Advertisement

Dog sacrificed for sales demonstration

In an unprecedented exercise, a neurosurgeon at Cleveland Clinic violated the Clinic's animal use code, but perhaps not federal law

By | January 18, 2007

The United States Department of Agriculture and Cleveland Clinic are investigating an incident in which a neurosurgeon induced an aneurysm in an anaesthetized dog to demonstrate a medical device to sales people, and later destroyed the animal. The incident, which Cleveland Clinic reported to the USDA last week, at the very least violated the Clinic's official rules, but perhaps not federal law. "Cleveland Clinic does not allow procedures with animals for the sole purpose of sales training," according to a statement Cleveland Clinic Emailed to The Scientist. "The situation that occurred yesterday was unauthorized and not in compliance with our policy." According to news reports, the neurosurgeon requested permission from Cleveland Clinic's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to use the dog, but did not receive a response by the time of the sales demonstration. The clinic had approved the neurosurgeon's use of a dog to induce an aneurysm, but did not approve its use for the sales demonstration, the Associated Press reported. A spokesperson for Cleveland Clinic would not comment beyond the official statement until its investigation into the incident is complete, and would not release the surgeon's name, or details on the device or its manufacturer. Jim Rogers, spokesperson for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, told The Scientist APHIS is sending an officer to Cleveland Clinic to "review the facility and help us determine if an investigation is needed." Rogers said it is undetermined whether the neurosurgeon broke federal law in his use of the dog. An institution's policy for animal use is determined by the institution's IACUC, which is reviewed and approved by the USDA. General guidelines that must be followed are outlined in the federal Animal Welfare Act (in which rats and mice are excluded) and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Rogers said the maximum penalty for violating the Animal Welfare Act is $2750, applied to the institution or individual that owns the license for animal use. John Miller, executive director of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), said that using a dog for a sales demonstration does not violate the Animal Welfare Act per se. "What was problematic in this case was it was not permitted by [Cleveland Clinic's] IACUC, and if IACUC had known, it probably would not have approved" the use of the dog for this situation, Miller told The Scientist. "The bottom line was it was never reviewed by IACUC so it was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act." Miller said the incident would not warrant suspension of Cleveland Clinic's accreditation by AAALAC. This is the first time Miller has heard of a scientist sacrificing an animal for a sales event. "It has not come up in the over ten years that I've been [at the AALAC]," he said. Harry Rozmiarek, treasurer for Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, which offers training for developing IACUC policies, told The Scientist, "It would be unlikely that the terminal use of animals strictly for sales demonstrations would be acceptable" by an institution's IACUC. Rozmiarek pointed out that there are situations in which an animal might be sacrificed during physician training of a medical device, when sales people were present, but like others interviewed by The Scientist, he said he had not heard of an IACUC permitting the use of an animal solely for a sales demonstration. In response to the incident, the Humane Society of the United States is urging the USDA to amend the Animal Welfare Act to explicitly prohibit the use of animals for sales demonstrations. "This is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed," Andrew Rowan, executive vice president of the Humane Society, told The Scientist. Rowan said the incident at Cleveland Clinic reveals weaknesses in oversight of animal use. "The USDA could do a lot more to establish national standards. Everybody makes up their own standards, and it's possible another place might have approved this protocol and seen nothing wrong with it," Rowan said. Kerry Grens kgrens@the-scientist.com Links within this article: Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee http://www.iacuc.org United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service http://www.aphis.usda.gov R Finn, "Veterinarians in research labs address conflicting agendas," The Scientist, May 26, 1997. http://www.the-scientist.com/1997/5/26/1/3 Animal Welfare Act http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm JK Borchardt, "US debates care standards for small laboratory animals," The Scientist, July16, 2001. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/19782 Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care http://www.aaalac.org Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research http://www.primr.org Humane Society of the United State http://www.hsus.org O Siddiqui, "Groups attack USDA animal plan," The Scientist, June 13, 2003. 'http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/21384
Advertisement

Comments

Avatar of: Cheryl Reiff

Cheryl Reiff

Posts: 1

January 18, 2007

This is horrible news. When we barely need to use live animals even for real testing it is unforgiveable to do this for the sole purpose of making money.\nI'm disgusted at such a cheap and heartless display of greed.
Avatar of: Brenda

