NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH
These photographs were taken during our investigation into the work of Professor W. S. Feldberg at the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London. This took place in 1989-90.
Full details of this can be found in the book "Caught In The Act" by Melody MacDonald that is available from our sales section.
Mike Huskisson co-operated with the Medical Research Council Inquiry into this work by Professor Feldberg. The following are extracts from the report of this Inquiry:-
9. Summary of Findings
a) The Animals:
i) We find that unnecessary suffering was caused to a rabbit on 23rd April 1990. Another rabbit probably suffered unnecessarily on 10th January 1990, and there was, possibly, a degree of avoidable pain caused to rabbits on 15th December and 30 March
In all cases, the situation arises from an anaesthetic being "too light". Remedial steps were taken but not always as speedily as might be hoped for.
One, if not more, of these incidents constituted a breach of the conditions of the personal licences held by Professor Feldberg and Mr Stean for which they must be held responsible. In consequence, a breach of the conditions of the N.I.M.R.'s certificate of designation occurred. The observance of those conditions is the responsibility of the certificate holder, Dr Skehel.
b) Professor Feldberg:
ii) When the Professor started his experiments of heating the abdomen of animals, that work was not covered by the project licence. That was a breach of the Act.
iii) After the point had been drawn to his attention, he, nevertheless, continued with one or two more experiments. That was a deliberate breach of the Act.
iv) On a number of occasions he failed to maintain an adequate level of anaesthetic. That constituted an inadvertent breach of his personal licence conditions. It also meant that the work was unauthorised by the project licence.
Regarding the work of the Home Office Inspectorate the Inquiry published the following:-
Findings: The Home Secretary failed to weigh adequately the likely benefit of the research
against the likely adverse effects on the animals involved, as he is required to do
under Section 5(4). If he had done so, it is reasonably certain that the amendment to
the project licence which allowed the heating of animals' abdomen would not have
been granted.
The Home Office Inspectors failed to comply with their statutory duties when they did
not act as promptly and effectively as they should have done when they were
becoming increasingly aware of difficulties involving Professor Feldberg. The
publicity forced them to take the action which they should have taken much earlier.
The Act referred to above is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
We are grateful to Advocates for Animals for their help with this investigation.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE ADVOCATES FOR ANIMALS ANNUAL PICTORIAL REVIEW 1991:-
Since the 1960s, the work of Professor Wilhelm Siegmund Feldberg, CBE FRS, one of Britain's most distinguished and senior scientists, has caught the attention of the animal protection movement. His research on conscious cats was of particular concern. Then at the end of April last year his career spanning some 70 years was over when Advocates for Animals presented a report on the work of Professor Feldberg to the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon David Waddington, QC, MP, following a two-year undercover investigation. In this Section we recount this investigation and discuss itsimplications.
The
Investigation
In May 1988, animal rights activist Melody MacDonald telephoned Professor Feldberg expressing an interest in his work. He invited her to visit his laboratory at the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), Mill Hill, London, which she did on a number of occasions on the pretext of researching his biography. The NIMR is one of Britain's top research institutes and is operated and funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC).
The Professor and his assistant, animal technician John Stean, were working on anaesthetised cats and rabbits which, according to them, was "basic research into blood sugar and the causes of hyperglycaemia" (excess of blood sugar), which they believed might influence the approach to diabetes.
