NIH and the chimpanzees

Part 2



Part 3 [on my machine, Part 3 hangs up in the middle but can be nudged past the problem.]

Wordletting

Rick Marolt's new blog. Check it out: http://rickmarolt.wordpress.com/

Amygdalar and hippocampal substrates of anxious temperament differ in their heritability

So here's a recent bit of sad silliness from the Davidson crew.

I wrote to the author of the release asking about a couple things. My letter follows the release.

Public release date: 11-Aug-2010

Contact: Susan Lampert Smith
ssmith5@uwhealth.org
608-262-7335
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Inherited brain activity predicts childhood risk for anxiety

MADISON – A new study focused on anxiety and brain activity pinpoints the brain regions that are relevant to developing childhood anxiety. The findings, published in the Aug. 12 edition of the journal Nature, may lead to new strategies for early detection and treatment of at-risk children.

"Children with anxious temperaments suffer from extreme shyness, persistent worry and increased bodily responses to stress," says Ned H. Kalin, chair of psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, who led the research. "It has long been known that these children are at increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, and associated substance abuse disorders."

The new study by Kalin and colleagues demonstrated that increased brain activity in the amygdala and anterior hippocampus could predict anxious temperament in young primates.

"We believe that young children who have higher activity in these brain regions are more likely to develop anxiety and depression as adolescents and adults and are also more likely to develop drug and alcohol problems in an attempt to treat their distress," says Kalin.

Previous research led by Kalin established that anxious young monkeys are similar to children who are temperamentally anxious. In the current study, researchers examined the extent to which genetic and environmental factors influence activity in the anxiety-related brain regions that may make children vulnerable.

In the largest imaging study of nonhuman primates, the researchers at UW-Madison scanned the brains of 238 young rhesus monkeys, all of which belong to the same extended family. The monkeys underwent a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, which in humans is used to understand regional brain function by measuring the brain's use of glucose.

Key findings of the study include:

* Young rhesus monkeys from a large related family showed a clear pattern of inherited anxious temperament.
* Monkeys with anxious temperaments had higher activity in the central nucleus of the amygdala and the anterior hippocampus. In addition, researchers could predict an individual's degree of anxious temperament by its brain activity.
* Genes and environmental factors affected activity in the amygdala and hippocampus in different ways, providing a brain-based understanding of how nature and nurture might interact to determine an individual's vulnerability to developing common psychiatric disorders.

First author Jonathan Oler, associate scientist at the UW-Madison Department of Psychiatry, says the findings were a surprise.

"We expected that all of the brain regions involved in anxious temperament would be similarly affected by genes and environment, but found that activity in the anterior hippocampus was more heritable than in the amygdala," says Oler.

The new discovery may ultimately lead to new ways to detect anxiety in children, says Drew Fox, a graduate student working with Kalin and a co-author on the study.

"Markers of familial risk for anxiety could be identified by understanding alterations in specific genes that influence hippocampal function," says Fox.

The study suggests that there is a tremendous opportunity to modify the environment to prevent children from developing full-blown anxiety.

"My feeling is that the earlier we intervene with children, the more likely they will be to lead a happy life in which they aren't as controlled by anxiety and depression," says Kalin, who is also director of the UW-Madison HealthEmotions Research Institute. "We think we can train vulnerable kids to settle their brains down."

Under Kalin's leadership, researchers at the HealthEmotions Research Institute are translating these findings to humans by measuring amygdala and hippocampal function in young children who have early signs of anxiety and depression.

Kalin emphasizes that the research could not have been accomplished without the important contributions of collaborators including Steve Shelton, Richie Davidson and Terry Oakes of UW-Madison; Tom Dyer, Wendy Shelledy and John Blangero of the Southwest Foundation; and Jeff Rogers of Baylor University.

###

Dear Ms Smith,

I am writing in regard to the recent news release you wrote announcing the publication of Oler et al's new paper in this week's Nature.

I am particularly interested in your quote from Dr. Kalin: "It has long been known that these children are at increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, and associated substance abuse disorders."

In the paper, Amygdalar and hippocampal substrates of anxious temperament differ in their heritability, the authors write: "Studies in children demonstrate that AT is an important risk factor for the later development of anxiety disorders, depression and comorbid substance abuse." They cite Biederman J et al Further Evidence of Association Between Behavioral Inhibition and Social Anxiety in Children. Am J Psychiatry. 2001.

This seems to be the bedrock justification for Kalin et al's many years of papers on temperament in monkeys, which might have begun with their publication of Lateralized response to diazepam predicts temperamental style in rhesus monkeys. Davidson RJ, Kalin NH, Shelton SE. Behav Neurosci. 1993.

But Biederman et al, 2001, doesn't support Kalin's or Oler et al's claim. You can review Biederman et al, 2001 here.

Biederman et al, 2001 makes no mention of substance abuse and mention of depression occurs only in describing the parents of the children being studied.

In the nine categories of anxiety disorders looked at by Biederman et
al, (see http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol158/issue10/images/large/J722F2.jpeg) most were unrelated to children's parents' own anxiety disorders, suggesting that - in humans - most anxiety disorders are not heritable. The authors conclude: "Behavioral inhibition in children was selectively associated with a higher risk for avoidant disorder and social phobia and a lower risk for disruptive behavior disorders. No association was detected between behavioral inhibition and other disorders, which suggests that behavioral inhibition may have specific associations with social anxiety in children."

Interestingly, they also call attention to a previous study that found that "behavioral inhibition protected both disruptive and nondisruptive boys against delinquency;" apparently at odds with the claims made by Oler et al if delinquency includes substance abuse. I have not reviewed the referenced paper.

In any case, the work cited by Oler et al and the claim made by Kalin do not appear to be supported by the paper they cite for evidence.

Genuine beneficial results of Oler et al, and Kalin et al's previous work in this area are difficult to point to. In your release, you write: "Under Kalin's leadership, researchers at the HealthEmotions Research Institute are translating these findings to humans by measuring amygdala and hippocampal function in young children who have early signs of anxiety and depression."

Following Roger N. Rosenberg's scathing editorial, Translating Biomedical Research to the Bedside A National Crisis and a Call to Action, JAMA. 2003, "translation" has become a buzz word in basic biomedical science. Numerous "Centers" and "Institutes" for the translation of basic research have been started around the country, as if doing so will improve the translation rate. The UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, created in 2007 apparently, is a local example. See too: Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? Ioannidis JP. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006.

In your statement, the use of "translating" is misleading and probably stems from the increased use of the term. "Measuring" (what does that even mean?) amygdala and hippocampal function in young children who have early signs of anxiety and depression is not a translation of Oler et al or Kalin et al's work. In fact, similar work in children has been ongoing since at least 2000. See for instance A pilot study of amygdala volumes in pediatric generalized anxiety disorder. DeBellis MD, Casey BJ, Dahl RE, Birmaher B, Williamson DE, Thomas KM, Axelson DA, Frustaci K, Boring AM, Hall J, Ryan ND. Biol Psychiatry. 2000.

Learning that certain areas of the brain are associated with particular mental affect or defect has not led to ways to fix them. This is the heart of the translation problem and why Oler et al and Kalin et al's past work in monkeys does not warrant the ballyhoo you made of it.

Sincerely,

Rick Bogle

An Open Letter to Wisconsin Public Radio

Here may lie the most important effect of mass communication, its ability to mentally order and organize our world for us. In short, the mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about. -Shaw & McCombs, 1977

Below is a letter I didn't send last year, but I've recently been thinking about something called Agenda Setting Theory. For much more on this see: mediatenor.com

Last year I communicated with NPR Ombusdman Alicia C. Shepard about the censorship of discussion by public radio stations regarding controversies at the universities closely affiliated with them, like Wisconsin Public Radio, located on the UW-Madison campus. She recounted her personal experience with the public radio station affiliated with a university she attended (or maybe was just familiar with.)

