Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 21, 1988)
__ Oregon Daily_ , Emerald Friday, October 21, 1988 Eugene. Oregon Volume 90, Number 38 __Inside_ • The Duck football lowdown, Page IS • ‘Gorillas’ on campus, Page 3 • U2’s Rattle and Hum, Page 10 • Something ‘Fresh’, Page 7 Agency investigating animal research program By Michael Drummond Emerald Associate Editor The University’s animal research program re mains the subject of a federal investigative in quiry nearly three months after a National Insti tutes of Health site inspection gave the program a clean bill of health. Officials with the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) acknowledged Wednes day they are conducting an inquiry of the Univer sity's animal care and use procedures for possible federal Animal Welfare Act and Public Health Service (PHS) violations. The OPRR is a policy-enforcing arm of the National Institutes of Health (N1H). Dr. Alan Sandler of the OPRR said Thursday his office received a formal complaint from Peo ple for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 1 John Moseley about six weeks ago detailing alleged federal policy violations. However, Sandler refused to elaborate. "From our office’s standpoint, we have what we consider to be an active inquiry in response to PETA's formal allegations." Sandler said. "The matter that we do have under consider ation is between us and PETA ... that’s not really subject to discussion at this time," Sandler add ed. However. Ingrid Newkirk, national director for PETA, listed allegations within the formal complaint Thursday. PETA claims the University lacks a proper animal research review process, despite the pres ence of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (1ACUC), fails to provide proper veter inary care, and staffs improperly trained animal researchers. PETA also maintains that the University’s IACUC approves illegal animal experiments, that many University animal research projects lack scientific and medicinal applicability, and overall the University is not in compliance with its assur ance. An assurance is akin to a contract by which a research institution must abide. The PHS awards federal funding for animal research based on an institution's compliance to its assurance. “We will have to decide whether there is substance to those allegations, and if so we will investigate them,” Sandler said. He could not in dicate when the GPRR would announce its con clusions because he said his staff is waiting for additional material from PETA. Sandler said it would be “hard to gauge what kind of investigation QPRR might make," but added that it would be different from the N1H site inspection conducted June 29 (See related story, this page). "I would always view such an inquiry seri ously," said ]ohn Moseley, University vice presi dent for research. "1 certainly cannot say any mistakes were never made, but I would be surprised if they (QPRR) conducted a formal investigation,” he Turn to Investigation, Page 5 Moseley's letter predates NIH facilities inspection By Michael Drummond Emerald Associate Editor A University administrator’s letter to Sen. Mark Hatfield, which predates a National In stitutes of Health site inspec tion of the school’s animal re search facilities has animal rights activists calling foul and administrators on the defense. John Moseley, University vice president for research, penned a letter to Hatfield June 2, 1988 — 27 days before a Na tional Institutes of Health (NIHJ inspection team conducted an administrative site visit of the University's animal care and use program. In the letter, Moseley said he had discussed the controversy surrounding the University’s animal research program with representatives from the NIH and the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR). Moseley stated, "{The repre sentatives) have concluded that there are no substantive reasons to conduct further investiga tions of animal care and use here, but have stated that they might be forced to conduct a formal investigation for politi cal reasons. "Obviously, we would like to avoid such an investigation due to the negative public rela tions aspect, but we have no concerns that significant nega tive findings would occur.” The NIH report issued Sept. 23 cited several administrative problems with the University’s animal research program, but overall it concluded the school earned a clean bill of health. Animal rights activists claim Moseley’s letter foreshadowed the NIH’s conclusions and indi cated the site inspection was a public relations whitewash. “They (University adminis tration) need to stop worrying about public relations and start washing their hands," said In grid Newkirk, national director for People for the Ethical Treat ment of Animals (PETA). Moreover. Newkirk said the site inspection did not deal with PETA’s true concerns re lating to proper veterinarian care, research supervision and staff competency at the Univer sity. “Where did they (NIH) look for wrongdoing, that’s my question. 1 think their findings are inappropriate and their pri orities are misplaced. It's clear from reading the report it’s a public relations attempt to re duce the damage that the light of public opinion is doing to the University of Oregon’s cov enant-like research communi ty,” Newkirk said. Moseley admitted the Uni versity is concerned about the Turn to Letter, Page 4 Volunteer's mistake voids voter eligibility By Don Peters Emerald Associate Editor Some of the 74 people who registered to vote at the Univer sity on Tuesday will not be al lowed to cast ballots Nov. 8. Phyllis Crockett, campus co ordinator and president of Stu dents for Dukakis, failed to re turn voter registrations to the bane County elections office before the 5 p.m. Tuesday reg istration deadline. “1 didn’t know I had to get them in then,” Crockett said. Lane County Elections Man ager David Spriggs said he learned of the mixup from a clerk. The clerk had received a phone call Wednesday morning from Crockett, saying she had 74 late registration cards. CrocKett said she forgot the deadline, and realized her mis take too late. “I feel bad about it,” she said. ‘Now I’m just try ing to make up for it.” Crockett has written a letter to the Oregon Daily Emerald, apologizing to those who regis tered. The exact number of people unable to vote is not known. If a person was already registered to vote, but was re-registering because of a change of address, arrangements will be made al lowing them to vote, Spriggs said. “But they will have to bring in proof of their move,” he said. Kate Mente, field organizer for Campaign '88 Dukakis Bentsen, said, "We’re apolo getic about this. Phyllis (Crock ett) feels very bad, but she’s do ing everything she can to fix it.” According to Spriggs, this situation is neither new nor unique. “It’s happened be fore,” he said. “Just last March we had 84 (registration forms) turned in late.” Spriggs went on to say that county election workers will sort through the 74 late forms and see just which ones will be allowed to vote. “But it's going to take a while,” he said. I BICYCLE ■ PARKING I, uftnuitmcn The Young and the Rested The leaves are falling and winter is right around the corner, but for sophomore Robin Milner and senior David Plews, spring seems to be a state of mind. Photo by James Marks
