KERR FIREWALL STONEWALLS INSITE CRITIC

Earlier this month, the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in
HIV/AIDS released a report summarizing 33 studies about Insite,
Vancouver's supervised injection site at 139 East Hastings St.

Insite opened in September 2003 after a $1.5 million taxpayer-funded
study, conducted by the aforementioned centre, recommended a
supervised injection site for the Downtown Eastside. Thomas Kerr, a
research scientist at the centre and an assistant professor of
medicine at UBC, played a key role in pre-Insite research. He's
evolved into Insite's most vocal--and most abrasive--champion, and a
respected voice in the Downtown Eastside. (Kerr criticized a recent
Courier story about rising assault rates in Strathcona. See his letter
on page 9.)

A prodigious researcher, Kerr helped co-author every study cited in
the centre's recently released report. These studies, which detail
years of research and observation, present a formidable firewall to
Insite critics.

However, despite the unrepentant support of local politicians and an
apathetic media, criticism remains. During a recent interview with the
Province, Dr. Don Hedges, an addictions expert from New Westminster,
questioned the validity of centre research. "Supporters of Insite,
including those with a vested interest in keeping it open, are somehow
assumed to be free of bias," Hedges said.

Kerr agreed to an interview about Insite, its critics and his recently
released report.

Courier: One of your studies titled "A Safe Haven for Women who Inject
Drugs" involved 1,087 Insite users. Was a uniform set of questions used to
interview the survey participants?

Kerr: We have a standardized survey.

Courier: May I have a copy of that survey?

Kerr: No. We've passed the test of independent scientific peer review and
got our work published in the best medical journals in the world. So we
don't feel like we need to be tried in the popular media.

Courier: In 2003, the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS was
charged with justifying Insite's existence. Does...

Kerr: We're not here to justify anything. We're here to conduct an
independent, arm's-length scientific evaluation. We've conducted that in
accordance with the highest standards of scientific review and process.

Courier: I understand the scientific outputs come under peer review, but
your organization had an attitude going into this thing. Do you understand
the perception problem there?

Kerr: No, I don't understand the perception problem. And if you took that
one step further you'd be accusing me of scientific misconduct, which I
would take great offence to. And any allegation of that has been generally
met with a letter from my lawyer.

Courier: Would you want the pro-gun lobby compiling a report on the firearms
registry, with that report essentially creating public policy?

Kerr: I don't know why you say we are pro-safe injection site. If you look
back on the historical documentation, you'll find we advocated for a change
in the status quo. Yes, we talked about the need for a safe injection
facility--we said we'd like to see a scientific evaluation of an injection
facility.

Courier: And then you did that evaluation yourself.

Kerr: And what's wrong with that?

Courier: Well...

Kerr: We weren't saying an injection site must be implemented in the city
because we know it'll work. We said we need an evaluation to see if it would
work.

Courier: In the six years since it opened, has Insite made any mistakes or
miscalculations?

Kerr: Initially there was some plans to implement some kind of inhalation
facility for crack users so that these individuals could get off the street.
And that hasn't moved forward.

Courier: And you'd like to see that happen?

Kerr: I would like to see a scientific evaluation of an inhalation room.