UCD research collaboration???

Caoimhelicious

I'm a leaving cert student who upon telling my guidance counsellor I was interested in cellular biology, biomedical science etc. , was asked to look into all of the bio-pharmaceutical research taking place within the country.
While doing this I came across research being done by the National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology in DCU, a lot of which seems to be done in collaboration with Pfizer (formerly Wyeth Biopharma ). I don't know why I did it but I googled this company and came across a series of disturbing articles, such as this one by the Washington post, which describes how a lawsuit is being revived in relation to Pfizer experimenting on 200 Nigerian children without their families knowledge or consent.
"Eleven children died during the 1996 clinical trial, carried out during a record meningitis epidemic. Other children developed brain damage and crippling arthritis."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003432.html


I also came across articles detailing harrowing accounts of animal cruelty. Apparently, Multiple violations of U.S. law by Pfizer were clearly detailed in USDA inspection reports of six research facilities where Pfizer conducts animal experiments. I came across incidents where dogs had been scalded to death and other animals suffered untreated infections in laboratories reeking of excrement.

I must say I am seriously reconsidering having ANYTHING to do with this area of biology. I feel so shocked that any Irish institution could have any ties to some such company??

Partition

The first point to be made is that you have the NICB placed in the incorrect university.

avalon68

Also, take note of where these articles come from - anything from animal rights groups is not surprisingly, from their point of view, and not necessarily based in fact. A large proportion of cell biology/biomedical science does not involve animal work, and instead uses tissue culture, which admittedly originated from an animal source once upon a time, so it can be avoided if you have strong feelings towards it.

Caoimhelicious

Partition wrote: »

The first point to be made is that you have the NICB placed in the incorrect university.

http://www.nicb.dcu.ie/research_cell_molecular.shtml

Sorry your right it was DCU!, I still feel the same way though, its terrible they're associating with this company after what they did in Nigeria?

Caoimhelicious

avalon68 wrote: »

Also, take note of where these articles come from - anything from animal rights groups is not surprisingly, from their point of view, and not necessarily based in fact. A large proportion of cell biology/biomedical science does not involve animal work, and instead uses tissue culture, which admittedly originated from an animal source once upon a time, so it can be avoided if you have strong feelings towards it.

I know but even excluding the animal rights groups what they did in Nigeria is inexcusable in my opinion, I took that from the washington post ( linked above) and I do think that's legitimate! |
Glad to hear that sort of thing can be avoided though, I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night if i wasn't able to avoid it !

avalon68

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

I know but even excluding the animal rights groups what they did in Nigeria is inexcusable in my opinion, I took that from the washington post ( linked above) and I do think that's legitimate! |
Glad to hear that sort of thing can be avoided though, I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night if i wasn't able to avoid it !

Well again it's half the story. Things go wrong in clinical trials - that's why we have them, to make sure new drugs are safe. If you are against animal trials, and against human trials.....then how do new treatments get tested? Would you be willing to be prescribed something that had never been tested? I do personally disagree with companies taking advantage of more lax regulations in certain countries, but, in order to test some things you need to go to where the disease is rampant. Ie not much point testing a malaria vaccine in Dublin . I haven't read the article but most likely what happened in Nigeria were unforeseen side effects......no scientist wakes up in the morning and intentionally sets out to harm animals or people. Universities and industry work together to ensure both sides have access to cutting edge technology and techniques....that's how progress is made. I doubt you would find a pharmaceutical company in the world that doesn't have some sort of class action suit pending against them at this point!

Caoimhelicious

I would have absolutely no qualms with these drugs being tested on consenting adults, who were fully aware of the risks involved but what happened in Nigeria just really had an impact on me I guess, they tried the drugs on children without even the knowledge or consent of their families! I do completely understand what your saying and appreciate what your trying to get across.. Hell your right, if there were no trials there would be no life saving drugs etc. , But if what happened in Nigeria happened in Dublin, the company would be absolutely persecuted by the media, the general public, everyone. But it almost seems that because it happened in Nigeria nobody really cared about them

