Image: Suzi Eszterhas/Getty Images
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
The testing began shortly after Bobby’s first birthday. By the time he was 19 he had been anesthetized more than 250 times and undergone innumerable biopsies in the name of science. Much of the time he lived alone in a cramped, barren cage. Bobby grew depressed and emaciated and began biting his own arm, leaving permanent scars.
Bobby is a chimpanzee. Born in captivity to parents who were also lab chimps, he grew up at the Coulston Foundation, a biomedical research facility in Alamogordo, N.M., that was cited for repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act before it was shuttered in 2002. He is one of the lucky ones. Today he lives in a sanctuary called Save the Chimps in Fort Pierce, Fla., where he can socialize and roam freely. Last year the National Institutes of Health announced plans to put some 180 ex-Coulston chimps currently housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility back in service, to rejoin the roughly 800 other chimps that serve as subjects for studies of human diseases, therapies and vaccines in the U.S., which is the only country apart from Gabon to maintain chimps for this purpose.
Public opposition is on the rise. In April a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, to prohibit invasive research on great apes, including chimps. And when the NIH announced its plans for bringing the Alamogordo chimps out of retirement, objections from the Humane Society, primatologist Jane Goodall and others prompted the agency to put the plans on hold until the Institute of Medicine (IOM) completes a study of whether chimps are truly necessary for biomedical and behavioral research. The IOM project itself has been criticized: the NIH instructed it to omit ethics from consideration.
In April, McClatchy Newspapers ran a special report based on its review of thousands of medical records detailing research on chimps like Bobby. The stories painted a grim picture of life in the lab, noting disturbing psychological responses in the chimps. Then, in June, Hope R. Ferdowsian of George Washington University and her colleagues reported in PLoS ONE that chimps that had previously suffered traumatic events, including experimentation, exhibit clusters of symptoms similar to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in humans.
That chimps and humans react to trauma in a like manner should not come as a surprise. Chimps are our closest living relatives and share a capacity for emotion, including fear, anxiety, grief and rage.
Testing on chimps has been a huge boon for humans in the past, contributing to the discovery of hepatitis C and vaccines against polio and hepatitis B, among other advances. Whether it will continue to bear fruit is less certain. Alternatives are emerging, including ones that rely on computer modeling and isolated cells. In 2008 pharmaceutical manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced it would end its use of chimps.
In our view, the time has come to end biomedical experimentation on chimpanzees. The Senate bill would phase out invasive research on chimps over a three-year period, giving the researchers time to implement alternatives, after which the animals would be retired to sanctuaries.
We accept that others may make a different moral trade-off. If the U.S. elects to continue testing on chimps, however, then it needs to adopt stricter guidelines. Chimps should be used only in studies of major diseases and only when there is no other option. Highly social by nature, they should live with other chimps and in a stimulating environment with room to move around. And when a test inflicts pain or psychological distress, they should have access to treatment that eases those afflictions.
The Animal Welfare Act affords chimps some protection. But clearly more is needed. To develop and enforce tighter regulations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces the Animal Welfare Act, should establish an ethics committee specifically for biomedical research on chimps. The committee would need to include not just medical researchers but also bioethicists and representatives from animal welfare groups. Such measures would no doubt make medical testing on chimps even more expensive than it already is. Yet if human lives are going to benefit from research on our primate cousins, it is incumbent on us to minimize their suffering, provide them with an acceptable quality of life—and develop techniques that hasten the day when all of Bobby’s fellow chimps can join him in retirement.
This article was originally published with the title Ban Chimp Testing.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
60 Comments
Add CommentAre lab chimps rotated? When a chimp is designated as "lab chimp" will it live out its life as one or after so many tests is it put into a sanctuary and replaced by another chimp? If the chimps aren't rotated, that is the least researchers could do for the well-being of the chimp until it is retired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHear, hear! The self perpetuating nature of scientific research requires that these animal experiments go on and on and on into perpetuity, without regard to the animal “subject” or the actual benefit to society. Ironically, the research shows that the intelligent chimpanzee “animal model” experience emotions like compassion and grief and stress and pain in the same way that human primates do. Chimpanzees should, therefore, be a protected by the same ethical rules that govern research with vulnerable human (primate) populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Editors of Scientific American have drawn a moral line between chimps and other species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, they have failed to explain the reasons for this decision.
They mention the a ability of chimps to exhibit distress and symptoms similar to depression. The note their capacity for emotion, including fear, anxiety and rage.
I fully agree the emotional and cognitive abilities of a species must be taken into account when assessing our moral consideration of their interests and well being.
And yet, chimps are not the only species to exhibit the characteristics mentioned.
Would the Editors also support a ban on all non-human primate research?
What about cats or dogs?
What about mice?
If not, why not exactly?
The Editors should spell out their ethical position more clearly.
On one hand, the wide coverage offered in the pages of Scientific American on topics like neuro-prosthetics using non-human primates gives the impression the Editors approve of such research. On the other hand, it is not obvious why they would given the present opinion.
Would the Editors care to clarify?
