In MCG whistleblower case, testimony points to falsified monkey tissue

This rhesus macaque is the species of Ovechkin, the MCG medical-research monkey who died in 2014 and led to an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit.

This rhesus macaque is the species of Ovechkin, the MCG medical-research monkey who died in 2014 and led to an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit.

Date: January 27, 2023

New testimony in a University System of Georgia whistleblower lawsuit involving a research monkey’s death supports the claim that MCG officials swapped-out tissue from another animal during a botched investigation.

The head of a complex research project into treatments for blindness, MCG brain scientist Jay Hegde conducted experiments on Ovechkin and Crosby, two rhesus macaques. Then in January 2014, after routine surgery to implant a recording device in his brain, Ovechkin died.

Hegde said he pushed for a thorough investigation of Ovechkin’s death, including a blood test for the drug overdose that contributed to his death. Instead, Hegde said he ran into a coverup.

At the outset, veterinarians responsible for the monkey had not notified MCG’s federally-mandated Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, he said. A few days later, he was told results from the blood test had been “accidentally shredded.” His further efforts to investigate were blocked.


MORE: Paceline donates annual check to Georgia Cancer Center


Hegde would find, a few months later, that the university had asked the National Science Foundation to terminate his grant funding. In 2016 he filed a lawsuit under the Georgia Whistleblower Protection Act.

The university was punishing him, the suit said, for drawing attention to the veterinarians’ misconduct. Rather than conceal it, Hegde said it needed to be exposed, to protect both other animals and continued grant funding.

With the case now slated for mediation, Hegde’s attorney Tanya Jeffords recently revealed a finding that could radically impact its outcome. In a motion for more time to obtain information, Jeffords cites expert testimony stating the university’s monkey tissue samples weren’t from a rhesus macaque at all. State attorneys previously claimed the samples had been destroyed.

AnnMarie Clark, a forensic analyst and geneticist with the University of Florida’s Maples Center for Forensic Medicine, wrote in the report she could not determine what species the samples were from, but it was not that of Ovechkin.


MORE: Augusta mayor releases statement on Gold Cross EMS, former commissioner speaks out


“The FFPE (preserved) samples are not from macaque,” Clark said in the report that Jeffords cites in her motion.

“At this point I cannot determine what species the samples are from, and I am currently awaiting more data to be delivered which may provide the species of origin information,” Clark said.

The finding shows university system officials aren’t telling the truth, Jeffords said.

“Compelling evidence now shows the samples defendant claimed originated from Ovechkin did not in fact originate from Ovechkin, or even another monkey of the same species,” she wrote.

Susan McCord is a staff writer with The Augusta Press. Reach her at susan@theaugustapress.com 

What to Read Next

The Author

Susan McCord is a veteran journalist and writer who began her career at publications in Asheville, N.C. She spent nearly a decade at newspapers across rural southwest Georgia, then returned to her Augusta hometown for a position at the print daily. She’s a graduate of the Academy of Richmond County and the University of Georgia. Susan is dedicated to transparency and ethics, both in her work and in the beats she covers. She is the recipient of multiple awards, including a Ravitch Fiscal Reporting Fellowship, first place for hard news writing from the Georgia Press Association and the Morris Communications Community Service Award. **Not involved with Augusta Press editorials

Comment Policy

The Augusta Press encourages and welcomes reader comments; however, we request this be done in a respectful manner, and we retain the discretion to determine which comments violate our comment policy. We also reserve the right to hide, remove and/or not allow your comments to be posted.

The types of comments not allowed on our site include:

  • Threats of harm or violence
  • Profanity, obscenity, or vulgarity, including images of or links to such material
  • Racist comments
  • Victim shaming and/or blaming
  • Name calling and/or personal attacks;
  • Comments whose main purpose are to sell a product or promote commercial websites or services;
  • Comments that infringe on copyrights;
  • Spam comments, such as the same comment posted repeatedly on a profile.