper has now, after the fact and thus unlikely to be noticed by the general public, placed two documents on line. The first is the one first made public here, the May 4, 2009 letter from Welter to Mellon, and the second is Basso's and her lab's response to that letter, a document I did not have.

They are both now available on the WSJ website here.

Basso: Cover-Up? Conspiracy? Scandal.

The Wisconsin State Journal reported on the suspension and reinstatement of Michele Basso, PhD, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who uses monkeys in her research into on the neurology of voluntary movement. (See: UW-Madison suspends researcher over animal welfare problems. Deborah Ziff. March 19, 2010.) Her method entails sewing scleral search coils to monkeys’ eyes, screwing hardware to monkeys’ skulls, implanting electrodes in their brains, limiting their access to water in order to motivate them to perform certain visual tasks, and restraining them for periods of many hours.

Some of her publications are available on the Internet. See for example:

Substantia Nigra Stimulation Influences Monkey Superior Colliculus Neuronal Activity Bilaterally Ping Liu(1) and Michele A. Basso(1,2) J Neurophysiology 2008. First published June 25, 2008. (1)Departments of Physiology and (2)Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. (If the above link doesn't work, try this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2525708/?tool=pubmed.)

UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin sent a letter to all university staff trying to explain the situation.

Neither the Wisconsin State Journal nor Chancellor Martin provided much detail on the reasons for Basso’s suspension. In fact, problems associated with Basso’s lab began to be documented and to generate internal discussion by at least 2003.

Basso herself was anxious to keep those details out of the public’s view. This may have been related to her 2006 testimony before WI Congressman Petri’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security's Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4239, the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act." The subcommittee’s hearing seems to no longer be available, but a rebuttal to the claims Basso made during the hearing is. See: Letter to Howard Cobb, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, May 25, 2006.

Of particular note, and germane to the situation at hand, are the following assertions in her sworn testimony:

“It is critical to point out that biomedical research is subject to very strict regulations and oversight.”

“We have an animal care and use committee for each school at Madison and an all campus committee that oversees all schools. My research meets or exceeds all standards set by the USDA, Public Health Service Policy as well as local guidelines for the care and use of non human primates in research.”

“We abide by the well-known 3R principle concerning the use of animals. Whenever we can, we reduce the numbers of animals used, we replace the animal model with some other or we refine the technique we use to ensure maximal well-being of the animals.”

“Working on animals is a privilege that neither I, nor my colleagues take lightly.”

She made these sworn statements on May 25, 2006. But for the preceding three years, UW Research Animal Resource Center vets, the university officials charged specifically with direct monitoring and assuring federal regulatory compliance of researchers’ approved protocols, had been citing her lab for serious problems. See for instance the minutes from a special meeting of the medical school IACUC held on October 30, 2003. See too the September 30, 2006 Grad School IACUC minutes.

It seems fairly clear that her claims about exceeding federal standards were self-serving at best. But now, only years later, we read the Wisconsin State Journal's article and the Chancellor’s veiled apology for the university’s failed oversight of her activities.

What the Chancellor and the paper didn’t tell the public about Basso’s work are the details of the lab’s many and continuing problems. This, in and of itself, is cause for grave concern; it at least appears to be a cover-up and an effort to keep the details out of the public discussion. If the university and the paper had any communication about how the story might be reported, then this could be a conspiracy to confuse the public or at least to limit the scope of the scandal.

In a letter dated May 4, 2009, written to William Mellon, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Research Policy, Janet Welter, DVM, Chief Campus Veterinarian, summarized in clear and unambiguous language, the history of problems associated with the Basso Lab.

The May 4, 2009 letter was purportedly included in the binder of information that the university gave to the Wisconsin State Journal, and from certain statements in the article, this appears to be true. You can read Welter’s letter to Mellon here.

How should we balance the statement made by Basso that tap water is chlorinated sufficiently to sterilize materials that will be placed in living brain with Chancellor Martin’s claim: “The particular case at issue concerns a UW-Madison researcher whose work on brain function in non-human primates has been published in major international journals and whose research is widely considered among her peers to hold promise for the treatment of disorders as debilitating as Huntington's and Parkinson's disease”?

Basso's "peers" are likely other scientists also using animals and not making any more progress than she is. Martin must not have felt it wise to mention Basso's supporters by name.

Does it make any sense to believe that someone with a poor grasp of germ theory will lead us to a cure for complex neurological diseases, or that someone who disregards the veterinary advice of her own institution’s vets is genuinely refining the techniques she uses “to ensure maximal well-being of the animals”?