She characterized this problem as "self-censorship" and said she had no idea how to combat it. The points raised below are slightly dated, but the main idea remains the same.

I don't think anyone should contribute to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's public relations efforts aimed at stifling public discussion of its most controversial practices and problems. This means not donating to WRP.

If you decide not to donate to them, please send them a note explaining why.

-------

Wisconsin Public Radio
821 University Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Phil Corriveau
Director of Radio

Sheryl Gasser
Talk Director

Michael Leland
News Director

Rebecca Dopart
Membership Director

Mike Crane
Associate Director

October 15, 2009


Dear Directors:

WPR has just finished its Fall Fund Drive. I am writing to explain why I did not contribute to WPR and why I asked others to withhold their support as well.

I listen to WPR almost exclusively on the way to and from work. There is much about the station’s broadcasting that I find valuable and enjoy listening to. But it is my impression that potentially controversial matters involving the University of Wisconsin, Madison are taboo subjects for discussion on WPR. This is particularly true when the topic involves the university’s use of animals or violations of Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Agriculture regulations, and recently, even violations of Wisconsin’s Crimes Against Animals statutes.

If one listens carefully, as I do, it is possible to hear occasional slight mention of a problem at the university in the news segments, but rarely if ever is there any “digging deep” into the issue which your current appeals claim is a reason to support the station.

Here’s a brief list of very recent problems and issues involving the university that I have not heard being discussed on WPR to any significant degree even though they have been written about in the local press.

* The sheep decompression case.

* The proposed new BSL-3 lab a block off Regent St and the university’s refusal to provide a copy of the NIH grant application for this facility.

* The proposed expansion of the UW Primate Center.

* The open investigation of the NIH Major Action violations.

* The university’s refusal to consider the ethics of experiments on monkeys.

The list of similar events from years past that have not been discussed on WPR is a long one but a few of the more recent examples include:

* The Madison Aerosol Cabinet discontinuation.

* The National Bio-Agro Facility (NBAF) condemnation by the General Accounting Office. The university had gone to great lengths to have the facility sited at the Town of Dunn.

* Yoshihiro Kawaoka’s Ebola research violations and the controversy surrounding his Spanish flu research.

* The multiple violations over the years of the Animal Welfare Act.

It appears to me that WPR has a policy, perhaps unvoiced, maybe even unrecognized, to remain mute when it comes to stories and issues that could prove embarrassing to the university.

Even when an opportunity exists, the station seems unwilling to plumb such matters. For instance, during Jean Feraca’s recent interview of Richard Davidson on her show Here on Earth, there was a discussion of claimed connections between compassion and kindness and meditation. According to Feraca, she is a neighbor (and apparently a personal friend) of Davidson’s.

But Davidson’s claim of such a connection is challenged and maybe even disproved by his largely hidden research on fear and anxiety. He pursues this by identifying particularly anxious young monkeys, experimentally damages the emotion centers of their brains, and studies the resulting changes in their reactions to fearful stimuli. This wasn’t brought up by Ms. Feraca. If meditation makes one kinder and more compassionate it is hard to understand Davidson’s continuing invasive experimental methods using animals he feels are emotionally similar to humans. Further, there was no link to Madison Magazine’s long article from last year examining this matter. This is but a single recent example of the phenomena I am pointing out.

I could go on at length about each of the instances I’ve noted above and many others. WPR essentially ignores controversies involving animal experimentation or biomedical research generally at the University of Wisconsin. This absence of coverage and discussion results in broad ignorance of the issues among the station’s listeners. The station’s programming functions as a defacto university propaganda tool through this absence of coverage.

For all these reasons, I haven't contributed to the operation of WPR and have encouraged others to withhold their support as well.

Sincerely,


Rick Bogle

Summertime Blues: 1000s Missed

I might as well wish they had wings, but I wish politicians worked on real problems rather than spending their time undermining the other party.

You may have learned by now that Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. and John McCain have issued a list of 100 projects funded by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that they claim are a waste of tax dollars.

The press release starts out this way:

(WASHINGTON, DC) - U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) today released a new oversight report: “Summertime Blues: 100 Stimulus Projects that Give Taxpayers the Blues.” The report, a third in a series, highlights questionable stimulus projects that are wasteful, mismanaged, and overall unsuccessful in creating jobs. The projects featured in the report cannot be considered as an investment in long-term priorities to create and sustain economic growth that the Stimulus was designed to do.

Kudos to them for doing so, but their motivation seems more political than anything else. Their goal seems to be an undermining of the democrats. If their motivations were genuinely focused on improving government decision-making and oversight, they could very easily have written a somewhat similar report anytime since they were originally elected.

The report doesn’t explain why they chose this infinitesimally tiny sliver of boondoggles to showcase. One hundred studies out of what must be hundreds of thousands of projects doesn’t really seem like much of a failure of oversight. I think they could have found many thousands more if they had taken the time to look or were a little better informed. If only they had looked a little more carefully at the National Institute’s of Health’s public welfare recipients, the research universities, they could have produced an encyclopedia of wasted tax money.

They did though call attention to five NIH studies, which I have listed below. These are copied and pasted here along with the associated references. In the original document, the links were not active, and I haven’t taken the time to fix them. But they are here if you choose to look them up.

20. Monkey and Chimpanzee Responses to Inequity (Atlanta, GA) - $677,462184
While much is known about how humans respond to inequity and injustice, researchers at Georgia State University are using almost $700,000 in stimulus funds to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity and unfairness.185 “Seven species of primates will be asked to make decisions about whether or not to accept rewards in a series of studies in which their outcomes vary relative to their social partners.
The influence of social factors like group membership and individual factors like personality will also be investigated. The results of this research will clarify how decision-making is affected by unequal outcomes.”186 Previous research by the investigator on this project had found that “Chimpanzees respond with temper tantrums if they do not get what they desire,” and that “Capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees both respond negatively to distributional inequity.”187
184 Recovery.gov, Grants – Award Summary, “Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc., Award No. 0847351,
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?Award
IDSUR=43460&AwardType=Grants.
185 Website of the National Science Foundation, “CAREER: Understanding Responses to Inequitable Outcomes in Non-Human Primates,” Abstract Number #0847351,
http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0847351&WT.z_pims_id=5423.
186 Website of the National Science Foundation, “CAREER: Understanding Responses to Inequitable Outcomes in
Non-Human Primates,” Abstract Number #0847351,
http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0847351&WT.z_pims_id=5423.
187 Brosnan, Sarah F., “Nonhuman Species’ Reactions to Inequity and their
Implications for Fairness,” Social Justice Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2006,
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcbs/pdf/Brosnan%20SJR%202006.pdf, accessed July 21, 2010

[The entry for Project 28, below, has the accompanying picture of an apparently frightened chimpanzee associated with it. I suspect the actual authors don’t know the difference between apes and monkeys.]

28. Monkeys Get High for Science (Winston-Salem, NC) - $144,541
Researchers at Wake Forest University think that, in at least one case, it is good to monkey around with stimulus dollars. The Department of Health and Human Services has sent $144,541 to the Winston-Salem college to see how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine. The project, titled “Effect of Cocaine Self-Administration on Metabotropic Glutamate Systems,” would have the monkeys self-administer the drugs while researchers monitor and study their glutamate levels. 224 When asked how studying drug-crazed primates would improve the national economy, a Wake Forest University Medical School Spokesman said, “It's actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn't been for the stimulus funding. And it’s a good job.” He added, “It’s also very worthwhile research.”225
224 Recovery.Gov, Grants – Award Summary, “Wake Forest University,” Award Number 1R03DA026590-01A1,
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardI
dSur=8352&AwardType=Grants
225 Niolet, Benjamin, “Stimulus Funds Pay for Monkey Research in NC,” McClatchy, March 8, 2010,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/08/89974/stimulus-funds-pay-for-monkey.html?storylink=addthis.

