|
|
|
 |
|
What Columbia Says
It has been a year since the veterinarian blew the whistle and what has happened so far? In a June 30, 2003, letter to the whistleblowing veterinarian, Columbia's Harvey Colten writes:
The investigative committee's findings with respect to the animal welfare issues you raised were that record keeping of animal charts in the ESS was generally below the standards expected at this institution; that, based on records of care, inadequate or questionable veterinary care was rendered to 11 of the 23 animals about which you expressed concerns, as well as to six puppies infected with scabies in an incident reported by another individual; that many of the adverse events in the cases examined were not reported to the IACUC by either the veterinarians on the IACUC or the investigators in their annual reports; and that there did not appear to be any formal criteria in the ICM for requiring necropsy.
The investigative committee found no . significant protocol violations in the conduct of the research in the cases examined. (emphasis ours)
Colten also told the whistleblower that the investigating committee "found no evidence" to support the veterinarian's claim that the Institute of Comparative Medicine (ICM) had taken retaliatory action against her. But, in fact, the whistleblower was told that she was no longer welcome or necessary in the Experimental Surgery Section (ESS), and people refused to speak with her after she complained about the treatment of the animals.
On one hand, Columbia appears to be saying that the problems uncovered by the new veterinarian could be just a matter of poor record-keeping, but Colten also outlines "corrective actions" that the university has taken, indicating that he knows that the law was violated and that animals were cruelly treated in Columbia's laboratories. Colten's claim that no "significant protocol violations" were found is an outrageous insult to the intelligence of laypeople and agency investigators both.
|
|
Disclaimer
|
|
Printer-Friendly