The bigger questions here seem to be:

1. Why did the Wisconsin State Journal keep the details so vague?
2. Why did the university allow Basso to run amok for so long?
3. Why did the university reinstate her, particularly after it banned Ei Terasawa from using monkeys for two years?
4. Why has the university refused to provide any documents regarding the Basso case in response to formal open records requests from its critics?
5. Why would anyone believe anything the university has to say about its animal care and use?

Biddy Martin on Basso

This is the letter sent to all UW staff regarding the Basso affair:

Subject: Statement on animal research
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010
From: Chancellor Biddy Martin
To: Students, faculty and staff,

Animal-based research, at UW-Madison and across the nation, raises complicated issues that are also emotionally charged. Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriateness of animal research, and we respect people's rights to make their views known.

Let me affirm once again UW-Madison's support for animal-based research, including research involving non-human primates. We base that support on its benefits to human and animal welfare, and, hence, to society at large. The university is committed to ensuring the ethical care and treatment of those animals, and is responsible for abiding by the standards and regulations set by the federal government.

As you know, UW-Madison is a large university with an enormous research enterprise. We have 530 principal investigators (research team leaders) and 6,700 individuals on campus who are certified to work with animals. Together, they perform research using 1,035 protocols (a detailed research plan). Generally speaking, the people who work with animals do their work with a strong sense of responsibility and without problems.

With the help and investment of dedicated animal caretakers, veterinarians, faculty, and staff, the university has done a very good job of overseeing animal research on our campus. Though there have been few major problems, problems do occur in an environment such as UW-Madison that is as large as many small cities. It is our responsibility to take timely and appropriate measures when they do. The details of a troubling and complicated case are being made public this week and I would like to take this opportunity to establish some context for what you will read and hear.

Federal regulations give responsibility for compliance in this area to animal care and use committees (ACUC). These are made up primarily of researchers and veterinarians with expertise in the care of animals; all committees also include at least one community member. UW-Madison has five local committees that are coordinated by an All-Campus Animal Care and Use Committee (AC ACUC). The committees report to an institutional official, a position that is mandated by federal regulation, and carries authority and responsibility for compliance. The institutional official for UW-Madison is Professor William Mellon, an associate dean of the Graduate School. The institutional official reports to the chancellor. The provost is my designee for the oversight of safety and compliance on campus.

The particular case at issue concerns a UW-Madison researcher whose work on brain function in non-human primates has been published in major international journals and whose research is widely considered among her peers to hold promise for the treatment of disorders as debilitating as Huntington's and Parkinson's disease.

The researcher, Dr. Michele Basso, has been cited by university animal care committees for a range of problems over a five-and-a-half-year period. Despite repeated efforts and an unambiguous warning by the School of Medicine and Public Health's (SMPH) ACUC, problems recurred. When the SMPH ACUC reached an impasse in its efforts to make a decision about problems that arose in 2008, the case was taken to the All-Campus ACUC. Her privileges to conduct animal research and her research protocols were suspended by that committee on Feb. 13, 2009. The AC ACUC decided that a move to different facilities with significantly more oversight by veterinary staff should be a condition of reinstatement, as should the researcher's commitment to correcting the problems the committee attributed to her. The suspension of a principal investigator's privileges or protocol is unusual, and can be damaging not only to the research, but also to the career of the investigator. In this instance, the decision reflected the committee's effort to maintain ethical animal care and safety.

There is a dispute about whether or not Dr. Basso had sufficient information to respond effectively to the offenses for which she was suspended. She has also raised questions about the university's timely reporting of the offenses to the appropriate federal agencies. These issues remain in dispute. From my perspective, the changes made recently by the AC ACUC in the location and oversight of Dr. Basso's work should have been made earlier, but I arrive at that view from reviewing records of actions taken prior to my arrival.

Dr. Basso has argued that many of the problems in her research program were the result of inadequate veterinary care and facilities. I cannot speak authoritatively about conditions in the past or judge whether or not they affected the negative outcomes for Dr. Basso's animals. I can report that in 2004, former Chancellor John Wiley authorized the addition of significantly more veterinarians on campus, and called for greater coordination and centralization of veterinary care for research animals. The record shows that questions about responsibility for the negative outcomes in Dr. Basso's program were matters of lengthy deliberation and debate for the animal care committees. Let me emphasize again that Dr. Basso's research is sophisticated, complicated, and carries inevitable risks. In many cases of the animal deaths, committees identified multiple factors. In some cases, the committees were able to assign responsibility to factors unrelated to the work of the researcher, and in at least a couple of cases, the committees hold Dr. Basso primarily responsible.