Project 69, like Project 93 just below it, is an example of using public funds to convince the public that using public funds for animal-based research is justified. In other words, propaganda. You are being taxed to pay for a program to convince journalists to write nice things about questionable research. Wake Forest University is particularly well known in certain circles for its addiction research with monkeys and rats. There are currently 29 ongoing publicly-funded projects on addiction in animals there, costing taxpayers about $10 million a year.

69. Addiction Studies Program for Journalists (Winston-Salem, NC) - $266,505
Wake Forest University is using $266,505 in stimulus funds to continue its annual science education workshops for reporters.444 “These workshops employ an interactive, problem-based format that engages the skills and knowledge of working journalists. Participants will have ample time to interact with program faculty — internationally known scientists, teachers of journalism, award-winning journalists from the print and broadcast media, and others who have made important contributions to the drug-abuse field.”445
444 Recovery.gov, Grants – Award Summary, “Wake Forest University,” Award Number 2R25DA01271811,
http://origins.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?Award
IdSur=20213&AwardType=Grants.
445 Website of the Addiction Studies Program, http://www.addictionstudies.org/inag-workshop.html, accessed July 25, 2010.

Project 93 should remove any doubt about the National Institutes of Health’s primary motivation.

93. NIH Spends Stimulus Money to Promote the Impact of Its Stimulus Projects (Silver Spring, MD) - $363,760546
When does a federal project cross the line from simple self-promotion into propaganda? Palladian Partners Inc. of Silver Spring, Maryland was awarded $363,760 to promote the good things being done with stimulus money by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).547 The project requires Palladian to develop “web-based real life stories that underscore job and infrastructure creation and accelerated ARRA research findings.”548 Indeed, interested citizens can go to the NIH Recovery Act website and learn about the $12.2 million stimulus grant NIH is spending on “Facebook for Scientists”549 and another story on how “Researchers Pull in Big Bucks Under Recovery Act.”550
546 Recovery.gov, Contracts – Award Summary, “Palladian Partners, Inc.,” Award Number HHSN263200700630PMod#5,
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardI
dSur=21694&AwardType=Contracts.
547 USAspending.gov, all awards for Palladian Partners Inc.,
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?query=HHSN263200700630P&Search=Search, accessed July 24, 2010.
548 FedBizOpps.gov, “Development of Web-base real life stories,” Solicitation Number NIH1242467,
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=b2d36d38410e39065dbf2f1e34bd1f48&_cview=1.
549 Purdy, Michael, “Stimulus Grant Establishes ‘Facebook for Scientists,” November 4, 2009,
http://recovery.nih.gov/stories/facebookforscientists.php, Accessed July 20, 2010
550 Macron, Doug, “Rockefeller, OSU miRNA Researchers Pull in Big Bucks Under Recovery Act,” Website of the
National Institutes of Health, October 22, 2009, http://recovery.nih.gov/stories/rockefeller_osu_mirna.php.

95. A Better Way to Freeze Rat DNA (Columbia, MO) - $180,935
For many years, scientists have found laboratory rats to be good test subjects for studying human disease. One problem, however, is that once you deep-freeze rat sperm, it apparently becomes less useful when unfrozen. Solution: study the freezing process for rat sperm. Calling it an “urgent need,”558 scientists at the University of Missouri received stimulus funds “to develop freezing protocols for epididymal rat
sperm which would allow reconstitution of genetics by using standard artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization methods.”559 The scientists note that “[o]ver the last few years, our laboratory has generated ample amount of data related with optimal sperm handling.”560
558 Stimuluswatch.org Website. http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/42256/rat-sperm-cryobanking-forgenetic-
resources, accessed July 17, 2010.
559 Stimuluswatch.org, http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/42256/rat-sperm-cryobaning-for-geneticresources, accessed July 17, 2010.
560 Recovery.gov, Grants – Award Summary, “University of Missouri System,” Award Number 1R21RR02591301,
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/page/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=42256&AwardType=Grants.

This all got me to wondering about the total cost to taxpayers for the animal-based projects funded by the stimulus bill at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

It turns out that stimulus dollars went to 174 projects and that 81 of them, more or less (sometimes it is a little tricky to determine) were animal-based.

These projects generally amount to a waste of public dollars if the goal is the improvement in treating or preventing human diseases and other maladies. This claim is science-based. Claims to the contrary are faith-based or anecdotal.

The few published meta-analyses and systematic reviews of animal-based research’s contribution to improvements in human health care have uniformly reported that there is a wide disconnect between animal-based research findings and patient care. The reasons suggested for this have included poor research design, a failure to avoid bias, a lack of standardization between labs (something that is an accepted norm in human-based studies), and the inherent confounds associated with the biological differences between species. In the jargon of the industry, animal studies have a dismal translation rate.

See for example:

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I; Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group. BMJ. 2004.

Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? Ioannidis JP. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006.

Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, Hutton J, Altman DG. PLoS One. 2009.

The fact that there are few similarly well-designed studies making contrary claims about the results of the animal-based research enterprise is suggestive. This absence of science-based proof that animal studies produce benefit is unlikely to be the result of no one trying to prove that the animal studies are productive. More likely, the people who have attempted to do so have been embarrassed into silence by their results.

A larger more insidious problem is that those receiving public funding to conduct the studies have zero interest in looking critically at their results. That is, there is a strong bias to maintain the status quo no matter how much pain and suffering the animals experience and no matter how little it helps humans. The house mortgage must be paid.

Below are the approximately 81 out of the 174 projects at UW-Madison funded by the stimulus bill. Given what we know about the unlikelihood of them doing any good, most could have been included in Coburn and McCain’s list.

3R01GM069420-05S1
MODULAR DESIGN OF SYNTHETIC TRANSCRIPTIONAL REGULATORS [in fruit flies]
ANSARI, ASEEM Z
$125,437

3R01DK066369-05S1
GENETIC MAPPING / BETA-CELL DECOMPOSITION IN TYPE 2 DIABETES [in mice]
ATTIE, ALAN D
$58,000

3R01DK066349-05S1
NEUROVASCULAR AND BEHAVORIAL RESPONSE TO CYSTITIS [in mice]
BJORLING, DALE E
$76,099

3R01DC004428-09S1
CHARACTERIZATION AND TREATMENT OF THE SCARRED VOCAL FOLD [in rats]
BLESS, DIANE M
$177,086

3R01AI066219-05S1
MATERNAL MICROCHIMERISM AND NEONATAL TOLERANCE [in mice]
BURLINGHAM, WILLIAM J
$10,092

3R01AI066219-05S2
MATERNAL MICROCHIMERISM AND NEONATAL TOLERANCE [in mice]
BURLINGHAM, WILLIAM J
$107,413

3R01DK056238-08S2
THE SHH-GLI PATHWAY REGULATES PROSTATE GROWTH [in mice]
BUSHMAN, WADE A.
$99,458

3R01DK056238-08S1
THE SHH-GLI PATHWAY REGULATES PROSTATE GROWTH [in mice]
BUSHMAN, WADE A.
$5,661

3P51RR000167-48S2
WISCONSIN NATIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER SUPPORT
CADWALLADER, MARTIN
$921,484

3R01HL086939-03S1
VASCULAR COLLAGEN ACCUMULATION & MECHANICAL MECHANISMS IN PULMONARY HYPERTENSION [in mice]
CHESLER, NAOMI C
$22,643

5R21MH086014-02
[F-18]MEFWAY PET TO MEASURE 5-HT1A RECEPTORS IN GENE X ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS [in rhesus monkeys]
CHRISTIAN, BRADLEY
$218,870
“In this proposal, our goal is to use PET imaging of the serotonin system in the nonhuman primate model to study the effects of prenatal stress on the serotonin 5HT1A receptor. Particularly, to examine if carriers with a short variation of the gene for encoding the serotonin transporter are more profoundly affected by prenatal stress than those with long gene variation.”

