|
Sci Tech
Hopping mad in 'kangaroo court'
A SEEMINGLY inexplicable confrontation has emerged between the scientific establishment and the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experimentation on Animals (CPCSEA; formed under Section 15 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960).
A news item almost two years ago reported Science and Technology Minister Murli Manohar Joshi to have ridiculed rules governing animal experimentation as a hindrance to research: "Those championing the cause of animals should be more pragmatic in their approach" he is purported to have advised, "The agencies that fight against cruelty on animals need to be more careful". Earlier this year Ex Union health and family welfare minister C.P. Thakur continued the refrain.
The latest to join the chorus is D. Balasubramanian in an article `Kangaroo court on animal experiments' in the Science and Technology supplement of The Hindu dated November 21 in which the writer deals with issues pertaining to a Preliminary Inspection on September 28 at the National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi (NII).
The article is unique in that the writer bases his knowledge of events entirely on comments by the NII personnel and on a report by a Delhi based NGO cum Science Forum called in by the NII.
The author's bias is evident in that (a) he does not reveal his conflicting interest in the NII as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) (set up under the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1986 and responsible for establishing and funding autonomous science institutions like the National Institute of Immunology), (b) Dr. Sandip Basu, Director, NII, is a colleague of the writer on the same committee, (c) at least two of the scientists at the NII including Dr. S. Rath referred to by D. Balasubramanian , are also office bearers of the `independent' Delhi Science Forum, (d) the `inspection' by this NGO took place 5 days after the Director NII refused entry to a second statutory inspection team of the CPCSEA .
What is worse is that D. Balasubramanian is ready to adjudicate as `flawed' the report of the CPCSEA nominees and announce his sentence without even having verified the report or read it, without having spoken to CPCSEA members and in the full awareness that neither had the DSF done the same!
Who is the kangaroo holding court here, and why?
The purpose of this rejoinder is to put straight some facts that have been wilfully misrepresented, it would seem, only to protect the interests of the Institute in question, its funding body and the grant receivers at the NII. Firstly, inspection teams of the CPCSEA do not `walk in' and `raid' animal houses of institutes experimenting on animals.
They are issued authority letters according to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Such an inspection was carried out as a routine exercise at the NII. The `episode' that occurred at the NII was that in the course of inspection a senior scientist of the NII manhandled a woman inspection team member in an attempt to grab her camera and that an FIR has been lodged against him. D. Balasubramanian carefully edits this event out of his narrative as he does other relevant facts.
Secondly, it is recognised by scientists that experimenting on non-pathogen free animals will not yield reproducible and repeatable data .The main issue being contended is the health profile of the non-human primates in the NII animal house.
CPCSEA inspection was on September 28. . One register contained records of 192 rhesus monkeysOf these monkeys, 70 had tested positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) from May 25, 1989 to April 22, 2001. The largest number of deaths due to tuberculosis occurred in 1998 when the entire stock of monkeys bought on September 25, 1998 tested positive for TB and 18 of which died as a consequence. Of the monkeys procured on March 25, 2000, some tested positive for TB. Of 28 rhesus monkeys born in the period April 01, 2000 to April 22, 2001, all tested positive for TB except for two.
When the Preliminary Inspection Team visited on the September 28, three monkeys were said to be suffering from TB. Shockingly, they were housed in a room across the corridor from `healthy' monkeys. It is important to note that the monkeys cited above contracted TB in the primate house and were not bought in a tubercular condition. The DSF acknowledges the presence of TB in the primate house but is willing to underplay and even make allowances for this on various grounds. The DSF members may not be aware that it is unacceptable to maintain a non tuberculosis free primate house anywhere in the world let alone one like that of the NII which has recurring incidents of TB for at least the last 5 years. The prevalence of TB is a biosafety issue as Mycobacterium bacilli are transmitted from infected animals or infected tissue primarily via the aerosol route and could infect handlers, veterinarians and scientists as well as families that live on campus. Why has the disease persisted for all this time in the NII Primate House? The transmission of infectious diseases like TB in laboratory animal units can be prevented by erecting physical and biological barriers to prevent crossovers between clean and contaminated equipment, procedures and animals. This includes the system of `clean' and `dirty' corridors where clean stores are kept separate from refuse disposal and there is a one way flow of activity. The building design of the NII does not allow this possibility as there is just a single corridor for both `clean' and `dirty' procedures. Neither is there any provision of a pressure differential between animal rooms and corridors to exclude airborne infections. Good hygienic practises, decontamination of rooms and sterilisation are important elements as well: but the death of at least one monkey from post-caesarean toxaemia speaks volumes for the kind of post surgery sterile environment available at the NII primate house. Following the preliminary inspection on September 29, some journalists, DBT officials and other sympathisers have been paraded through the primate house to demonstrate that the animals are in good physical condition. Is it possible to visually identify a monkey with TB?
The signs of TB may be insidious with only slight behavioural changes noticed, followed by lethargy which is impossible to assess as the monkey is in any case confined in small individual cages. Often animals die suddenly while appearing to be in good condition. This could explain the `found dead' notations in the register examined.
A third issue is that of experiments carried out by NII scientists: one involves the `electro ejaculation' of monkeys in which an electric shock is given to the genitalia of a male monkey to elicit sperm and another experiment reported in the NII Annual Report of 2000-2001 requires the creation of `pseudo adult monkeys' or the induction of `adult like hormone patterns in infants' and the `surgical implantation of intravenous indwelling catheters' for four weeks in these infant monkeys: the preliminary inspection team found that these experiments had not been cleared by the large animal sub committee of the CPCSEA, an odd discovery, considering that the Convenor of this sub committee is a Professor emeritus with his office in the NII itself! Lastly, the NII has a history of buying heavily pregnant females in violation of the Transportation of Animal Rules, 1978): on March 25, 2000, 27 monkeys were bought of which 8 monkeys delivered 1-2 months after purchase.
On December 16, 2001, 16 pregnant monkeys were purchased who delivered between 3 to 5 months of being bought and on April 11, 8 pregnant females who delivered between 1- 2 months after being bought.
In conclusion, the author echoes the sentiments of the report of the Delhi Science Forum which states: `CPCSEA should, as most appropriate, be brought under the Ministry of Science & Technology with proper structures and mechanisms for transparency and accountability.' Can someone smell a fox near the hen house?
Self regulation and self justification is not the answer, more appropriate would be a public audit of resources, animals in this case.
Yes, the CPCSEA does want transparency in institutional practices and this is particularly relevant in the case of the NII.
The funding and study of science can no longer continue to be opaque. Animal researchers must stay in the public eye, explaining their methods and the benefits of their work: citizens demand to know why the waste of public money is being justified in the name of animal experiments and why certain scientists are even willing to go to any extent of falsification to prevent transparency.
The agenda of the CPCSEA is not `anti vivesectionist' as has been stated.
Sonya Ghosh
CPCSEA Nominee
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Sci Tech
|
