H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°Improperly sanitized lab tools, lack of research documentation and failure to adhere to veterinarians’ instructions — these are just a few of the alleged violations that led to the suspension of a University of Wisconsin researcher.
UW professor of physiology Michele Basso’s research privileges and protocols were reinstated in March of this year after having been suspended in Feb. 2009. Director of the Campus Animal Program Eric Sandgren said the suspension was a result of a history of violations, many of which were similar. He said while there was no one violation that merited suspension, the history proved too much to allow her to continue her research.
A letter The Isthmus obtained written by UW Research Animal Veterinarian Janet Welter cites five categories of violations ranging from “failure to maintain appropriate animal-related records,” to “conditions that jeopardize the health or well-being of animals.”
Twice in 2003 and again in 2008, monkeys under Basso’s care had screws drilled into their dura, or brain lining, causing abscesses and hemorrhages, the letter said. Other incidents involved giving animals certain medications after being told not to by veterinarians, ignoring instructions to observe animals in compromised conditions and sterilizing lab tools with tap water.
The letter said when it was discovered only tap water was being used, Basso reportedly replied she thought tap water was chlorinated enough to kill off any bacteria.
A response letter from Basso that The Isthmus also obtained said many of these incidents were caused by poor communication between the veterinarians and herself. In response to the tap water claim, Basso said tools are soaked in a sterile chemical solution between uses, and the rinsing with tap water was to remove the dangerous chemicals from the tools before use on monkeys.
She added in the letter there was some discussion of switching from tap water to sterile saline, but she said she thought the force from the tap was necessary to remove the chemicals.
Alliance for Animals Director Rick Bogle said he thought the letter from Welter to Basso revealed two things.
First, UW did not act quickly enough to stop the violations.
Second, Bogle said Basso and her team of researchers may not be qualified to continue their research. He said if they were not able to properly insert screws, he did not know they would be able to perform much more precise procedures.
“I think the clumsiness that was suggested should call into question Basso’s research generally,” Bogle said. “It seemed that she and members of her lab didn’t have very much skill.”
He added he thinks UW reinstated her privileges and protocols primarily because her research brings in over $1 million for the school.
While Bogle said he did not have much confidence in Basso’s ability to return to research, Sandgren said he thought the problems would be alleviated.
He said a major improvement would be Basso’s move from the School of Medicine and Public Health to the Primate center, where there are always veterinarians on call.
“Her work does involve potential complications and when that happens things need to be dealt with right away,” Sandgren said.
IP hash: f151ec33
Let’s not pretend that this issue has something to do with proper lab techniques. (It’s hardly a federal offense to accidentally puncture the dura twice in five years.)
Case in point: Rick Bogle is hardly a qualified critic of proper animal research techniques given that his organization considers it immoral to do ANY research on animals. Maybe the Badger Herald could ask the Alliance for Animals on the best way to prepare a steak dinner since they also consider it immoral to eat animals.
IP hash: 3a22e1b0
jimeallard has apparently not read the veterinary staff’s criticism of Basso’s lab’s problems. And yes, if monkeys’ deaths were unplanned and thus unapproved, it would have to be reported to federal authorities as would any suspended protocol. The APHIS/NIH inspection revealed that Basso’s suspended protocols were not reported, and that to is a violation of federal regulation, though in this case, the violation lies directly with RARC or Mellon’s office.
IP hash: f151ec33
Of course they had to report it to federal authorities and of course the veterinary staff would be critical of Basso. It’s the law, ain’t it?
But none of this addresses my comments.
IP hash: 3a22e1b0
It is a federal offense. The university has been cited in the past, more than once in fact, for failing to give veterinary staff the authority necessary to regulate what occurs in the labs. In this case, apparently, they did not report the deaths, and struggled unsuccessfully to control the lab since at least 2003.
Basso’s problems with the screws happened more than twice. Welter cited monkeys AX25, R99045, and R98045. In one, more than one screw was driven in too far. Her bungling and the resulting chronic health problems of the monkeys, according to Welter, weren’t limited to just the problem with puncturing the dura, which you seem to imply was the full scope of the lab’s problems. It wasn’t, as the Welter letters make very clear. If you are using only the BH article as your source of information, I can understand why you might be mixed up.
Whether or not critics of anything can also be knowledgeable judges of the actions they are criticizing is worth some consideration. I suspect the answer is yes, they can, in spite of your quick implicit claim that they can’t.
IP hash: f151ec33
My point is that it is not at all clear from what has been reported, neither here nor elsewhere, that the alleged problems were the result of actual negligence and poor research methods or whether they merely violated federal rules. The two are not the same.
To make matters worse, the critics in cases like this are often “animal rights” activists who are against animal research as such. This certainly disqualifies them from commenting on proper animal research techniques because they don’t believe in animal research.
Even if, somehow, these activists were knowledgeable and objective on any particular issue, it’s impossible for the reader to know this and he has every reason to suspect a biased viewpoint. Many times the reader is not even told that the supposed “expert” is ideologically opposed to the entire profession he is allegedly critiquing.
It is not being a critic that disqualifies “animal rights” activists, it’s what they’re critical of verses what they they are being asked to critique. E.g., Would Hitler be qualified to comment on a Jewish man’s job performance? Is an “animal rights” activist - i.e., someone who thinks animal research is immoral - qualified to comment on an animal researcher’s job performance?
IP hash: 3a22e1b0
I can only surmise that you have not read the Welter letters when you write: “it is not at all clear from what has been reported, neither here nor elsewhere, that the alleged problems were the result of actual negligence and poor research methods or whether they merely violated federal rules.”
Not following RARC veterinarians’ medical orders is either negligent or willful, take your pick.
And “merely violated federal rules”? Merely???
It appears that the Basso lab could have done nothing that would meet with your disapproval. Fair enough, but then, your opinion on the matter means very little.
My impression is that even critics can recognize sloppiness. Basso’s sloppiness was overt and undeniable. You seem intent on shooting the messenger.