I generally agree with the gist of Dario Ringach's comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe arguments presented by the editors for banning experiments on chimpanzees are compelling and I agree with them wholeheartedly and without reservation. But Ringach makes an important (though unstated) point. He supports the continued use of chimpanzees and all other non-humans regardless of their capacity for suffering; essentially, any experiment on any animal is justified by an appeal to some potential human benefit, however tenuous, according to researchers such as Ringach.
But it isn't clear what characteristics chimpanzees have that macaques don't that explain the distinction urged by the editors.
Ringach says, "The Editors should spell out their ethical position more clearly." I agree. The characteristic of chimpanzees that ought to be sufficient reason to ban their use is their capacity for great suffering; but macaques are a much more commonly used model of human neurophysiology, and ample evidence of rampant stress-related diarrhea and self-injurious behavior in the tens of thousands of macaques in labs around the county is only as far away as PubMed.
There ought to be an immediate ban on the use of chimpanzees. The U.S. ought to step into the modern world on this issue and leave Gabon to go it on its own.
Once that's done. I hope the editors will respond to Ringach's questions concerning the criteria we ought to use in drawing the line between those who ought to be protected from harmful usually terminal experimental use and those whose pain and suffering doesn't matter very much.
It is curious to see animal rights activist and former advisor to the Animal Liberation Front Press Office, Rick Bogle, agreeing with me on the failure of the Editors to make their moral argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, he mischaracterizes my position.
I believe the cognitive abilities of a species must be the main consideration in our assessment of our moral responsibilities to its members.
I believe in a graded moral status of living beings.
I believe that the importance, expected benefits and likelihood of success in any one experiment must be higher in studies involving non-human primates than worms.
His statement that I think that “any experiment on any animal is justified” cannot be farther from the truth.
I have stated my own personal perspective on these issues elsewhere if he is interested in reading:
http://www.ringachlab.net/lab/Welcome_files/00000441-900000000-99481.pdf
Instead, Mr. Bogle believes in the notion of animal rights -- the idea that sentience alone endows animals with basic rights to life and freedom.
Animal rights theories posit that moral status is not graded but binary.
Either you have status or you don’t. There is no third option.
Mr. Bogle believes the rights of a worm to life and freedom are the same of those of a mouse, a cat, a dog or a human.
And, as expected, Mr. Bogle believes that violence against researchers who disagree with his moral views is justified, including the assassination of scientists.
For the record, I agree with the the Editors view that "Chimps should be used only in studies of major diseases and only when there is no other option"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should substitute homeless volunteers. Ok, that was in bad taste just like this article. Proper treatment for all lab animals is essential if the resulting research is to be meaningful. Are they exceptions - unfortunately, yes. Does that mean that on the whole animal testing should not continue? Absolutely not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should have an element of consideration of great apes as "sacred" or something along those lines. However, some neurological experiments by necessity would need to be performed on animals with more advanced brains. It is unfortunate, but I do think when it comes to great apes, there should be some regulation of testing that can be performed on them - a committee, for example, set up to approve categories of research that absolutely must be done on great apes, and which follows up with applications from other researchers who must define why they think a great ape is their only option for their piece of research. To my estimation, this should involve primarily neurological tests, as the physiology of other animals should suffice well enough for a significant majority of all other research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a cat lover, I very much love my cat and the cats I've had in the past, as well as stray cats I run across. But, I would not neglect the life of humans for the life of my cat or other cats. That, of course, doesn't mean my cat is for testing, as there are plenty of cats which may meet such an unpleasant fate.
It is a tragic reality that animal testing has saved millions of human lives, and that there really isn't a way around it when it comes to many issues.
I fear keeping all potential for great apes off the table will lead to performing tests on human volunteers that should not be done on them. Yes, this is believing human suffering is more important than that of other animals.
@ dbtinc -"Maybe we should substitute homeless volunteers"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about animal rights acitvists instead? If they're so determined to end the suffering of lab anumals, how come you never see any volunteering to take those animals' places?
@ bloomingdaedalus - "I fear keeping all potential for great apes off the table will lead to performing tests on human volunteers that should not be done on them."
Or - even worse - human non-volunteers.
Chimps simply do not belong in testing laboratories--advancements today are hampered more by politics than lack of testing options!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA dear friend, and friend of many, a long-lived female chimpanzee who defended herself against a stupid act on the part of a veterinarian (who was subsequently bitten)was punished thereafter by being sent to a laboratory where she died not long after. Chimp personalities are as varied as those of humans, but this Chimp was a real lady. By soliciting human volunteers there would hopefully be a higher and more conscientious level of conduct by the lab and greater level of comfort provided for the subject for each test conducted.
There are "bioethics" committees at virtually every hospital is the U.S.... and likewise, there should be such oversight regarding ALL animal research, not just human ones. The question is NOT can a particular animal reason or speak (our language)... no, the question is can they suffer? And of course, the answer is yes, without doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF an animal... rabbit, pig or chimp... is to be subjected to torture in the name of science and advancing humans to even greater dominance... then the ends MUST justify the means. The sacrifices should have a high expectation of yielding a benefit and should be done after all other means of reasearch exhausted, in the most "humane" way possible.
