Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Research and animals

Sir, — The article ``When Animal Rights and Medical Research Clash'' (Feb. 16) was one-sided, short on facts and misrepresented the role of the Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA). Since I am the CPCSEA nominee on the JNU ethics committee, which has allegedly stopped Prof. Mullick from conducting his research, I would like to put the record straight.

The concept of ethics committees for institutes experimenting on animals is a three-year phenomenon in India, although internationally they have been in existence for over 20 years. Unfortunately, some scientists find it difficult to accept this concept in this country though they are compelled to follow stringent ethics committee regulations when they research abroad on assignments.

I should point out that the scientific community was consulted and nationwide debates were held before these rules were passed. Respected members of the scientific community such as Dr. P.K. Dave are members of the CPCSEA national committee. Six of the eight members of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committees are scientists themselves. The CPCSEA is represented only by the nominee who is one of eight members. As internationally accepted, it is not necessary for the nominee to be either a scientist or an animal activist. A non-scientific, socially aware person is also a member of the Ethics Committees. All members have equal powers; no veto power is given to any member. However, if any member feels any project needs further reconsideration, it can be sent to a CPCSEA subcommittee, whose chairman is Prof. Emeritus Ranjit Roy Choudhary.

Prof. Mullick is the only scientist in the JNU who has refused to cooperate with the CPCSEA. The project of no other scientist in the JNU has been held up because full information has always been provided.

Difference of opinion, if any on ethical issues has always been sorted out through debate. In fact, the scientists themselves initiated discussions and prepared a document on alternatives to animal use in the raising of monoclonal antibodies. Prof. Mullick refuses to provide full information, as he is required to do under rules framed to ensure that there is no duplication of research and that there is no wastage of public money on untenable research.

His laboratory was never `stormed by activists' as has been reported. I have never called his research `redundant'. His protocols forms were initially sent to the expert consultants (scientists) at the CPCSEA in Chennai for comments, but since he refused to accept their suggestions or answer certain queries, the chairperson of the JNU ethics committee took the decision to send his projects to the subcommittee whereupon it was returned because incomplete information had been given. His projects have not been stopped. They are awaiting clearance subject to information, which he refuses to give.

Sonya Ghosh,
New Delhi

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• The plague within
• Restructuring India
• Diversity: Bhopal and beyond
• In defence of the CAG
• Don't blame VHP
• Will it be different?
• Research and animals
• Andipatti byelection
• Thefts on trains
• Caution needed

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu