|
Columbia Grad
Returns
His Ph.D. to Protest Animal Cruelty
On
Tuesday, May 17--the day before Columbia University’s
251st
Commencement--Dr. Charles Patterson returned his doctorate to the
Office of the President to protest Columbia's ongoing mistreatment of
animals in its labs.
(PRWEB) May 18, 2005 -- On the day before
Columbia University’s 251st
Commencement on Wed., May 18, Charles
Patterson (Ph.D.‘70) returned his doctorate to the Office of President Lee
Bollinger in Low Library, Rm. 202,to protest his alma mater's abuse of
animals.
Patterson, the author of Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment
of Animals andthe Holocaust, is upset by the cruelty practiced at Columbia
by Doctors Mehmet Oz, E. Sander Connolly, Michel Ferin, Raymond Stark, and
other Columbia vivisectors. He says, "Dr. Josef Mengele, who conducted
experiments on Jews and Gypsies at Auschwitz (he had two doctorates, by
the way), would have fit in quite nicely at Columbia."
The title of
Patterson's book Eternal Treblinka--now in seven
languages--comes from
the Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate, Isaac Bashevis Singer, to whom the
book is dedicated. "In relation to them, all people are Nazis," he wrote,
"for animals it is an eternal Treblinka." (Treblinka was a Nazi death camp
north of Warsaw.)
Columbia has a long history of animal abuse and
grotesque experiments
(visit <http://www.ColumbiaCruelty.com target=="_blank">http://www.ColumbiaCruelty.com), but it took Dr. Catherine Dell'Orto, a post-doctoral veterinarian
fellow, to blow the whistle on the university's latest transgressions:
"What I saw at Columbia still gives me nightmares. I saw baboons whose
left eyes had been cut out--so that major blood vessels could be clamped
off through the empty eye sockets to induce strokes--who had collapsed in
their cages, unable even to lift their heads, eat, or drink. They were
left to die without painkillers."
Columbia students, staff,
faculty, and alumni who are concerned about
this problem and want to do
something about it are constantly rebuffed by the administration.
President Bollinger refuses to meet with them to discuss the
issue.
One of the most important lessons of the Holocaust,
Patterson believes, is that we must never again remain silent in the face
of evil. In the words of Auschwitz survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie
Wiesel, "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence
encourages the tormentor, never thetormented."
"While I worked long
and hard for my doctorate (it included writing a
320-page
dissertation)," says Patterson, "the lives of the innocent and helpless
are more important than a piece of paper."
He also has a Master of
Arts degree in English literature from Columbia. When asked if he was
planning on returning that degree as well, he said, "No, I'm going to hold
onto it for awhile. However, if Columbia doesn't curb its cruelty soon,
maybe I'll return that one too. I only wish I could do
more."
Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the
Holocaust by Charles Patterson Lantern Books, New York, 2002 (2nd
printing) ISBN 1-930051-99-9
http://www.powerfulbook.com
target=="_blank">http://www.powerfulbook.com
Translations: German, Italian, Polish, Czech,
Croatian, Hebrew
(forthcoming)
Praise from Around the
World--
"The moral challenge posed by Eternal Treblinka turns it into a
must for anyone who seeks to delve into the universal lesson of the
Holocaust."
--Maariv (Israeli newspaper)
"Necessary reading
matter...very thought-provoking." --Süddeutsche
Zeitung, Germany
"You must read this carefully documented book" --La Stampa
(Italian national newspaper)
"Important and timely...written with
great sensitivity and compassion...I hope that Eternal Treblinka will be
widely read."--Martyrdom and Resistance (Holocaust publication), New
York
"Charles Patterson's book will go a long way towards righting
the
terrible wrongs that human beings, throughout history, have
perpetrated on non-human animals. I urge you to read it and think deeply
about its important message." --Dr. Jane Goodall, United
Kingdom
"Eternal Treblinka is an eye-opening, thought-provoking
book that I
highly recommend." --The Gantseh Megillah, Montreal,
Canada
"Patterson's book sheds light on the violence perpetuated
every day
against animals and humans alike so that we might one day put
an end to it."--Moment ("America's Premier Independent Jewish
Magazine")
"A thorough and thought-provoking book" --Ha'aretz
(Israeli newspaper)
"Eternal Treblinka disturbs us because
(inevitably though tactfully) it holds up to us, its readers, a clear
mirror to look at ourselves
anew...Kafka would have applauded Eternal
Treblinka. It grips like a
thriller." --The Freethinker, United
Kingdom
"Compelling, controversial, iconoclastic...strongly
recommended...a
unique contribution." --Midwest Book Review,
USA
"The book that breaks all taboos. The book that fires up
controversies all over the world." --Prijatelji Zivotinja, Zagreb, Croatia
PETA's http://www.peta.org/ letter dated May 17,
2005
The Honorable Rick Santorum, Chairman
Senate
Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation
328A
Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Dear
Senator Santorum:
We are writing to you with great respect to ask that the
subcommittee hold hearings on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) failure to adequately
oversee research facilities.
