tion or tests for infection with either of the viruses. We acknowledge the assistance of Dr CA Whetstone in undertaking the serologicalassays.
CORRESPONDENCE
Serological evidence for the presence of bovine lentivirus infection in cattle in Australia 0
CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory, PO Bag 24, Geelong, Victoria 3220
AJ FORMAN
Department of Agriculture, Victorian Institute of Animal Sciences, 475-485 Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria 3049
CA GIBSON
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105
References Gonda MA, Braun MJ, Caner SG, Kost TA, Bess J W ef ul(1987) Nutwe (Lond)330388 JohnsonRH. Oginnusi AAand Ladds PW (1983)Aurt VefJ60:147 . . Maaten UT Van Der, Boothe AD and Seger CL (1972) J Nut Canc Imf 491649 Malmquist WA. Maaten MJ Van Der and Boothe AD (1969) Cancer Res 29:188
Veterinary education BJ RODWELL
A bovine lentivirus,originallyisolatedfrom acow in the United States (Maaten e t a1 1972), was later called bovine immunodeficiency-likevirus. The virus caused a lymphocytosis andlymphoidhyperplasiain calves into which it was inoculated, with persistence of the infection for longer than one year. There is no published evidence for the virus causing clinical disease, although it has been speculated that it may increase the clinical manifestations of other diseases, such as enzootic bovine leucosis. There is evidence that infectionof cattle with bovine lentivirus is widespread, having been recorded in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom andNew Zealand. Interesthas been directed toward it because of theclose structural similarity of the virus to human immunodeficiencyvirus (Gonda et a1 1987). and the possibility of using the bovine infection as a model for the human disease. To clarify the status of Australian cattle, a small survey was carried out earlier this year. Sixty serum samples were selected from two dairy herds in Victoria and another 60 from four dairy herds in Queensland. The dairy herds were selected on the basis of having a high prevalence of antibody to bovine leukaemia virus, as there is some evidence from research overseas that bovine lentivirus infection commonly occurs together with enzootic bovine leucosis. The 120 sera were tested for antibody to bovine lentivim by two procedures, ELISA and western blot, at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa, USA. Positive results were obtained to one or other or both tests, indicating a prevalence of antibody to the virus of between 7 and 17 percent, in all of the herds. Since the sampling in this survey was biased to increase the likeliiood of detecting antibody, these results do not reflect the expected overall prevalence in Australian cattle. The range of prevalence is similar to that determined in other countries in which surveillance has been carried out. The sera were also tested for antibody to bovine syncitial virus, another retrovirus also first isolated in the United States (Malmquistel a1 1969). Eighty-nine of the 120 sera tested showed positive reactions by immunodiffusion. It should come as no surprise that the Australian dairy herd is endemically infected with bovine lentivirus as it is probably ubiquitous in cattle populations worldwide. There appears to be little justifcation for puxsuing any further investigationof it for animal health reasons. As possible misconceptions could arise from the cattlevirus being called bovine immunodeficiency-like virus, it is better identified as bovine lentivirus. The bovine syncytial virus is probably also ubiquitous, and again no relationship with disease has been established. It has been isolated from Australian cattle (Johnson et ul 1983). No country importing meat or dajlproductsfrom Australia currentlyrequirescertifkaAustralian Veterinary J O W M ~No. 69, No. 12, December 1992
Head of the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006
CR BELLENGER
My colleague, Dr Henry Collins, expressed his views on reforms in veterinary education in an editorial published in the June 1992 issue of the Journal (Aust Vet J 69:125). The views expressed therein are similar to those ascribed to Dr Collins in an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 22 May 1991. Both articles were critical of present teaching. Dr Collins made two main claims about veterinary schools. They were that good undergraduate teaching is not rewarded in appointment and promotion, and secondly that methods of teaching are inefficient and depress motivation. As there has been no other response, and after discussing the issues with Dr Collins, I would like to offer some personal observations about these matters based on my experience at the University of Sydney. I cannot speak for the other universities in this country. My experience of several appointment committees for tutors and lecturers, and in committees evaluating applications for promotion to senior lecturer, is that the contribution to teaching has always been regarded seriously and is currently taken very seriously. The University normally seeks to appoint people with both teaching experience and research training. If, in the course of their employment, lecturers focus on and perform creditably at teaching, they will, with modest contributions in other areas including clinical service as well as scholarship, be promoted. Senior Lecturer is regarded in the University as a career grade appointment.The top of the Senior Lecturer scale in Australia, is close to $58 000 per annum. However, promotion from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor and above is unlikely unless one has a record of substantial productive scholarship. To that extent Dr Collins’ observation is correct. Universities now provide a range of short courses for staff to develop their skills in small group teaching, assessment,lecturing, interactions with students, and other such areas. The Australian Government has recently announceda new scheme to encourageteaching -the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching -with annual grants of $5 million nationally. The second criticism Dr Collins made of current teaching was that it “is inefficient,it depresses motivation and is incapable of encouraging the ‘vital attributes”’. In the article in theAurtrulian Dr Collins was quoted as stating that “students have no opportunity to discuss the topics they study or ask questions. Their practical courses are simplistic repeats of phenomena discovered decades ago, and for an assessment a simple regurgitation of facts”. The staff in the Departmentof Veterinary Clinical Sciences each provides small group clinical tuition for the 3rd, 4th and 337