3R01HD057064-01A2S1
GESTATIONAL STRESS AND IMPAIRED IRON HOMEOSTASIS IN THE YOUNG [rhesus monkey] INFANT
COE, CHRISTOPHER L.
$141,834
[Chris Coe has stated that he opposes the creation of a citizens’ panel to consider the treatment of monkeys at the university and the ethics of primate experimentation.]

3R01EY008768-17S1
MOLECULAR STUDIES OF RETINAL DEGENERATION IN DROSOPHILA [fruit flies]
COLLEY, NANSI J.
$210,692

5R21NS065352-02
A FORWARD GENETIC APPROACH TO STUDYING GLIOMA FORMATION AND THERAPY RESISTANCE [in mice]
COLLIER, LARA S
$207,388

1P30DC010754-01
P30 APPLICATION [to hire Michelle Ciucci to experiment on rats for the] "VOICE AND SWALLOW NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH CORE"
CONNOR, NADINE PATTAKOS
$398,770

3R01DC008149-03S3
AGING, EXERCISE AND MECHANISMS OF ALTERED TONGUE FUNCTION [in rats]
CONNOR, NADINE PATTAKOS
$235,483

3R01DC008149-03S1
AGING, EXERCISE AND MECHANISMS OF ALTERED TONGUE FUNCTION [in rats]
CONNOR, NADINE PATTAKOS
$8,862

5R01HL095120-02
THE ROLE OF ZINC FINGER GENES IN LEUKEMOGENESIS [in mice]
DOVAT, SINISA
$367,370

5R01CA063677-16
ANALYSES OF PROGRESSION TO COLON CANCER IN A SPECTRUM OF PATHWAYS [in mice and rats]
DOVE, WILLIAM FRANKLIN
$367,370

3R01CA125591-03S1
THE PIRC RAT, A NEWLY GENERATED MODEL FOR FAMILIAL HUMAN COLON CANCER
DOVE, WILLIAM FRANKLIN
$31,025

3R01DK066600-05S1
BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF IRON RESPONSIVE ELEMENTS [in mice]
EISENSTEIN, RICHARD S.
$123,240

3R01DC001362-18S1
INTRACELLULAR CALCIUM IN HAIR CELLS [in gerbils, rats, and “birds”]
FETTIPLACE, ROBERT
$148,632

3U19AI070503-04S1
MECHANISMS OF RHINOVIRUS-INDUCED EXACERBATIONS OF ASTHMA [in humans and in mice]
GERN, JAMES E.
$603,162

5R01HD037120-07
UTERINE NK CELLS IN PRIMATE PREGNANCY
GOLOS, THADDEUS G
$591,326

3R21HD053925-02S1
A PRIMATE IN VITRO IMPLANTATION MODEL
GOLOS, THADDEUS G
$149,558
[Ted Golos has stated that he opposes the creation of a citizens’ panel to consider the treatment of monkeys at the university and the ethics of primate experimentation.]

5R01CA077494-12
WKY RAT GENETIC MODEL FOR BREAST CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY
GOULD, MICHAEL N
$319,318

5R01HL077196-06
TITIN SPLICING MECHANISMS AND PHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS [for rats]
GREASER, MARION L
$363,06

3R01AR053815-12S1
PROCOLLAGEN C-PROTEINASE ENHANCERS: IN VIVO ROLES [in mice and zebra fish]
GREENSPAN, DANIEL S
$416,434

3R01GM076244-04S1
ROLE FOR ZIC GENES IN THE DEVELOPING MIDBRAIN [in zebra fish]
GRINBLAT, YEVGENYA
$136,466

5R21AI076707-02
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN NKT CELLS AND MYELOID DCS WITHIN MURINE SCID [severe combined immunodeficient mice] HOSTS
GUMPERZ, JENNY E
$185,625

1RC1DK086831-01
METAGENETIC ANALYSIS OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR [in the gut of the in the moth, the tobacco hornworm]
HANDELSMAN, JO E
$475,105

3R01GM058038-10S1
MECHANISMS OF JUNCTIONAL ACTIN RECRUITMENT IN C. ELEGANS [a small worm]
HARDIN, JEFFREY D
$50,240

3R21NS061150-01A2S1
VOLTAGE IMAGING WITH GENETICALLY ENCODED OPTICAL PROBES [in fresh living mouse brain tissue]
JACKSON, MEYER B.
$87,096

3P01HL088594-02S1
ROLE OF EOSINOPHILS IN AIRWAY INFLAMMATION AND REMODELING [in mice?]
JARJOUR, NIZAR N
$8,934
$8,934 [two matching amounts]

5R01EY018567-02
AQUEOUS HUMOR DYNAMICS STUDIES IN VIVO [using rhesus monkeys] AND IN VITRO
KAUFMAN, PAUL LEON
$371,073

3R21EY018370-01A2S1
EXTRA-LENTICULAR ASPECTS OF ACCOMMODATION AND PRESBYOPIA [in rhesus monkeys]
KAUFMAN, PAUL LEON
$389,400

R01AI069274-04S1
PANDEMIC POTENTIAL OF H5N1 INFLUENZA VIRUSES [in mice, ferrets, and monkeys]
KAWAOKA, YOSHIHIRO
$499,900

1R01AI077593-01A2
MOLECULAR PATHOGENESIS OF EBOLAVIRUS INFECTION [in monkeys]
KAWAOKA, YOSHIHIRO
$459,686

3R01HL068673-07S1
TGF-BETA IN INTIMAL HYPERPLASIA AFTER VASCULAR BYPASS [in rats]
$59,013

3R01HL068673-06S1
TGF-BETA IN INTIMAL HYPERPLASIA AFTER VASCULAR BYPASS [in rats]
KENT, K CRAIG
$59,946

3R21EY017970-02S1
NOVEL MITOCHONDRIAL TARGETED NEUROPROTECTANTS FOR GLAUCOMA [in rats?]
LEVIN, LEONARD A
$222,750

3R01DK071801-04S3
MASS SPECTROMETRIC STUDIES OF NEUROPEPTIDES IN FEEDING [crabs]
LI, LINGJUN
$26,000

3R01HL049210-10S1
ENDOTHELIUM-DERIVED VASODILATORS IN [sheep] PREGNANCY
MAGNESS, RONALD R
$9,478
and
$9,477

1RC2CA149023-01
NON-PEPTIDIC HIV VACCINE [testing in rhesus monkeys infected with SHIV]
MALKOVSKY, MIROSLAV
$500,000

5R01DA026067-02
PIN1 IN SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY AND TRANSLATION [in mice?]
MALTER, JAMES S
$371,250

3R01DK040428-21S1
CALCIUM REGULATION OF SECRETION IN NEUROENDOCRINE [rat?] CELLS
MARTIN, THOMAS F. J.
$37,900

3P01NS042803-07S1
ALEXANDER DISEASE [in mice]: CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MECHANISMS
MESSING, ALBEE
$38,907

3P01NS042803-07S2
ALEXANDER DISEASE [in mice]: CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MECHANISMS
MESSING, ALBEE
$88,917

5R01AG033493-02
TRANSTHYRETIN'S REGULATORY ROLE IN BETA-AMYLOID AGGREGATION AND TOXICITY [in mice]
MURPHY, REGINA M. et al.
$431,190

5R01HL093282-02
BIOMATERIALS FOR LOCAL REGULATION OF GROWTH FACTOR SIGNALING [in mice?]
MURPHY, WILLIAM L
$359,144

3R01DK042835-16S1
PARENTERAL NUTRITION: INTESTINAL METABOLISM/ADAPTATION [in rats and mice]
NEY, DENISE M
$99,844

3R01DK062388-08S2
ROLE OF STEAROYL-COA DESATURASE IN [mouse] METABOLISM
NTAMBI, JAMES M.
$91,570

3R24RR021745-04S1
IMMUNOGENETICS OF PRIMATES USED FOR BIOTERROR RESEARCH
OCONNOR, DAVID H
$79,923
[David O’Connor has stated that he opposes the creation of a citizens’ panel to consider the treatment of monkeys at the university and the ethics of primate experimentation.]