The human animal is capable of deep compasion... as well as deplorable cruelty, almost without thinking. Way past time for us to act more like the species we wish to become.
How about we use politicians instead of chimps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some good reasons:
- People like the chimps more
- There are more politicians than Chimps
- There are some things a Chimp just will not do.
Mad, you might find this bit of history interesting since it involves an activist offering herself in place of a chimpanzee. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://madisonmonkeys.com/doc_barn/take_my_heart.pdf
As Dario Ringach (and I) challenged the editors to make their ethical reasoning more clear by explaining where and why they would draw a line between those who should and should not be protected from harmful research use, so too should Dr. Ringach explain why he believes "Chimps should be used only in studies of major diseases and only when there is no other option."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe seems not to believe this about monkeys. If this is right, then he must see some more-or-less clearly discernible characteristic that sets chimpanzees apart from monkeys.
I hope that both he and the editors will share their thinking on the matter of setting moral boundaries.
I have made my position clear in the cited article, which you obviously did not read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBriefly, I believe in the concept of graded moral status based the cognitive abilities of different species. Arguably, based on the available scientific data, humans would be at the top of this hierarchy, followed by great apes, dolphins, monkeys, higher mammals, mice and so on.
As a consequence, we may decide that a particular type of experiment is ethically permissible in a worm but not in a monkey. It is up to us, society as a whole, to discuss what is that we do and we do not deem morally permissible in each case. I accept ethical boundaries may shift as we learn more about animal minds.
How does this contrast with your position?
You reject the notion of graded moral status. You think our moral concern for all sentient life ought to be the exactly the same.
You see no moral difference between a Nazi doctor experimenting on Jews without consent, or a researcher experimenting on mice.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4767_62.htm
You consider society unable to discuss and establish ethical boundaries, unless they result in the ones you will accept.
In your perceived moral superiority, you feel endowed to call for the use of violence against those you disagree with.
Here are some of your published thoughts:
Upon the death of one of my colleagues in a car accident you wrote:
"Though it cannot be argued that the death of any vivisector is anything but a net good, XXXXX's death and his wife's injuries would have been more meaningful if the tire had failed as the result of some thoughtful tampering.... "
and
“Talk, nonviolence, and philosophy are all well and good, but it has been fire bombs and bullets that have been the most effective tools for change, historically, it seems to me.”
and
"Killing is sometimes justified; it is sometimes an appropriate and even necessary moral response. [...] "
among many others.
Your moral consideration for other human life goes down the drain as soon as someone expresses a different opinion.
And you are here demanding moral justifications?
Chimpanzees, like humans and all living things, deserve respect and due consideration. "Due consideration," as a basis for ethical action, implies knowledge and understanding. As scientists have become increasingly well informed regarding chimpanzee biology and behavior, the kinds of studies in which chimpanzees have been involved have changed, procedures have been refined, and the facilities where chimpanzees live have changed dramatically. The more they are studied, the better we understand them, and the better we are able to care for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBanning scientific studies involving chimpanzees is not in their best interest. Continuing refinement of research methods and procedures to ensure that all that is done is carefully and humanely conducted is essential, of course. All proposed protocols involving animals undergo review by an institutional animal care and use committee. Any proposal involving chimpanzee undergoes additional scrutiny. All scientific institutions (zoological gardens and research facilities) must be licensed and inspected for compliance with regulations under the Animal Welfare Act. Sadly, no such protection is afforded to chimpanzees kept as pets, those in entertainment venues, or even those in facilities that are called "sanctuaries." Chimpanzees in federally funded retirement facilities are protected under federal Animal Welfare Regulations.
I am disappointed that the editors of this respected and usually constructive magazine would allow themselves to be manipulated and misinformed by those who seek to ban all scientific studies involving animals, even those intended primarily for the benefit of animals. In the future, please make the effort to become well-informed on topics before taking strident and destructive positions that promote ignorance rather than science.
The author is a primatologist who has worked for more than forty years to improve the quality of life for captive primates, and who has witnessed, first hand, dramatic improvements in care and housing of chimpanzees. He is a former zoological curator and scientific journal editor, and has studied primate behavior in captive and wild primates.
The chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Facility are mostly elderly and chronically ill. They are the survivors of long and difficult years in laboratories. Medical records show that these chimps have survived hundreds of painful (yes, a liver biopsy is painful) and mostly useless protocols. In 2011, we cannot continue to waste research dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatients deserve more than archaic research performed on chimpanzees. Lab employees deserve more than to have to witness (or even inflict) the pain, fear, and trauma that chimpanzees experience as invasive research subjects.
If America is serious about human health, then we must be serious about investing in humane and effective science. It's time to get out of the business of invasive testing on our closest genetic relatives.
