The debate over the new policy has focused mainly on the removal of regulations on research funded by the military, and the need for a reporting system established within the policy to monitor any research that is funded by non-peer-reviewed sources, as well as research with potentially harmful applications.

“Just as we have ethical reviews of research on human subjects…I think that we can ask those kinds of questions [for any research],” said law professor and Senator, Richard Janda. “Particularly, I believe we should ask those kinds of questions when the sources of money that are being given for research are not peer-reviewed granting councils.”

Students from Demilitarize McGill started working with the administration in 2008 to tighten regulations on military-funded research that were in the old policy, and to extend those regulations to any research that could have potentially harmful applications.

In February 2009, Associate Provost (Policies and Procedures) William Foster presented a draft of the new research policy to Demilitarize McGill and the then SSMU VP (University Affairs) Nadya Wilkinson. The draft contained a new section that required researchers to obtain approval from the VP (Research and International Relations) to undertake research which has significant potential for direct harmful applications or adverse effects.

This section was removed from the new policy at its first reading in November, however, along with some of the policy’s pre-existing regulations.

After the November Senate meeting, Demilitarize McGill submitted another proposal of amendments, but they were not included or addressed in the second reading in February.

The policy was finally reviewed by the Academic Policy Committee, which was deeply divided on the issue and ultimately struck the regulations on research with military purposes or any potentially harmful applications.

The document went to a vote in Senate in March, where it passed almost unanimously.

Throughout the entire debate, the administration was reluctant to consider any regulatory obligation to disclose harmful applications that could stem from research. The administration reiterated at each meeting, in and outside the Senate, that there was an urgency to push this policy forward as is.

“The policy is ready to be adopted right now, and every month that goes by without having a document like this is dangerous [and] is not good for the University. We need this to come in force as soon as possible,” Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Denis Thérien said at the February Senate meeting.

The administration consistently argued that McGill must stay in line with other large research universities in Canada, which do not have such policies in place. Many researchers – students and professors alike – were concerned that these policies would add an unnecessary burden on researchers, and that it would be impossible for researchers to identify all possible applications of their research once it is in the public domain.

“We’ve been hearing that it’s too cumbersome,” said Janda on a CKUT live broadcast in early March, “but the fact is our social responsibilities require us to think about things that are not entirely certain. All that we’re asking researchers to do is think about the problem, report about it, and have the University keep track of this…. Seems to me it’s entirely consistent with the role of the University.”

Nikki Bozinoff, member of Demilitarize McGill and former editor at The Daily, said that she was not shocked by the decision made by Senate in March.

“Demilitarize McGill has always maintained that ethical review of research with harmful applications will become the norm one day. The question here is whether McGill wanted to lead that movement, and it’s clear that they weren’t up to the task,” said Bozinoff. “We urge students to engage in creative direct action to oppose harmful research.”

Demilatirize McGill is currently undertaking a project to archive potentially harmful research done at McGill, including research conducted during the ’80s, when weapons research at McGill was first exposed by a group of students and professors.

The post McGill will not regulate military research appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“[Tuberculosis] is forgotten by most, but not gone. [There is] a new tuberculosis case in Canada every six hours,” said Edward Ellis, manager of TB prevention and control at the Public Health Agency of Canada.

With about 1,500 cases reported each year and a six per cent mortality rate, that’s equivalent to one death every two weeks. With statistics like these, how is it that most of us are so unaware of this disease? The answer is quite simple: tuberculosis mostly affects marginalized and newcomer populations – aboriginal people, the homeless, immigrants, and refugees.

Inequity in infection
“Across Canada, 70 per cent of the TB cases are foreign-born, most of the rest are aboriginal people, and only about 10 per cent are non-aboriginal Canadian-born – a rapidly shrinking proportion,” said Dick Menzies, director of the Respiratory Division at the McGill University Health Centre.

Evidently, tuberculosis has been nearly eradicated within the non-aboriginal Canadian-born population. High rates of infection have remained in other populations.

A 2008 Public Health Agency of Canada report, released in January, found that the rate of TB is 31 times higher in First Nations populations than in non-aboriginal Canadian-born persons, and a mind-blowing 186 times higher in Inuit populations.

Don’t believe claims of Canada’s low tuberculosis rates. Among the Inuit, the rate is about 150 cases per 100,000 persons each year, which is equivalent to the average rate in sub-Saharan Africa.

“When the Inuit have high tuberculosis rates, Canada can’t say that they don’t have a high TB rate. The [non-aboriginal] population of Canada dilutes the rate so much that it becomes very misleading,” said Gail Turner, director of health services in Nunatsiavut and chair of the National Inuit Committee on Health. “The bottom line is that the rate among Inuit is unacceptably high.”

The government of Canada has set a goal to reduce TB incidence rate from 4.7 cases per 100,000 persons in 2007 to 3.6 cases per 100,000 persons by 2015. To do that, the incidence rate among the aboriginal people and the Inuit, in particular, will have to be significantly reduced. But even with a target of 3.6 per 100,000, the inequity and unequal share of the TB burden will persist.

What you should know about TB
Tuberculosis is a treatable and curable disease in Canada, but treatment is long, intensive, and can have toxic side effects.

TB is an infection that usually affects the lungs, but will occasionally attack other parts of the body. It can be separated into two categories: latent TB and active TB. Latent TB means you’re infected but the disease isn’t actively affecting your health and is not contagious. A lot more people have latent TB than you might think – I, for one, have it. Latent TB does not necessarily become active TB. In a healthy person like me, developing active TB is highly unlikely; it’s as likely as winning the lottery jackpot. Active TB is contagious, but not highly so, and usually only comes about in people who lack the capacity to stay healthy. If left untreated, active TB will kill 50 per cent of its victims.

There is treatment for both latent and active TB. Going on treatment for the latent type is a choice – recommended if you are at risk of developing active TB due to certain circumstances such as homelessness.

On the other hand, treatment for active TB is mandatory; the public health agency is obligated to enforce it.

“TB is the only disease in Canada that the public health authority has the actual authority to contain an individual. So for H1N1 or HIV, they can recommend how to behave, but they can’t force you; but with TB they can enforce confinement,” said Mary Ellen Macdonald, a medical anthropologist and professor at McGill.

The good news is that the six to eight month-long treatment for active TB is completely free.

 “It’s free because the public health benefit of people taking tuberculosis treatment outweighs the cost of the drugs,” said Menzies.

Even though treatment is free for patients, tuberculosis is extremely expensive for Canada. Health Canada estimated that it costs $47,000 to treat each person with the disease.

Unjust treatment in the past
European settlers brought epidemic TB to Canada in the 1700s, and from there, the infection was slowly spread to the aboriginal people by these newcomers.

The settlers quickly herded the aboriginal communities into tiny, crowded reserves and relocated their children to poorly-ventilated residential schools. Under these conditions, the TB epidemic spread like wild fire. Death rates in the ‘30s and ‘40s exceeded 700 deaths per 100,000 persons among the aboriginal people, and over 8,000 per 100,000 children that were confined to residential schools – these numbers are among the highest ever recorded rates of TB in the world.   
To make matters worse, treatment wasn’t yet available, and the only “cure” for TB was to put the infected individuals in TB sanatoria in southern Canada, where it was hoped that the sun and air would cure them. For individuals from First Nations and Inuit communities in the north, this meant travelling the distance to the south and leaving their families and lives behind. 
From 1950 to 1969, a ship called C.D. Howe made summer trips between the north and the south to transport Inuit with TB. When doctors decided that an individual had to go to the sanatoria, they were not allowed to go home to pack up their belongings nor to bid their family farewell. Those who died in the sanatoria were buried and their families never heard their fate; those who survived stayed in the sanatoria for an average of two-and-a-half years.

This was just barely 30 years ago – the Inuit still vividly remember the stories shared by those affected by this treatment.

History repeats itself
Overcrowding, poor ventilation, exposure to mould, and other known risk factors for developing active TB remain an overwhelming problem in Inuit communities. Following the high prevalence of TB among the Inuit communities in the ‘50s and ‘60s, a large portion of the Inuit population have latent TB and are at risk of activation today.

“TB tends to mirror what’s happening underneath, the social determinants: poor housing, overcrowding, food insecurity, high smoking rates…and [inadequate] access to health care services,” said Turner.

These are all part of the systematic oppression against the aboriginal population that we’ve witnessed in Canada’s history. TB is part of Canada’s self-perpetuating cycle of structural violence.

It boils down to the fact that there isn’t enough money or help given to the Inuit and other aboriginal populations. The lack of both financial and human capital limits the Inuit communities’ ability to have houses that aren’t overcrowded, mouldy, or poorly ventilated. Building houses in the north is extremely costly because of the distance supplies need to be shipped, and the time and energy construction takes due to permafrost and winter weather.

The communities most affected by TB lack access to necessary health facilities. “For Nunavik and northern Quebec, and northern Labrador, there isn’t the capacity of chest X-rays at the community level. Most of our communities don’t have physicians, and you have to fly [to other parts of Canada] for chest X-rays,” said Turner.

According to Turner, a group of TB contacts were stuck for 14 days away from home at a public health centre because the weather prohibited them from flying home after their chest X-rays.

“It’s a question of health equity around health care access in Canada. There should be an ability to have a chest X-ray without having to fly for days…. It’s unacceptable and would be unheard of elsewhere…. [With these limitations] of course [the Inuit are] not lining up to get chest X-rays,” said Turner.

For severe cases of TB, Inuit patients are flown to southern Canada for treatment – reminiscent of the days of the C.D. Howe.

“Those that are very sick or contagious are brought here to the south to get treatment because they don’t have good isolation facilities up north. We monitor them and when they’re better, we return them back to the north for continuing treatment,” said Amelie Tchabo Fosso, a TB nurse at the Montreal Chest Institute.

Macdonald recently published a study that looked at the urban aboriginal people’s understandings and experiences of TB in Montreal. Today, about 10 per cent of the Inuit in Quebec reside in the south.

“One of the big lessons learned from this research is that the communities know an incredible amount about TB – not just through medical knowledge – but through their experience with colonial policies,” said Macdonald. “If you have active TB and you’re going to be confined in the hospital, you’re going to be removed from any income-generating activity, which means you could lose your apartment because you have no money.”

The history of the southern sanatoria and the potential consequences of confinement in hospitals are huge deterrents for urban aboriginal people to get proper medical evaluation. But on top of the issues related to confinement, there is an underlying discrimination and racism in the health care system, particularly for homeless urban aboriginal people.

“Homeless people probably don’t get great care in the system…. There’s a bit of an attitude in the service they get,” said Menzies.

Beyond these fears and distrust of the health system, another barrier lies in something very simple – the Medicare card.

“When we tried to get [the clients at the Native Friendship Centre] to go for medical evaluations, we ran into many roadblocks. One was that a lot of them don’t have medicare cards – a huge stumbling block,” said Macdonald.

Most of the clients of the Native Friendship Centre are homeless and do not own their medicare cards – they’re either lost or stolen. Without a Medicare card, they can’t get treatment. Replacing the card requires identification documents, which you probably don’t have with you if you are homeless. Furthermore, it costs money for a new card.

The almost-Canadians
Immigrants are also affected by TB, but have a very different experience than aboriginal individuals.

“Once they have the diagnosis [of TB], they need to postpone everything in their immigration process,” said Fosso. “The immigration [officials] need to make sure the patient has finished their treatment before continuing with their application.”

While TB is not a stigmatized subject in most aboriginal communities – because it has unfortunately been commonplace for a lontime and a strong sense of community discourages discrimination – this is not the case for many immigrants diagnosed with TB.

“They think TB is a shameful disease and they are fearful of being rejected from their community, friends, and family,” Fosso said.

“A women who was foreign-born was at first told that she had lung cancer, but was finally diagnosed with TB…but she would have much rather accept the cancer diagnosis instead of TB, and she was very ashamed of it,” said Menzies. “There’s the association with HIV-infection, with being poor, unhygienic, and an alcoholic…. In Russia, it’s associated with being in prison.”

Uncertain solutions
The solution to the high prevalence of TB among Inuit communities is not to discourage living in the north.

“People think that Inuit should just move, but we’re not going to because we love it here; it’s who we are,” said Turner.

Canada needs to properly acknowledge the deficit in support for the northern communities – be it financial support, or labour support to staff their health clinics and to build more and better housing.

“The advocacy has to target improving health services, human resources, housing, and food security while at the same time we [need to] make sure we’re treating TB to completion,” said Turner.

In a press conference, Canada’s health minister Leona Aglukkaq, who is Inuk, said that it’s the provinces and territories that administer health care. The issue of jurisdiction is extremely complex and problematic for aboriginal communities.

“I think the greatest challenges for Inuit is that the governing of health is not clear…. Responsibilities contradict each other even within the Canadian TB strategy…. For Inuit regions within the provinces, the province is responsible, then in another place, the Inuit health branches are responsible for Inuit [regions] within provinces…so it’s really unclear…and when you get into [who is responsible for the] social determinants [that cause TB] it’s even less clear,” said Turner.

Another problem that Turner sees is Canada’s tendency to lump all aboriginal people together, leading to general assumptions and public health strategies that lack specific targets.

“There needs to be more clarity; we need to use First Nations to refer to First Nations, Inuit to refer to Inuit, and the Métis for the Métis, and not lump them altogether – doing this really clouds the issue,” said Turner.

Macdonald believes that the layers of bureaucracies are the most serious impediment to treatment. “You’d think it’d be easy to excuse [people without a medicare card] and let them get medical evaluation…but something as little as this issue gets blown up in many layers of bureaucracies and politics…. It’s obvious what should be done but it’s not obvious how it can be done,” she said.

The average Canadian has to be informed about tuberculosis. By talking about TB, we are able to break the silence and ensure that those with TB won’t feel stigmatized or be fearful of the isolation that accompanies the disease. The more we understand the curability and treatment of TB, the more supportive we can be.

“Knowledge influences people a lot. Understanding the disease makes diagnosis and treatment easier. It is really important to break their beliefs and values regarding TB. Once they’re broken, things become easier,” said Miguel Angel Barriga Silva, another TB nurse at the Montreal Chest Institute.

We have to be part of the solution, by staying informed and eliminating the stigma around social diseases like TB. If we can’t even openly talk about something as uncontroversial as tuberculosis, how on earth are we ever going to be able to talk openly about HIV?

———-

World Tuberculosis Day Panel Discussion: Missing Drugs
Wednesday, March 24 at 12:45 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.

Chancellor Hall 101, 3644 Peel

The McGill Global AIDS Coalition will host a panel discussion with three highly acclaimed professionals who will examine the impact of the global TB and AIDS epidemics, the consequences of an insufficient pharmaceutical industry, and Canada’s role in each issue.

Dick Menzies MD, director of respiratory medicine, McGill University Health Centre, will discuss the limitations of controlling the global TB and AIDS epidemics as well as the challenges that hinder treatment availability, accessibility, and innovation.

Marc-André Gagnon PhD, post-doctoral fellow, Faculty of Law, will outline business strategies and models of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry which often result in low incentives for medicinal innovation.

Rachel Kiddell-Monroe, president of the Board for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, will bridge the gap between corporate incentives and steps that the Canadian government can take to ameliorate the situation.

The panel discussion will be followed by a demonstration outside MP Marc Garneau’s office to demand improvement in access to essential medicines worldwide and to denounce his vocal opposition to reforming Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime. The protest will begin at 2:15 p.m. sharp outside his office, #340, 4060 Ste. Catherine O. HIV-positive T-shirts, signs, and other materials will be provided.

For more information contact director@treatthepeople.com.

The post Canada’s forgotten disease appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Over the past six months, many senators – in particular, student senators – have voiced their concerns about the lack of strict regulations in this new research policy. The McGill administration and other opposition to regulations on harmful research have, in many occasions, responded to these concerns by referring to McGill’s rigorous ethical review process. However, supporters of these regulations argue that existing research ethics committees only govern very limited areas of research.

“There are all these different statements made to the appropriate research ethics committee but one problem I see is that all these ethics committees are interested particularly in the immediate ramification of research…[like] if you have human or animal subjects…but they aren’t really asking of the researchers what are the long-term implications of this research…. It may have been only a simple checkmark in a box [in the old policy], but at least there was some form of accountability before,” said Arts senator Sarah Woolf.