5R21DK078889-02
CHARACTERIZATION OF ENDODERM STEM CELLS DERIVED FROM MURINE [mouse] ESCS
ODORICO, JON S
$218,870

3R21HL089679-01A2S1
DIRECTED CELL FUSION FOR THE TREATMENT OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION [in mice]
OGLE, BRENDA M
$204,225

1RC1DK086410-01
QUANTITATIVE MITOCHONDRIAL PROTEOMICS OF HEALTHY AND DIABETIC MICE
PAGLIARINI, DAVID
$475,423

2R01AR045173-05
BONE CELL REGULATION OF THE VITAMIN D RECEPTOR GENE [in mice and humans]
PIKE, J. WESLEY
$360,338

3R01DK074993-03S2
MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF RANKL ACTIVATION IN [mouse] OSTEOBLASTS
PIKE, J. WESLEY
$96,192

3R01DK074993-03S1
MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF RANKL ACTIVATION IN [mouse] OSTEOBLASTS
PIKE, J. WESLEY
$617,681

3R01DC003693-06S1
MULTISENSORY PROCESSING IN THE BEHAVING PREPARATION [a euphemism for an animal surgically implanted with instruments or experimentally mutilated, in this case rhesus monkeys]
POPULIN, LUIS C
$140,521

3R01CA109462-04S1
ROLE OF AN RNA-BINDING PROTEIN IN [mouse] MAMMARY CARCINOGENESIS
ROSS, JEFFREY
$238,732

5R21DA027191-02
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SIGMA-2 RECEPTOR [in rats]
RUOHO, ARNOLD EINO
$222,750

3R01DK080345-02S1
SYMPATHETIC REGULATION OF AMPK IN THE CONTROL OF NON-SHIVERING THERMOGENESIS [in mice]
SAUPE, KURT WILLIAM
$42,152

3R01AA010079-13S1
MODERATE LEVEL PRENATAL ALCOHOL EXPOSURE IN PRIMATES
SCHNEIDER, MARY L
$331,832

3P30HD003352-43S1
WISCONSIN CENTER ON MENTAL RETARDATION: CORE SUPPORT [including “rodent models”]
SELTZER, MARSHA MAILICK
$339,831

3P30HD003352-43S2
WISCONSIN CENTER ON MENTAL RETARDATION: CORE SUPPORT [including “rodent models”]
SELTZER, MARSHA MAILICK
$304,885

5R01EY018179-02
CYP1B1 AND RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY (in mice? and rats?)
SHEIBANI, NADER
$362,521

5R21DK082888-02
INVESTIGATING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN WNT AND FGF SIGNALING IN PROSTATE INITIATION [in mice?]
SUN, XIN
$185,625

3R01AI059804-05S2
DIRECT REGULATION OF CD8 T CELLS BY INTERFERON GAMMA
SURESH, MARULASIDDAPPA
$12,429

3R01AI059804-05S1
DIRECT REGULATION OF CD8 T CELLS BY INTERFERON GAMMA [in mice]
SURESH, MARULASIDDAPPA
$8,862

3R01HD041590-09S1
GENETIC CONTROL OF MYELINATION BY EGR2 AND NAB PROTEINS [in mice? and rats?]
SVAREN, JOHN P
$8,862

3R01HD041590-08S1
GENETIC CONTROL OF MYELINATION BY EGR2 AND NAB PROTEINS [in mice? and rats?]
SVAREN, JOHN P
$8,862

5R21AI081120-02
ELEMENTAL IMAGING OF M. TUBERCULOSIS DURING INFECTION [in mice]
TALAAT, ADEL M
$181,745

3R01HD011355-26S1
HYPOTHALAMIC CONTROL OF PUBERTY [in rhesus monkeys]
TERASAWA GRILLEY, EI
$320,955

3R01HD011355-26S2
HYPOTHALAMIC CONTROL OF PUBERTY [in rhesus monkeys]
TERASAWA GRILLEY, EI
$41,283

3R01DC004336-11S1
ENGINEERING THE VOCAL FOLD EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX [in rabbits? rats? and dogs?]
THIBEAULT, SUSAN L
$321,877

3R01GM061753-09S1
NITOGEN REDUCTION AND XENOBIOTIC RESPONSE [in humans and guinea pigs]
TREPANIER, LAUREN A
$250,171

3R01HL086975-02S1
REAL-TIME MRI-GUIDED RF ABLATION OF CARDIAC TACHYARRHYTHMIAS [in pigs]
UNAL, ORHAN
$180,457

3R01CA112192-03S1
REAL-TIME ULTRASONIC MONITORING OF TUMOR ABLATION [in woodchucks, rabbits, and pigs]
VARGHESE, TOMY
$207,946

1R03NS067274-01
PPAR-GAMMA AS A THERAPEUTIC TARGET AFTER TBI [traumatic brain injury] [in mice]
VEMUGANTI, RAGHU
$74,250

3R03DC008884-03S1
PROTEOMIC PROFILING OF THE VOCAL FOLD EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX [in rats]
WELHAM, NATHAN
$37,125

3R01GM050942-13S1
FUNCTION OF 3'UTRS [in worm and frog cells?]
WICKENS, MARVIN P.
$473,266

3R21HD057684-01A2S1
NEUROENDOCRINE CONTROL OF PATERNAL CARE IN THE COMMON MARMOSET
ZIEGLER, TONI ELAINE
$11,189

3R01NS023808-20S1
MECHANISMS UNDERLYING RHYTHM GENERATION IN IDENTIFIED SPINAL INTERNEURONS IN MICE
ZISKIND-CONHAIM, LEA
$109,890

I'll let you add it all up.

PRIMATES USED FOR BIOTERROR RESEARCH

3R24RR021745-04S1
IMMUNOGENETICS OF PRIMATES USED FOR BIOTERROR RESEARCH
OCONNOR, DAVID H
$79,923

Dr. David O’Connor has stated that he opposes the creation of a citizens’ panel to consider the treatment of monkeys at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (or anywhere in Dane County) and the ethics of primate experimentation. During his testimonies -- he made public statements to the Dane County Health and Human Needs Committee and the Dane County Executive Committee in opposition to Resolution 35 -- he went on at length about the "necessity" of monkeys for AIDS research. (I have challenged a number of his statements.)

But he never brought up the fact that he uses monkeys -- and promotes the use of monkeys -- in bio-warfare research. He received almost $80,000 in stimulus funds to further his research in this area. Apparently, at least some small part of it was used to employ a newly graduated high school senior in his lab.

You can read more about his project on the NIH RePORTER website.

A less blunt description for the public as well as information about the way his grant "helped" in the economic "recovery" is available at Recovery.Gov: Track the Money.

The Biology of Iron

Yes, sometimes the animals are like us and other times they are different than us. One of my early professors taught me that we can learn as much sometimes from how animals are different from us as they are the same. In many cases, as in the study iron deficiency, my topic area, the biology of iron is the same in a monkey, and a rat, and a human, and one can learn a lot from it. -- Chris Coe, Dane County Supervisors Executive Committee, July 8, 2010. (My emphasis.)

I mentioned in my last post that Dr. Coe's assertion concerning the biology of iron was worth looking at a little more closely.

Iron is a nutritional requirement for a number of species, perhaps even most, if not all. This isn't surprising given the fact that iron is a commonly occurring element and that life on earth has been exposed to iron throughout evolutionary time.

But needing and using iron has not led to a common fixed biology of iron, despite Coe's assertion.

