Your suggestion that the researchers at OHSU were simply incapable to properly carry out the animal experiments that they had been contracted to conduct is highly doubtful IMO. Most people would find it difficult to accept that a research institution of OHSU’s caliber would consent to run pre-clinical trials for a company that is trying to get FDA approval, if they did not think they had the proper infrastructure in place (i.e., proper housing and personnel for the care of animals, etc.) or their scientific research experts were not able to adequately carry out the required surgical procedures including the proper aftercare. These important issues are all addressed in the routine vetting procedures prior to signing a research contract - you do not find out about these kinds of problems while you are trying to run the actual experiments.
I have reviewed all of the US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/) Inspection Report data pertaining to OHSU over the time period that the InVivo monkey trial was run there. These reports clearly demonstrate that the Oregon National Primate Research Center received a clean bill of health and the responsible USDA investigators did not find any of the kinds of issues that InVivo alleged may have contributed to the unfortunate study outcomes.
In the end, I believe that these government reports are accurate. It looks like we disagree on what may have happened at OHSU.
FWIW, I have also done the same type of search (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/) for the year 2008 (i.e., to check more in-depth into the issues surrounding the PETA complaint). The Inspector Reports over that time period support what you cited from your first link and that OHSU was given a warning letter by the agency. However, the article written by Jeff Akst in its original version (available here: http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55985/) also continues to say:
“That government warning "was a very rare occurrence" at the school, Newman told The Boston Globe. "When we received it, we went through our records, which go back a decade, and we could not find another instance of receiving a warning."
Thus, the 2008 problem at the OHSU animal research center that you highlight in your reply was clearly an exception. I would think that after receiving a government warning letter, the key decision makers at the university at that time were especially motivated to do everything to make sure that those things were not going to happen again. A review of the official USDA Inspector Reports supports my assertion.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
