The United States Department of Agriculture and Cleveland Clinic are investigating an incident in which a neurosurgeon induced an aneurysm in an anaesthetized dog to demonstrate a medical device to sales people, and later destroyed the animal. The incident, which Cleveland Clinic reported to the USDA last week, at the very least violated the Clinic's official rules, but perhaps not federal law.
"Cleveland Clinic does not allow procedures with animals for the sole purpose of sales training," according to a statement Cleveland Clinic Emailed to The Scientist. "The situation that occurred yesterday was unauthorized and not in compliance with our policy."
According to news reports, the neurosurgeon requested permission from Cleveland Clinic's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to use the dog, but did not receive a response by the time of the sales demonstration. The clinic had approved the neurosurgeon's use of a dog to induce an aneurysm, but did not approve its use for the sales demonstration, the Associated Press reported. A spokesperson for Cleveland Clinic would not comment beyond the official statement until its investigation into the incident is complete, and would not release the surgeon's name, or details on the device or its manufacturer.
Jim Rogers, spokesperson for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, told The Scientist APHIS is sending an officer to Cleveland Clinic to "review the facility and help us determine if an investigation is needed." Rogers said it is undetermined whether the neurosurgeon broke federal law in his use of the dog.
An institution's policy for animal use is determined by the institution's IACUC, which is reviewed and approved by the USDA. General guidelines that must be followed are outlined in the federal Animal Welfare Act (in which rats and mice are excluded) and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Rogers said the maximum penalty for violating the Animal Welfare Act is $2750, applied to the institution or individual that owns the license for animal use.
John Miller, executive director of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), said that using a dog for a sales demonstration does not violate the Animal Welfare Act per se. "What was problematic in this case was it was not permitted by [Cleveland Clinic's] IACUC, and if IACUC had known, it probably would not have approved" the use of the dog for this situation, Miller told The Scientist. "The bottom line was it was never reviewed by IACUC so it was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act." Miller said the incident would not warrant suspension of Cleveland Clinic's accreditation by AAALAC.
This is the first time Miller has heard of a scientist sacrificing an animal for a sales event. "It has not come up in the over ten years that I've been [at the AALAC]," he said.
Harry Rozmiarek, treasurer for Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, which offers training for developing IACUC policies, told The Scientist, "It would be unlikely that the terminal use of animals strictly for sales demonstrations would be acceptable" by an institution's IACUC. Rozmiarek pointed out that there are situations in which an animal might be sacrificed during physician training of a medical device, when sales people were present, but like others interviewed by The Scientist, he said he had not heard of an IACUC permitting the use of an animal solely for a sales demonstration.
In response to the incident, the Humane Society of the United States is urging the USDA to amend the Animal Welfare Act to explicitly prohibit the use of animals for sales demonstrations. "This is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed," Andrew Rowan, executive vice president of the Humane Society, told The Scientist. Rowan said the incident at Cleveland Clinic reveals weaknesses in oversight of animal use. "The USDA could do a lot more to establish national standards. Everybody makes up their own standards, and it's possible another place might have approved this protocol and seen nothing wrong with it," Rowan said.
Kerry Grens
kgrens@the-scientist.com
Links within this article:
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
http://www.iacuc.org
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
http://www.aphis.usda.gov
R Finn, "Veterinarians in research labs address conflicting agendas," The Scientist, May 26, 1997.
http://www.the-scientist.com/1997/5/26/1/3
Animal Welfare Act
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
JK Borchardt, "US debates care standards for small laboratory animals," The Scientist, July16, 2001.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/19782
Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care
http://www.aaalac.org
Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research
http://www.primr.org
Humane Society of the United State
http://www.hsus.org
O Siddiqui, "Groups attack USDA animal plan," The Scientist, June 13, 2003.
'http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/21384
Advertisement
Rate this article
|
The News |
|||||||
Register for FREE Online Access
- »Current issue
- »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
- »Daily news and monthly contents emails
Subscribe to the Magazine
- »Monthly print issues
- »Unlimited online access
- »Special offers on books, apparel, and more
[Comment posted 2007-05-01 16:39:24]
[Comment posted 2007-03-20 23:32:40]
[Comment posted 2007-03-20 23:24:48]
[Comment posted 2007-03-16 20:38:25]
And, no, you insensitive louts claiming this is ok because it's protecting patients...for human research. Give me a break, this was using a life as you would a disposable syringe.