Flo, the eldest chimp at the Alamogordo Primate Facility, is now 54. She has given up her freedom, her health, her children -- let's give her something back: WWW.RETIRETHECHIMPS.ORG
Was the last post from the Laura N-M I know? From U of Dub? I was just recently looking at pictures from our trip around South Sulawesi that year IPS was in Bali.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as a matter of background, I have visited all the research facilities in the US where chimpanzees live, most of them several times over the past 30 years. I also visited TNO in the Netherlands, Immuno in Austria, and the facility in Kyushu, Japan, as well as the facility in Inuyama. The facilities have improved dramatically over that time span, and the "dungeons" and individual caging of chimpanzees is a relic of the past. The terribly sad stories we hear about isolation and abuse may be exaggerated, but many have a basis in truth. Honest and courageous people have worked from the inside to ensure replacement of lousy environments with decent ones, to promote socialization and environmental enrichment, and protect chimpanzees from abuse. Yet, the worst stories are repeatedly recited as if the changes and improvements had never been made. What most people are being told about "testing" just doesn't really happen anymore. As for the facility mentioned above, it is no longer a research facility--it is a retirement facility where invasive research is forbidden and all residents receive excellent care. The story of that facility is long and complex, and I know it pretty well from many visits. There continues to be a campaign of misinformation about this and other facilities where chimpanzees live.
Bravo, or Brava, to the editors. We shouldn't let Ringach's sophistries and poor moral theorizing or the "they don't have it that bad in those cages" crowd cloud the growing understanding of what Europe and most other civilized nations understood one to two decades ago. Experimentation on chimpanzees and the other great apes must end. The biomedical-industrial-research complex will resist and obstruct this catching up to our peers, and then when it's been around for 10 years, they'll act like it was their accomplishment and they'll point to it to tell us that they "care" about the animals. We see it every time an animal welfare/experimentation issue gets raised, each step forward requires dragging the vested into the future and then they'll claim it as their own victory. Let's pass the bill and end this sad, sad, chapter in the history of morally shameful science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell that to the African-Americans and Guatemalans used by the U.S. Government for research into STDs without their consent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI vehemently disagree with any unnecessary cruelty to any animal. That having been said, chimps are not human beings, and cannot be considered as such. Their intelligence and capacity for pain and suffering should certainly be taken into consideration, and alternate methods of testing should be found whenever possible, but on occasion, the greater needs of mankind will have to come first. Fortunately for us (perhaps unfortunately for the chimps) they are the best human analogs available. If you like, it may help to remember that a chimpanzee will just as gladly eat an infant as show a human being any affection. Also, it could just decide to tear off your face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that, historically, many advances in animal welfare were the result of the work of dedicated activists. I have no problem crediting them for their work. I honestly believe they can play an important role in pointing out areas where animal welfare can be improved. At the same time, activists may want to credit science for the vaccines among a multitude of other advances in medicine.
But animal welfarism is not the same as animal rights. The problem with having an honest, public discussion on the topic is that too many animal rights organizations and individuals appear to mask themselves as animal welfarists.
Your comments are one such example.
My guess is that you are not only concerned about the welfare of great apes in labs, but that you seek an end to all animal experimentation.
So, I happen to oppose cruelty to animals, whether it is considered "necessary" or not. My standard pretty much applies to humans, along with other animals. There is a continuing campaign to portray scientific research as "cruel" or "torture." Valuable scientific studies can and are conducted with deliberate care to avoid any unnecessary or unrelieved pain or discomfort. Many scientists have devoted years of their careers to improvement of the quality of life and quality of care for animals in captivity--with much success, in fact. When people present examples of the worst abuses they can imagine from 30 or 40 years ago and indicate that these are typical of current circumstances, they are simply trying to misinform and mislead you. Don't fall for it. This is like claiming that modern involvement of human subjects in medical research is the same as the Nazi atrocities during the holocaust. What we have is a campaign of propaganda, and lots of people being deliberately misinformed. I have visited all the research facilities where chimpanzees live--most of them, several times across many years. The improvements over the past 30 years have been really dramatic and positive, both in terms of the social grouping of chimpanzees and the physical facilities. The degree of invasiveness and risk of harm has declined to the point where the level of care is almost certainly better in all research facilities than in most "sanctuaries." This is not meant to brand all sanctuaries as bad. Some are very good indeed. Sadly, however, with the exception of those supported by government funds, chimpanzees in sanctuaries do not receive protection under the Animal Welfare Act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for taking an ethical stand for chimps. I think animal testing should be drastically curtailed, particularly unnecessary tests for cosmetics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a proud subscriber to Scientific American and feel even better about the subscription today.
I am not very sympathetic to any research or testing involving animals in which the work is not biologically relevant to the animal. When due consideration is given to the methods used, and the methods are humane, I think we should learn as much as we can for the benefit of the animals, as well as for humans. In the case of chimpanzees, that sometimes means that they can be supported with research dollars for productive studies (of aging and age-related disorders, genomics and phenotypic characterization, etc.) that can benefit the individuals studied, as well as potentially benefiting humans. Direct comparisons between chimpanzees and humans should be made, using essentially the same methods--when those are not harmful to either. We are sibling species. Humane research on both is of mutual benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand why the NIH would instruct the IOM to "leave ethics out" of their decision. Ethics should be the basis of their decision when considering whether or not to bring back these retired chimps, or continuing to abuse any other chimps for that matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm all for the advancement of science, but do we need to torture one species to save another?