Our organization is fortunate to have more than 800,000
members and supporters who seek to end the suffering of animals where
possible and to lessen it where it is clear that it cannot be stopped
immediately. One example of the latter is the use of animals in
laboratories. We know that animal research will continue for the time
being despite the clumsy, misleading, and often erroneous data generated
by the practice. Until the time when animals are not used to test drugs or
medical devices, the least we can do for them is ensure that the USDA is
adequately enforcing the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
There are 101 USDA inspectors for a total of 9,600 licensees
that represent 12,965 sites. It is little wonder that the agency is not
effective. But there is more to this problem than just a dearth of
inspectors. Over the years, the USDA has become far too willing to help
research facilities and other licensees exempt themselves from public
scrutiny. This overprotective attitude of regulators toward the regulated
has resulted in everything from advance notice of inspections to
inappropriate policies that harm animals.
The USDA Coddles Academic Facilities
For egregious violations of the AWA, the USDA has handed out
paltry fines, a very recent example (May 2004) being the absurd $2,000
charge to Columbia University based on our and a Columbia veterinarian’s
September 23, 2003, complaint documenting how Columbia killed an entire
litter of puppies using outdated euthanasia solution injected into their
hearts without sedation, a method condemned by the American Veterinary
Medical Association because it is so painful. The $2,000 fine also covered
Columbia’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee’s failure to
appropriately review animal-experimental protocols. The fine was paid by
Columbia to avoid an Administrative Court hearing.
2
Prior to our September 2003 complaint, Columbia had allowed
baboons, dogs, and other nonhuman primates to die slowly in their cages
without veterinary care. The left eyes of the baboons were cut out in a
federally funded stroke experiment, yet the animals received no
post-surgical pain relief or veterinary care. The suffering of these
animals is recounted in the enclosed letters that we sent to the NIH in
January 2003 and to the USDA in September 2003, as well as November 2004,
when we asked the USDA to reopen its investigation into Columbia and
reconsider its inaction.
In October 2002, before PETA involved itself in the Columbia
case, complaints about animal care were brought to both Columbia’s and the
USDA’s attention by a post-doctoral veterinarian who blew the whistle on
inept veterinarians and indifferent employees and principal investigators.
The whistleblower veterinarian, Dr. Catherine Dell’Orto, contacted PETA in
December 2002 when her complaints were ignored. The USDA failed to
interview Dr. Dell’Orto until PETA complained. This inexcusable conduct on
the agency’s part comes from the Eastern Regional Office. We have recently
been made aware that the USDA’s Office of Inspector General is preparing a
report on the disparity between the Western and Eastern Regional Offices’
enforcement of the AWA, the impetus being that the Eastern office appears
to be soft on licensees.
An internal investigation of Columbia, prompted by the
veterinarian’s complaint, revealed monumental disregard for animal health
and well-being. The USDA argued that it should not cite and fine the
university for the numerous serious violations of the AWA found during the
investigation because the university had investigated and policed itself.
This is a tremendous and undeserved favor bestowed upon Columbia
University, which, in January 1986, was stripped of its ability to conduct
animal research by the NIH because the animal care violations found during
an inspection were so serious. The violations found at Columbia in 2003
were no less grave. After our investigation into Huntingdon Life Sciences
in 1995-1996 revealed numerous violations of the AWA, the USDA levied only
a $50,000 fine against the contract laboratory. In many ways, the
violations of law at Columbia were worse than those we found at
Huntingdon.