In November 1989, Melody MacDonald, concerned about Feldberg's work, arranged for veterinary surgeon Dr Michael Fox to be invited into his laboratory. Dr Fox, Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States, was visiting this country at that time. While the Professor was experimenting on an anaesthetised cat, Dr Fox was struck by several things- Feldberg's impaired short memory, being unable to remember when the last blood sample was taken and when the next was due, his
physical difficulty in handling syringes and taking blood samples. According to Michael Fox when the experiment was terminated the Professor did not euthanise the cat but instead began dissecting it to locate the splanchnic nerves which. Fox saw, had not been completely severed. At this time Feldberg's assistant remarked with a tone of concern - "Oh you are doing a live dissection today, Professor". Feldberg then:
Cut into the cat's thorax, causing an immediate pneumothorax at which time the cat began to struggle. With shaking hands, he pulled out the cat's heart and severed it with scissors. (1)
Distressed by what she had been witnessing. Melody sought the assistance of Mike Huskisson of the Animal Cruelty Investigation Group. Armed with video and still cameras he too was invited into the Professor's laboratory, this time on the pretext of making a film on "teaching American students about animal experimentation". From 7 December 1989 to 23 April 1990, Mike Huskisson set about his task which would provide the evidence that would end the careers of both researchers. By the time he had finished he had taken some 40 hours of video and audio tape and hundreds of colour
and black and white photographs. We now review some of this gathered video tape evidence. We begin by recording in date order the experiments and the animals used.
The
Evidence
7
December 1989
An anaesthetised cat is "strung out" (tied down) on the operating table and a tracheal cannula (windpipe tube) is inserted to assist the animal to breathe by means of a pump. Six hours of experimentation, which has included the use of an anglepoise lamp to heat the cat's abdomen, ends in the animal's death. The heart is cut out.
15
December 1989
Professor Feldberg injects a rabbit with the anaesthetic Sagatal. A minute later the Professor has no memory of what he has just done or what he is going to do that day. More Sagatal is required. The rabbit jumps as Feldberg attempts to inject the anaesthetic into the vein in the ear. He remarks "can't see it, that's the trouble" John Stean attempts to “string out" the rabbit which is supposed to be anaesthetised but it moves and screams. More anaesthetic is given but again the Professor has difficulty piercing the ear. He comments again on the state of his eyes. Because of the amount of anaesthetic now given the rabbit's respiration has slowed A tracheal cannula is inserted to assist breathing. Having shaved the rabbit they commence work to insert the cannula during which the rabbit jumps. Moments later the Professor is asleep at his desk. When he wakens, Feldberg and Stean begin to heat the rabbit's abdomen with an anglepoise lamp. When asked by one of the investigators now that the animal is exposed to the heat of the lamp "won't it cook?", Stean replies, "it does". The rabbit jumps 20 seconds after the lamp has been placed above the abdomen. Later, to laughter, Stean remarks that "there is a faint smell of cooking" . The animal's scorched abdomen is clearly seen.
Shortly afterwards they leave for lunch during which time the burned and anaesthetised(?) animal is left unattended. On return from lunch the technician notes that the blood vessels in the rabbit's ear have changed colour and asks the Professor whether they are all right. He replies that they are. This proves not to be the case. Twenty minutes later the animal is dead.
21
December 1989
A rabbit is again anaesthetised with Sagatal. Ten minutes later further anaesthetic is given. The rabbit moves while being injected. The technician attempts to “string out" the rabbit. The animal resists so further anaesthetic is given.
The Professor uses scalpel to cut into the rabbit's leg to insert a venous cannula. Whilst doing so the rabbit begins to move. The Professor comments that it is a bit "light" but does nothing. He continues to use the scalpel. The rabbit moves again and Stean comments "I don't think you're going to get away with it Prof". The rabbit struggles furiously and screams. More anaesthetic is given.
Shortly afterwards the animal technician notices that the rabbit's belly is distended. The rabbit lifts its head twice as its belly inflates. The abdomen is cut open to let the air out. The rabbit is dead.
10
January 1990
A rabbit is anaesthetised after which it is "strung out". Because so much anaesthetic is given, a tracheal cannula is inserted to assist breathing.
The rabbit wriggles when the Professor uses a scalpel to insert a venous cannula in order to take blood samples. Feldberg collapses the vein in the right leg while trying to insert the cannula and attempts the same procedure on the left leg. The Professor comments again on the state of his eyes.