His claim is far-reaching and inaccurate. Not only is monkey, rat, and human iron biology different, as would be generally assumed given these species' evolutionary separation, but, as it turns out, even within each "species" there is variability in the biology underpinning iron requirements and metabolism. ["Species" is inaccurate in this context. There are many species of rats and monkeys. Biomedical researchers using animals frequently and routinely interpret results from a small experimental group of animals of the same species with overly broad claims about the entire species or even multiple Families, as in claims about "monkeys" a generic term which encompasses somewhere around 500 species.]

Consider first the biology of iron in rats of the same species but from different strains.

The following passage is from Strain differences in inbred rats: influence of strain and diet on haematological traits. Hackbarth H, Burow K, Schimansky G. Lab Anim. 1983 Jan.

So what about the biology of iron in the approximate 500 monkey species? It is quite variable. But to be fair to Coe, I'm sure he doesn't have an inkling about the iron requirements or the biology of iron in all of these distinct species; he was probably referring to one of the three species most commonly used: rhesus monkeys, long-tailed macaques (aka crab-eating macaques or cynomolgus monkeys), and common marmosets, (or maybe even squirrel monkeys, species he once erroneously prophesied would "play an increasing important role in research." (See Rosenblum LA, Coe CL Handbook of squirrel monkey research. Plenum Press. 1985. vii.)

The standard text: Nutrient Requirements of Nonhuman Primates: Second Revised Edition 2003 (Committee on Animal Nutrition, National Research Council, Ad Hoc Committee on Nonhuman Primate Nutrition) notes that:

Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus), [like lemurs], develop hemosiderosis in captivity; it is also believed to be caused by high-Fe diets. When a diet lower in Fe (100 mg·kg-1) was fed, liver Fe was only one-tenth that of animals fed a high-Fe diet (500 mg·kg-1), demonstrating that lowering the Fe content of the monkey diet can reduce the risk of hemosiderosis. (p 100)

In Comparative haematological and plasma chemistry values in purpose-bred squirrel, cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys, Matsuzawa T, Nagai Y. Journal of Comparative Haematology International, 1994, the authors write (in regard to iron-related measures only):

The results indicated that squirrel, rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys have essentially biologically similar values for all of the parameters examined. However, haemoglobin level, ... in cynomolgus monkeys [was] statistically lower than those of rhesus monkeys. ... [H]aemoglobin level, haematocrit, ... in cynomolgus monkeys were statistically lower than those of squirrel monkeys.

In fact, iron biology even varies between human populations.

Correlates of anemia in American blacks and whites: the REGARDS Renal Ancillary Study. Zakai NA, McClure LA, Prineas R, Howard G, McClellan W, Holmes CE, Newsome BB, Warnock DG, Audhya P, Cushman M. American Journal of Epidemiology 2009 169(3)

ABSTRACT

For unclear reasons, anemia is more common in American blacks than whites. The authors evaluated anemia prevalence (using World Health Organization criteria) among 19,836 blacks and whites recruited in 2003–2007 for the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Renal Ancillary study and characterized anemia by 3 anemia-associated conditions (chronic kidney disease, inflammation, and microcytosis). They used multivariable models to assess potential causes of race differences in anemia. Anemia was 3.3-fold more common in blacks than whites, with little attenuation after adjusting for demographic variables, socioeconomic factors, and comorbid conditions. Increasing age, residence in the US southeast, lower income, vascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, and never smoking were associated with anemia. Age, diabetes, and vascular disease were stronger correlates of anemia among whites than blacks (P < 0.05). Among those with anemia, chronic kidney disease was less common among blacks than whites (22% vs. 34%), whereas inflammation (18% vs. 14%) and microcytosis (22% vs. 11%) were more common. In this large, geographically diverse cohort, anemia was 3-fold more common in blacks than whites with different characteristics and correlates. Race differences in anemia prevalence were not explained by the factors studied. Future research into the causes and consequences of anemia in different racial groups is needed.

Apparently, Coe's claim that the biology of iron is the same in monkeys, rats, and humans is not accurate or at least requires much qualification. Stating simply that the biology of iron is the same was misleading and apparently something other than a science-based claim.

The Party Line

It’s part of the script. When the public questions a lab’s use and treatment of animals, lab spokespersons intone a litany of internal committees, federal and state agencies, and private accrediting bodies as evidence that any concern is based on ignorance, probably as a result of fabrications and brainwashing (by people like me.)

For instance, Chris Coe, director of the Harlow lab testified at the Dane County Executive committee in opposition to Resolution 35. This is a transcript, beginning at about 51:08. (I know it’s not all on point, but it’s interesting, and I can't resist the opportunity to comment, so I’ve included his entire statement here.)

My name is Chris Coe. I’ve been a resident of Madison for twenty-five years. I’m a professor at the university. I raised my family here. I consider myself to be a compassionate and ethical individual [as have many villains], and I am also a biomedical researcher who happens to study both animals and humans. So I can bring to the table the perspective of why one might study some questions, some problems in humans and find it advantageous to study other questions and issues in animals. I do both.

It was of interest to me that the first speaker tonight felt so kindly disposed to Sterling Johnson and the gerontology researchers, because I too know Sterling Johnson, and I work with him, and we collaborate on animal research using neuroimaging, studying the biology of aging, in ways that we can’t do the same type of research on autopsy tissue. As beneficial as that may be, when one is interested in mechanisms, in our case the benefits of certain types of diets for slowing down brain aging, delaying dementia and Alzheimer’s [Alzheimer's is a uniquely human disease], it can be better done in a study with animals than in a case example of a single person. [The "first speaker" is involved in a long-term epidemiological study of victims of Alzheimer's and their families backed-up by postmortem studies of their brains, research that actually has the potential to make a difference.]

I’m here to ask you to table and set aside this motion because there is more implicit, hidden in it than meets the eye. Just even the text, the words used, as you’ve heard tonight by half, from half the people in the audience, they see this not as an exploration, a winnowing and sifting of facts. They are advocates of a certain position. They see this as an opportunity not to just explore the issues but to advance their particular point of view. [Coe etal are arguing their very biased position. Supporters on the other hand are arguing that a panel of citizens should consider arguments and evidence from both sides.]

This is a thinly veiled attempt to have a propaganda coup. Let’s be realistic. You guys are being manipulated. [By Coe.]

As you’ve heard from many of the speakers tonight, today it is primates, but most of them are abolitionists, they do not endorse the study of any type of animal research. Will we be sitting here next year with a different sort of resolution advocating that we end research on farm animals? On dogs and cats? [This is classic misdirection. Resolution 35 would create a panel to consider the issue. Coe misleadingly or erroneously implies that the question before the committee was whether or not the research is ethical.] Lots of the research at the university is focused not solely on monkeys, but involves cows, horses, and the improvement of the health and well-being of our pet animals as well. [And if you question research on monkeys, what's next, questions about research on cows? Why wouldn't that be a reasonable question?]

I do animal research; I do human research; I do them simultaneously. I study the relationship between nutrition and health. I study iron deficiency, one of the leading nutritional deficits worldwide. It is true that there are one billion people worldwide who are anemic, but there are still questions that need to be understood better through animal studies. [Coe's funding would help more people if it was redirected into iron supplements for the poor.]

Since I do both animal and human research, I can tell you first hand that the regulation and oversight of my animal studies is greater than of my human research. [He really bore down on this.]

There are questions I can learn of the epidemiology research as one of the speakers here tonight suggested, but those are just associations. If I’m interested in mechanisms, pathways, that type of research is better done in an animal model. [Who gives a hoot what he is interested in? If the idea is to help people, then his interests come in a very distant fourth place.]

Yes, sometimes the animals are like us and other times they are different than us. One of my early professors taught [misled] me that we can learn as much sometimes from how animals are different from us as they are the same. In many cases, as in the study iron deficiency, my topic area, the biology of iron is the same in a monkey, and a rat, and a human, and one can learn a lot from it. [Hum... that will require some looking in to.]