In the old policy, there was a section requiring that “applicants for contracts or grants whose source is a government military agency shall indicate on the check list/approval form of the Office of Technology Transfer or the Research Grants Office whether this research has direct harmful consequences.” This section was removed from the new policy.

At the second reading of the new policy, reference to social responsibility was added to the preamble to address the concerns raised at the first reading in November. Rebecca Dooley, SSMU VP (University Affairs), argued that this was not adequate.

“They put everything that has to do with harmful applications and social responsibility in the preamble of the policy. I don’t know how accountable you can hold someone to the preamble…instead of one of the really hard-hitting clauses within a policy that people are usually held more accountable to,” said Dooley.

According to Nikki Bozinoff, member of Demilitarize McGill and former Daily editor, the administration has long been overlooking the approval form required in the old policy.

“Slowly this checkbox form was being watered down…and at the same time, we received information from other campuses that the Vice President (Research) at McGill had been in contact with their administrations telling them that McGill didn’t have such a policy,” said Bozinoff.

Bozinoff was referring to a letter that Denis Thérien, McGill VP (Research and International Relations), wrote to Ted Hewitt, University of Western Ontario VP (Research & International Relations), after discussions on military-funded research that took place in October of 2007 among the Group of 13 VPs of Research.

“Based on our discussion, it was clear that…no institution currently undertakes, or is contemplating undertaking any formal assessment of military projects on ethical or other grounds not already stipulated by existing guidelines. Nor would we endorse the creation of any national body to establish guidelines for such a Process,” Thérien wrote in his letter. 
This letter reveals that the administration’s intentions to remove these clauses had developed more than two years prior to the current policy review – the same year Demilitarize McGill had exposed the thermobaric explosives research conducted by the Shockwave Physics Research Group in Mechanical Engineering. Thermobaric explosives have been used extensively by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
According to Cleve Higgins, member of Demilitarize McGill, the administration has yet to make a public response regarding this ongoing research. Whenever discussions on military research have come up in the past, the administration would respond by listing positive research done using military funds, which includes research on prosthetic limbs and malaria prevention. 
“The U.S. military basically has said outright that…this research [at McGill] is useful for the U.S. in developing weapons…. It’s a pretty clear connection…yet McGill ignores that. And in ignoring its happening and not responding to it, they’re also not dealing with it at a policy level…. They won’t address the fact that there is research that could have [harmful applications],” said Higgins.

Even with the approval form, the existing policy is unable to restrict the ongoing weapons research.

“We noticed that increasingly the Canadian military has ties with the computer engineering researchers at McGill. This is stuff like automated target recognition: the kind of aerial weapons that could be programmed and not controlled by humans,” said Bozinoff.

Bozinoff finds it problematic that universities across North America are neglecting to implement policies to monitor the harmful application of research. The administration, among others, worries that having such policies might infringe on academic freedom, and that it would be a burden for researchers to consider all the potential applications of their work. However, Bozinoff challenges these notions.

“In the same way we might do environmental impact assessment when we’re conducting research…when we’re doing research on weapons, we need to think about what are the long-term implications of this research,” said Bozinoff. “Research is increasingly end-specific, so these days we see research that is specifically designed to create weapons, or specifically designed to engineer crops that will not be able to reproduce, and therefore set up long-term inequities and poverty…. So this research that does have specific end applications is happening, and it’s that kind of research [on which] Demilitarize McGill is interested in [enforcing] research transparency.”

Senator Richard Janda, a professor in the Faculty of Law, further argues that researchers have a social responsibility to be aware of any negative externalities that their research might have.

“We’ve been hearing that it’s too cumbersome…but the fact is our social responsibilities require us to think about things that are not entirely certain and all that we’re asking researchers to do is think about the problem, report about it, and have the University keep track of this…. Seems to me it’s entirely consistent with the role of the University,” said Janda.

The existing regulations on military-funded research were first created in 1988. These amendments were passed following a three-day occupation of the VP (Research) office and the release of a 250-page report, titled “How to Make a Killing,” by seven McGill students working with political science professor Samuel Noumoff. The report detailed various research projects at McGill that were funded by American and Canadian military agencies.

David Schulze, a lawyer who, as a graduate student, took part in pressuring McGill to take steps in governing weapons research in 1988, was amused by the fact that the administration is trying to remove the regulations they “won” 20 years ago.

“I always felt we’ve been out-manoeuvred, that we didn’t accomplish that much with the checkboxes. I kind of feel better now knowing the admin wants to get rid of it  – I guess at least we did something, or else they wouldn’t want to get rid of it,” said Schulze. “McGill, like most institutions, likes to wrap everything up in some big mushy consensus…. I don’t think we should fool ourselves…. The [military] research, by all counts, has continued now for 40 years with [or] without the checkboxes.”

Last month, Janda submitted a proposal of changes to the new policy for the Academic Policy Committee to review. His proposal, however, was not accepted. The reasons for the rejection have not been disclosed to him. The proposed changes would have allowed Senate to review all research that had potentially harmful applications – without any changes incorporated in the new policy, it is unlikely that there will be any policies in place to monitor ongoing and new research that have harmful impacts on society.

The post Speaking out against military research since the ’80s appeared first on The McGill Daily.

IAW is an annual series of educational events that take place at over 40 universities and colleges around the world with an aim to “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement,” according to the IAW web site. Montreal’s sixth IAW begins today with events held at McGill and Concordia.

MPP Peter Shurman, who tabled the motion in Ontario, argued that the use of the term “apartheid” in relation to Israel bordered on hate speech and offended those who experienced apartheid in South Africa.

“It’s a provocatively charged word and it’s presumptive: if you say something is apartheid then, hey, it must be – there is certainly not consensus on that. If we’re talking about Israel let’s discuss it – let’s not have a one-sided diatribe about it, which is what IAW is about,” Shurman said.

According to Shurman, the resolution passed in the Ontario legislature is intended to have moral suasion, but does not prohibit the week from continuing. However, it is likely that student organizers in Ontario will continue with the week as planned.

“It’s ironic how these politicians can find the time to condemn [IAW] and silence student activism and student voice, but they can’t find time to condemn Israeli’s crimes on and systematic oppression of the Palestinian people,” said Yafa Jarrar, member of the Students against Apartheid at Carelton University. “They are trying to systematically suppress our freedom of speech and our activism. But we will not be silenced.”

Organizers of the IAW in Montreal argued that the event is meant to be a week of open discussions and that the decision to use the term “apartheid” is based on the policies implemented in Israel that have segregated Palestinians living in the region.

“The reason we’re calling it Israeli apartheid is because it is what it is. The policies that Israel has been implementing against the Palestinian people show a systematic tendency of alienating and separating them. Apartheid means separateness, and the racially policies that Israel has passed have an unquestionable goal of segregating the Palestinians,” said Nina Amrov, a member of the IAW organizing committee and of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights– National.

Scott Weinstein from Independent Jewish Voices said there are many Jewish individuals who support IAW and are involved in organizing the week. He also explained that the term “apartheid” is intended to be provocative and spark debate – though it has not been as successful as hoped.

“[We] have begged, pleaded, and invited our counterparts in the Zionist movement to debate us…[but] they absolutely refuse. They don’t want there to be a public discussion about any profound criticism of Zionism and the nature of racism in the Jewish state,” said Weinstein. “If they would guarantee a public debate on the issue and they don’t want us to use the word apartheid, then sure, that’s not an issue – but they won’t debate with us, not yet.”

MPP Shurman warned that apartheid does not exist in Israel and that the association the term creates between Israel and the South African apartheid regime is inaccurate. “You cannot make something true just by saying it is. Just because there’s a week called Israeli Apartheid Week doesn’t support that there is apartheid in Israel – because there isn’t; apartheid has only taken place in one place, South Africa,” said Shurman.

However, supporters of IAW were quick to point out that “apartheid” is a term that has been used to describe Israel by many individuals involved in the fight against South African apartheid, and that Israeli policies fit the definition of apartheid as articulated by the UN International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973.