The Professor now collapses the vein in the left leg. Then, after failing in both back legs, one of the jugular veins in the neck is attempted. He fails again and decides to try the other jugular vein. After spending 30 minutes attempting to insert a venous cannula the Professor suddenly says: "Wait a moment, what do we want to inject?".
The technician has to explain to the Professor that they would not be injecting anything into the vein since it is blood they want to take.
Having failed in the other jugular vein the Professor decides to attempt to take blood directly from the veins in the ear. He misses the vein and punctures the skin. Despite all the surgery that has been carried out on the rabbit the animal is left tied down on the operating table while the Professor and technician go for a 19-minute coffee break.
An hour after returning from the coffee break, the animal is again left unattended as they go for lunch. On their return and as they approach the rabbit to take a blood sample, the rabbit moves its legs and lifts its head. The technician remarks that the animal is a bit "light" but still the Professor continues to take blood. Twenty minutes later a further blood sample is taken and again the rabbit moves and lifts its head. The rabbit attempts to get up on a number of occasions but each time its head is held down
by the technician. No extra anaesthesia is given.
The heating lamp is now placed above the rabbit's abdomen despite visible signs of leg movement. The rabbit attempts to get up again and the lamp is taken off. More anaesthetic is given. Only 23 seconds after giving the anaesthesia, they again heat the rabbit. Before they can get the lamp positioned the rabbit struggles violently ejecting thermometers which have been taped to its body. These are replaced and more Sagatal is administered. The veins in the ear are now so badly punctured, the Professor has difficulty injecting the anaesthetic.
Seven minutes after this further anaesthetic has been given the lamp is placed on the rabbit again and once more the animal moves. The investigator points out to the technician that part of the intestines are hanging out and are directly under the heat of the lamp. They are pushed back inside the body. Burn marks are clearly visible on the abdomen.
Later in the afternoon the two scientists drink cups of tea in the laboratory next to the laboratory animal despite being aware of the Health and Safety Regulations which forbid such a practice.
The rabbit is anaesthetised with Sagatal. The Professor informs the investigator that
he is about to insert a tracheal cannula. The investigator tells Feldberg that because
the animal had been moving earlier more anaesthetic will be required. The Professor
replies, "Let me have a look" and promptly attempts to make an incision to insert the
cannula into the base of the neck. The rabbit jumps. The Professor uses the scalpel
four more times. Each time the rabbit jumps. Feldberg now uses surgical scissors. As
he snips the rabbit moves. He continues snipping. The rabbit is constantly squirming
and its head lifts off the table. This continues for some time while the rabbit moves
violently. Now the Professor slips his finger into the hole he has cut in the rabbit's
neck. He cuts away a piece of tissue. He uses the scissors again. The rabbit moves.
More tissue is removed. He snips again. The rabbit attempts to get up. He snips again
and again. There is a violent reaction from the rabbit.
The technician, who up to this point has had his back to the Professor, notices that
the rabbit is moving and remarks. "A bit light Prof". But still the Professor continues
with the rabbit now moving constantly as he uses the scissors. Feldberg is now beyond
the chest wall snipping while the rabbit is still moving. As the cannula is tied on the
rabbit struggles violently and jumps numerous times. Still he proceeds. The rabbit
jumps and makes strange noises. It is fighting the respirator pump. During the six-
minute period it takes to insert the cannula the animal is repeatedly struggling but at
no time is any anaesthetic given.
Thirty minutes later anaesthetic is given. Despite this the rabbit struggles again as
the Professor attempts to take blood from the vein in the ear. After finally succeeding
in taking blood the technician and Professor prepare to go to lunch. The investigator
points out that the rabbit is moving shortly after which the animal attempts to get up.