It is completely wrong and unethical.
[Comment posted 2007-02-13 16:24:44]
[Comment posted 2007-02-04 16:23:21]
Micrus sales people were obviously not in the lab to train the surgeon because the surgeon was described as first demonstrating the procedure to Micrus sales employees. (duh) So one can't justify the torture as a needed and medically sound sales call!
Secondly, while PETA has been associated with what only some will call "extreme activism", who is there to call when quick action against violations are needed? I am sure that you also don't know that the first case involving human child abuse was
defended by the Humane Society of the United States! Although it took an animal protection agency to defend a human child...hopefully we all do know that abusing a child is also very wrong.
Just remember, there are doctors who go into medicine to help and then there are those who enter the profession for other reasons....money or perhaps the chance to mutilate. (Who blew the whistle on Dr. Mengele?) There are those who graduate with high scores from medical school and there are those who barely scrape by. In the end, they are all called doctors.
[Comment posted 2007-01-26 18:50:12]
plus, someone said that a dog wouldn't kill a person for a sales demonstration.. thats because a dog doesn't have the capacity to understand anything aside from the most basic of things.
and you know something, you guys have SUCH a big problem with animal testing, but i don't see you going down to a lab and volunteering yourselves to be tested on. the simple fact is that SOMETHING has to be tested on, and i don't see any of you volunteering.
plus, since its horrible to killl anything, then pesticides, bug spray and all forms of pest control should be abolished also. unless of course, you decided that insects don't qualify as animals. hey, if you're going topreach that all animals should be allowed to live you might as well be fair about it.
i beleive peta has good intentions, but they go about it the wrong way. euthenizing THOUSANDS of pets that they decided "were in danger" doesn't exactly seem like a group that wants to save the animals. saying "its wrong to kill animals" while you're sticking a needle into them is a hypocrite.
i'm a very humaine person, but i take alot of offense when people say its wrong to kill an animal.
and if you environmentalists cared SO MUCH about the animals and their environment, then you should all get rid of and destroy your cars, burn all of your clothing and burn down your houses, then shoot yourselves to give the animals room to run around and live.
[Comment posted 2007-01-23 19:00:37]
However, it is difficult to belive that a live, fatal, animal demonstration would EVER be necessary for sales training. The product was, without a doubt, previously tested on animals. It is very likely that human clinical trials had already taken place. Why couldn't any of those procedures have been videotaped for training purposes?
The physician and device company obviously believe they are above gaining approval from their IACUC committee. Any why not? A $2,750 fine is certainly not going to phase a neurosurgeon, who was probably paid several times that amount for giving the demonstration in the first place.
If any good can come of this tragic story, perhaps those of us in similar lines of work will be reminded of the dangers of greed and ego.
[Comment posted 2007-01-23 19:00:06]
[Comment posted 2007-01-22 21:04:07]
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 19:11:53]
bad management and lack of ethics in one area usually means they are pervasive in other areas as well. this is frightening in an organization used by people for sometimes life-threatening procedures.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 13:14:56]
Close the loop-hole or it will happen again.
Life is Life! Dog, Cat, Mouse, Rat, Man, Worm etc.
No animal testing should be done anymore.
Use euthanasia for an unwanted animal without testing/demonstrating.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:44:21]
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:43:44]
I read your article on the perverted, inhuman, and sick MURDER of an innocent little animal by some sick pervert who claims to be a "Scientist" from the Cleveland Clinic. Why was the persons name not mentioned? I intend to immediately send this article to several animal rights groups so that they may investigate. Thank you for this story of perversion.
