the shots of reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures, design to simplify will confuse really once a better wills and is it just as a chosen for you. fractured images presented is 1st. can you see through their illusion going underground again. there is nothing that we like more than helping to promote the stories of whistle blowers on. this is palm and it's we named ship. it's important to all of us. and we spent a lot of time telling you about whistle blowers in national security in international banking and finance. in the area of equal importance, at least. and one in which we really don't talk is animal research. i'm john kerry

onto welcome to the whistle blowers, the . 2 2 2 2 augusta university in the us state of georgia is currently involved in the case marred by allegations of fraud forgery and a cover up after a research monkey died 9 years ago. the university went to great lengths to keep the animal's death a secret. but there was a doctor working on the case who said that what the university was doing was wrong . he decided to blow the whistle and he requested a hearing. the issue centered on this, dr. jay had gaze monkey over which can died of cardiopulmonary arrest. the university says his heart stopping due to repeated sedation because of the delay and a procedure being performed on him. dr. head de said that was not true. of the monkey died when a veterinary and gave him an apparent overdose of pain killers. he says,

the vet who killed yvette skin was the same one who did the neck cropsey or the animal autopsy. he added that that should raise some questions because the university would voss have had something to cover up. a local news outlet also found through the freedom of information act that the universities claim to have sent samples of of which can sprained to a private laboratory for testing. also was not, as it appeared, the university waited a full year before sending sample dr. heck, they said, no one had saved any of the brain samples when the monkey dies. and he added that this was not a mistake, it was likely a cover up. how does he know that? because the purported brain sample was not only not from the kac, which is what a veteran was. it was not from any monkey from asia with short or no tales. doctor jay had de, is with us today to help us work through this complicated case dr. hag day thank you so much for being with us. it's a pleasure to have you. thank you for having. let's start at the beginning,

tell us about the kind of work that you were doing at the university and tell us what happened that caused you to go through your chain of command to make a complaint. yes, i'm sorry. let me start by saying i speak everything i so sit say on the show is funny and my personal capacity as a whistle blower, i see these are my personal opinions. i's big solely for myself and not for my university or brand. everybody else. having said that, i do brand research, we study how we see and how the brain compensates for parts that are missing, which happens in many of the visual impairments. and this was the study that was uh, federally funded by the national science foundation. as a monkey underwent in this quote, case of edge can on

a one day routine procedure. this was january the 7th, 2014 uh more than 9 years ago. uh, the animal woke up from the procedure ios and i would miss the whole thing. the month you woke up from the procedure and because the procedure was invasive. um the, uh, uh, gussy university veteran marianne gave him and now cut a pain killer. is the pain, and the monkey is simply killed over and died. and i and another witness from montana state university. what happened to be witnessing, rushed in to help save the monkey, but it was all in vain. the month we pronounced monkey dead a uh, a short while later. one of the things that struck me about your case was that as soon as you saw the evidence of wrongdoing you reported it, and almost immediately you were retaliated against. can you give us

a timeline of what happened and walk us through your reporting? what were the responses that you received? all right, so the animal died on the 7th of january, 2014. and it wasn't due until 3 weeks later that i actually knew anything was i missed out on january the 27th. about 2 weeks later, i found out that uh the monk is dead, was not reported to the internal regulatory agency i had to visit is federally mandated intramural regulatory agency. and i got worried because of not having your paperwork straight is a big deal because it's a violation of the animal welfare of app. and i started following up then need emerge a whole hold to so i uh, overall let them onto the cover. um, uh,

were evident became evident to me. one is that i had asked for a blood test because it was clearly an overdose. and the one of the veterinary and said, oh we didn't even do the blood test. and then she said we'd have seen the blood test bad, but been shredded the documents. i didn't want to hear anything about shredding etc, especially. oh, because these are legal documents. so. busy i said, i want to see because i'm the principal investigator of the grant i am entitled to these records. so i said i want to see is sort of a renter bankruptcy report. bankruptcy being animal autopsy report, etc. and it, i read it initially. they said, we're right, isn't this share that with you less it shouldn't bother and wrong hands and said, what's wrong as i'm the of the principal investigator? i'm the investigator. uh printer. mm hm. so eventually the,

the veterinary and so the new crop to report to me on february 24th, which was um, you know, uh more than 7 weeks later. and it was clearly falsified in the sense it both stated things that never happened, because i was also witness and a participant in the need prob, see, because in my capacity the brand expert i was in charge of examining the brain. i. so i examined the animal that animals ran in and it had turned into po because the animal and they had not gone through the usual preservation brand, pres, preservation procedures that it's necessary for one to take out of them, examined the brain. and so the entire brain, without the entire animal said with and then the rest of the carpet was sent to dispose of to the because and so i knew that, sorry,

good. i apologize for interrupting you because this is a federal contract. there's some oversight here. you would have to or, or the university would have to have reported the event, the animal staff to the, to the national science foundation. presumably there would be an investigation of isn't, isn't the university falsifying a document, a criminal act? it is very much at the moment. in fact, there are multiple crimes, then this is one of them. how long was it before you realize that this was becoming hostile toward you? the university in the end retaliated against you by terminating your grant with the national science foundation. how long after your whistle blowing did that happen, and what were the events that the events that led up to it? there are multiple retaliatory items that the university of which started almost immediately. once i started, once i realized that i a,