Brenda

Posts: 1

January 18, 2007

I am disgusted and horrified at the expenditure of a dog's life to entertain sales people. Let me guess. The whole thing was video-taped and will now be played over web-video casts for prospective customers? Or will animals be routinely slaughtered as part of some new shock value product demonstrations? Wherever the line is, I think it has been crossed.
Avatar of: Gary S. David

Gary S. David

Posts: 1

January 18, 2007

It is unfortunate that details regarding the nurosurgeon and the device manufacturer were not available. Both should be censured, the so-called "doctor" should be fired, and the manufacturer should be boycotted! Whether the act was federally sanctioned or otherwise is irrelevant; this was a totally irresponsible and unconscionable behavior.
Avatar of: Mark Wilson

Mark Wilson

Posts: 1

January 18, 2007

I would like to hear more details. If he was using the animal to train other physisicians to use the device, then that is acceptable. If he was demonstrating to the salespeople how the device is operated so thay can properly instruct potential users how to use it on actual patients, then, while not as easy to accept, this practice is still ethically defensible. We need more details before passing judgement.
Avatar of: Carolyn

Carolyn

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

Bottom line this is disgusting and immoral. One thing I know is that a society is easily judged on how they treat their domesticated animals. \n\nSHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Avatar of: lory

lory

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

wonder what this so called ''scientist'' is going to do next? If he has no conscience nor heart to kill animals for mere profit, what can he do to people?\nStrip him of his rights and make him mop the floor of his lab instead.\nGlad to hear somebody with a moral conscience reported him.\n\n
Avatar of: Brent

Brent

Posts: 2

January 19, 2007

Why is it cool to do this stuff to rats and not dogs? If we kill tons of dogs everyday that can't be supported by humane societies why can we not kill them in what way we choose so long as they are going to feel no excess pain and were going to die anyways? We have too large of a dog population - much like we have too large of a deer population - and we have no qualms about shooting deer which is undoubtedly much more painful than dying of an aneurism while anaesthetized. Dogs are going to die anyways so we might as well use this to our advantage.
Avatar of: patricia pianea

patricia pianea

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

Would an animal ever kill a human for "sales purposes"?
Avatar of: DrP

DrP

Posts: 16

January 19, 2007

This sounds more a teaching session than a sales pitch. If so, the use of animals is probably appropriate. Nobody likes to talk much about it, but sales personel are often involved in teaching physicians to use devices.
Avatar of: Mike

Mike

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

Sales training has the immediate implication of expanding someone's pockets with lucre. But the real matter is that in doing so, the benefits of new technologies, their use, and understanding is carried forward by sales reps, who actually help to teach other neurosurgeons not just the key opinion leaders. It can help avoid when a patient shows up at a local hospital, not just the university level - world class hospitals, the technology and care can be provided that avoids or reduces the impact of stroke on the patient, the family and all of us. Sales training for medical devices is not about selling cars, it's about helping patients.
Avatar of: Jennifer B.

Jennifer B.

Posts: 2

January 19, 2007

With the information provided in this article, I would have to agree that this is inappropriate use of an animal. It disturbs me that the very doctors who theoretically esteem life treat it with such disdain & disrespect. \n\nNeither the species nor the fact that there are "extra dogs" is relevant. If this "device" has been approved & is now being marketed, then prior research as to its safety & value should be available for "sales displays". Data & video presentation may make for a less sensationalistic sales pitch, but we need to try harder as a society to consider ethics in our decision-making processes. In our "advancing" society, surely we can use technology to our benefit & progress ethically as well as scientifically.\n\nWe must address the problems of animal homelessness, not utilize a human-created problem to rationalize unquestioned vivisection. Often there are alternatives to animal use, but unfortunately, animals come cheap, so we use economics to justify cruelty. Humans domesticated animals-we need to take responsibility for this. Senseless death, be it at a humane society or at the hands of a business person, is not an acceptable solution.\n\nI believe that in death, people and non-human animals ought to be shown the utmost respect which includes not dying in fear or physical pain. Being a doctor does not necessarily qualify this person to admister veterinary anaesthesia appropriately & to ensure the lack of pain. Observers often mistake an apparent lack of consciousness as being equal to the lack of sensory perception. I see animal death everyday, but to me, this dog's life was wasted. \n\n\n
Avatar of: S. McIntyre