I don't think that we can ever eliminate the use of animal testing, but we should absolutely re-enforce the ethical guidelines that are in place. Especially since one of the current guidelines is that animal subjects are ONLY to be used if all other viable options are exhausted.
The answer is: No, we do not need to "torture" one species to save another. When you ask that question you signal that you have bought into the bizarre message that has been the drum beat of those who are deliberately misleading people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFASEB statement to IoM committee:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.faseb.org/Portals/0/PDFs/opa/8.11.11%20IOM%20Chimps%20in%20Research%20Statement.pdf
I've read the sanctuary books with chimps on their way to recovery, I've read the lab books with "scientists" going through droves of reasons why their work is important, and I've seen these animals in both settings. None of this puts any weight on my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChimpanzee are animals, one of Gods many marvelous creations, who gets to decide when it's o.k. to torture or incarcerate one of these creations? The problem here is that WE feel we have some inherited right to do what with want with whatever we want. We make these rules up as we go along to make ourselves sleep better at night, but, in reality - each and every one of us are to blame. Our lives are not more important than the chimpanzee and no, our testing and murder of them and their natural habitats has nothing to do with any circle of life, only death.
This occurred to me one evening, I was driving to the store on the small highway that goes through the small town I was living in and I saw the ducks from the pond standing in the road. So what did I do? I stopped and waited for them to decide where they would like to go, of course. When I was returning a few minutes later, one of them had been run over. Now, don't get me wrong, human life is important, but it isn't their fault we built a highway in the middle of their territory. In fact, they were there first, I'm sure of it. So we stole their community property for our own selfish needs and someone can't even stop for a few moments and let them cross the road we put in the middle of their home? It is simply pathetic. I wish there was some way to go back to the days of hunting for our own food or at least real farming. I believe that is the only way we can ever get back to giving the proper respect for these creations.
At this point, the problem is the blatant disrespect for all other lifeforms other than our own, and some of us do not even value that.
I am not surprised, as such anti-human position is typical of many animal rights activists who nonetheless enjoy the benefits of modern life and medicine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, one cannot help to notice that you were “driving to the store”.
Presumably, you drove there to procure the various necessities that support your life and well being.
Yet, while driving the store you necessarily polluted the environment, contributed to global warming and the accelerated the death of many animal species. You may think you successfully avoided the ducks, but you did not.
Why did you drive to the store?
The only possible explanation is that you did so because you put your interest interest in your life and well being ahead of those your are impacting with your driving, including those of animals.
No, nobody says that we are free to do with animals as we please. All living beings deserve moral consideration, but not equal moral consideration.
Your actions are inconsistent with your words.
You know what they say about happens when you assume? This time it was all you :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not driven or owned a motor vehicle in over four years now. I got an apartment two streets away from my school and got a mountain bike to get around. Although, in this particular case, you are wrong, this still has no weight on anything I said.
"I wish there was some way to go back to the days of hunting for our own food or at least real farming." Notice the part where I said "I wish"? We can not go back. Laws and regulations in hunting areas are enough to keep us from living fully on the land. I'm not one of the normal people that come on here and cry about what is wrong and right and what we should do. I realize that this is a problem that we will not come back from because all you have to do is say no more disease studies or no more lipstick and enough people will cry about it and make it happen.
I am no animal activist, I am not a vegetarian, and I'm pretty sure I have something made out of animal skin somewhere. The fact that you have the ability to try and personally attack me, like an idiot, means that you deserve less moral consideration than the ducks.(I can be mean and pointless as well)
I've done my share of hurting animals, the environment, even other people - but I didn't know any better. If your next portion will say something like "You're using electricity, you're using a computer, you do this, you do that", please spare me.
I was not assuming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou stated you were "driving to the store".
Nor was I personally attacking you, I was attacking your ideas.
You stated that "our lives are not more important than the chimpanzee...", a position only reconcilable with the notion of animal rights.
You stated that "we feel we have some inherited right to do what with want with whatever we want". Not at all. I don't think society believes that nor this is what animal welfarism is about.
And so on...
So no, it is was not a personal attack.
Ok, then let me explain by quoting my passage again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This occurred to me one evening" <--Implies that I had some moment of realization. So, while I was driving and encountered this, I realized our blatant disregard for animals.
If you are who you say you are, I'm not sure why I'm having to explain basic reading comprehension to you.
This is beginning to get off-topic, I suppose the point here is you believe in the inequality of moral discretion and I do not.
I am reading a book called "CHIMPS" by WESTALL and my eyes are being opened into what the aftermath of growing up in testing facilities looks like for chimpanzees. This book gives unspeakable testimonials of the type of treatment the chimps received at the facilities. Like the chimp in this article, some of the pull out their hair and display clear signs of PTSD. It's Terrible!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not feel educated enough on the topic to provide a viable alternative to this but I am educated enough to say that this kind of inhumane treatment must be stopped.
