Letters to the Editor
Send your letters to tobancomment@umanitoba.ca or drop them off at 105 University Centre
Museum of Human Rights will provide knowledge and awareness
I would like to comment on William Wolfe-Wylie’s January 6, 2006 article entitled “Canada is unfit to point its finger on human rights abuses.” In the article, he points out that Canada still has work to do before pointing a finger at others and states, “Before we build a museum, let’s put our human rights abuses in the past so a museum is where they actually belong.”
Indeed, one of the objectives of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is to learn from the past so that visitors can better understand the present and most importantly change the future. The museum will offer new information each day, with its pulse on national and international human rights developments. It will provide information and accessibility for visitors (to the museum and to the website), to groups and organizations around the world who are advocating for human rights.
It will offer opportunities for visitors to sign up or get more information about human rights topics that they want to learn more about. The Museum will be partly dedicated to exhibits, multi-media and theatrical presentations but will also focus on forums and dialogue, where people can learn about themselves and others as well as about the issues of the past and of today. It will teach information about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — encouraging discussion and compiling real-time information about people’s responses to human rights issues.
The Museum is designed to be a life-changing process — where visitors are inspired by human rights heroes so that they, in turn, will stand up for human rights in their homes, schools, communities and country. I encourage you to take a tour of the museum on the website www.canadianmuseumforhumanrights.com to see for yourself how the Museum’s goal is to, as Mr. Wolfe-Wylie says, “put our human rights abuses in the past.”
Yours very truly,
Gail Asper, Campaign Chair
Canadian Museum for Human Rights
Intelligent design is not science
It is a shame that a learning institution would publish such a poorly thought-out piece (“Should the theory of intelligent design be taught . . .” (11/01/2006.) All of the old arguments supporting Intelligent Design (ID) were dusted off once again despite mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and zero credible evidence supporting ID. Intelligent Design is a political issue, driven by the fundamentalist Christian right in the United States. The “scientists” supporting the movement, Michael Behe being the champion, are the first to admit that they have no evidence to support their claims, and without a God (a Christian God) driving ID there is no theory. All this nonsense about flagellum and blood clotting ignores the decades of evolutionary biology explaining their function.
If someone is interested in the true state of ID, they need to read the recent Kittsmiller v. Dover court decision brought down in Dover, Pennsylvania. Bottom line: ID is not science, it is religion.
Poorly done, U of M
[Editor’s note: the Manitoban publishes independently and not under the
auspices of the University of Manitoba]
Doug Hakala
Sarnia
To the Editor:
14 December 2005
I was dismayed to discover on the Internet this week an article authored by Chelsea Moore titled “What drugs and GMO’s have in common” and subtitled ‘Dr. Olivieri compares her battle against Apotex with documentary release at U of M[anitoba].’ Although not responsible for its errors, I write to correct this account of a controversy in which I have been involved, at the University of Toronto and Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, over the last ten years. I wish to make clear that I did not speak to Ms. Moore about this story. The article was neither seen or reviewed by me prior to my discovering on the Net. I believe that the article does not represent accurately my presentations at the University of Manitoba on November 30, when I was invited there by the CAUT to support student Ian Mauro and Stephane McLachlan, Mauro’s graduate advisor, in their launch of their film Seeds of Change.
A few examples of how I was misquoted include, but are not limited, to the following.
I did not state: “this was like ‘my battle against Apotex’ (Ms Moore’s phrase, not mine) nor did I claim that ‘it takes a lot of guts to stand up to a huge corporation, especially when your work depends on their funding’. I spoke none of these words. As I made clear in my presentations in Winnipeg, I view the interactions between Mauro, McLachlan and the U of Manitoba as not dissimilar to many interactions with The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto in the lack of effective support to my and others’ accademic freedom beginning in the 1990s. This is indeed why the CAUT invited me to speak in Winnipeg, and about which I did speak. Ms Moore indeed has correctly quoted me in writing: “This is a story about the university and their failed attempt to protect academic freedom.”