the documents were adopter and i told the people to get the documents trade week. i don't want to be party to any of the that train of the documents, etc. and that start immediately the, the veterinary and in charge chancel. one of the uh, procedures that was scheduled for uh, another monkey named crosby who was also in my national science foundation funded procedure. in other words, this was a regular pro procedure. they were letting other procedures of other investigators uncomfortable situations go through their stopping mind. and eventually, for no reason at all or completely made up reason. the veteran areas to crosby off old protocol meaning i might start came to complete stands deal. so um and then the university said that they required various modifications to them. i

heard of a part of an animal protocol isn't a separate set of procedures that i am authorized to perform. and it is, again, it's the federally regulated process in which the, the, i, as the internal regulatory body mentioned i, the sign saw funded in the tab signed off on it. and they went back on what they had approved and they demanded changes to it. if i had accepted which i would not be able to perform the, the 1st of the grant research that i was funded to perform. so they put me in a bind where i was, uh, forgive my friends. i was good both ways. mm hm. regardless of what i did, so i basically said and that you are not so totally university, you are not requiring others the researchers and the uncomfortable

situation and do the same thing. in other words, that clearly we're creating the different data center. and so they eventually ended up about in, in, in the summer of the 2015. yeah. about a year and a half later. and they looked in as of saying they didn't do this. they have not been accused of any wrong doing. they basically said this guy doesn't have his protocol in place, so cancel is brent. wow. and i protested, i provided the various regulators including n s a n i. and the usda, you're not a united states department of agriculture, which are all regulatory bodies in question, evidence of document tam brain, etc. and they all look the other way and the, the most or bridges, or

a couple of things where national science foundation said it, we by law, they get repeatedly and said, is that they contended that by law they're required not to look into whistle blower complaint, while complaints about animal welfare, which makes no sense at all. no, no sense. i have no sense at all. i have to ask you what may be a little bit of a naive question. but it seems to me that none of this would have happened. if the other research or the researcher who had given the the monkey and overdose had said, my goodness, i did something terrible. it was an accident. i overdosed the monkey and he passed away. i'll fill out the form and we inform the government. none of this would have happened. why either, why wasn't that the case? why not just just be honest about it and say, i made a mistake?

correct? and that's a short answer is, you know, sometimes it's a, it's a, it's not the prime. and so, but the cover of the prime exactly, exactly a point very much. yeah. it goes very much like that. they put upset that and it could have come from nothing because everybody mates, most states and, and in, in, in man research, you tried to minimize mistakes. but sometimes mistakes happen. and the thing is, if you really care about the animals, if you really care about the law, you make up for it and you do your darn is to make sure it doesn't happen again. that's right. none of that happens here. as i don't know why the university and i was getting the right thing, but my best informed me guess is as follows. the university was already under the radar of animal rights activities or previous violations. and they had to take them, you know, there was a publicity, etc. so they clearly had

a motive to not to encumber additional, publish it. and i think that i, that's my best guess as to why they wanted the whole thing to go away. and if there was a clear pattern that i kept on the days, good candidate against me. when that they didn't set me up, they turned in an odd job and then so it basically tells them escalated and eventually ended up into their asking anisette for no reason. at all to terminate my plan. what was your longer term experience with the university or even in the broader research industry was the university's response to your whistle blowing in keeping with the way it normally did business. and if not, why do you think they went after you in the way that they did? i, i think it was either. they had to come clean with the facts and they take it. if

the pest pest up to something it would raise more questions. that's my best guess. mm hm. um and so they just had to basically hunker down and, and stay with their original version. neil or i'm sure they've appeared that they would raise more questions. now having said that, the university is half of the incentive. i looked at it, they held in a hearing on the roles and everything. and they the committee that heard my case. you're 9 and mostly ruled in my favor. and as a university president, to take corrective actions have been investigated by an external entities so that there is no conflict of interest, etc. and, and the university president it with nice place and that all tempers, that i'm not going to take your recommendation. we are speaking with dr. j head

day. he is a scientist and whistle blower from the university of augusta on the issue of animal research. please stay with us. we're going to take a short break and come right back. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 the, the the, the

the, the welcome back to the suppliers. i'm john korea. we're speaking with animal research whistleblower doctor j had

a doctor every day. thanks again for being with us. thank you. i want to ask you a few more specific questions about your case. i've read several affidavits that clearly and unequivocally show that you have told the truth from the beginning of this case. it seems to me that the university would just want to cut its losses by walking away from this. i've been in a similar situation where the aggressor made a settlement offer and then just quit. but that hasn't happened here. can you speculate as to why that is? there have been. so let me back up and say, i have an ad to with of lower case under georgia, was a drawer, attaches against the university and, and the board of regents. and they are going settlement todds and, but i'm not allowed to go into the details of this met the settlement times, but i can tell you that that's a general matter my position in i don't want the university or anybody else to throw money at me and expect me to hardship because that person,