Partition

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

I would have absolutely no qualms with these drugs being tested on consenting adults, who were fully aware of the risks involved but what happened in Nigeria just really had an impact on me I guess, they tried the drugs on children without even the knowledge or consent of their families! I do completely understand what your saying and appreciate what your trying to get across.. Hell your right, if there were no trials there would be no life saving drugs etc. , But if what happened in Nigeria happened in Dublin, the company would be absolutely persecuted by the media, the general public, everyone. But it almost seems that because it happened in Nigeria nobody really cared about them

While I appreciate your concerns, it should be noted that at the time the article was written, no final court ruling had been made. Have you followed up the story to see what the upshot was? I'm unfamiliar with the case, but as avalon68 said no scientist has the intention to hurt people. Big pharma has a reputation for being faceless corporations, but they're comprised of people who've dedicated their lives to finding novel ways to tackle society's health problems, and the relationship with academia is absolutely necessary.

As was also mentioned, you can definitely avoid working with animals if you feel strongly about it. Please don't let the articles you've come across put you off pursuing your interests. You certainly have the curiosity every scientist needs!

djpbarry

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

"Eleven children died during the 1996 clinical trial, carried out during a record meningitis epidemic. Other children developed brain damage and crippling arthritis."

While Trovan was ultimately found to cause liver damage and has been taken off the market as a result, the deaths and disabilities referred to above were most likely a result of meningitis. That’s not an attempt to defend Pfizer – I believe that at least one settlement has been made in relation to this incident.

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

I came across incidents where dogs had been scalded to death and other animals suffered untreated infections in laboratories reeking of excrement.

None of which really makes any sense – why would dogs have been scalded? What would be learned from such an “experiment”? Why would a laboratory be allowed to fall into such poor condition? It doesn’t make any sense.

Contrary to popular belief, the use of cats, dogs and chimps in biological research is rare these days - the most commonly used model organisms are probably mice, zebra fish and fruit flies. Furthermore, the use of animals in research is very strictly controlled (well, in the West at least) – a strong case needs to be made to an ethics committee and even then, the number of animals used must be kept to an absolute minimum. It should also be pointed out that, thanks to technological advancements (such as in vivo imaging methods, for example) the number of animals used can be reduced in many experiments.

djpbarry

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

Hell your right, if there were no trials there would be no life saving drugs etc...

It should also be pointed out that basic science and the commercialisation of drugs (clinical trials, etc.) are two very different things.

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

But if what happened in Nigeria happened in Dublin, the company would be absolutely persecuted by the media, the general public, everyone. But it almost seems that because it happened in Nigeria nobody really cared about them

That’s not really true, to be fair – the Trovan incident was a pretty high-profile one and received a lot of coverage in the US in particular.

Partition wrote: »

While I appreciate your concerns, it should be noted that at the time the article was written, no final court ruling had been made. Have you followed up the story to see what the upshot was?

A settlement has been made with respect to one case, but I believe there is at least one other outstanding.

Caoimhelicious

djpbarry wrote: »

None of which really makes any sense – why would dogs have been scalded? What would be learned from such an “experiment”? Why would a laboratory be allowed to fall into such poor condition? It doesn’t make any sense.

It was an animal rights web page talking about the company and it's CEO that I found that information on, they said it was due to automatic cage washing machines not being maintained, they also talked about monkeys pulling out there own hair from stress. I found it disturbing but someone earlier on in the thread kind of emphasised that those websites exaggerate and may not be fact!

djpbarry wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the use of cats, dogs and chimps in biological research is rare these days - the most commonly used model organisms are probably mice, zebra fish and fruit flies. Furthermore, the use of animals in research is very strictly controlled (well, in the West at least) – a strong case needs to be made to an ethics committee and even then, the number of animals used must be kept to an absolute minimum. It should also be pointed out that, thanks to technological advancements (such as in vivo imaging methods, for example) the number of animals used can be reduced in many experiments.

Very happy to hear this as I would very much like to be a scientist some day

djpbarry

Caoimhelicious wrote: »

It was an animal rights web page talking about the company and it's CEO that I found that information on, they said it was due to automatic cage washing machines not being maintained, they also talked about monkeys pulling out there own hair from stress. I found it disturbing but someone earlier on in the thread kind of emphasised that those websites exaggerate and may not be fact!

Yes, I'd be inclined to take it with a pinch of salt. Animal facilities are, in general, meticulously maintained and the animals well looked after*.

* Until they have to be culled for whatever purpose, but you know what I mean.