In the summer and fall of 2009, Dr. Basso requested an independent investigation of her case, a request that Provost DeLuca declined because the federal government grants authority for decisions about research protocols and privileges to ACUCs. In this case, the AC ACUC's work on the matter was ongoing.

Last week, the AC ACUC voted to reinstate Dr. Basso's protocols, approving them on condition of fundamental changes in the extent of oversight and monitoring of Dr. Basso's research program. Every experiment will be conducted under the supervision of veterinarians. All decisions regarding the health and medical care of animals will be made by the veterinary staff. The attending veterinarian will report to the relevant animal care committee on the activity and the outcomes of Dr. Basso's research on a monthly basis, or more frequently if needed. I have been assured by the attending veterinarian for Dr. Basso's research program that there is no room for non-compliance under these conditions. Given Dr. Basso's own belief that inadequate veterinary care and facilities accounted for her problems, these changes appear to respond to perspectives on both sides of the issue. Should any problems of non-cooperation or non-compliance arise, I expect that the committee will take even stronger action.

Many of you will remember hearing or reading about the December 2009 USDA visit and report, which cited several problems in what was deemed to be a generally successful animal research program. At the time of its release, I convened a group of campus officials with whom I could discuss the report and its implications. Based on that discussion, I decided to examine in detail the entire record outlining the problems in Dr. Basso's research between 2003-2008. What I found in those records led me to ask an outside consultant to visit campus for a review of the structure and the decision-making processes of the animal care and use committees. I wanted to know from an impartial outside expert whether or not our processes were appropriate. Dr. James Fox, a noted veterinarian and director of comparative medicine at MIT, submitted his report in late January. In neither his oral nor written reports did Dr. Fox give me a reason to second-guess the overall work of the AC ACUC. As was true of the USDA report, Dr. Fox's report identifies some weaknesses in specific areas and makes recommendations for change. Last month, I gave Eric Sandgren, director of the campus animal program, and William Mellon, the institutional official, a copy of Dr. Fox's report. I asked them to work on a plan to implement changes that would improve animal care oversight. They are working under the supervision of Provost DeLuca and any resulting recommendations will be included in the changes we make to the research enterprise.

Let me end by reiterating what I said at the beginning of this statement. This is a troubling and complicated case. It will elicit strong feelings about a range of issues, if my own personal reaction is any guide. Though personal feelings are important, and can inform the views we ultimately take, my job as chancellor requires that I consider all the relevant information, complexities, and the broader context and let the deliberations of experts shape my understanding and decision making. In fact, I believe every one of us has a responsibility to educate ourselves about the complexities of the issues that concern us and to think things through carefully and thoroughly, drawing on relevant expertise. What matters at the university, is that we make good on our commitments to the ethical treatment of research animals and to the importance of independent research, not only or even primarily for the sake of individual investigators, but also for the good of society as a whole. Universities are the only institutions charged specifically with ensuring freedom of inquiry and independent research.

For more than 100 years, UW-Madison has engaged in critical and groundbreaking studies of human and animal health and well being through the use of animal models. Key findings, such as the discovery of vitamins; Warfarin; methods for extending the shelf life of donated organs for transplant; and clues to the etiology, progression and treatment of diseases such as cancer and AIDS, among others; have emerged and continue to emerge from the laboratories of our university. There is no doubt that this work is vital and our best hope for improving human and animal health. Many lives have been saved and the quality of all our lives has been improved through research using animal models.

In return for the freedom to pursue independent research, universities must be able to assure the public that freedom is coupled with responsibility. My observations since my arrival suggest that the system of accountability for research compliance and safety on campus, which has improved over time, and is certainly not broken, is still not where it needs to be. Getting it there is a goal for which I take responsibility and one I will continue to pursue aggressively.

Biddy Martin
Chancellor

I told you so...

UW-Madison suspends researcher over animal welfare problems

By DEBORAH ZIFF | dziff@madison.com | March 18, 2010

UW-Madison suspended a professor who studies Parkinson's and other brain diseases from working with animals last year, a rare move prompted by what officials called a "clear pattern" of problems with animal welfare, according to university records released this week.

University administrators say researcher Michele Basso has had a bumpy history, citing a lack of respect for veterinarians, incomplete record-keeping and instances where monkeys developed brain injuries. But Basso said she hasn't violated any rules. She said the charges against her are vague, and that the university knew that her experiments were risky when they approved them.

Her animal research has since been reinstated, but her experiments are under strict supervision, officials said.

The Wisconsin State Journal requested documents in Basso's case, which was concluded only a few days ago, after a federal agency cited UW-Madison for not reporting to them that her research was suspended.

more....