Emanuel Lowi, a former editor at Haaretz in Israel who describes himself as an observant Canadian Jew, discussed the criticism of Israel by South African leaders. “The best people [to judge whether it is] apartheid are the people in South Africa who fought against apartheid. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has come out very strongly against Israel. [Tutu said that] what Israel has been doing to the Palestinian people in many ways is not only reminiscent of South Africa, but is worse than it. Nelson Mandela has come out against the Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians,” said Lowi.

Mookie Kideckel, president of Hillel McGill, pointed out that Jewish students on campus often feel singled out and targeted by talks of Israeli apartheid. “Israel is a democratic country; it’s made a lot of efforts for peace. It’s also something that’s emotionally tied to the majority of Jewish students,” Kideckel said. “By seeking to delegitimize Israel, [IAW] effectively makes a lot of Jewish students feel delegitimized. A lot of the agony and fear from the week comes from the idea that it really obsessively singles out Israel, and makes a lot of Jewish students connected to it feel singled out unfairly.”

Lowi tried to address the fears that Jewish students are experiencing. “The students who are scared, they have to think about what it is they should do to protect our people from being discredited by being associated to despicable acts committed in our names [by the Israeli government], and it is to speak out against it,” said Lowi.

The post Ontario MPPs condemn Israeli Apartheid Week appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Bil’in Village Council brought the lawsuit in 2008 against two Quebec-registered companies based in Montreal: Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount International Inc. The plaintiffs claimed that the companies and their sole director, Annette Laroche, are involved in constructing settlements for Israelis on occupied land within the territory of Bil’in.

“Bil’in brought the lawsuit against [the Montreal-based companies]…under international humanitarian law. Specifically, under the fourth Geneva convention, which says that an occupying power cannot replace the indigenous population with its own population,” said Mark Arnold, the Canadian lawyer representing Bil’in. “The lawsuit alleges that Green Park is, by doing this, in a way aiding, abetting, and assisting the state of Israel in carrying out its settlement policies.”

Superior Court judge Louis-Paul Cullen dismissed the case on the grounds that the Quebec court is not the correct forum to have the case heard, and ruled that the case should go to the Israeli High Court of Justice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal after the decision was made in September.

“The Quebec Superior Court has jurisdiction over Quebec companies and directors who are residing in Quebec,” said Arnold. “The problem is that [Cullen] is fundamentally wrong. The Israeli High Court of Justice will not hear this case, so he has sent this case into oblivion.”

In Bil’in, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a school teacher and the coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and the Settlements, was arrested in his home by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank on December 10, 2009. Amnesty International criticized his arrest, claiming on its web site that Abu Rahmah is “being detained solely on account of legitimately exercising his right to freedom of expression in opposing the Israeli fence/wall.”

Abu Rahmah was in Montreal last summer for the court proceedings and spoke at Concordia University.

According to Stefan Christoff, local activist and Tadamon! member, those from Bil’in who came to Montreal for the proceedings last year were severely harassed upon returning to Bil’in.

“They only faced that after they spoke in Canada. Their case was highly covered in the media,” said Christoff.

Since June 2009, over 30 non-violent protesters from Bil’in have been arrested by the Israeli military. Amnesty International declared in January that Abu Rahmah can be considered as a prisoner of conscience and called for his immediate and unconditional release.

Abu Rahmah displayed hope in a letter written behind bars at the Ofer Military Detention Camp in January. “The occupation is threatened by our growing movement and is therefore trying to shut us down. What Israel’s leaders do not understand is that popular struggle cannot be stopped by our imprisonment,” he wrote.

The post West Bank village to appeal against MTL developer appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On Monday, Cinéma du Parc received an email from its landlord, Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., instructing the theatre to immediately remove all photos, documents, and bulletins related to the exhibit.

Lieba Shell, the legal representative for Redbourne, claimed in the email that the exhibition was in violation of the terms in their lease and threatened to take legal action against Cinéma du Parc if it did not comply with the request. She added that Redbourne would send security to the cinema in the evening to ensure the orders were obeyed.

Shell sent out another email Wednesday morning retracting their requests, stating that the exhibit is allowed to continue until February 28, as scheduled.

According to Jean-François Lamarche, program coordinator at Cinéma du Parc, between Tuesday morning and Wednesday afternoon, over 2,500 letters were sent out from community members asking Redbourne to let the exhibition continue.

“Human Drama in Gaza” is an exhibition featuring 44 photos that document the events in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, the three-week assault launched by the Israeli military last winter. The assault resulted in approximately 1,400 Palestinian deaths, most of which were civilians.

The exhibition is organized by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) and will be travelling to various cities across Canada.

According to Lamarche, this was the first instance in which the mall’s owner has tried to interfere with Cinéma du Parc’s exhibitions and programs.  
“In the past, we’ve had other expositions of this kind. The Gaza Strip has not been the subject of these other expositions, but human rights was. So we’ve had other pictures of war like this one and we think that everybody has the right to express their point of view,” said Lamarche.  
Grace Batchoun, VP (public relations) at CJPME, felt that Redbourne’s legal threat was inappropriate and offensive.  
“This exhibition is costing us over $25,000…. People love it and we have had excellent feedback. [Redbourne’s action] is illegal. The move on their part is clearly political. The owner at Cinéma du Parc has held over 40 exhibitions in the past few years and has had no complaints or issues,” said Batchoun.

Batchoun stated that Redbourne wanted to shut down the exhibit to stifle discussion of Israeli-Palestinian politics.

“They’re just trying to intimidate Cinéma du Parc and CJPME,” said Batchoun. “They don’t want the truth of Gaza to be exposed, and they don’t want any discussion of Gaza. There are about 1.5 million people suffering in [the Gaza Strip], and it’s an important issue.”

CPJME’s lawyer, Mark Arnold, agreed.

“Everything is political in this society. There was a war in Gaza, but in this country – Quebec included – we certainly have the right to freedom and free speech,” said Arnold.

CPJME and Cinéma du Parc are content that Redbourne has retracted its request but remain wary of Redbourne’s threats.  
“We’re very happy, but at the same time….the intimidation hurts. We wasted so much time and effort,” said Batchoun. “We’re a sizeable well-structured NGO, and we were able to reach out to the lawyer, we were able to react….but what about smaller NGOs? This injustice should not go unnoticed – many other people are living through it, but they don’t often get to be heard.”

Shell declined The Daily’s request to comment on the incident.

The post Gaza photo exhibit almost shut down appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The fourth paragraph in the article said, “There was a general consensus among the administration and senators that the new policy adequately addresses the problems that arose when the first draft was brought to Senate in November.”

In fact, the consensus was that there were improvements in the policy, but it still does not adequately address the problems that arose.

The largest issue senators had with the first draft presented in November was that it had removed the regulation, which requires that “[a]pplicants for contracts or grants whose source is a government military agency shall indicate on the check list/approval form of the Office of Technology Transfer or the Research Grants Office whether this research has direct harmful consequences.”

The McGill administration and Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Denis Thérien’s team obviously tried to brush these concerns aside by including them ever so vaguely and briefly in the preamble.

According to Darin Barney, Faculty of Arts senator and professor in the department of art history and communications studies, there is a lot of “interpretative latitude and flexibility” in preamble language. This implies that there is a gaping loophole in the new policy that will allow research funded by the military, pharmaceutical companies, and the asbestos mining industry, among other private corporations, to slip by and have a detrimental and devastating impact on global and societal wellbeing.

Instead of adequately addressing our concerns, the new policy is adequately showing the administration’s lack of concern.

Stephanie Law
MSc Epidemiology II

The post Adequate, shmadequate appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The new policy was originally up for approval at Wednesday’s Senate meeting, but due to an administrative oversight, the policy was only briefly discussed. McGill Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Denis Thérien explained that the Academic Policy Committee must approve the policy before it is brought to Senate, which had not been done yet.

“I think it’s unfortunate because…the policy is ready to be adopted right now and every month that goes by without having a document like this is dangerous [and] is not good for the University. We need this to come in force as soon as possible,” Thérien said.

There was a general consensus among the administration and senators that the new policy adequately addresses some, but not all, of the problems that arose when the first draft was brought to Senate in November.