The technician holds it down. The rabbit, which is now on its side, despite being
"strung out", struggles and attempts to get up again as the Professor injects more
anaesthetic. The technician informs him that he is not in the vein. It seems that the
Professor has injected most of the Sagatal outside the vein. The technician remarks, 'T
don't think it got very much at all Prof. More Sagatal is produced shortly after which
they leave the rabbit, which has undergone major surgical interference, unattended on
the table as they go for lunch.
Shortly after they return from lunch. 24 minutes later the Professor falls asleep in
front of the rabbit at the surgical table. When Feldberg awakens the lamp is placed
above the rabbit's abdomen. Several seconds later the rabbit moves and attempts to
get up. After sixteen minutes the lamp is taken off. The burned abdomen is clearly
seen.
Related points
Apart from the obvious pain and distress these animals suffered and the fact that this
89-year-old scientist had real problems with his eyes and memory (which is highlighted
throughout the gathered material, as well as his incompetence being witnessed by our
Director, Les Ward, when he visited Feldberg's laboratory in April), other points on
what we have recorded so far in this Review should be made.
Despite there being efficient modern anaesthetics available, Feldberg and Stean
used Sagatal (pentabarbitone sodium) which laboratory animal textbooks clearly state
is not a recommended anaesthetic for rabbits. Because of this and because they did not
monitor and control the depth of anaesthesia they either gave the animals too much
which caused complications and the need for tracheal cannulae to assist the animals
breathing, or gave too little which resulted in the animals coming round. As Stean
remarks:
It's a bit of a battle with the rabbits because most of them do seem to die
sometime in the afternoon. We haven't really got a satisfactory anaesthetic,
that's the truth of the matter.
Such incompetence led to animal suffering.
It is bad laboratory animal practice to ''string" animals out. Such a practice would
prevent proper monitoring of an animal under anaesthetic.
The use of an anglepoise lamp (desk lamp) to burn the animals is bad science.
According to John Stean the lamp was placed at the "approximate" setting each time
and "it's not very precise . . .". However its usefulness in heating and burning the
animals is not in doubt. The large bulb in the lamp set the temperature inside the
abdomen to 131.5°C. It should be remembered that boiling point of water is 100°C and
third degree burns occur probably between these temperatures. The bulb's strength
and the effect it was having was indicated by Stean's ill-considered remark - "there is a
faint smell of cooking" - which he found amusing.
Furthermore it is a medical fact that burning at this temperature kills the cells in the
skin. the products of which are then absorbed into the bloodstream. This therefore
possibly would have invalidated the experiment.
The use of the lamp to heat/burn the abdomen came about by chance. According to
Stean:
Prof discovered this really by accident. What had happened, we had an
anaesthetised cat on the table and the lamp fell down near the abdomen and we
noticed at the end of the day that the intestines were at a very high temperature.
Both men had been away from the operating table at the time and had had no idea
how long the lamp had been on the cat.
This brings us to the whole purpose of the experiment - "basic research into blood
sugar and the causes of hyperglycaemia". It is already a known fact that burning and
heating causes hyperglycaemia - excess of blood sugar. As far back as 1974 reference
is made to this fact in The Lancet. Despite this and although being aware of it the
research still went ahead. Stean states:
It was quite obvious from the papers I managed to dig out that thev have known
about this sort of thing for quite a long time really - back in the 70s - but he
(Feldberg) wouldn't read them. 1 was determined. I sat down once and read one
to him and he promptly w'-ent off to sleep! . . . We got to the stage where there
was all sorts of things we ought to be following up.
When the Professor was asked whether there were other people doing similar
research, he replied:
I don't know because I never read other people's papers.
It is vitally important scientists read research papers in order to keep abreast of
developments, so preventing duplication of work and unnecessary use of animal life.
Feldberg and Stean left their animals unattended tied down on a table and in some
cases after they had had major surgery and been burned while they went for lunch.
This is absolutely disgraceful and again we believe demonstrates a callous disregard for
animal life.