The USDA recently refused our request to reexamine its
handling of the Columbia case.
The USDA Coddles Industry and Engages in Special Treatment
of Its Lobbying Associations
In a February 2002 memo from Chester Gipson, Acting Deputy
Administrator of Animal Care to Bobby R. Acord, Administrator of Animal
care, Dr. Gipson recounted his meeting with industry groups at which the
Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA) was discussed. The memo
announced the end of the availability of research-facility inspection
reports on the USDA’s Web site because of "potential safety concerns to
humans and property." Industry groups had shamelessly used the tragedy of
September 11 to further their own interests, and they succeeded very
easily in their meeting with the USDA. Other stakeholders were not given
the opportunity to have any say in the issue.
Inspections of facilities are conducted once a year—or less
frequently if the USDA does not cite the laboratory for violations of the
AWA. Inspection reports are the only tool that the public and
organizations such as PETA, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Humane
3
Society of the United States (HSUS) have to determine
whether a research laboratory is complying with the AWA. Obtaining
inspection reports and other information through the USDA’s FOIA office
already takes up to two years. We routinely receive letters from the
USDA’s FOIA office asking if we are still interested in receiving the
documents that we requested two or even three years prior. The advent of
E-FOIA resolved part of the serious backlog in the USDA’s FOIA office and
provided the public a valuable tool. Yet in just one meeting with industry
groups, it was taken away. The HSUS filed suit against the USDA, and it
was recently decided that the inspection reports will go back online.
The APHIS Administrator Has a History of Preferential
Treatment of Licensees
In January 1996, William Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., then-director
of the Western Region of Animal Care, wrote a "To Whom It May Concern"
letter on behalf of Bobby Berosini, a man caught on videotape—twice a
night for seven nights in a row—punching, kicking, and beating (with a
metal bar) the endangered orangutans he used in his casino act. After we
exposed this cruelty, Congress joined us in asking the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to revoke Berosini’s Captive Bred Wildlife permit. That
revocation action was taken, but DeHaven, on behalf of the USDA, wrote in
his January 1996 letter: "This office has no reason to believe that Mr.
Berosini’s nonhuman primates are receiving anything less than the
excellent care observed during our last inspection of his premises and
animals." Dr. DeHaven knew at the time that Berosini beat his animals and
that the solid metal cages (with airholes only at the top) in which he
kept the orangutans between performances did not meet even the minimum
requirements for space. Ron DeHaven is now the administrator of APHIS.
The USDA Has Failed to Act on Congress’ 1985 Intent to
Provide Socialization and Enrichment for Primates Used in Research
In 1985, Congress approved a long-overdue amendment to the
AWA, which stated that the Secretary of Agriculture "shall promulgate
standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities and exhibitors,"
and directed that those standards should include "minimum requirements …
for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological
well-being of primates." (7 U.S.C. § 2143(a).)
Six years later, in 1991, APHIS promulgated the regulation
found at 9 C.F.R. § 3.81, entitled "Environment enhancement to promote
psychological well-being." But instead of setting standards that would
hold facilities accountable for meeting minimum criteria for the
socialization and enrichment of captive primates, APHIS’ § 3.81 simply
says that the regulated entities must show that they are achieving results
that indicate that they are meeting the psychological well-being mandate.
In other words, APHIS created a "performance standard" rather than an
"engineering standard."
By 1996, it was apparent that APHIS inspectors could not
judge whether the enrichment programs were actually being implemented at
research facilities. In an internal report, APHIS admitted that its
inspectors perceived the performance standards to be unenforceable.
According to the report, inspectors found well-being for primates
particularly bleak at research facilities.
4
In July 1999, APHIS published a proposed policy in the
Federal Register that would address the problems associated with the vague
performance standards. APHIS explained that the policy would clarify what
the agency considered essential in order to adequately
promote primate psychological well-being. The essential
areas were determined to be: 1)
the social needs of nonhuman primates, 2) the special needs
of infants and young juveniles, 3) adequate housing that would allow
primates to engage in species-specific typical movements including
exploring, feeding, and play, 4) "time-consuming" food-foraging
opportunities, and 5) habitat enhancement that would provide for primates’
inclinations to manipulate things with their hands.