I could attempt to wow you with all of the great findings from stem cells, from vaccines, and convince you that there have been major discoveries and advances from that type of work, but that’s not the issue tonight. [And he would have failed.]

The real issue tonight is what will the formation of this committee accomplish, and as several have suggested, I don’t think it will accomplish very much; it will not facilitate the dialog; instead it will put a line in the ground that further separates half of this room from the other half when in fact we need greater communication and dialog and discourse rather than a committee that in a sense codifies the difference between the two camps. [Over the years, Coe has repeatedly been asked to participate in public discussions and debates about the use of animals at the university and has consistently and flatly refused.]

Thank you for your attention.

Dr. Coe makes many misleading and confused statements above, but he is emphatic on a particular point: the regulation and oversight of animal studies is greater than of human research.

Now read this (you have to follow the link):

Regulation and Review of Animal Research
Eric Sandgren, VMD,Ph.D., Director, UW–Madison Animal Care and Use Program

Now consider what Sandgren says when he’s not writing to convince the public that all is well:

Academic Staff Ad Hoc Committee on the Research Enterprise White Paper January 21, 2010

Charge To assess whether the present UW-Madison Research Enterprise structure is capable of addressing current and future issues, or whether an alternative organizational structure such as that proposed by the Chancellor and the Provost is needed.

Members Sandra Austin-Phillips (Biotechnology Center)
Richard Brown (Research Animal Resources Center)
Jenny Dahlberg (Neuroscience Training Program)
Deborah Faupel (Genome Center of Wisconsin)
Sarah Mason (Wisconsin Center for Education Research)
Alice Pulvermacher (Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies)
Noel Radomski (Chair, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education)

APPENDIX K
UW-Madison Animal Care and Use Program Needs
Eric Sandgren, VMD, PhD
Associate Professor of Pathobiological Sciences
Acting Director, UW-Madison Animal Care and Use Program
The request for support of the UW-Madison Animal Program is outlined in detail in the document submitted by Dr. Bill Mellon. Key aspects of this request and my analysis of risk are summarized below....

..... Risk analysis...

Should we fail to correct deficiencies that have been identified at the campus level, and that also have been identified by USDA, OLAW, and AAALAC, we risk additional USDA fines, an OLAW investigation, loss of AAALAC accreditation, and loss of PHS research funding. The bad publicity that accompanies Program failures is intense and nation-wide. We also have an ethical responsibility to establish and maintain a strong program.

Examples of failures are available from other institutions. The University of Connecticut had 43 USDA citations over 3 years, paid a $129,500 fine, and had to commit $20 million to upgrade its animal Program. They also agreed to pay $25,000 for additional violations. Other institutions cited and fined from $2000 to $11,400 by the USDA include New York University, Columbia University, University of Nevada-Reno, Northwestern University, and UC-Davis. UCSF received a USDA warning in 1999, was fined $2000 in 2000, then legally challenged the USDA’s most recent citation and settled after much legal maneuvering by agreeing to pay a fine of $92,500. Each incident was accompanied by extensive press coverage.

UW-Madison received a USDA warning in 2004, was fined $6,875 for 24 violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in 2005. This reflected a discount of 75% applied to research institutions, currently allowed by USDA regulations. In September 2005, the Inspector general’s office audited the branch of USDA responsible for enforcement of the AWA. The auditors concluded that the USDA has not been aggressive enough in enforcing actions against violations of the AWA. One recommendation of the IG is to increase fines to $10,000 per violation for research institutions; another is to abolish the 75% discount. If the UW-Madison receives a similar fine in the future, it could total $240,000. The cost in bad publicity will be far higher.

We are under close scrutiny by USDA, OLAW, and AAALAC. We must finish implementing our Animal Program reorganization so that we establish the means to prevent additional violations. We do not want to find ourselves in a position of being forced to do so from the outside.

Clearly, even Sandgren, who usually cites the many agencies as evidence that all is well, knows that all isn’t well. He seems as worried, maybe more worried, by the potential negative publicity than he does about complying with the spirit of the very weak laws and regulations at play.

The claim that the public can be confidant that the animals are being well-cared for because of the regulations is false, apparently knowingly so, as Sandgren's (partial) recitation of problems around the country makes clear.

More undisclosed vested interests

If you haven't done so, be sure to read the lead story in the July 15, 2010 Isthmus: Man over monkey: UW researcher Dr. Paul Kaufman: Scientist believes humans have an ethical obligation to use animals to help their own species. Bill Lueders.

A short response letter appeared in this week's Isthmus:

Amazing advances

I'm glad you wrote about primate research at UW ("Man Over Monkey," 7/16/10), but I wish more emphasis had been given to the amazing medical advances it has generated instead of insinuating that UW just does it for the grant money.

Jess Otis

Whenever I read a letter like this, I wonder about the author. Why didn't Jess Otis mention any of these purported "amazing advances"? So I did a little on line sleuthing.

I can't say definitively of course that the Jess Otis who penned this little letter is the same Jess Otis in the UW-Madison vet school's Comparative Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, but I'll wager she is. It appears that Jess (Jessica) experiments on thirteen-lined ground squirrels in Dr. Hannah Carey's lab.

Summaries of Recent Projects:

Gene expression and signaling pathways in cholesterol and lipoprotein metabolism in hibernation. Lab member: Jessica P. Otis, B.S.
Mammalian hibernators switch from a carbohydrate-based to a lipid-based metabolism during the long winter fast of hibernation. Plasma cholesterol levels increase about 2-fold during the winter months, but the mechanisms responsible for this change and its functional role in hibernator physiology are poorly understood. This project examines gene expression and signaling pathways related to cholesterol, lipoprotein and bile acid metabolism in ground squirrels during the seasonal cycle of feeding and fasting.

Here's a description of part of one of the the experiments this Jess worked on:

METHODS AND MATERIALS...

Animals. All procedures were approved by the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) of both sexes were trapped in the vicinity of Madison, WI. Other squirrels were obtained as pups born in captivity from pregnant females trapped in spring. Squirrels were housed individually at 22°C with a 12:12 h light-dark cycle with free access to water and food (Purina rodent chow 7001, supplemented with sunflower seeds) except for pups born in captivity, which were food-restricted after weaning (12 g chow/day). Prior experience indicated this level of daily intake prevents excessive weight gain, which is common in ground squirrel pups born in captivity, yet allows them to gain weight at a rate similar to wild-caught animals. Squirrels were held in these conditions for at least 1 mo before use in experiments. Summer-active squirrel (SUM) squirrels were collected from the wild in early summer and, based on body mass, were judged to be at least 1 yr old (and therefore had hibernated in the wild for at least one winter). In August, other squirrels were implanted with temperature-sensitive radio telemeters (VitalView S3000; Minimitter, Bend, OR), and Tb was monitored every 2 min during the hibernation season. In September- October, squirrels were transferred to a room maintained at 4°C. The room was dark except for brief periods ... of low lighting once per day to check activity state. Water and food were removed after squirrels began regular bouts of torpor. SUM animals were killed in late July/early August ... after an overnight fast. Hibernating squirrels were killed in one of four states: entering torpor ...; late torpor, ... 7 d in torpor ...; arousing from torpor ... ; and interbout arousal .... Summer squirrels and hibernators ... were killed by decapitation after isoflurane anesthesia, and LT squirrels were decapitated without prior anesthetic. After laparotomy liver tissue was harvested and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen. Nelson, C.J., Otis, J.P., Martin, S.L. and H.V. Carey. 2009. Analysis of the hibernation cycle using LC-MS based metabolomics in ground squirrel liver. Physiological Genomics 37:43-51 [Full Article(PDF)]

If this Jess Otis is the Jess Otis who wrote the letter, then she wasn't forthcoming about her vested interest and bias. I doubt that she actually could name many "amazing advances." And certainly she would be hard pressed to find many if any that have stemmed from Kaufman's research or the research taking place at the primate center.

