san diego

Troubled waters: Salk Institute animals were too sick for use in experiments, one scientist testified. Credit: SALK INSTITUTE

Federal authorities are investigating animal research at the Salk Institute, after past inhumane treatment and faulty experiments were exposed in a civil court case brought by a former employee.

The animal research programme at the institute in La Jolla, California, was so rife with problems at one stage that the success of scientific projects was threatened, the San Diego court heard.

Teresa J. Sylvina, a veterinarian hired in 1990 to correct animal research deficiencies at the Salk, is suing the institute for wrongful termination, retaliation, defamation and sexual harassment.

Most of the difficulties — ranging from deadly disease in animals to failed surgical techniques — occurred in the early 1990s, when the institute was trying to bring its programme into compliance with a 1985 animal care law. But internal strife over methods has lingered between scientists and administrative staff at the Salk, the court was told.

The federal investigation, launched last week, is being conducted by the US Department of Agriculture, which licenses animal research facilities, together with the Office for Protection from Research Risks at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Salk Institute officials say they have corrected the problems and now operate a first-rate animal research programme. They say they welcome the probe, which they anticipate will exonerate the facility.

Sylvina was fired in 1996, and now directs animal research at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts. But she told the court she was blackballed for more than a year by Salk Institute officials, in particular Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who once ran the institute on an interim basis.

The court heard about intense acrimony between Sylvina and Crick, who engaged in a “screaming match” in 1995. Crick couldn't be reached for comment last week.

Salk Institute officials contend that Sylvina was a bad manager. “There is no basis for the allegations presented by Sylvina in her lawsuit,” said Fred H. Gage, chairman of the institute's faculty.

But some court records and sworn testimony support Sylvina's claims, and indicate that the institute's faculty was divided on her performance. Robert Hyman, a senior scientist at the institute who chaired the Animal Care and Use Committee, testified that, before Sylvina came aboard, “there was so much disease in the [animal] facility that people couldn't do experiments”.

A major NIH cancer grant to the institute was threatened by the animal research deficiencies, Sylvina told the court. The institute's animal committee was “a dead-letter” panel, she said, which did not properly review or monitor experiments. Sylvina uncovered instances of inhumane and faulty experiments. But court records show the committee was reluctant to discipline scientists. A neuroscientist who caused a number of problems, including accidentally burning one cat severely and asphyxiating another, was permitted to avoid a serious sanction, which would have been reported to NIH officials. The neuroscientist voluntarily halted his experiments and later left the institute.

When Sylvina was fired, Hyman testified that he resigned from the animal committee, believing she had been sacked for doing a good job. “She started with a failing facility there, she led a revolution there, which is never very comfortable for those in the status quo,” Hyman testified. He declined to be interviewed for this article.

Federal authorities are also to examine claims of questionable NIH billing practices. Sylvina testified that she discovered a staff member of the animal department double-billing for experiments, but that administrators at the institute failed to aggressively pursue her concerns. A Salk administrator testified that the institute had given a monetary advance to the staff member, whose wages had been cut when Sylvina halted the questionable billing practice.