“The removal of the clause on anonymity as well as the addition of [the reference to] social responsibility into the preamble is definitely an improvement on the document that was previously brought up,” Rebecca Dooley, SSMU VP (University Affairs), said. “[The new policy does] address some of the concerns that were brought forward by students [at the last Senate].”

During Senate discussions on the policy, Sarah Woolf, SSMU Arts senator, pointed out that the new policy will be replacing the Policy on Research Ethics and the Regulations on Research Policy, and therefore should include more specifications on ethical standards.

“The policy does refer to a research ethics board. However, to the best of my knowledge, the board is generally concerned with the welfare to the immediate human or animal subjects, rather than the potential societal and ethical outcomes of research,” Woolf said. “Despite the extent of the articulation of ethics, the revised version of the policy does not provide guidance to what this ethical standard might be.”

Thérien and others on the team that is drafting the new policy did not address Woolf’s concerns.

Richard Janda, Faculty of Law senator and law professor, also believes the policy still needs to be strengthened in order to prevent potentially harmful applications of research conducted at McGill.

“Just as we have ethical review of research on human subjects…I think that we can ask those kinds of questions [for any research]. Particularly, I believe we should ask those kinds of questions when the sources of money that are being given for research are not peer-reviewed granting councils,” Janda said.

Prior to the Senate meeting, the new policy was reviewed and discussed at the Research Advisory Council (RAC), which was formerly the Research Policy Committee. The RAC is composed of representatives from all faculties, associate deans, representatives from Thérien’s office, and student representatives.

According to a post-doctoral representative in the RAC, who wished to remain anonymous, the RAC attempted to develop a clause to regulate research with potentially harmful applications. “There was an effort made by a number of committee members to come up with a better clause. But in the time we had, we couldn’t come up with better wording,” she said.

The post-doctoral representative was disappointed that they did not have sufficient time to discuss and develop an appropriate clause. She felt that the representatives from Thérien’s office had a strong influence in the discussion and had clearly set objectives.

Cleve Higgins, organizer with Demilitarize McGill, argued that in fact, having these regulations in place are in the interest of McGill and its administration.

“I think it is important for McGill to institutionally deal with this issue, and in that way there doesn’t need to be a campaign against the University or against the researcher every time the research is connected to harmful application,” said Higgins.

The post Research policy still in flux appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Dormoy’s problems began when she forgot to submit her T2022A – a form issued by McGill that attests to a fellow’s student status, though there is no guarantee the CRA will recognize it. She was contacted by the CRA in December, at which point she sent it in her form only to have it rejected.

“They told me they wouldn’t accept my form. They said I was not a full-time student because I’m not in an academic program that leads to a diploma,” Dormoy said. “Due to this incident, I had to pay $7,000, which includes losing my GST tax rebate and my child tax benefit.”

According to Dormoy, the CRA officer who had contacted her, Michel Detourneau, refused to negotiate her student status and said that the decision was final.

Detourneau declined The Daily’s request to comment on Dormoy’s case.

There are approximately 650 post-doctoral fellows at McGill, whose fellowship stipends are on average worth $38,000 per year.

“Revenue Canada chose to treat me differently from other post-doctoral fellows despite the fact that I submitted the same forms, and I have not received any support from McGill,” she said.

Both Dormoy’s supervisor, Imed Gallouzi, associate professor in biochemistry, and David Thomas, chair of thebiochemistry department, have written letters on her behalf to Martin Kreiswirth, dean of graduate and post-doctoral Studies, to ask for his help and support.

In response, Kreiswirth recently wrote a letter to the CRA on Dormoy’s behalf affirming that she is duly registered with the University and that the post-doctoral fellow is undergoing advanced academic training.

However, the letter is the extent to which Kreiswirth is able to help Dormoy.

“As an individual’s tax status is a personal matter and may be affected by numerous personal factors…McGill has advised that any post-doctoral fellow who has been assessed by Revenue Canada must seek professional assistance…regarding [her] particular tax file,” Kreiswirth wrote in an email to The Daily.

Due to the lack of initiative from McGill, Dormoy sought the help of the Postgraduate Student Society of McGill (PGSS).

According to Ladan Mahabadi, VP (External) of PGSS, the issue is complicated by the lack of agreement among Canadian universities. For example, the University of Toronto and University of Alberta do not consider their post-doctoral fellows as students and do not issue the T2022A tax slips.

Mahabadi explained that it is PGSS’ goal to help Dormoy and to use any resources available to them.

“We’re trying to challenge the [CRA’s] decision and potentially seek legal advice on what the next step should be. We’re also trying to gather support from the [McGill] administration and other post-doctoral fellows on campus and across Montreal,” Mahabadi said.

Matthew Milner, a PGSS post-doctoral representative, argued that this issue goes beyond taxes and income.

“It doesn’t come down to taxes at all. It’s either we get benefits as students and we can exercise them, one of which is the tax exemption; or we’re employees and we get other benefits like retirement pension and medical benefits,” Milner said.

On the other hand, Olivier Beaulieu-Mathurin, president of the National Graduate Council of the Quebec Federation of University Students (CNCS-FEUQ), flatly stated that post-doctoral fellows should be considered as students.

“Post-docs should be considered as students because they are undergoing training. In fact, at some universities, they do receive a document at the end of their fellowship which acknowledges their completion,” Beaulieu-Mathurin said.

There was consensus among the student representatives that CRA should not be interfering with university affairs.

“The CRA is evidently skewing the interpretation of the tax act. In the tax act, the university, which is a chartered institution of a province, has the right to define who its students are…. CRA is a federal agency and it is trying to trample in an area of provincial jurisdiction,” Milner said.

Student representatives are weary of the effects that this case could have on the financial security of current and future post-doctoral fellows.

“By setting this precedent, what’s to stop CRA from getting students to pay them retroactively without warning? Where’s the safeguard? It is likely that prospective post-doctoral fellows might be deterred from coming to McGill because of this,” Mahabadi said.

According to Kreiswirth, McGill is currently advocating this issue at many levels.

“McGill is participating with the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies and the Association des doyens des études supérieures au Québec to reinforce our belief that fellowship stipends for post-doctoral fellows are eligible for the educational deduction,” Kreiswirth wrote.

The post Post-doc’s tax and childcare status rejected appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In 2009, there were close to 250,000 U.S. troops deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Iraq–Kuwait region and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.  
“Fighting a foreign war has huge costs in many ways…. One of these costs is the increase in psychiatric conditions, the suffering and the health care utilization for the spouses and families left behind. That cost is in monetary terms, and it’s in human terms…. The results of [war] causing thousands and thousands of psychiatric cases – that’s a serious cost,” said Kaufman. “This isn’t even getting into people who are killed, crippled, or brain damaged. We’re just talking about the healthy people who aren’t affected directly by the war, but are disrupted by these psychiatric outcomes.”

The authors hope that the results from this study will increase the impetus for the military to improve accessibility and availability of mental health care services for military families. 
“Those of us in the military have been all too aware of the toll [deployment has on] our families, and this study is essentially our chance to show others that, so that we can be appropriately resourced to care for our families and make concerted efforts to develop programs to meet their needs,” said co-author Charles Engel, a psychiatrist and active duty colonel in the U.S army. 
There has been no similar study done looking at families of the almost 3,000 Canadian soldiers who are deployed in Afghanistan. The average Canadian soldier is deployed for six months.

“Deployment in Canada may have a different effect. All these women are together in the United States and in solidarity, so this could mitigate these psychiatric effects. Maybe it’s harder for families in Canada, maybe there is less social support because there are fewer families waiting together for their husbands,” said Kaufman.

In an email to The Daily, Lisa Fiander, communications officer at National Defence, wrote that the health and mental health needs of military families are a top priority for the Canadian Forces. 
“Families of personnel with mental health concerns currently have access to a range of Canadian Forces services and programs including counselling under the Operational Stress Injury Social Support network and the guidance of the more than 40 Military Family Resource Centres located across the country, in the U.S. and in Europe,” she wrote. 
However, despite the availability of these resources, Canadian military wives explained that they are not accessible and that stigma within the military community often prevents them from seeking help. 
“There is definitely stigma when it comes to military spouses seeking any kind of support or outside help as it contradicts the image of the ‘strong military wife.’ Seeking help for psychiatric reasons can adversely affect the military member’s career, which may make it more difficult for the wife or partner to admit the necessity,” a member of the themilitarywife.ca web community, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Daily over Facebook chat. “The biggest challenge…is that it relies entirely on the spouse’s willingness to reach out.”