the animals that i've heard is the cause of law. so compliance with the law, etc. so i want accountability and i want this as a community in the university. i learned from the experience to make sure that this doesn't happen. again mm hm. and i've always, my position has been, i would not settled for anything other than that. and i'm also interested to know what the reaction has been. i'm on your colleagues in any industry, but especially in the hard sciences. success is based on truth. anything that is not based on verifiable, facts ought not be considered. but again, that's not what happened here. does the university's position on this case not do harm to its long term prospects and this area of animal research isn't the university just turning itself by continuing to fight this the, there is

a rubber band and that is, in this case. um i think there is a shared or peer, but the part of the lot of people that they, they just want this to go link right. and why a lot of people, i mean, including government agencies. so they had the room and agencies like and it says, and the us department of agriculture simply dropped the ball. they didn't solid, you know, but there was one agency that'd be, that'd be level 50 speaking turns out. have jurisdiction, an agency called old office of laboratory. i'm a welfare of our national institute of health and don't get me wrong. national insurance account is, is a very upstanding organization, does great work. and the, and by and large, there are officials are highly principal and ethical. but all law clearly active and not just in my opinion, not just on as a delay, but even mentally have criminal cover up of this because

they said on the one hand they said we have certified that the universe augusta university. and i had been everything by the book of the did not come, did not violate the animal welfare act in any way. and when push came, so when i pressed for details, they said we don't even have jurisdiction. in this case. ready because it was the monkey was not covered by the national institutes of health brand, but the national science foundation right now. but at the same time, they were telling the inspector general of the national science foundation that they were certifying that they looked into this. there's nothing wrong here there's, there's no, nothing wrong with just move on. and there's one person that the goal was the signature is

a lot of these certifications that's absent well last name spelled w o l fs, and i have no doubt in my mind my mind that he knowingly engage in and misconduct as a government official the pedals that university covered up and that is significant because once they've got this clean bill is held, so to speak from all the university could turn around and say, look, it's been looked at, there's nothing here. oh wow. and that's exactly and what it ended up happening. so in other words, augusta university was able to use the overall certification to say that it's been looked at. there's nothing does here move on. right. one of the affidavits submitted in support of your position says that there were, quote, many other on ethical, possibly illegal occurrences related to monkey welfare and the regulatory

infrastructure at augusta university on quote. can you tell us a little bit about that? would you expect federal regulators to become involved in a situation like this? i have compared to everybody including congress at the department of justice, and i basically all law and etc, etc. and i think one of the things that is happening is a confirmation bias, because there are other agencies that either i think this is old meals, or there's a no problem here because they all think o overall has already looked at it and decided there's nothing to it and therefore we don't wanna look at it even, which is precisely the problem because an animal research not just of us university but. ready in our country as a whole, works on,

in our system where you have something wrong. the regulated parties, namely the universities and the researchers have the responsibility to report it properly to the government and take propose corrective actions. and right now the, the fact of the matter is, is that the system is very easy to gain, which is not to say that everybody cheats most people who play by the rules. but if somebody like, in this case of what happened in this case, if somebody wants to cheat cheating, it's ridiculously easy because all you need to do is say to the government with us for a phase that they looked at it, there's nothing here. and the government uses that the, especially the agency is like for a certified turnaround and long to write down certifying, say that there's nothing untoward happened here with the internal internal

university can use to say, look, the government gave us a clean bill of health and therefore nothing must have happened. so in other words, it is kind of a like a, a look where at all you need to get it started and all you need to do is have the, uh, the han is so just be the lie to the government with a straight face. and that is, it should not be acceptable in any well, it is not acceptable tomorrow as a threat. it searchers um and most of my other searchers uh privately and tell me my fellow researches tell me that this is not right. it should be pitched. how have investigators or regulators responded to this? this has been dragging on for 9 years now. have you gotten any satisfaction? no, not at all. the. again, not me personally. i mean, i then would tell it again. so i would like to be made a whole, but there's

a larger problem here that this case is a poster child for. and that is, it demonstrates that the government agencies, such as all of my work to defeat whistle blowing, which is why wizard blowing and animal welfare is a special case where government agencies use government resources and power the actually longer. and the criminal activities and the feed was a blog and that has a change. and so this is the larger point i want your audience to take a take from the is and that is quite beyond what happened to me personally. and the, the regulatory process in animal research is so it's not just as functional as for all the reasons that i mentioned this badly read some whereby most people

are honest. but if you really want to a game, the system is ridiculously easy to do. so dr. j heck, j. thank you so much for joining us. and thanks to our viewers for joining us as well. i'm reminded today of the words of the great author and future as george orwell. he said, intellectual honesty is a crime in any to tell of terry and country. but even in england, it is not exactly profitable to speak and write the truth in england. such concepts as justice, liberty, and the objective truth are still believed in. they may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions. that was prove england and the 1940s. it also appears to be true about augusta georgia in 2023. i'm john kerry aku. and this has been the whistle blowers, thanks for joining us until next time. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

the .