"I suppose the point here is you believe in the inequality of moral discretion and I do not."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that's exactly the point.
Now,
We know you believe all living beings deserve equal moral consideration.
We can (safely) assume you don't eat humans.
But we also know that you eat animals.
This makes no logical sense.
Very fair point. I suppose you could say I'm hypocritical because I believe that, in a circle-of-life sense, eating an animal is one thing, but "torturing" them is another. I don't see where anyone examines this and draws the moral line between studying animals, eating them for sustenance, or caging them for the greater good of humankind. This includes the animal activists as well as the researchers. I have seen labs where chimpanzees live in a sanctuary environment, but I have also seen labs where they live in cages and are subjected to things that would scare even me. I say "even me" because I'm a veteran so, at this point, it takes a lot. I believe, or I would like to at least, that there is a happy medium somewhere in there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI value human life, I am appreciated of the advances made in medicine, etc, and, until recently, I didn't stop to think about the victims of science. I say that for lack of better words, I don't actually believe every researcher is a straight out criminal (there are some exceptions).
There is a clear difference between uncomfortable conditions when doing say neurological studies versus someone testing lipstick (generalizing here). But I would like to see the part where the moral lines were drawn in both cases. AND, my story was about a duck crossing a road. You can't tell me you honestly feel that it is too much to ask for someone to take 10 seconds out of their day instead of running over said duck, right? Yes, there was plenty of time to see them, yes it was very safe to stop there, and no it wouldn't have caused other issues. It was lack of caring, I'm completely convinced.
My feelings are towards the overall attitude about these animals, it is a complete lack of respect.
*appreciative
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI share your sentiment that there is, in general, an overall lack of respect for animal life in society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also feel there is more respect for animals and the environment from those in the academic community than those in the general population.
Moreover, the conditions in the Labs are arguably better than those that you will find in the abattoir.
I cannot see any moral equation that would justify eating animals but not their use to further medical knowledge and science.
When you eat an animal it is only you that benefits from the life you have taken. When a researcher finds a new therapy for cancer from a mouse, endless generations of humans (and animals) benefit.
And yes, I stop for all the squirrels that I see here... even in LA traffic.
None of this has anything to do with torturing or murdering chimpanzees, or bringing them into captivity from the wild. The situation is this: hundreds of chimpanzees exist in captivity, some in zoos, some in research institutions (mostly nonprofit and affiliated with universities), some in sanctuaries (of varying quality), and many still in private hands as pets or in places that involve them in various commercial entertainment uses. No one is advocating bringing any more chimpanzees from the wild. No chimpanzees that I know of are in any pharmaceutical company laboratory or any industrial testing lab. In my opinion all chimpanzees not in zoological gardens or accredited research facilities should go into sanctuaries--and all sanctuaries should become USDA licensed and inspected in the same way as all zoos and research settings are (to enforce the Animal Welfare Act). Chimpanzees in research situations and zoos, and also those in sanctuaries should have top quality veterinary medical care and their health and behavior should be monitored to ensure their well-being. Yes, it is a good idea for us to learn what can be learned from them, humanely and noninvasively in all these situations. What can be learned about aging and age-related disorders can benefit them and benefit humans. Very limited noninvasive and minimally invasive biomedical projects of mutual benefit to chimpanzees and humans are in their best interest, as well as ours, and can help to support and sustain the population. They cannot just be thrown out in the street. And sanctuaries cannot accommodate all the non-zoo chimpanzee population. Even now, some sanctuaries are desperate for funding. One in Europe financially collapsed. Sanctuaries sometimes have to resort to waging anti-science campaigns based on calling attention to past practices that no longer exist in labs--as if such practices still existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd no one is talking about eating chimpanzees, at least captive chimpanzees in America. WILD chimpanzees, living as they do, in paradise, are, however, subject to being hunted and sold and eaten as "bushmeat."
If you think that 'torture' is too strong of a word, consider reading the book "The Chimps of Fauna Sanctuary" by Andrew Westoll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTorture is absolutely the correct word to describe the horrible things that happened, and is happening to these animals. As I said before, we should restore ethical guidelines before we EVER use another animal as a test subject again.
The experiences of Bobby in the article are similar to the chimps described in Andrew Westoll's book "The Chimps of Fauna Sanctuary." Of course, Bobby's situation is much more dire as NIH is considering moving him back into research. The testing on these animals is both cruel and invaluable. Regardless of where you stand on animal testing, I think we can all agree that there are certain conditions, like the ones mentioned in the article, that go beyond the gray area of the subject matter. Basic decency should at least be given to these animals who must endure being injected with human diseases. I also feel much broader regulations should be passed based on an honest study of ethics of animal testing. We need to have an honest dialogue on what testing can be done with minimal impact on the research subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis story about Bobby is saddening it reminded me about Westoll’s book The Chimps of Fauna, and his experiences at the Sanctuary with the chimps. The chimpanzees like Bobby have gone through biomedical experiments, and their natural way of life has been taken away from them. Reading this article made me think about how complex these situations really are. People in the medical fields are continuously looking for cures for people with diseases because we value human life, but with this search of cures we forgot about the value of life for chimpanzees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am currently taking an Anthropology college course and am reading The Chimps of Fauna Sanctuary by Andrew Westoll. This book is about a group of laboratory chimps that have been retired to a sanctuary founded by Gloria Grow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an excellent book and serves as a real eye-opener into the world of chimp experimentation and what these poor chimps go through. It is, however, difficult to read as it delves into the repetitive experimentation done to these chimps and how it affects them, both short-term and long-term.