One Canadian military wife, Joanne Nicholle, who had previously received treatment for depression, explained her frustration with the current system. 
“I first started receiving treatment for depression after the birth of my daughter…. However, there were no [accessible] medical services that the military provides for families. In fact, they practically rip you away from your roots and force you to live in a new province where you’re treated like a foreigner,” said Nicholle. “As for stigma…. I don’t feel there would be any labelling from the general public. On the other hand, within the military community, [young wives] get the ‘suck it up, buttercup’ [attitude] from the more experienced wives and members.” 
Stigma is also a major concern among military spouses in the United States, and was considered by the study’s authors to have decreased the effect they found in their research. However, Engel explained that wives getting assistance through mental health channels do not damage their husbands’ careers, and it is a perceived issue among wives that needs to be addressed. 
Engel also pointed out that younger military wives were not included in the study, which likely further decreased the effect found by the researchers. 
This is the first major study done looking at the health impact on the family members of people in the army who are deployed.

Alyssa Mansfield, the lead researcher on the study, is currently conducting another study looking at the mental health impact deployment has on the children. 
 “There’s never going to be all the answers to these questions,” said Mansfield.

The post The toll on the home front appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In an email sent out by the Collectif Échec à la guerre, organizers said that the purpose of the protest was “to commemorate the massacre of the population of Gaza by the Israeli army last year and to demand an immediate end to the siege imposed on Gaza.”

One year ago, a 23-day military conflict took place in Gaza and southern Israel, which ended on January 18. During the conflict – called the Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead, or the Gaza massacre – approximately 1,400 Palestinians, and 13 Israelis were killed by bombs or combatants. The war also decimated Gazan infrastructure, homes, and government buildings.

Protestors at the event pointed out that even though Israeli attacks and bombings have been infrequent since last January, the Israeli and Egyptian militaries’ siege against the Strip persists, prolonging the humanitarian crisis there.

“Almost the entire population of the Gaza Strip relies on UN food rations and aid. Sustenance [has] completely vanished within the Gaza Strip,” said Mostafa Henaway, a protestor and a community organizer for the Immigrant Workers Centre in Montreal.
“Seventy-five per cent of the Gazan population is actually refugees from bordering villages and towns outside the Gaza Strip. And so this remains the core of the issue: people have been besieged and trapped within this tiny ghetto, and are without the right to return to their home, without the right to live in dignity, and the right to live equally as Israelis do,” said Henaway.
Participants also decried the Canadian government’s support of what participants call Israeli apartheid policies in Palestinian territory, and its recent decision to cut over $10 million of funding to pro-Palestinian human rights organizations like Alternatives, a Montreal-based non-governmental international solidarity organization, and Kairos, a Christian aid organization. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney dubbed these organizations as anti-Semitic for supporting the campaign for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.
“[I am here] to remind Canadians that this is going on and [to tell] our government, which has shown unilateral support for Israel, its behaviours are unacceptable,” said Omar, a 2005 graduate from McGill University. “The funding cuts…send a message that certain people don’t deserve basic human rights or basic health care or basic anything, but others do,” he added.

Several Orthodox Jews at the march defended the boycotts against Israel.  “The boycotts are not anti-Semitic, but they are to show our opposition against and disgust with Israel’s direct and indirect killings of the Palestinian people,” said Amrom Rosenberg, a member of Neturei Karta, an international sect of Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism.
There were many students present at Saturday’s march to show their support and solidarity.
“I think it’s especially important for students to be in solidarity with people in Gaza because the situation for students in Palestine and Gaza is made harsh and difficult by the restrictions on freedom of movement and the blockades,” said Amy Darwish, U1 Social Work.

No counterdemonstration took place, and participants saw the event as a success.
“I think today is just to show our support for Gaza, and I think we’ve done that here today,” said Henaway.

The post Montrealers commemorate Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Stephanie Law
MSc II Epidemiology

The post HIV causes AIDS appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Campaign McGill was launched in October of 2007, and in mid-October of this year proudly announced that it had surpassed the $500-million mark and was well on its way to reaching the goal of $750 million.

The administration’s desire to attract research dollars has gone so far as to influence its policy review processes.

Earlier this month, the administration introduced its draft of Regulations on the Conduct of Research policy in which sections requiring transparent reporting on research receiving military funding were removed. The administration has cited the need to remain in-line with other research-intensive universities, presumably in order to competitively attract donors.

The administration has also shied away from commitments regarding the adoption of policies that would ensure innovations created at McGill are accessible and affordable for those in developing countries. Again, fears of losing research dollars have dominated discussions.

It appears that McGill is trading in its ethics for big bucks.

Back when she was a prude
In November 1993, “Class A” (most heinous) war criminal and Japanese fascist Ryoichi Sasakawa approached McGill about a possible donation. At the time, Sasakawa’s foundation had already made donations worth millions of dollars to various prestigious universities, including Princeton, Berkeley, and Oxford. However, both the University of California at San Diego and University of Chicago refused his money.

The McGill administration was urged by multiple faculty members to be wary of Sasakawa’s donations. McGill geography professor Audrey Kobayashi, renowned for redressing injustices to Japanese-Canadians during World War II, advised the McGill administration to inform itself of Sasakawa’s political history.

“I would hope that the McGill community would educate itself about money from this source and other sources acquired by unethical means or from organizations that support what we in our society agree to be unethical,” said Kobayashi at the time.

By the end of the month, Vice-Principal (Fundraising), Michael Keifer told Senate that McGill had declined the invitation to discussions with Sasakawa’s foundation.

“Before knowing what we now know about Sasakawa we said we would be happy to meet them, but that has changed,” Keifer said in Senate.

Professor Emeritus Samuel Noumoff, who was involved in the faculty opposition to the Sasakawa donation, is still proud of McGill’s decision at the time.

“Fortunately, McGill had the courage at that point to say ‘Thank you, no,’” Noumoff said.

Ignorance, indifference, or denial?
In October of this year, the president of Nestlé Nutrition Canada, Marilyn Knox, co-chaired the Global Food Security Conference at McGill with Munroe-Blum. According to Carole Dobrich, coordinator of the Goldfarb Breastfeeding Program at the Jewish General Hospital and president of the Infant Feeding Action Coalition (INFACT Quebec), this was a direct conflict of interest, as Munroe-Blum formerly served on the Nestlé Canada Advisory Board.

In a letter written in August to Munroe-Blum, Dobrich and others asked Munroe-Blum to “immediately and publicly disengage yourself and McGill University from this and any other affiliation with Nestlé Canada.”

The letter cited Nestlé’s unethical practices including “unethical marketing of infant formulas and repeated, systematic violations of the UNICEF/WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk substitutes and subsequent resolutions; the use of forced child labour in their cocoa supply chain in West Africa; and controversial water pricing and the privatization of public water resources,” among others.

Munroe-Blum dismissed INFACT’s concerns in a September 9 email to the group.

“One of the objectives of this conference is to bring the private sector to the table and to engage with them…. We are happy to have a distinguished senior Nestlé Canada executive attend the conference and act as the co-chair of the proceedings,” wrote Munroe-Blum.

INFACT members were dissatisfied with Munroe-Blum’s response and called it a blatant denial of Nestlé’s role in perpetuating global food insecurity.

“The biggest concern is that you have the principal of McGill placing the university at a conflict of interest. We simply have to ask, ‘Is this a good thing?’”

Donations as redemption
Large donations from private corporations, often seen as the corporatization or privatization of education, are problematic. Good research can come out of funding from private companies. However, it is often difficult to disentangle companies’ true motives.

One can easily argue that Nestlé’s involvement in the Global Food Security Conference was a public relations tactic. And McGill agreed to let them put on the show.

Another example of McGill’s donor relationships with potentially unethical corporations is a $3-million gift received from the Rio Tinto Alcan Canada Fund in 2008, which allowed the creation of the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law. This money will allow McGill to train international commercial lawyers who will be well-versed in the various legal cases Rio Tinto faces.

