SF Examiner: Animal welfare violations at UCSF

[Guest guest]

Check out this full-page story on animal welfare violations at UCSF! If you

live in SF, please write to your supervisor to encourage them to pursue this

issue. To find out how to contact your supervisor, see

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/ .

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.ucsf.0828w

 

Publication date: 08/28/2002

 

UCSF labs under fire

BY DEBRA MAO

Special to The Examiner

 

More than 8,000 letters and postcards are meticulously filed and stowed

away in two cardboard boxes at the Office of the Clerk of the Board of

Supervisors.

 

Their sole purpose: to urge the board to hold hearings on alleged animal

rights abuses at the University of California, San Francisco.

 

In particular, animal rights activists point to the research of one

scientist -- UCSF physiology professor Dr. Stephen G. Lisberger, who they

claim has conducted " cruel and outdated experiments " on rhesus monkeys for

more than two decades.

 

The postcards are part of a national effort launched by the extremist

animal rights group, In Defense of Animals. To create public furor, the IDA

offers graphic details of Lisberger's experiments: the implantation of metal

plates, steel cylinders and electrodes into the skulls of helpless monkeys.

 

The IDA buried any scientific justification for these procedures in

heaps of propaganda. But beneath the surface of the half-truths, hidden

facts have also come to light.

 

It was reported last month that medical personnel at UCSF Medical Center

had conducted experiments on human patients without acquiring legal consent.

 

And behind the locked doors of UCSF's laboratories, lies another

shameful situation that the government and the biomedical giant may have

been all too willing to overlook.

 

Over the past four years, UCSF, which collects roughly $300 million in

grants from the National Institutes of Health each year, has maintained a

deplorable laboratory animal care track record, ridden with violations of

federal standards from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services

division of the United States Department of Agriculture.

 

The Lisberger fiasco

 

Since 1981, Lisberger has studied the way the brain learns and retains

motor skills. Specifically, he conducts research on eye movements in

primates.

 

Lisberger implants equipment designed to record electrical signals into

the brain of rhesus monkeys and trains the animals to move their eyes for

juice and fluid rewards.

 

When In Defense of Animals -- a group of animal rights advocates on a

nationwide campaign to eliminate the term " pet owner " in favor of " pet

guardian " -- caught wind of Lisberger's methods, they were outraged.

 

" The kind of suffering that he's putting the monkeys through is

particularly egregious, " said Dr. Elliot Katz, president and founder of IDA.

" (Lisberger) represents the worst of the worst, a throwback from the old

days when animal welfare wasn't as much of a concern. "

 

But Dr. Neil Barmack, a senior researcher at the Oregon Health and

Science University, backs Lisberger's methods. For the past 30 years, he has

done the same kind of research.

 

" Scanning (techniques are) not that great, " Barmack said, adding that

recording electrical activity in the brain by implanting electrodes was a

widely used practice.

 

It was another aspect of Lisberger's protocols that proved to be more

troublesome.

 

Following a USDA inspection in September 2000, UCSF suspended one study

in Lisberger's lab for inadequate monitoring of animal water intake and

weight gain. The suspension lasted two weeks.

 

When the USDA returned the next month, Lisberger's protocol was cited

for violating the federal Animal Welfare Act because the " nutritional

requirements for the animals were not met for either food or water. "

 

Although an inspection the following January again ended with a citation

for inadequate monitoring of water intake for Lisberger's monkeys, Dr. Ara

Tahmassian, assistant vice chancellor of research services at UCSF, declared

that the case had been resolved with Lisberger's reinstatement in October

2000.

 

Repeated calls by The Examiner to Lisberger's office were not returned.

 

University blues

 

Enraged animal rights activists are targeting Lisberger for what they

see as cruel and unlawful science. But the bigger picture reveals that the

twice-cited researcher represents the mere tip of the iceberg of UCSF's

problems.

 

Since 1998, the USDA doled out dozens of citations to UCSF for

noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act, ranging from facility problems to

poor personnel training.

 

Particularly shocking was the use of sick and infected animals, and

inappropriately performed surgical procedures, which ended in the death of a

lamb.

 

In January 2001, the USDA slapped UCSF with a $2,000 fine for its

repeated violations. The university paid up, but the citations kept coming.

Oversight failures and inadequate record keeping were still being identified

in the last inspection, conducted in January this year.

 

UCSF remains one of only two research facilities in California not yet

accredited by the American Association of Accreditation for Laboratory

Animal Care.

 

A long-standing goal of the organization has been to help the top 100

institutions receiving federal funds to earn the stamp. As of now, 95 are

accredited. UCSF is notably absent from the list.

 

Though UCSF officials admit mistakes were made, they attribute most of

the problems to old facilities and a staff changeover in 1998.

 

Tahmassian estimates that corrective measures for 90 percent of the

university's violations since 1998 have been put in place, and that the

remaining 10 percent, along with accreditation, will be addressed when a new

facility at Mission Bay is completed. According to the university's Web

site, that could take as long as 15 to 20 years.

 

" I am not downplaying the problems that we've had, " said Tahmassian. " We

have openly admitted to things that should not have happened. "

 

BlasÈ USDA

 

Just why hasn't the federal government cracked down on UCSF?

 

" Research facilities are registered. It's not like a circus, it's not

like there's a license we can pull, " said Jim Rogers, spokesman for the

USDA.

 

In fact, he could not recall a single instance in which a lab was shut

down by the Department of Agriculture.

 

There is no law that requires the USDA to forward inspection reports to

the National Institutes of Health, which pumps millions of taxpayers'

dollars into research labs like UCSF each year.

 

Jackie Calnan, an advocate for humane animal testing and president of

Americans for Medical Progress, agreed that the USDA is not as efficient as

it could be.

 

" The USDA is chronically underfunded and understaffed, " Calnan said.

" (This is) one of the few issues we agree with the animal rights activists

on. "

 

Before the board

 

With federal authorities too weak to crack down, groups now look to San

Francisco to act. But when it comes to federally-funded state entities, The

City's hands may also be tied.

 

In 1998, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that " urged " UCSF

to comply with federal law and use animal testing only when necessary and to

provide adequate training for personnel.

 

What happened?

 

" UCSF basically thumbed their nose at the board, " said Elissa Eckman,

chair of The City's Commission on Animal Welfare and Control, pointing to

the litany of USDA citations incurred since the resolution was approved.

 

Eight thousands postcards later, the commission has worked with

Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to secure an Oct. 1 hearing before committees of

the board.

 

Wary of activists and with little to fear from The City, Tahmassian

expressed his misgivings.

 

" If the hearing is going to be a farce, I'm not quite sure that it's an

appropriate forum. These are complicated issues. "

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com