The agency put the public through the long and arduous
exercise of researching and writing public comments but, as of this date,
APHIS has yet to make any decision on the policy. We believe that APHIS is
delaying in order to accommodate licensees that do not wish to comply with
the standards within the policy.
PETA’s Investigation Into the Vienna, Va., Covance
Laboratory Reveals the Serious Consequences of the USDA’s Inaction
Just today, PETA held a news conference to bring the results
of the USDA’s inaction to the public’s attention. Our 11-month
investigation reveals that primates who have had no enrichment or
socialization at Covance have gone insane from their isolation and
boredom, resulting in rocking, circling, back-flips, and self-mutilation.
Primates at Covance are rarely pair-housed, even though there is plenty of
opportunity to do so—it is apparently just too much trouble for
supervisors and management at Covance, and they certainly do not demand
that staff commingle the animals. Having a partner to groom and hold on to
when frightened is of utmost importance to primates, as experts have known
for decades.
The day before an announced inspection visit from the
American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC),
Covance bought toys for the primates and put them in the cages. Before
AAALAC’s visit, the monkeys had pieces of PVC pipe for their "enrichment."
As a supervisor at Covance so aptly pointed out, AAALAC accreditation
means "nothing" but Covance "wouldn’t get work if we didn’t have it,
basically." AAALAC oversight of research laboratories is as minimal and
meaningless as is the USDA’s, but having its accreditation is often held
up as a "gold standard" to the public.
Our investigation also reveals that cruel treatment is an
everyday occurrence at Covance. We found the same type of treatment at
Huntingdon. Workers slap and choke monkeys and hit them with hard objects.
They swing them in the air and frighten them out of their wits with verbal
abuse and direct eye contact, which is about as threatening as you can get
when it comes to nonhuman primates. One of the Covance technicians
responsible for this abuse is the president of the local chapter of the
American Association of Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). He is seen in
the enclosed DVD slamming cages full of terrified monkeys into a wall in a
wrongheaded attempt to scare an escaped monkey from behind the cage racks.
AALAS certification is used as another assurance to the public that
animals in laboratories are treated humanely.
5
During our investigation, we called the USDA and asked that
it make an urgent visit to Covance in order to look into the suffering of
monkeys used in lethal irradiation experiments. The animals had developed
necrotic open wounds on their stomachs. We contacted the USDA on November
4, 2004, but it did not visit Covance until five days later. The USDA
inspector is alleged to have said that she "takes PETA complaints with a
grain of salt." At the end of her visit, she told Covance that she would
see them in November 2005. When we called the USDA to follow up on this
complaint, we were told that the animals had been receiving proper
veterinary care—both painkillers and antibiotics—but technicians at
Covance disputed this during the investigation.
USDA inspections, AAALAC accreditation, and AALAS
certification failed to protect the animals at Covance from cruel
treatment and have certainly failed miserably to provide them with
socialization and enrichment. We believe that this is most likely the case
across the board for the majority of animals used in experiments. In our
letter to Secretary Johanns (enclosed) about the wrongdoings at Covance,
we asked him when the USDA will recognize the fact that we find violations
of federal law in every laboratory that we investigate. These are not
housekeeping violations—they are violations of the fundamental standards
that were approved by Congress for offering minimal protection to animals
used in laboratories.
Hearings Will Clarify Agency Needs and Illuminate
Enforcement Problems
Senator Santorum, we believe that APHIS needs increased
funding and more inspectors, but acquiring such is no guarantee that the
agency will function as Congress intended. PETA is not alone in its
criticisms of the agency, and so we have only pointed out a few examples
in this letter. The Animal Welfare Institute, which was run by Christine
Stevens until her recent death, is expert in matters of AWA regulations
and enforcement of the AWA. The Animal Welfare Institute is also expert in
the sad state of affairs concerning enrichment and socialization for
primates in research laboratories.
Please give nongovernmental organizations the opportunity to
air these matters before your subcommittee. We realize that you have many
important issues on your plate, but we hope that the enclosed DVD and
photographs will convince you that your help is needed. Thank you so much.
Respectfully,
Mary Beth Sweetland, Senior Vice President
Director, Research & Investigations Department
|