In 2000, victims of Rio Tinto’s mining operation on the island of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, filed a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Claims Act in U.S. federal court against Rio Tinto. Specifically, they alleged that improperly dumped waste rock and tailings from the Rio’s mining operations had detrimental effects on the environment and the health of the residents.

After nine years, this case has still not been resolved, and the U.S. federal appeals court is reviewing whether Rio Tinto must face claims of human rights violations. Other cases surrounding Rio Tinto have arisen elsewhere. In 2008, the Norwegian government publicly condemned Rio Tinto’s unethical practices by selling close to £500 million, in Rio Tinto shares.

It is clear that Rio Tinto has a lot of cleaning up to do, and one option for doing this might be donating to universities. While the Norwegian government is disassociating itself from the company, Munroe-Blum continues to serve on the board of the Canada Forum of Rio Tinto-Alcan.

Noumoff, for one, argued that large donations from unethical sources affect every member of the University community.

“No matter what view, one [would be] gaining their salary as a result of unethical investment. And that’s an unethical issue that every member of the staff [has] to cope with,” said Noumoff.

Current donations policy
According to Derek Cassoff, director of communications of the Development and Alumni Relations Office at McGill, decisions regarding donations are largely made by the academic provosts and deans, and proper considerations are given to ethical concerns.

“All the gifts do not run through the Senate or the Board of Governors. It’s usually the academic provost that conducts the negotiations with large donors,” Cassoff said. “In some cases the donors request to remain anonymous…but we’re very prudent when we enter in a relationship with a potential donor. If there’s any concern that the donor is unethical, we wouldn’t want to do business with them.”

Noumoff believes that better documentation would help McGill make better ethical choices.

“First, it is very important to document the nature of the investment or the donations. Second, [McGill should] document the charges that are made against those companies or those individuals…. If the documentation is sufficient [to suggest unethical practices] then one would request the Board examine it, present briefs, and report,” said Noumoff.

Richard Janda, McGill law professor and co-author of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis, agreed that transparent criteria for assessing donations are necessary.

“There’s an imperative for the University to establish criteria and policies such that its reputation is not harmed by the origins of its money. And any origin of money that could display taint, influence, divert free and open inquiry should not be accepted.” said Janda. “Universities are supposed to be leaders with respect to matters of social concern, and I think that this is an example where we could do that.”

Janda also explained that policy regulations on military research, as well as global access policies, can demonstrate that McGill is mindful of both the potential harmful applications of its research, and its positive spillovers.

For Dobrich, it’s a matter of moral responsibility.

“Sometimes we get lost in the big hype of everything else, sometimes we’ve got to look at what’s right and ethical, not how far we can push the money buck,” Dobrich said.

If Sasakawa offered to support Campaign McGill today, would he be refused?

The post Get dirty money out of McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A third of the world’s population lacks access to essential medicines – drugs that easily satisfy the health needs of the majority – and most of them are found in sub-Saharan Africa and in India. To further this deficit, there is a 10/90 gap where only 10 per cent of the money spent globally on health and medical research is spent on the diseases and problems that affect the poorest 90 per cent of the world. Universities can play a role in reducing this gap by exploring medical innovations that have benefits for the poorest populations, but also by making their medical innovations affordable and available to those populations.

A panel discussion on global access to McGill’s health innovations, held Tuesday evening, led to clashing opinions with regard to the role the University should play. While there was consensus among the panellists that universities have a social responsibility to ensure that research be made accessible, there was disagreement over whether McGill should formally adopt a policy incorporating the principles of global access and equitable licensing.

Rachel Kiddell-Monroe, a panellist and president of the Board for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), explained that principles of equitable licensing and global access make universities think harder about the potential benefits of their innovations in resource-limited settings, and how these benefits can be realized.

“Ten-million people in developing countries [die] every year for lack of essential medicines…. So we have a request…that every university-developed technology with potential for further development into a drug, vaccine, or medical diagnostic should be licensed with a concrete and transparent strategy to make affordable versions available in resource-limited countries for essential medical care,” Kiddell-Monroe said.

Panellist John DiMaio, manager of the Life Sciences branch of McGill’s Office of Technology Transfer (OTT), is responsible for the out-licensing of biomedical technologies, biopharmaceuticals, and medical devices that emerge from McGill. He argued that McGill still practices these principles without a written policy.

“[The] fact that McGill has not formally adopted any of the principles…doesn’t mean that it is oblivious to their operations. Every case that comes in [to our office] is subject to that mindset…whether or not the university policy actually has inscribed within it principles of equitable licensing,” DiMaio said.

In reference to the development of the leishmaniasis drug at UBC, Kiddell-Monroe argued that explicit policies are necessary. She said that these policies provided the incentive for the Wasans to further explore their anti-fungal drugs to see if they might also be active against diseases that affect developing countries – from there, the Wasans discovered that their anti-fungal drugs could also fight leishmaniasis.

Michael Huynh, an event coordinator for UAEM (McGill Chapter) and Law III student, agreed that global access principles stimulate researchers and administrators to think beyond the conventional uses of their innovations.

“If you don’t have the OTT officers looking actively for how the research could have potential benefits in low- and middle-income countries, then commercial opportunities for these drugs, which could have a huge global impact, might be missed,” Huynh said.

DiMaio reminded the audience that pharmaceutical companies have to be engaged with and buy into the process of negotiating equitable licenses. He expressed concern that discussions with private industry might be complicated with the adoption and implementation of these policies.

In an email to The Daily, however, Angus Livingstone, managing director of UBC’s University-Industry Liaison Office, confirmed that this fear is unfounded. According to Livingstone, no company has walked away from a potential deal with UBC because of the global access principles it adopted in late 2007.

“One of the beauties of the principles is that they serve as a good starting point for discussions without being prescriptive,” Livingstone wrote. “By engaging companies in a dialogue, we can better understand their concerns and look for creative solutions.”

With McGill’s Intellectual Property Policy currently under review, student groups at McGill, including UAEM, the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), and the McGill Global AIDS Coalition, have been working to push the University to include equitable licensing principles in the new policy.

Following the announcement last Monday that Harvard University and Yale University, among others, signed a statement of intent to enact global access principles, panel organizers had hoped that McGill administrators would follow suit.

However, after the panel discussions, Oline Twiss, Law IV student and a member of the HRWG, remained unsure where McGill stands.

“I am not confident at this point that there’s a commitment to [adopting these principles]. It sounds like maybe in practice it happens at an ad-hoc basis,” Twiss said.

According to Huynh, the next step for student groups will be to formulate a policy and present it to Principal Heather Munroe-Blum with the hope that it be adopted in the document, which will eventually come before Senate. UAEM has also presented a motion that will be presented at the next Post Graduate Students’ Society council meeting, affirming the graduate students’ support for the adoption of equitable licensing policies.

The post Distributing medicine worldwide appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Maggiore was diagnosed with HIV in 1992. In 1994, she met Peter Duesberg, a molecular biology professor at the University of California at Berkley. Duesberg convinced Maggiore that HIV does not lead to AIDS. A year later, Maggiore started one of the largest networks of HIV-denialists and skeptics, called Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives.

Maggiore refused antiretroviral treatment for HIV because she did not think HIV would lead to AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses. She did not take the recommended treatment for pregnant HIV-positive women to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Her child died at the age of three from Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. The Los Angeles County coroner and various other independent pathology experts concluded that the death was a direct result of her untreated HIV that had progressed into AIDS.

W hen asked about Maggiore, Mark Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Centre, becomes enraged: “Christina Maggiore and her daughter died because they didn’t get treated…. Their story is tragic, but the reality is, Christina Maggiore was so misguided in believing this concoction of bullshit, that it cost not only her life, which is her business, but also the life of her three-year-old kid, and that is everybody’s business.”

Maggiore and her daughter’s deaths are only two of many that result from denying the causal link between HIV and AIDS.