Other matters of concern highlighted in the tapes include the following remarks by
Professor Feldberg. In answer to a question concerning whether he knew about the
changes in the law resulting from
the introduction of the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 and whether they affected his work. He replied:
I don't know' what the changes were.
In answer to another question concerning the possible loss of his licence to do
experiments, he responded:
Look here . . . Either 1 go on legally if I am allowed, otherwise I go on illegally
if I'm not allowed. But go on I will.
Even if these statements were made through arrogance we believe a person who
holds such views is not a fit person to hold a licence to experiment on living animals.
The evidence reported above and much more was passed by the investigators to our
society in April. We were staggered by its content. We immediately began the task of
scrutinising the material. By the time we had finished a most damning report extending
to forty-seven pages had been produced. It was supported by a three-hour compilation
video tape. The report and tape exposed, and on numerous occasions highlighted,
serious breaches in the operation and enforcement of the 1986 Act, as well as serious
breaches in the conditions of the personal licences by both researchers themselves.
Approximately two weeks before the report was officially published a draft copy
together with video tape was passed to our Consultant, Clive Hollands, in his capacity
as a member of the APC. We knew that he had a duty to inform the Home Office
immediately, which he did. Our reasons for doing so were twofold. Firstly, in
deference to his age, we did not want Professor Feldberg to find out about the
investigation, of which he was totally unaware, by reading about it in a newspaper.
Secondly, because of a possible threat from the extremist element which has attached
itself to the animal protection movement, we wished to protect the two researchers
from possible attacks.
On 3 May the APC, as part of its regular meeting, viewed and discussed the
evidence. Action was swift. The following day the licences to experiment on animals of
both researchers were revoked. Five days later the official report supported by the
compilation video tape was passed by Advocates for Animals to the then Secretary of
State at the Home Department, the Rt Hon David Waddington, QC, MP. The report
called for the licences of both researchers to be revoked (this, of course, had already
happened following the meeting of the APC). It also called for those with statutory
responsibilities under the Act for its enforcement to be severely reprimanded. These
were. at the NIMR, the named day-to-day care person (the so-called animals' friend)
whose responsibilities include
"ensuring that every protected animal in all designated
areas is seen and checked at least once daily by a competent person": the named
veterinary surgeon whose duties
include visiting all parts of the establishment "at a
frequency which will allow the effective monitoring of the health status of the animals":
and the" holder of the certificate of designation (a senior person within the
establishment with overall responsibility) whose responsibilities include ensuring that
those mentioned above "discharge their duties effectively". Finally it is one of the
duties of the Home Office
Inspectorate to "visit places where regulated procedures are
carried out for the purpose of
determining whether those procedures are authorised by
the requisite licences and
whether the conditions of those licences are being complied
with".
From the evidence all these individuals failed in their duties and responsibilities.
The report also recommended a lower age limit for licensees carrying out research
on animals, more Home Office inspectors and:
To restore public confidence the Home Secretary must refer this case to the
Animal Procedures Committee as a matter of urgency in order that action can
be recommended to ensure that such a situation can never happen again.-
On 9 May The Independent and The Glasgow Herald having been granted
"exclusives" on the case carried extensive coverage. That same day a press conference
was called to discuss the whole affair at which our President, Lord Houghton of
Sowerby, Robin Corbett, MP, Alan Meale, MP, and Jim McAllion, MP, Dr Michael
Fox, Mike Huskisson and Melody MacDonald were present. The case has featured in
the world press, radio and television as far afield as Brazil.
On the same day as the press conference was held the then Home Secretary
announced that he was accepting immediately one of the report's recommendations
that the case be passed to the APC for a thorough review. The day before the Home
Office was insisting that it was:
A mere coincidence that a career stretching back to the 1930s had ended the very
day after the arrival of the critics' dossier (3)
and
The Professor and his assistant had voluntarily renounced their licences to
experiment on animals on Friday, but their actions were not related to the
society's evidence. (4)
Such statements by the Home Office should be treated with the contempt they
deserve. It is little wonder that the animal protection movement feels the Home Office
is less than fair when dealing with animal matters. Our society had taken a responsible
attitude by giving prior warning to the Home Office about the evidence in our
possession. We believe we deserved better treatment than this.