As I discussed, The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto “did not provide effective support either for my rights, or for the principles of research and clinical ethics, and of academic freedom, during the first two and a half years of this controversy. After the controversy became public in 1998, the University stated publicly that it had provided effective support for my academic freedom, but this was not true.” [Thompson J, Baird P, Downie J. Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the case involving Dr Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto and Apotex Inc. Lorimer Press, 2001]. Instead, as noted, both the University and Hospital “took actions that were harmful to [my] interests and professional reputation, and disrupted [my] work”. I spoke of these actions against me by the Hospital for Sick Children and U of T in my presentation.
Ms Moore wrote that “Part of [my] contract with Apotex was for [me] to conduct clinical trials of deferiprone – a pill developed to treat a rare blood disorder called thalassemia.” Thalassemia is not a rare blood disorder; as noted in my presentation, thalassemia is the most common monogenic disorder in the world.
I did not state: “After having found that the drug could do significant harm to patients, [I] presented [my] findings to Apotex.” With respect to this point, I indicated clearly that my U.S. colleague Dr. Gary Brittenham and I became concerned, in 1995, that hepatic iron concentration had increased in a few patients receiving an experimental drug, placing them in our view at risk, and that we had conveyed this to the Research Ethics Board and the Hospital for Sick Children, and to the sponsoring company, representatives of whom stated that they viewed the data differently.
I did not state: “In 1999, the charges made against Olivieri by Apotex were acquitted [sic], and their [sic] attempt to sue me for professional misconduct was unsuccessful.” Apotex has never sued me for professional misconduct. In discussing incorrect allegations made against me, I spoke only of the responsibility of senior individuals at The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto.
I did not state: “… [I] faced years of public humiliation because the company subsequently launched a hate campaign to discredit [my] scientific integrity and challenge [my] research motives.” There is clear evidence (and I presented this evidence in Winnipeg) that it was individuals at The Hospital for Sick Children and U of Toronto who, through repeated efforts, sought actively to discredit me, my scientific integrity, and my research motives. I have no knowledge, nor do I claim or have ever claimed, that anyone employed at Apotex was involved in the campaign of anonymous hate mail launched against me by Senior Scientists at the Hospital for Sick Children, the details of which were outlined in my talk at the U of M.
I was charged with ‘professional misconduct’ and ‘research misconduct’ and referred first to the Medical Advisory Committee of The Hospital for Sick Children, and subsequently to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The College exonerated me of all charges and found my conduct to have been ‘exemplary’. Dean of Medicine David Naylor then withdrew the charges against me of “research misconduct”, accusations which did not come from Apotex. Furthermore, Apotex did not refer me to the Medical Advisory Committee of The Hospital for Sick Children or to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Even Sick Kids later accepted (insofar that it chose not to appeal) the 2001 ruling by the CPSO that I had “acted commendably, in difficult circumstances.”
While discussing a lack of transparency at Health Canada’s Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD), I stated that the public is unable to find out, without the consent of a company submitting the drug for licensing, the names of any drugs in the regulatory approval system, all the results of clinical trials, all the comments of reviewers about information submitted and any names of drugs that receive a Notice of Non Compliance. My remarks had nothing to do with any one company, nor did I refer to any company, drug or group of drugs, but focused on the lack of transparency and (in my view) the flawed policies of Health Canada’s TPD.
I never stated: “It’s the kind of thing that you need to expect when you take on institutions” in reference to a drug company. I was at the time referring to the approach taken by public institutions, such as the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto. I have made this clear in all presentations.
I believe that, while I have certainly disagreed with Apotex on several matters, I have repeatedly stated that the controversy which arose at the University of Toronto in 1996 was a story of public institutions which failed effectively to support academic freedom. An effective, ethical and open relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the academic medical community is primarily the responsibility of our public institutions (which in my and my colleagues’ case, failed effectively to support our academic freedom). It is toward those institutions that my criticism has been directed.
Sincerely,
Nancy Olivieri< MD, FRCPC
Professor, Pediatrics and Medicine
University of Toronto, Canada