Although I know many will disagree with me, I would like to see all experimentation of chimps be banned.
Your article about medical testing on chimpanzees struck a raw nerve. After reading others comments on the article I am even more upset. I have long been appalled at the arrogance of H. sapiens in subjugating another animal to this torture only because it is unfortunately our closest relative. The hubris of our species in the treatment of other animals is heinous and no more forgiveable than enslavement another race. We are,unfortunately,the dominant animal on this small sphere but as arguably the most "intelligent" our place should be as protectors and stewards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you point out computer science has now nearly made animal testing obsolete. These animals deserve the same classification as their wild brothers and to be retired.
All breeding of animals for these purposes should be outlawed.If in special circumstance we must do testing on primates then let it be on volunteers,or better,the detritus of our societies who languish in our overcrowded penal institutions pumping iron and watching television. Let them become a benefit to society rather than a detriment and burden. Specifically the pedophiles and mass murderers who are unrehabilitatable. This would be true redemption. our attitude towards and treatment of our fellow animals is despicable and must change if we are to save ouselves and the planet.
After reading other comments on this article I am further surprised and appaled to find that you have readers that seem to differentiate in classification between us and other great apes. That is ,of course,is part of the problem and has been since the time of slavery. How sad, It causes me to wonder if we are worth saving or whether The world without us would be better for all other inhabitants.
William Beech
wrbeech@aol.com
Tiburon,CA
Your article about medical testing on chimpanzees struck a raw nerve. After reading others comments on the article I am even more upset. I have long been appalled at the arrogance of H. sapiens in subjugating another animal to this torture only because it is unfortunately our closest relative. The hubris of our species in the treatment of other animals is heinous and no more forgiveable than enslavement another race. We are,unfortunately,the dominant animal on this small sphere but as arguably the most "intelligent" our place should be as protectors and stewards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you point out computer science has now nearly made animal testing obsolete. These animals deserve the same classification as their wild brothers and to be retired.
All breeding of animals for these purposes should be outlawed.If in special circumstance we must do testing on primates then let it be on volunteers,or better,the detritus of our societies who languish in our overcrowded penal institutions pumping iron and watching television. Let them become a benefit to society rather than a detriment and burden. Specifically the pedophiles and mass murderers who are unrehabilitatable. This would be true redemption. our attitude towards and treatment of our fellow animals is despicable and must change if we are to save ouselves and the planet.
After reading other comments on this article I am further surprised and appaled to find that you have readers that seem to differentiate in classification between us and other great apes. That is ,of course,is part of the problem and has been since the time of slavery. How sad, It causes me to wonder if we are worth saving or whether The world without us would be better for all other inhabitants.
William Beech
wrbeech@aol.com
Tiburon,CA
Animals, including chimps, are used in medical research to develop treatments and procedures that will improve the lives and health of humans. Those who argue that animals should not be used for this purpose are siding against human health and welfare. The issue is not philosophic but pragmatic. Researchers determine how to do research, not philosophers. Opinions that might impede medical research aimed at improving human health and welfare do not deserve consideration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestoll,Ban Chimp Testing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChimps are highly social creatures, by nature. They are very much like us in the sense that they like interacting with one another partake in leisurely activities and have a broad range of emotions. Having said that, it does not make sense that we should continue to subject them to experiments, most of which, occur mostly behind a veil of secrecy. The experiments that are conducted on these creatures would seem heinous if they were performed on members of our species. The experiments can range from, subjecting the chimps to highly stressful situations where they experience the same frustration that you and I would feel, to deliberately being infected with viruses such as HIV. Throughout history we have seen this sinister type of testing being conducted on humans in one way or another and in retrospect these cases were indeed inhumane.
Although there have been breakthroughs in medical science that directly resulted from this type of testing, nowadays there is not much that could be learned from these types of tests and we should move on to techniques that will not infringe upon these creatures' rights.