I also think that this sort of evil will happen more as more "Scientists" become "Businessmen" and look for the greater profit as oppossed to helping life. When is the Life Science Community - for which I have lost ALL respect -- going to stop this animal hatred, this "XENOPREJUDICE" and realize that most animal experimentation, of all kinds, is unnecessary. Please wake up.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:42:56]
Neither the species nor the fact that there are "extra dogs" is relevant. If this "device" has been approved & is now being marketed, then prior research as to its safety & value should be available for "sales displays". Data & video presentation may make for a less sensationalistic sales pitch, but we need to try harder as a society to consider ethics in our decision-making processes. In our "advancing" society, surely we can use technology to our benefit & progress ethically as well as scientifically.
We must address the problems of animal homelessness, not utilize a human-created problem to rationalize unquestioned vivisection. Often there are alternatives to animal use, but unfortunately, animals come cheap, so we use economics to justify cruelty. Humans domesticated animals-we need to take responsibility for this. Senseless death, be it at a humane society or at the hands of a business person, is not an acceptable solution.
I believe that in death, people and non-human animals ought to be shown the utmost respect which includes not dying in fear or physical pain. Being a doctor does not necessarily qualify this person to admister veterinary anaesthesia appropriately & to ensure the lack of pain. Observers often mistake an apparent lack of consciousness as being equal to the lack of sensory perception. I see animal death everyday, but to me, this dog's life was wasted.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:41:50]
And, we don't even have all the facts here...
I love it. Nobody read this article to my dog. I'll have to stop feeding him NeutroMax and shift to steak and green beans!!
IT'S A DOG PEOPLE!!! Just a dog...
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:39:10]
And, we don't even have all the facts here...
I love it. Nobody read this article to my dog. I'll have to stop feeding him NeutroMax and shift to steak and green beans!!
IT'S A DOG PEOPLE!!! Just a dog..."
JUST A DOG YEA, YOU RECKON JUST A DOG,
Would that be like the dogs who enable people without sight to live independant lives, would that be just a dog that alerts deaf people to things we take for granted like the doorbell ringing, the phone ringing, warning the infirm of danger like fire, intruders etc, or would it be just one of those dogs who dig people out from avalanches etc, or maybe JUST A DOG THAT SNIFFS OUT EXPLOSIVES
to save people from death, mutilation, horrific burns, etc etc...... or just a dog who is a companion
and only friend to 1,000s 1,000s etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... JUST A DOG --JUST A HUMAN ,,,But I know who I would rather have as a guide hunter being lost somewhere,,,,,
It is blatently obvious that the "JUST A DOG" AUTHOR" has no knowledge of mans journeys along side the canine breed, and the unmeasurable
ways in which they have prevented the death injury and suffering of humans and the joy they have brought to millions upon millions of us whom are JUST HUMANS,,,,,
Nearly forgot the just dogs without which certain residents of the planet earth past & present, would of starved without them CAN YOU CATCH A WABBIT.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:38:11]
I for one extend my reason and compassion to all beings and the world in which they live.
It's that old argument..."I can commit horrible crimes because you own a pair of leather shoes & you're not perfect so I don't have to make any effort"... It kills me.
I am outraged by abuse towards people too, in fact, I would argue that hatred is hatred whether it manifest itself in speciesism, racism, sexism, etc. It is never "just a dog". It is also the injury we do to our own humanity by believing that it is okay to cause suffering. We must strive to live well and to do as little harm as possible- this harm was reckless, easily avoidable, and seemingly pointless.
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:36:59]
This incident was not an experiment, of course. It was a demonstration. A question that is not addressed in the article is how important was the demonstration. Was this actually necessary for the sales personnel to carry out their work. What functions do these personnel carry out? It is a fact that people who sell medical equipment to physicians need to know a lot about it in order to accurately tell the physicians how it works. But there are many complex issues here regarding the role of an academic medical institution such as Cleveland Clinic in that process.
Stating that the sacrifice was for a "sales demonstration," though technically accurate I suppose, misleads the reader into thinking that the surgeon was in the immediate process of selling a device to a group of people. He actually was giving a demonstration to individuals who may have needed the training in order to do their jobs properly. Review of such use should consider the need, which sounds to me as if it might have been legitimate. But I do not know the specifics of the case.