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV, human immunodefiency virus, attacks the body’s immune system and leaves it vulnerable to opportunistic infections like tuberculosis, pneumonias, and the common cold. Left untreated, the immune system becomes severely compromised (often eight to 12 years after first exposure to the virus). When the CD4+ cells – those involved in a normal immune response – drop below 200 per µL of blood, or when there are AIDS-related diseases present (chronic dementia and certain cancers for example), the condition is known as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

T his past June, an article titled “The X Factor” by Bruce Livesey appeared as the cover story in Maisonneuve, a well-established Montreal-based magazine. It profiled a 61-year-old Torontonian named John Scythes, and his arguments for why HIV might not be the only cause of AIDS.

Most people working in HIV and AIDS research and with HIV-affected communities have heard it all before. In fact, everything published in the article has already been said elsewhere, usually in less mainstream media, and each pseudo-scientific argument is easily deconstructed.

According to Jason Szabo, a medical doctor and historian involved in HIV care and clinical research at the Montreal General Hospital, the most concrete evidence that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS came in the nineties when an effective HIV treatment, using protease inhibitors (drugs that inhibit viral replication), became available and dramatically reduced AIDS-related deaths. As an example, Szabo cites a 1998 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has been referenced over 4,000 times.

“It demonstrates the indisputable link between the introduction of protease inhibitors in late 1994 and the inverse correlation with death,” Szabo said.

Ken Monteith, director of the Quebec Coalition against AIDS (COCQ-SIDA), witnessed firsthand the effectiveness of these treatments both as a person living with HIV and through his roles in both COCQ-SIDA and the AIDS Community Care Montreal (ACCM).

“I don’t understand closing your eyes to that proof. It must be that people have not seen anyone come back from the brink of death due to treatment for HIV and not due to treatment for something else,” Monteith said. “Now tell me that HIV has nothing to do with the illnesses that they had before?”

Szabo also pointed to South Africa’s denialism disaster wherein former president Thabo Mbeki and his minister of health, Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang urged citizens to eat garlic rather than provide them with antiretroviral treatment. According to numerous studies, including one recently published by the Harvard School of Public Health, the Mbeki administration’s neglectful policies led to over 300,000 needless adult deaths due to AIDS and 30,000 infant HIV infections.

Scythes uses pseudo-scientific arguments to confuse readers. For example, he points to the excess of money and effort dedicated to HIV research and the failure of the scientific community thus far to find a cure for AIDS or a vaccine for HIV. In the article, Scythes is quoted saying, “If HIV were panning out the way you and I think it should, these vaccines should be working a little bit.”

Szabo explained, however, that HIV is an extremely versatile and fast-mutating virus.

“Within a population or a given individual, the virus is characterized by a stunning degree of diversity,” Szabo said. “And so it’s been proven to be, despite incredible investment of time, money, effort, and will, incredibly difficult to develop a vaccine – not because HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS, just that some problems are incredibly complicated.”

Another argument brought forward in the article was that some people infected with HIV can live very long and healthy lives, and do not develop AIDS. Ironically, HIV-positive basketball star Magic Johnson, who is currently following a strict antiretroviral regimen and has also advertised GlaxoSmithKline’s HIV medications, was cited in the article as an example of such a healthy individual. Nonetheless, it is true that some people with HIV do live long and healthy lives without treatment. Szabo explained how this could be.

“Some people’s immune function deteriorates very quickly and they die quickly, some average eight to 12 years, and at the other extreme, there are those…who [do] not progress clinically long-term. We are not designed [as a] species to all succumb to the same biopathogen,” Szabo said.

The article in Maisonneuve focused on whether syphilis could be another cause of AIDS. Scythes cited evidence that syphilis was very similar to AIDS, especially in the later stages of the infection. He found that those with untreated syphilis often died from illnesses similar to those who die from AIDS, like various pneumonias, tuberculosis, and cancers. He also explained how some research has shown that syphilis infections are often missed and left undiagnosed. He wonders if syphilis is in fact present in more AIDS cases than is known, and if it can it be a cause of AIDS.

Szabo highlighted the non-logic of this argument: syphilis rates are currently rising, yet AIDS death rates are falling.

“Over the last 10 years, even though the death rates for AIDS have remained well below levels seen in the late eighties and early nineties in North America, the rates of other diseases like syphilis have gone up considerably. To say that there’s absolutely no evidence on one side, and overwhelming evidence on the other side is an understatement,” Szabo said.

Szabo also stressed that one must make the distinction between a virus leading to AIDS and a cofactor. He warned that although it is accepted that HIV is the only cause of AIDS, the presence of cofactors, like syphilis or other sexually transmitted infections, not only increases the likelihood of transmission of HIV (due to irritated mucosal membranes) but also has an effect on disease progression.

Many researchers and members of the HIV community-based organizations are fed up with the persistent and incessant sensationalism over whether HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

Wainberg notes that some HIV-denialists may have unethical and misguided motives.

“HIV causes AIDS. There is nothing to discuss…. One side has scientific credibility and the other side is completely full of shit,” Wainberg said. “These people, some of them are neo-Nazis. I mean that seriously…. Some of them want people to die because they’re black, or they’re gay, or they’re disadvantaged. Some of these people are motivated by the worst considerations that you can imagine.”

Monteith cited his experiences at ACCM wherein an HIV-denialist persistently contacted the organization to refute the causal link between HIV and AIDS.

“Community organizations [like ours] don’t treat people, but our staff and resources help build networks and make it possible for [people living with HIV to] rebuild social circles and societal lives,” Monteith said. “When those resources are being preoccupied with having to respond to things that are not proven, [resources are wasted].”

On a more fundamental note, one has to question whether it is at all useful or meaningful to publish an article that has the potential to mislead so many people. To be sure, Maisonneuve’s article attracted attention and may have earned them a few more advertising dollars, but what was achieved in giving a legitimate forum to an argument that has repeatedly been scientifically deconstructed?
For one thing, it misleads the general public into thinking this is a serious debate. In fact, when the idea of an anti-HIV-denialism piece was pitched to The Daily Features editor, Whitney Mallett immediately quoted the Maisonneuve article saying that she had been swayed to believe there may be other causes for AIDS.

It is undeniably difficult for readers to differentiate pseudo-science from legitimate scientific debate, and for editors without science backgrounds to represent this issue accurately. While the Maisonneuve article arguably presents “both sides,” it leaves readers with the overwhelming impression that further research into alternative causes of AIDS is warranted. The subtext, of course, is that if HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, perhaps collusion exists between Big Pharma and greedy scientists and that treatment may be unnecessary. True, Scythes does not deny that HIV is one of the causes of AIDS, but nowhere in the article is he quoted saying that HIV-positive individuals should continue to take treatment.

What responsibility does a publication have to represent accurately a subject that could cost lives both through the diversion of money into unnecessary research and through refusal of treatment? In particular, to what extent did Maisonneuve represent the rigorous process of peer review that the science of HIV has been subjected to, and what amount of space was dedicated to propping up Scythes “scientific credentials?” (According to the article, he is on a first-name basis with “leading disease researchers” and has travelled extensively to present papers.)
André Picard, the Globe and Mail’s public health reporter, said that while journalists often have to try to present varying opinions, it is also important to figure out how much attention a debate should be given.

“We have to try to report responsibly, and the reality is that there are going to be varying opinions. [The article] took a certain approach that gave this [debate] more attention than I would have given it…. A lot of [these tough questions are] scientifically appropriate…but it’s not always useful to have it in the public forum…. It probably misleads people more than it informs them,” Picard said.

Carmine Starnino, editor-in-chief of Maisonneuve, defended the decision to publish the article.

“We shouldn’t shy away from educating the readers on a subgroup that exists. Their existence might be inconvenient and a lot of what they have to say might be crazy, but it shouldn’t stop us from publishing a well-written piece just because we might upset some of the public or our readers,” Starnino said. “[We’re] doing what I think magazines should be doing – not shying away from topics that may get us into trouble.”

“Trouble” seems like the inappropriate word to use for an article that could cost people their lives. If someone chooses to deny that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS and chooses not to take treatment, they have made a personal choice. But spending energy to convince others to follow can have harmful – even lethal – effects.

Wainberg is more direct: “One [side] is absolutely correct; that is my side. The other side is unfortunately completely misguided and ill-informed. One can rightly argue that their side is responsible for the additional deaths of at least hundreds of thousands of people.”

The post In denial appeared first on The McGill Daily.