this post has been deleted
Sorry....These "Play Video" links don't seem to transfer well to thread posts . Here's ( I hope ) a link to all of the ones I've recently posted :
This post was modified from its original form on 17 Sep, 21:33
Further information regarding surgery demo video :
Surgery Demo on Live Dog in Cleveland Highlights Problems with Animal Research and Need for Change in Federal Law
January 15, 2007
WASHINGTON – Today The Humane Society of the United States called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congress to take action in response to the recent surgery demonstration performed on a live dog for a sales presentation at the Cleveland Clinic. The dog was induced with an aneurysm without proper authorization so the surgeon could demonstrate to the sales force how a new medical device works to prevent blood flow. Such actions raise serious ethical and legal questions and point to a larger problem with the animal research regulatory system in the United States.
While laws concerning the basic welfare of animals used in research do exist such as the Animal Welfare Act, the laws don't expressly prohibit any experiments. The HSUS is calling on Congress to amend the AWA specifically to bar the use of live animals in sales demonstrations, in light of the incident at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The harmful use of animals for a sales pitch is appalling and ethically unacceptable," said Dr. Andrew Rowan, executive vice president for operations for The HSUS and a former chairman of a university animal care committee. "Congress needs to step into the breach and explicitly prohibit this conduct."
Under the AWA, institutions largely self-regulate through Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. In the case of the Cleveland Clinic demonstration, IACUC approval was non-existent -- a clear violation of law. Congress established the IACUC system in 1985 to address animal welfare issues and address public concerns about animal pain and distress. The law has not been successful in doing so. Since 1985, public opposition to animal research has grown from just over half of Americans to 75 percent opposed to research that causes severe pain and distress. Furthermore, published reports have demonstrated that IACUCs are inconsistent in their oversight and in their application of the law, particularly when it comes to animal pain and distress.
"A researcher should not be able to do invasive experiments on an animal if he or she does not have approval from the animal care committee," Rowan said.
Other problems exist with oversight of animal research by federal agencies such as the USDA that weaken the protection of animals in laboratories. For example, the USDA Office of Inspector General reported in 2005 that the agency assesses minimal fines against violators of the AWA, with the financial penalties considered "a normal cost of conducting business." The OIG recommended that USDA end these discounts. OIG further recommended an increase in penalties for research institutions from $2,500 to $10,000, an issue that must be addressed by Congress. It also shed light on failures of IACUCs such as not effectively monitoring animal care activities or reviewing protocols, misreporting the number of animals used, and improperly searching for alternatives to animal use.
"While we urge the USDA to take swift action to the extent of its authority against the surgeon and Cleveland Clinic, we also urge Congress to correct glaring omissions and weaknesses in the laws regulating the research community," Rowan added. "The system is flawed and simply doesn't offer the protection that the public demands for the millions of animals used in research every year."