In the press both the investigation team and Advocates for Animals received very
favourable coverage in the way the
evidence had been gathered and handled. The
Independent in its leader column wrote that the issue of experimentation on animals
did arouse passionate feelings: so passionate that it was often discussed in the
aftermath of an outrageous bomb attack by extremist defenders of animal rights.
However, it continued:
For once. the subject has been brought back into the public arena by the
revelations of a body that has eschewed the violent tactics of the animal rights
movement. Using deception rather than violence, the Scottish Society for the
Prevention of Vivisection (Advocates for Animals) has produced horrifying
evidence, in video form, to demonstrate that the present system is liable to fail (5)
Professor Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation and an opponent of the
extreme forms of protest, whom we have already quoted in the Introduction, said he
was shocked by the reports about the experiments and continued:
That they took place in what is allegedly one of the most pro-animal countries in
the world, under some of the world's tightest pro-animal legislation, makes it
more extraordinary ... It indicates that, whatever the law says, you can have no
faith in it when there are defenceless, voiceless animals in a laboratory . . .
Advocates for Animals should be congratulated for the way the organisation
had brought its disclosures to public notice. (6)
While the media continued to report the case, questions were being asked in
Parliament. Answers to these questions shed more light on the case and added to the
weight of evidence against those responsible for the welfare of animals under the 1986
Act and on others within the NIMR. It was admitted that the Home Office
Inspectorate had visited the NIMR laboratories twelve times in 1988, eleven in 1989
and five up to 3 May 1990. (7) It also revealed that of those working within the NIMR
there was no:
Record of any complaints or observations from within the establishment having
been made about the professor's state of competence. (8)
We know from the video and audio tape evidence that the Home Office
Inspectorate had been aware of Professor Feldberg's failing abilities two years before
our report was published. As Dr Michael Balls, Chairman of the Trustees of FRAME
and a member of the APC, writing in Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA)
under the heading. -Has the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 failed?"
remarks:
Where were all these people while this work was being done? And where were
the friends and scientific peers of this once-great scientist, seen on the tapes as a
frail and forgetful old man with failing eyesight, who perhaps needed protection
from himself as much as the animals he used came to need protection from him?
. Why did the MRC fund work of such dubious scientific merit ... it is to be
hoped that the answers to these and other questions will be made known . . .
There must be no cover-up.(9)
Dr Michael Fox who visited Feldberg's laboratory and who we quoted earlier shares
similar view's to those of Dr Balls. In a letter to the MRC he wrote:
My overall impression of this visit was that the experiment was crude, if not
absurd: the cat's life was needlessly wasted; Prof Feldberg was an institution
unto himself, being allowed to continue experimenting on cats and rabbits at the
NIMR Ions after he should have retired, for reasons, if not of charity, then
because of the high status he enjoyed. The ultimate tragedy, in my mind, is that
the scientific community allowed him to engage in trivial if not cruel pursuits in
the laboratory without adequate peer review or supervision.
The scientific community should be held responsible for the harm done to Prof
Feldberg's reputation and to have to terminate a distinguished career on such a
negative note. Furthermore, this case clearly reveals that the necessary
oversight of biomedical standards of humane animal care and quality research
are lacking in the UK. While one exception does not make the rule, one would
not expect to find such deficiencies at a prestigious institute like the National
Institute for Medical Research.(10)
As well as the investigation by the APC. the MRC announced on 31 May the setting
up of an independent formal internal Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
case. Of the four Inquiry team members, three were either current or former members
of the MRC.