As a former behaviorist at a large macaque breeding facility for places like NIH and other government agencies, I have seen first hand what life in a single cage will do to an intelligent animal. Research has already established how to prevent and effectively mitigate most of the damage associated with diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, but the U.S. has failed to adequately fund or effectively implement those policies. The pain, suffering and even death associated with these human conditions are only compounded by the pain and suffering inflicted on nonhuman primates (and other animals) under the guise of finding a cure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I know the chimps never leave they are tested at some places over and over,if they survive one experiment they try a more fatal one,there maybe some facilities that rotate them,but also have heard that if some are tainted with whatever they done before they kill the animal and dissect it,there might be a small percentage that are lucky enough to survive and eventually get released,to me that is not justice what about the family group and life they would of had if they wasnt taken from the wild,with surviving without there family members they would of had.Experimentation is disgusting and cruel.No one should be subjected to cruel invasive surgery without anaeshetic or being poisoned with pesticides, diseases,household products,its unbelievable what the human race is capable of...So glad that at last after all these years of suffering that at last many more people are starting to change governments mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see all experimentation stopped for good there have been far into the past the pros and cons against but it still kept on....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout anaesthetic? Part of the problems come from them getting put to sleep over and over again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious to know more about the position of those that are vociferously protesting against ALL animal experimentation (i.e. not just on Great Apes). A couple of questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(a) Have you stopped taking any or all of your prescribed medications? Just so that you know, preclinical testing for efficacy and safety of ALL pharmaco-active substances are done on animals, rodents and dogs/pigs etc. Currently, for many branches of medicine - for example, infectious diseases - that require a study of host pathogen interactions, there are no better or alternative models.
(b) Do/would you ever realize that medicines for treating diseases in animals, domesticated and wild, are also developed through animal-testing?
Please ask President Obama to end research on chimpanzees and stop wasteful government spending! The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) created a new petition on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswh.gov/2gV
It is time for the U.S. to join other industrialized nations and ban the use of chimpanzees in research. Continued funding for studies using chimpanzees has come under increased criticism within the scientific community as well as the general public for its lack of relevance or necessity in advancing human health. The suffering and stress inflicted on these highly intelligent social creatures coupled with the waste of tax payer dollars makes their continued use untenable.Permanently retiring these chimpanzees to sanctuaries will not only benefit their lives with a more natural environment but will save taxpayer dollars currently being spent to warehouse them in federally funded research institutions.Please sign this petition and help end research on chimpanzees and stop wasteful government spending.
Willful misreadings aside: The point is not to credit animal activists, but to recognize that you and your ilk will always drag your feet and claim that it is "impossible" not to experiment in this way on these beings, or that doing so will harm human beings (with what evidence could you demonstrate this? don't bother, I know the argument and why it is a bad one). This is what the history of animal regulation shows and you have existed over and over again for the last 100 years, resisting any improvement because we need to "be careful" and "look at all the evidence" and "not get emotional." We need only go over to read your colleagues recent piece on the NYT op-ed to see this in action, and we could name 100's of your predecessors who have fought every incremental improvement in exactly the same words (well, you dudes are at least less sexist than your predecessors were 100 years ago).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for your suppositions about my views on these issues, I'll only point out that this is the same sort of argument we hear from all of the "farmers" (i.e. read agro-business lobbyists) when a new animal welfare law is proposed. Supposedly it's all part of the great vegan conspiracy. We're all just pretending to care about the Chimpanzees, and unless we agree to your incoherent (or evil, not sure which yet) moral theory, you would probably rather fight any regulatory improvement than run the risk that the argument will lead society further and you'll be out of a job.
Chimpanzees, humans, and other animals deserve our respect and due consideration. I would not be opposed legislation and regulations that would actually benefit chimpanzees. The proposed legislation is deliberately misleading, and, sadly, the Scientific American editors appear to have fallen for the propaganda sent their way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, for one, do not want to see an end of federal support for chimpanzees. I think we owe it to the chimpanzees to learn as much from them as can be humanely learned for their benefit--which can mutually benefit chimpanzees and humans. Learning from chimpanzees through careful and noninvasive methods (similar to what we all approve of for humans, along with methods appropriately considering chimpanzee similarities to, and differences from, humans) can help to justify provision of high quality support for them.
Chimpanzees in research colonies and zoological gardens are federally protected under the Animal Welfare Act. Such protection is not now required of sanctuaries. If any more chimpanzees are to be moved from institutions where they have AWA protection, they must not be moved to any institution where they receive less protection. Thus, a reasonable law to protect chimpanzees would mandate that they reside exclusively in institutions where they have AWA protection and public transparency.
I am a neuroscientist faculty member and I completely agree with the total ban on chimpanzee research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry, but that sounds so much like those TV Commercials for politicians - "I am so-and-so and I endorse this message." LOL!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you are presumably knowledgeable about the research aspect of neuroscience, perhaps you'd like to share with us laypersons your take on the use of great apes in neuroscience research - and what in your opinion would be possible viable alternatives?
The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (H.R.1513 and S.810) has just been reintroduced with strong, bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. To find out if your representative is a co-sponsor, please go to: http://allanimals.org/issues_greatape.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, they experiment on humans. I have been a neurological test subject unwillingly by the United States government. It was not pleasant in the slightest. I will forever be emotionally and psychologically scarred by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore specifically, the brutal, violent, repeated psychological and chemical tortures I was exposed to at the behest of the United States Government are crimes against humanity of the highest degree as they involved murdering innocent individuals and, through media technology, attempting to make me feel culpable for them simply to see how I would react. It is very interesting when you see a massacre of a dozen people take place two hundred miles from you and you know fully that someone did it with the specific intent of toying with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this