Maybe an easier task for her, given her area of specialty, would be to name a few amazing advances that have resulted from capturing ground squirrels and killing them. I can't wait.

[If these are two different Jess Otises, then I apologize to the Carey lab Jess Otis for suggesting that she was less than honest for not identifying herself as a UW-Madison vivisector, and I say thank you to the honest other Jess Otis (assuming that he/she isn't involved in animal experimentation) for writing the letter that led me to notice the hideousnesses occurring in the Carey lab.]

Vested Interests, Double-Talk, Ethical Blindness

Two Dane County Committees have listened to testimony and deliberated on County Resolution 35. One modified the original version and eliminated consideration of Covance’s annual use of about 7000 monkeys from the proposed citizens’ advisory panel’s purview, requiring the panel to consider only the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s use of monkeys. The second committee took no action at all, leaving the resolution alive but in parliamentary limbo.

At the first meeting, supporters outnumbered those opposed by about five to one. At the second meeting, supporters still outnumbered those opposed, but not as overwhelmingly. In both cases, the opposition was almost uniformly made up of UW animal researchers and staff.

At the first meeting, an HIV-positive man spoke in opposition, but he said that he knew UW primate vivisector David O’Connor, who’s confusion I have discussed previously. Another person who spoke, Peter C. Christianson, identified himself as a Dane County resident, but did not add that he is on the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Alumni Association or that he is a full time paid lobbyist, or that he is employed by a law firm representing the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). A friend of mine sitting next to him told me that he was playing solitaire on his phone throughout the meeting. Everyone else who spoke in opposition seemed to have a direct financial interest in animal experimentation.

At the second meeting, everyone who spoke in opposition had a direct financial interest in animal experimentation, and most of them had a direct financial interest in primate experimentation.

In the case of O’Connor, he erroneously claimed that a British study of primate experimentation was particularly important because it was completely unbiased, made up of people who, he erroneously claimed, didn’t have a vested interest in primate experimentation (unlike him and most of his colleagues urging the committee to kill the resolution.)

Also at the second meeting, we heard a new line from the university, laid out first by Martin T. Cadwallader. I think most people in attendance felt that he was saying that the public would now be allowed to tour the primate center. You can listen to him here (he starts talking at about 22:50). This is a transcript of his statement:

I’m Martin Cadwallader, and I’m the vice chancellor for research and the dean of the graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The university is not in favor of Resolution 35 as currently written. However, the university proposes to increase opportunities for citizens of Dane County and beyond to learn about our animal research program, raise issues, and engage in dialog.

To this end, we propose a series of forums that would involve research scientists, ethicists, veterinarians, and others engaged in, or interested in, animal research both on and off campus. The purpose would be to provide periodic opportunities to exchange ideas, become aware of the changing federal landscape in research, and provide an open forum on a broad range of animal research topics.

The issues might include: Who funds research of this kind? Are experiments involving animals necessary? Are there alternatives to using animals for research? Who is looking out for the animals? What happens when animals are no longer needed for research projects? What’s the value of research with animals?

In addition, we are committed to offering tours of our primate center, and we encourage you to take a careful look at our website on animal research which provides a great deal of information about the research underway at UW-Madison. It also provides information about our animal care and use program.

Our aim is to make our animal research program more transparent to interested citizens, and to provide valuable information on the concerns and interests of our community.

Following up on this was Deb Hartley, animal technician training coordinator. (Her comments start at approx. 75:05. Below is an excerpt starting at about 75:40)

.... I give lectures, training sessions, and actually tours. We have at the local level, many people coming in for tours. [I] orchestrate that. People that come across the United States from other facilities will come to learn from us our expertise and techniques, and also learn a couple other things about the monkeys. And also that reaches globally, we do international tours or international people and things like that as well.

I do encourage you participate in the tour. It doesn’t take a resolution or a citizens’ act to get into the facility. It is secure, but it is closed, or not closed, but it is secure because we want to protect our animals as well and our staff. I do encourage you to come on the tour, learn what we do....

(78:27) Like I said, anybody can come in. You have to be 18 and older, get your TB test done, bring your paper work, because we want to keep you safe as well. Come on in, and we’ll show you what we have, we are as transparent as possible [unclear] can be, and we’re proud of that.

So, Dean Cadwallader and Deb Hartley appear to have said that the public would be able to tour the primate center.

Cadwallader: “[W]e are committed to offering tours of our primate center.... our aim is to make our animal research program more transparent to interested citizens.”

Hartley: “[A]nybody can come in.”

After Hartley spoke, she was asked in the hall whether she meant what she had seemed to say about a tour, and she said absolutely. She said to email her and she would set it up. So, she was emailed the next day, July 9, but as of July 22, has not responded.

Follow-up inquiries about possible tours were met with stonewalling. All the people who could make a decision seemed to have quickly gone out of town. In a response to a separate inquiry, she sent this:

From: Deborah Hartley
Date: July 14, 2010 10:22:43 AM CDT
Subject: Re: Lab tour

Good Morning,

Due to several staff members out of the office until next week, we will address your questions upon their return.

Thank you for your patience,
Deb

Multiple follow-up inquiries about possible tours finally led to a clear, if mealy-mouthed, NO!

Either Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate School Dean Cadwallader was blowing smoke, or else he has much less say in or control over what happens at the primate center than he believed. [Insider gossip factoid: Insiders claim that the primate center is essentially opaque to RARC oversight.] Either Hartley was lying about the opportunity for tours, or else, and more likely, her perception of the university’s secrecy and aversion to public view and consideration is warped and unconnected to reality.

The primate center is right to be alarmed about the possibility of the public getting to see inside or to critically evaluate their work.

A notable example of primate vivisectors mistaking the public's likely reaction to the realities of the lab environment might be Jane Goodall's and Roger Fouts's tour of SEMA:

In 1986, an underground animal rights group called True Friends broke into SEMA, Inc. [now BIOQUAL], an NIH-funded laboratory in Rockville, Maryland. Scientists there did AIDS research. They had close to 500 apes and monkeys in the laboratory. When True Friends broke in – apparently tipped off by an unhappy employee – they brought video cameras with them. In the classic manner of such break-ins, they were interested in publicizing laboratory conditions. For their purposes, SEMA was perfect.

The AIDS-infected animals were boxed up alone. That meant each in a metal cube, with one small window. These “isolettes” were 40 inches high, 31 inches deep, 26 inches wide. Inside the boxes, animals were rocking back and forth in the blind, ceaseless motion of the mentally ill, of children who are emotionally starved. The resulting videotape was released through people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, among the largest and most aggressive animal advocacy groups in the country. PETA sent the tape to television stations and newspapers. One copy was also sent to Jane Goodall in England.

Goodall’s specialty was chimpanzees. But her long relationship with them made her feel – as Fouts did – responsible. She felt, also, an obligation to speak out on their behalf. She was already in contact with Roger Fouts, and after seeing the tape, she asked him to visit SEMA with her. They were escorted by a top-level NIH administrator. Fouts, who knew caged chimpanzees better than Goodall, was still shocked. “It was a nightmare in there. They had these chimps in metal boxes. One wasn’t even rocking anymore. She was just lying on the floor of her cage. When we walked in, the chimp lifted her head and looked up. It was like those children you see in Somalia, that blank look. They’re not there. And the vet said, ‘See, she’s not screaming,’ and he told the tech to take her out. ‘See, she’s just fine.’ They were holding her like she was a typewriter, and she was just lying there.

Afterward, driving away, Fouts remembers, the government officials began cheerfully remarking that they must be reassured by what they had seen. Clearly, the facility met NIH standards. Fouts and Goodall sat silently in the back of the car. He looked over at her. She was crying, tears dripping off her chin. The experience convinced Fouts that NIH was indifferent to the animals. ... (The Monkey Wars. Deborah Blum. Oxford. 1994. 23-24.)