The report containing the Inquiry's findings was published on 4 February 1991. The
report confirmed that unnecessary suffering was caused to rabbits through inadequate
levels of anaesthesia. There had also been breaches of the scientists' personal licence
conditions bv leaving animals unattended during experimental procedures. In
addition, the Inquiry found:
Professor Feldberg carried out heating experiments on animals which were not
approved and covered by his project
licence. This was a breach of the Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Furthermore, despite having this matter drawn
to his attention. Feldberg continued with these experiments and thus
deliberately breached the 1986 Act.
The MRC machinery for dealing with applications for research grants did not
operate satisfactorily in the Feldberg case.
The Director of the NIMR as the holder of the certificate of designation was in
breach of his obligations under the 1986 Act.
The Home Secretary failed to weigh adequately the likely benefit of the research
against the likely adverse effects on the animals involved.
The Home Office Inspectors failed to comply with their statutory duties when
they did not act as promptly and efficiently as they should have done when they
were becoming increasingly aware of difficulties involving Professor Feldberg.
The publicity forced them to take the action which they should have taken much
earlier.
In a News Release immediately following publication of the MRC Inquiry Report,
the Rt Hon Angela Rumbold. CBE, MP, Minister of State at the Home Office.
commented: "We think that the report has got it wrong in its criticism of the Home
Office and the Inspectors"(11). While the MRC are prepared to be frank and open, the
Home Office again act in an irresponsible and less than honest manner. We are taking
up this matter with the Minister.
In a postscript to the Report, the Inquiry team referred to the final months of
Professor Feldberg's career. They stated:
During these months, a number of animals perished for no discernible beneficial
reason. One or two almost certainly suffered pain and discomfort . . . It is a sad
drama. But this is a drama without villains. Neither are there any heroes. Only
victims.(12)
No-one associated with Advocates for Animals has gained any pleasure or
satisfaction from this whole sorry affair. Clearly there were "victims", the cats and
rabbits used by Feldberg and Stean. However, while the Inquiry team believes there
were no "villains", there are individuals within the MRC. NIMR and Home Office
who in closing their eyes to what was going on and therefore by their lack of action
have caused serious breaches in the
operation and enforcement of the Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which ultimately led to animal abuse and suffering.
Action must be taken against these individuals by the appropriate authorities. As far
as the two elderly scientists themselves are concerned, in particular Professor Feldberg
who is no longer a "well man", no useful purpose would be served in seeking a
prosecution.
We know that this case has reverberated around animal research laboratories
throughout Britain. We only hope that for the sake of laboratory animals, lessons have
been learned.
We close this Section by congratulating Melody MacDonald and Mike Huskisson on
their work. We would like to thank the video company in Edinburgh (who wish to
remain anonymous) for its assistance and generosity in the making of the compilation
video tape from some 40 hours of tape. Their studio and operator were provided at
short notice and free of charge. We would also like to thank Pyramid Photographies
and Dougie Dunbar, again for their assistance and generosity in providing copies of
photographs for use in the press and information packs. These too were provided at
very short notice.
1. Letter from Dr Michael W Fox to Sir Brian Bailey, Chairman of MRC Inquiry - 12 July 1990.
2. Report of a Special Investigation Into Work Being Carried Out On Animals at The National Institute for Medical Research, Advocates for Animals, Edinburgh - May 1990.
3. The Glasgow Herald, Glasgow - 9 May 1990.
4. The Independent. London - 9 May 1990.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid-15 May 1990.
7. Hansard, House of Commons Reports, London, Col 664 - 21 June 1990
8. Ibid, Col 665 - 21 June 1990.
9. ATLA. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Vol 17, No 4, FRAME - June 1990.
10. Letter from Dr Michael W Fox to Sir Brian Bailey, Chairman of MRC Inquiry - 12 July 1990,
11. Home Office News Release - 4 February 1991.
12. Report of MRC Inquiry Into The Operation Of The Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 And The Administration Procedures Within The MRC In Relation To Experiments Carried Out By Professor W S Feldberg - 4 February 1991.