Basso's Relevance

As readers of this blog know, the likely upcoming exposure of Michele Basso's running battle with the University of Wisconsin-Madison's veterinary staff has been a very long-time coming (if it comes to pass.)

A few things to keep in mind, if and when the story breaks tomorrow:

Basso is part of the university's neuroscience training program. That is, students have been receiving their training, in part, from her. This suggests that a number of UW-Madison-generated neuroscience PhDs will have been taught that veterinarians' concerns and directives regarding animal care can be dismissed out-of-hand. And, indeed, it appears they can.

The veterinary staff began calling the university's oversight committees' attention to the serious problems in Basso's lab at least seven years ago. And essentially nothing was done. I have to qualify my observation with "essentially" because in fact, details were recorded and letters were written; but nothing changed.

Her work was suspended for a time, but the suspensions were kept hidden from the public. The veterinarian who suspended her refused to reinstate her, so another vet was called in to do so. Neither the NIH nor the USDA mentioned this highly unusual circumstance in their inspection reports, which suggests that the details were kept from them (or that they were complicit in trying to keep the problems out of the press, but this seems unlikely to me.)

The simple and straightforward fact that it has taken so many years for the university to deal with such blatant malfeasance even while monkeys were being so seriously harmed, is undeniable evidence that the oversight system doesn't work. It never has, and likely can't. It's a poor and toothless design that primarily benefits the researchers by providing a smoke screen or illusion of meaningful regulation.

Here's an example of the repeated requests we have been making over the past eight months:

December 20, 2009

Rick R. Lane
Associate Director
Research Animal Research Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
396 Enzyme Institute
1710 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53726-4087

Dr. Mr. Lane,

This letter is in response to your November 16th request that I provide more clarification and specificity regarding my records requests of August 1, 2009 and October 27, 2009.

Briefly: I am requesting all records created during and or included in the recently concluded investigation of Michelle Basso’s lab.

In order to help you identify those records, I have described below in more detail the records I am requesting:

*Copies of all correspondence to or from Mr. Richard Moss, Professor, Department of Physiology, regarding Dr. Michelle Basso and/or any members or associates of the Basso lab, and/or the operation of the Basso lab, dated from July 20, 2008 to the present.

*Copies of all correspondence to or from any staff member of the UW-Madison Research Animal Resource Center (RARC) regarding Michele Basso and/or any member or associate of the Basso lab, and/or the operation of the Basso lab dated from July 20, 2008 to the present.

*Copies of all correspondence to or from any of the University of Wisconsin Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees regarding Michele Basso and/or any member or associate of the Basso lab, and/or the operation of the Basso lab dated from July 20, 2008 to the present.

*Copies of all correspondence to or from any federal agency (i.e. the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) and the USDA/APHIS) regarding Michele Basso and/or any member or associate of the Basso lab, and/or the operation of the Basso lab dated from July 20, 2008 to the present.

*Copies of all correspondence to or from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) regarding Michele Basso and/or any member or associate of the Basso lab, and/or the operation of the Basso lab from July 20, 2008 to the present.

Please send me any portion of this request as soon as it is located.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. I am willing to pay up to $100.00 for copying costs. If the cost will be greater than this, please let me know when copying costs approach that limit.

Dirty laundry to be publicly aired: Basso's cruel crap

For eight months we have been making formal public records requests to the University of Wisconsin - Madison. We have been asking for specific records related to Michele Basso's inept surgical methods, her history of defying campus veterinarians, and the suffering and deaths in her labs that has bothered even those inured by constant exposure to the suffering in the university's labs, like the head campus veterinarian.

We still don't have them. Stonewalling is a way of life for Rick Lane, associate director of UW's Research Animal Resources Center whose mission in life appears to keeping the labs' ugly secrets out of the public eye. He'll probably get a handsome bonus this year.

But, the university apparently turned over a "binder" of records on this matter to the Wisconsin State Journal today, and it is rumored that the story is slated to come out on Friday.

It will be interesting to see how the paper handles this and whether their documents jive with the few we do have.

For the record, we tried to call media's and the public's attention to Basso's butchery five years ago, but in the wake of the Terasawa disclosures, media was suffering itself from vivisection fatigue.

The Basso affair puts the lie to the claim that the oversight is meaningful, that the animals are respected, or that the researchers rely on healthy animals... apparently, many of Basso's publications are based on data from animals with significant infections and much unrelieved trauma.

And, it now appears that Basso is looking for work elsewhere; I imagine she will get a rosy recommendation.

And, Basso is one of the people who determine whether other people's experiments should be funded.

Stay tuned.