10 monkeys killed in botched experiment at Johns Hopkins
Sat, 6 Sep 2003
To err is human, but Johns Hopkins researchers have shown a tendency to cut corners on safety and ride roughshod with experimental subjects–human and animal. [See: https://ahrp.thalesbroussard.com/infomail/0701/19.php ]
This time the victims are 10 monkeys and baboons who died as a result of being injected with d-amphetamine in an experiment that was testing the toxicity of Ecstasy. Failure by anyone at the laboratory to examine and properly label the vials containing d-amphetamine and Ecstasy, resulted in their death.
The New YOrk Times reports that Dr. Richard Ricaurte, the principle investigator said his laboratory made “a simple human error.” “We’re scientists, not politicians.”
Don’t we expect scientists to be meticulous about following proper scientific methods in the laboratory to protect the safety of the living subjects, not to mention to ensure the integrity of their findings?
The culture that dominates academia is reflected in the scientist’s response to the reporter’s question: why were the vials not checked first? Dr. Ricaurte’s replied:
“We’re not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here. It’s not customary to check them.”
Is the proper labeling of controlled, Schedule II psychoactive substances a requirement of FDA regulations?
THE NEW YORK TIMES
September 6, 2003
Report of Ecstasy Drug’s Great Risks Is Retracted
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
A leading scientific journal yesterday retracted a paper it published last year saying that one night’s typical dose of the drug Ecstasy might cause permanent brain damage. The monkeys and baboons in the study were not injected with Ecstasy but with a powerful amphetamine, said the journal, Science magazine.
The retraction was submitted by the team at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine that did the study.
A medical school spokesman called the mistake “unfortunate” but said that Dr. George A. Ricaurte, the researcher who made it, was “still a faculty member in good standing whose research is solid and respected.”
The study, released last Sept. 27, concluded that a dose of Ecstasy a partygoer would take in a single night could lead to symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease.
The study was ridiculed at the time by other scientists working with the drug, who said the primates must have been injected with huge overdoses.
Two of the 10 primates died of heat stroke, they pointed out, and another two were in such distress that they were not given all the doses.
If a typical Ecstasy dose killed 20 percent of those who took it, the critics said, no one would use it recreationally.
In an interview yesterday, Dr. Ricaurte said he realized his mistake when he could not reproduce his own results by giving the drug to monkeys orally. He then realized that two vials his laboratory bought the same day must have been mislabeled: one contained Ecstasy, the other d-methamphetamine.
Dr. Ricaurte’s laboratory has received millions of dollars from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and has produced several studies concluding that Ecstasy is dangerous. Other scientists accuse him of ignoring their studies showing that typical doses do no permanent damage.
At the time Dr. Ricaurte’s study was published, it was strongly defended against those critics by Dr. Alan I. Leshner, the former head of the drug abuse institute, who had just become the chief executive officer of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science.
Dr. Leshner had testified before Congress that Ecstasy was dangerous, and Dr. Ricaurte’s critics accused him of rushing his results into print because a bill known as the Anti-Rave Act was before Congress. The act would punish club owners who knew that drugs like Ecstasy were being used at their dance gatherings.
Dr. Ricaurte yesterday called that accusation “ludicrous.” His laboratory made “a simple human error,” he said. “We’re scientists, not politicians.” Asked why the vials were not checked first, he answered: “We’re not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here. It’s not customary to check them.”
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.