CORRESPONDENCE
Serological evidence for the presence of bovine lentivirus infection in cattle in Australia 0
CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory, PO Bag 24, Geelong, Victoria 3220
AJ FORMAN
Department of Agriculture, Victorian Institute of Animal Sciences, 475-485 Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria 3049
CA GIBSON
Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105
References Gonda MA, Braun MJ, Caner SG, Kost TA, Bess J W ef ul(1987) Nutwe (Lond)330388 JohnsonRH. Oginnusi AAand Ladds PW (1983)Aurt VefJ60:147 . . Maaten UT Van Der, Boothe AD and Seger CL (1972) J Nut Canc Imf 491649 Malmquist WA. Maaten MJ Van Der and Boothe AD (1969) Cancer Res 29:188
Veterinary education BJ RODWELL
A bovine lentivirus,originallyisolatedfrom acow in the United States (Maaten e t a1 1972), was later called bovine immunodeficiency-likevirus. The virus caused a lymphocytosis andlymphoidhyperplasiain calves into which it was inoculated, with persistence of the infection for longer than one year. There is no published evidence for the virus causing clinical disease, although it has been speculated that it may increase the clinical manifestations of other diseases, such as enzootic bovine leucosis. There is evidence that infectionof cattle with bovine lentivirus is widespread, having been recorded in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom andNew Zealand. Interesthas been directed toward it because of theclose structural similarity of the virus to human immunodeficiencyvirus (Gonda et a1 1987). and the possibility of using the bovine infection as a model for the human disease. To clarify the status of Australian cattle, a small survey was carried out earlier this year. Sixty serum samples were selected from two dairy herds in Victoria and another 60 from four dairy herds in Queensland. The dairy herds were selected on the basis of having a high prevalence of antibody to bovine leukaemia virus, as there is some evidence from research overseas that bovine lentivirus infection commonly occurs together with enzootic bovine leucosis. The 120 sera were tested for antibody to bovine lentivim by two procedures, ELISA and western blot, at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa, USA. Positive results were obtained to one or other or both tests, indicating a prevalence of antibody to the virus of between 7 and 17 percent, in all of the herds. Since the sampling in this survey was biased to increase the likeliiood of detecting antibody, these results do not reflect the expected overall prevalence in Australian cattle. The range of prevalence is similar to that determined in other countries in which surveillance has been carried out. The sera were also tested for antibody to bovine syncitial virus, another retrovirus also first isolated in the United States (Malmquistel a1 1969). Eighty-nine of the 120 sera tested showed positive reactions by immunodiffusion. It should come as no surprise that the Australian dairy herd is endemically infected with bovine lentivirus as it is probably ubiquitous in cattle populations worldwide. There appears to be little justifcation for puxsuing any further investigationof it for animal health reasons. As possible misconceptions could arise from the cattlevirus being called bovine immunodeficiency-like virus, it is better identified as bovine lentivirus. The bovine syncytial virus is probably also ubiquitous, and again no relationship with disease has been established. It has been isolated from Australian cattle (Johnson et ul 1983). No country importing meat or dajlproductsfrom Australia currentlyrequirescertifkaAustralian Veterinary J O W M ~No. 69, No. 12, December 1992
Head of the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006
CR BELLENGER
My colleague, Dr Henry Collins, expressed his views on reforms in veterinary education in an editorial published in the June 1992 issue of the Journal (Aust Vet J 69:125). The views expressed therein are similar to those ascribed to Dr Collins in an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 22 May 1991. Both articles were critical of present teaching. Dr Collins made two main claims about veterinary schools. They were that good undergraduate teaching is not rewarded in appointment and promotion, and secondly that methods of teaching are inefficient and depress motivation. As there has been no other response, and after discussing the issues with Dr Collins, I would like to offer some personal observations about these matters based on my experience at the University of Sydney. I cannot speak for the other universities in this country. My experience of several appointment committees for tutors and lecturers, and in committees evaluating applications for promotion to senior lecturer, is that the contribution to teaching has always been regarded seriously and is currently taken very seriously. The University normally seeks to appoint people with both teaching experience and research training. If, in the course of their employment, lecturers focus on and perform creditably at teaching, they will, with modest contributions in other areas including clinical service as well as scholarship, be promoted. Senior Lecturer is regarded in the University as a career grade appointment.The top of the Senior Lecturer scale in Australia, is close to $58 000 per annum. However, promotion from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor and above is unlikely unless one has a record of substantial productive scholarship. To that extent Dr Collins’ observation is correct. Universities now provide a range of short courses for staff to develop their skills in small group teaching, assessment,lecturing, interactions with students, and other such areas. The Australian Government has recently announceda new scheme to encourageteaching -the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching -with annual grants of $5 million nationally. The second criticism Dr Collins made of current teaching was that it “is inefficient,it depresses motivation and is incapable of encouraging the ‘vital attributes”’. In the article in theAurtrulian Dr Collins was quoted as stating that “students have no opportunity to discuss the topics they study or ask questions. Their practical courses are simplistic repeats of phenomena discovered decades ago, and for an assessment a simple regurgitation of facts”. The staff in the Departmentof Veterinary Clinical Sciences each provides small group clinical tuition for the 3rd, 4th and 337