With respect to other comments that have been made, there is no reason to think that this was done to "entertain salespeople." The comment that "...we barely need to use live animals even for real testing" is totally false. We need animal testing now more than ever and regulations that attribute so-called "rights" to animals are an unjustified impediment to beneficial research that can help both humans and animals. While certain advances may have diminished the importance of some animal work, the importance of others have increased. For example, now that we have many genes that we know are involved in disease causation, it is very important to create mutant animal models. In fact, it would be better in some cases if we could move up from rodent models to primates in various genetic disease (aside from the expense, some of which is caused solely by excessive regulation). Also, modern technologies allow for greater control and manipulation of wires, tubes, and catheters which can be used to repair structural defects such as aneurysms. Work with larger animals such as dogs, pigs, or even primates is potentially very important to help us understand how best to treat such things as strokes, myocardial infarctions, and trauma.
Medical and biological scientists need to speak out against spurious theories that animal experimentation is unnecessary.
This particular use of an animal may have been technically improper insofar as the neurosurgeon did not wait for approval. Also, if it was against the Clinic's policy then he should have known he had no hope for approval. But it is not completely clear that what he did was against their policy. If it was to educate the onlookers in something important to their legitimate job function, I think there should be a place where it could have been approved. Perhaps that place is not Cleveland Clinic or perhaps it is. More information will have to come out.
It would be unfortunate if regulations are changed to make it more difficult to instruct either doctors or employees of device manufactures concerning many new life-saving devices.
Sigmund
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:33:52]
Here is another point to consider, and I offer it based on my own background in marketing and public relations. This demonstration for training sales people could have been far more effective if the "patient" dog had been allowed to survive the procedure. Given that the aneurism was induced, why not let the animal experience the full recovery, thanks to the device, that a human patient would hopefully experience? Then the "training" could also impart a greater understanding of what kind of recovery care and rehabilitation are required by people who will be using the device. Once the dog fully recovered, he or she could have been donated to a local therapy dog trainer or organization, and used to visit patients in the hospital who are either prospective recipients for the device, or have already undergone the procedure, to lift their morale and visualize their life after recovery. The costs of such a program should of course be covered by the device manufacturer. The survivor dog could even wear a special vest, complete with the company name and logo of the device manufactuer, to maximize the positive PR effect. As it stands now, the dog has been dealt an unlawful, cruel, and pointless death, and the device manufacturer has created a PR nightmare. The company and doctor's names will eventually be revealed in the press, and people will remember it as the "device that killed that poor dog".
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:32:39]
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:31:28]
[Comment posted 2007-01-21 12:23:47]
Our calls and letters were ignored; the unauthorized lab proceeded, at least one dog was needlessly vivisected and killed, and public outcry ensued.
The Cleveland Clinic has disciplined its own doctor/instructor in a manner that has yet to be revealed. The Clinic itself has yet to face the consequences of its own lax oversight, and will have to thoroughly overhaul its IACUCￂﾒs procedural checks and balances. Itￂﾒs worthless to have policiesￂﾗeven good ones such as prohibiting the use of animals for sales demonstrationsￂﾗif theyￂﾒre not enforced. Cleveland Clinic could redeem its reputation if it were to make a substantial commitment to fund the development of alternatives to animals, or accelerate the adoption of non-animal methods.
Changing the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the use of animals in sales demonstrations will take an act of Congress. Wouldnￂﾒt it be a better use of time, effort and the HSUSￂﾒ considerable legislative muscle to press for the AWA to adopt the language of the DODￂﾒs animal use regulation--requiring the use of non-animal methods when such exist, rather than simply state that they be considered?
The ￂﾓlarge, mixed-breed dogￂﾔ died needlessly at the Cleveland Clinic, but s/he did not die in vain. Thanks to the bravery of our whistleblower, this sad and reprehensible episode has opened peopleￂﾒs eyes to something that simply cannot be excused in the name of science.
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 16:16:09]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 12:18:00]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 12:16:50]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 12:16:10]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 12:14:14]
Strip him of his rights and make him mop the floor of his lab instead.
Glad to hear somebody with a moral conscience reported him.
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 00:41:18]
I'm disgusted at such a cheap and heartless display of greed.
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 00:40:55]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 00:40:05]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 00:39:20]
[Comment posted 2007-01-19 00:37:19]
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!