S. McIntyre

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

"This is the first time Miller has heard of a scientist sacrificing an animal for a sales event." Incorrect. The person involved was NOT a scientist, but a physician. I would expect that, while the two are often confused in the popular media, I would have expected "The Scientist" to have gotten it straight. As someone who works at the same sort of institution as the one in question (in research - basic, not clinical), I, for one, am rather tired of blame being placed at the feet of science for idiotic mistakes, studies,etc., perpetrated by medical doctors who often act in the most unscientific way possible.

January 19, 2007

I am very happy to see that the majority of responses to this horror are AGAINST this perversion. Those who agree with such an immoral act will have to face their God. \n I read your article on the perverted, inhuman, and sick MURDER of an innocent little animal by some sick pervert who claims to be a "Scientist" from the Cleveland Clinic. Why was the persons name not mentioned? I intend to immediately send this article to several animal rights groups so that they may investigate. Thank you for this story of perversion.\nI also think that this sort of evil will happen more as more "Scientists" become "Businessmen" and look for the greater profit as oppossed to helping life. When is the Life Science Community - for which I have lost ALL respect -- going to stop this animal hatred, this "XENOPREJUDICE" and realize that most animal experimentation, of all kinds, is unnecessary. Please wake up.
Avatar of: Jay

Jay

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

The Dr. Found a loop-hole.\n\nClose the loop-hole or it will happen again.\n\nLife is Life! Dog, Cat, Mouse, Rat, Man, Worm etc.\n\nNo animal testing should be done anymore.\n\nUse euthanasia for an unwanted animal without testing/demonstrating.
Avatar of: Dave

Dave

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

Everyone gets all up in arms about inducing an aneurysm in a canine, but no one gives two hoots about human testing, killing for the sake and convenience of killing, or allowing Darwinian natural selection to take place.\n\nAnd, we don't even have all the facts here...\n\nI love it. Nobody read this article to my dog. I'll have to stop feeding him NeutroMax and shift to steak and green beans!!\n\nIT'S A DOG PEOPLE!!! Just a dog...
Avatar of: just a dog

just a dog

Posts: 1

January 19, 2007

"Everyone gets all up in arms about inducing an aneurysm in a canine, but no one gives two hoots about human testing, killing for the sake and convenience of killing, or allowing Darwinian natural selection to take place. \n\nAnd, we don't even have all the facts here... \n\nI love it. Nobody read this article to my dog. I'll have to stop feeding him NeutroMax and shift to steak and green beans!! \n\nIT'S A DOG PEOPLE!!! Just a dog..."\n\nJUST A DOG YEA, YOU RECKON JUST A DOG,\nWould that be like the dogs who enable people without sight to live independant lives, would that be just a dog that alerts deaf people to things we take for granted like the doorbell ringing, the phone ringing, warning the infirm of danger like fire, intruders etc, or would it be just one of those dogs who dig people out from avalanches etc, or maybe JUST A DOG THAT SNIFFS OUT EXPLOSIVES\nto save people from death, mutilation, horrific burns, etc etc...... or just a dog who is a companion\nand only friend to 1,000s 1,000s etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... etc etc......etc etc...... JUST A DOG --JUST A HUMAN ,,,But I know who I would rather have as a guide hunter being lost somewhere,,,,,\n\nIt is blatently obvious that the "JUST A DOG" AUTHOR" has no knowledge of mans journeys along side the canine breed, and the unmeasurable\nways in which they have prevented the death injury and suffering of humans and the joy they have brought to millions upon millions of us whom are JUST HUMANS,,,,,\n\nNearly forgot the just dogs without which certain residents of the planet earth past & present, would of starved without them CAN YOU CATCH A WABBIT.\n\n \n \n \n
Avatar of: Jennifer B.

Jennifer B.

Posts: 2

January 19, 2007

I'm not sure why people assume that those who care about animals, the environment, etc., don't also care about human beings. The "other side" is pretty defensive and tends to be as self-righteous as the most extreme animal-rights activists. Surely somewhere in the middle there is a place of reason.\n\nI for one extend my reason and compassion to all beings and the world in which they live.\n\nIt's that old argument..."I can commit horrible crimes because you own a pair of leather shoes & you're not perfect so I don't have to make any effort"... It kills me. \n\nI am outraged by abuse towards people too, in fact, I would argue that hatred is hatred whether it manifest itself in speciesism, racism, sexism, etc. It is never "just a dog". It is also the injury we do to our own humanity by believing that it is okay to cause suffering. We must strive to live well and to do as little harm as possible- this harm was reckless, easily avoidable, and seemingly pointless.\n
Avatar of: sigmund

sigmund

Posts: 2

January 19, 2007

I am a scientist and physician who has worked with animals, though mostly smaller ones. I would not think it would be wrong for me to sacrifice an animal for the purpose of training or an educational demonstration though I do not recall ever sacrificing an animal solely to show how it was done. A new person in my laboratory would be instructed using experiments that needed to be done anyway. But under some circumstances I can see that it might be more appropriate to actually set up a training experiment. Also, such an experiment could be videotaped (but an actual experiment could be videotaped as well).\n\nThis incident was not an experiment, of course. It was a demonstration. A question that is not addressed in the article is how important was the demonstration. Was this actually necessary for the sales personnel to carry out their work. What functions do these personnel carry out? It is a fact that people who sell medical equipment to physicians need to know a lot about it in order to accurately tell the physicians how it works. But there are many complex issues here regarding the role of an academic medical institution such as Cleveland Clinic in that process. \n \nStating that the sacrifice was for a "sales demonstration," though technically accurate I suppose, misleads the reader into thinking that the surgeon was in the immediate process of selling a device to a group of people. He actually was giving a demonstration to individuals who may have needed the training in order to do their jobs properly. Review of such use should consider the need, which sounds to me as if it might have been legitimate. But I do not know the specifics of the case. \n \nWith respect to other comments that have been made, there is no reason to think that this was done to "entertain salespeople." The comment that "...we barely need to use live animals even for real testing" is totally false. We need animal testing now more than ever and regulations that attribute so-called "rights" to animals are an unjustified impediment to beneficial research that can help both humans and animals. While certain advances may have diminished the importance of some animal work, the importance of others have increased. For example, now that we have many genes that we know are involved in disease causation, it is very important to create mutant animal models. In fact, it would be better in some cases if we could move up from rodent models to primates in various genetic disease (aside from the expense, some of which is caused solely by excessive regulation). Also, modern technologies allow for greater control and manipulation of wires, tubes, and catheters which can be used to repair structural defects such as aneurysms. Work with larger animals such as dogs, pigs, or even primates is potentially very important to help us understand how best to treat such things as strokes, myocardial infarctions, and trauma. \n\nMedical and biological scientists need to speak out against spurious theories that animal experimentation is unnecessary. \n \nThis particular use of an animal may have been technically improper insofar as the neurosurgeon did not wait for approval. Also, if it was against the Clinic's policy then he should have known he had no hope for approval. But it is not completely clear that what he did was against their policy. If it was to educate the onlookers in something important to their legitimate job function, I think there should be a place where it could have been approved. Perhaps that place is not Cleveland Clinic or perhaps it is. More information will have to come out. \n\nIt would be unfortunate if regulations are changed to make it more difficult to instruct either doctors or employees of device manufactures concerning many new life-saving devices. \n \nSigmund
Avatar of: Laura Yanne

Laura Yanne

Posts: 2

January 20, 2007

When a whistleblower--a neurosurgeon--contacted PETA and told us that a live dog was to be used later that same day in a demonstration to Micrus Endovascular Corporation salespeople, we immediately faxed letters to Cleveland Clinic and Micrus, insisting that they halt the lab. We quickly identified and attached a paper describing a silicone non-animal model that could be used instead: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nmc/43/2/69/pdf \n\nOur calls and letters were ignored; the unauthorized lab proceeded, at least one dog was needlessly vivisected and killed, and public outcry ensued. \n\nThe Cleveland Clinic has disciplined its own doctor/instructor in a manner that has yet to be revealed. The Clinic itself has yet to face the consequences of its own lax oversight, and will have to thoroughly overhaul its IACUC?s procedural checks and balances. It?s worthless to have policies?even good ones such as prohibiting the use of animals for sales demonstrations?if they?re not enforced. Cleveland Clinic could redeem its reputation if it were to make a substantial commitment to fund the development of alternatives to animals, or accelerate the adoption of non-animal methods. \n\nChanging the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the use of animals in sales demonstrations will take an act of Congress. Wouldn?t it be a better use of time, effort and the HSUS? considerable legislative muscle to press for the AWA to adopt the language of the DOD?s animal use regulation--requiring the use of non-animal methods when such exist, rather than simply state that they be considered? \n\nThe ?large, mixed-breed dog? died needlessly at the Cleveland Clinic, but s/he did not die in vain. Thanks to the bravery of our whistleblower, this sad and reprehensible episode has opened people?s eyes to something that simply cannot be excused in the name of science.\n\n
Avatar of: T.R.

T.R.

Posts: 1

January 20, 2007

In all of the noise over this issue, there is another question: what are the ethics of acting as a mole for a political pressure group (PETA) who have a long history of extremist activism. The hostility toward those in industry is quite curious as well. Where in the world do these people thing all the gadgets and drugs that save their lives when they or their loved ones have problems come from, and who in the world do they think come up with them? It is certainly not them.
Avatar of: Sigmund

Sigmund

Posts: 2

January 20, 2007

T.R. has a good point about ratting out one's colleagues to PETA. Of course, there are some--though I think they are very misguided--who might do it because they agree with PETA. My guess is that one of the doc's colleagues did it either out of jealously or to settle a score. While I was a junior faculty member at a certain big name East Coast university things like that happened a number of times. Scientists would turn anonymously turn in their colleagues over various infractions of either radiation safety or animal use. They wouldn't go to PETA, they would go to some committee or complain to the Feds. They could have simply told the person "Hey Jim, your postdoc eats his lunch at the bench while pipetting radioactive iodine." Instead they set up a sting.
Avatar of: K.M.

K.M.

Posts: 2

January 20, 2007

I am appalled that this "doctor" flagrantly and deliberately thwarted his organization's system for review and control of such activities. Anyone who has had even basic HUman Subjects Training and the analogous animal certifications knows that internal review boards and ethical oversight procedures exist because of the horrible abuses and harm to both people and animals that have occured in the past, in the name of research or medical activity. This doctor should be professionally censured for his disregard of ethical procedures. Couldn't a computer simulation have been substituted for a purpose as mundane as sales training?\n\nHere is another point to consider, and I offer it based on my own background in marketing and public relations. This demonstration for training sales people could have been far more effective if the "patient" dog had been allowed to survive the procedure. Given that the aneurism was induced, why not let the animal experience the full recovery, thanks to the device, that a human patient would hopefully experience? Then the "training" could also impart a greater understanding of what kind of recovery care and rehabilitation are required by people who will be using the device. Once the dog fully recovered, he or she could have been donated to a local therapy dog trainer or organization, and used to visit patients in the hospital who are either prospective recipients for the device, or have already undergone the procedure, to lift their morale and visualize their life after recovery. The costs of such a program should of course be covered by the device manufacturer. The survivor dog could even wear a special vest, complete with the company name and logo of the device manufactuer, to maximize the positive PR effect. As it stands now, the dog has been dealt an unlawful, cruel, and pointless death, and the device manufacturer has created a PR nightmare. The company and doctor's names will eventually be revealed in the press, and people will remember it as the "device that killed that poor dog". \n\n
Avatar of: jack maclean

jack maclean

Posts: 1

January 21, 2007

comments and media coverage about this tragedy seem to be overlooking something very important. Cleveland Clinic's failure to communicate its policies, failure to act on warnings, failure to dismiss or release information on the unethical "doctor", and failure to specify the "discipline" all point to failures of management. they mark the clinic as an organization trying to live on media puffery and management spin. especially, their claim of "discipline" without revealing what the discipline was can only mean they know the public will percive their action as covering up a mere slap on the wrist.\n\nbad management and lack of ethics in one area usually means they are pervasive in other areas as well. this is frightening in an organization used by people for sometimes life-threatening procedures.
Avatar of: Brent

Brent

Posts: 2

January 22, 2007

Can we please not mention God and souls in this argument? Please? If you're going to post using God (any God) and souls as the basis of your opinion will you just stop and save people the time they might have spent reading it?
Avatar of: DMB

DMB

Posts: 1

January 23, 2007

The use of animals in medical research is heart-wrenching, but is also completely necessary to protect patients. Animals must be used when there is simply no other way to be sure a product is safe or functions as intended.\n\nHowever, it is difficult to belive that a live, fatal, animal demonstration would EVER be necessary for sales training. The product was, without a doubt, previously tested on animals. It is very likely that human clinical trials had already taken place. Why couldn't any of those procedures have been videotaped for training purposes?\n\nThe physician and device company obviously believe they are above gaining approval from their IACUC committee. Any why not? A $2,750 fine is certainly not going to phase a neurosurgeon, who was probably paid several times that amount for giving the demonstration in the first place.\n\nIf any good can come of this tragic story, perhaps those of us in similar lines of work will be reminded of the dangers of greed and ego.
Avatar of: joe

joe

Posts: 17

January 23, 2007

People might be interested in reading the following linked article on PETAs utter disregard for the lives of the dogs in its care before aligning themselves with this organization, and their spokesperson who has posted on this thread. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm

January 26, 2007

its sooo horrible if a person kills an animal, but then dogs kill their newborn puppies all the time. we should punish them to, they eat the newborn when it tries to get something to eat from its mother, but for some reason THAT doesn't bother people. i find that a bit hypocritical... espcially since everyone seems to be thinking that people ARE animals. and since all animals should be treated equally then the mother/male animals that eat/kill their young should all be punished to. \nplus, someone said that a dog wouldn't kill a person for a sales demonstration.. thats because a dog doesn't have the capacity to understand anything aside from the most basic of things. \nand you know something, you guys have SUCH a big problem with animal testing, but i don't see you going down to a lab and volunteering yourselves to be tested on. the simple fact is that SOMETHING has to be tested on, and i don't see any of you volunteering. \nplus, since its horrible to killl anything, then pesticides, bug spray and all forms of pest control should be abolished also. unless of course, you decided that insects don't qualify as animals. hey, if you're going topreach that all animals should be allowed to live you might as well be fair about it. \ni beleive peta has good intentions, but they go about it the wrong way. euthenizing THOUSANDS of pets that they decided "were in danger" doesn't exactly seem like a group that wants to save the animals. saying "its wrong to kill animals" while you're sticking a needle into them is a hypocrite. \ni'm a very humaine person, but i take alot of offense when people say its wrong to kill an animal.\nand if you environmentalists cared SO MUCH about the animals and their environment, then you should all get rid of and destroy your cars, burn all of your clothing and burn down your houses, then shoot yourselves to give the animals room to run around and live.
Avatar of: AT

AT

Posts: 1

February 4, 2007

To the ignoramus who tries to justify this torture:\n\nMicrus sales people were obviously not in the lab to train the surgeon because the surgeon was described as first demonstrating the procedure to Micrus sales employees. (duh) So one can't justify the torture as a needed and medically sound sales call!\n\nSecondly, while PETA has been associated with what only some will call "extreme activism", who is there to call when quick action against violations are needed? I am sure that you also don't know that the first case involving human child abuse was \ndefended by the Humane Society of the United States! Although it took an animal protection agency to defend a human child...hopefully we all do know that abusing a child is also very wrong.\n\nJust remember, there are doctors who go into medicine to help and then there are those who enter the profession for other reasons....money or perhaps the chance to mutilate. (Who blew the whistle on Dr. Mengele?) There are those who graduate with high scores from medical school and there are those who barely scrape by. In the end, they are all called doctors.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Anova
Anova
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Life Technologies