News
University primate research funding comes under scrutiny
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Beth Mueller:
- 'The Silicon Valley of Bioenergy' (April 10, 2009)
- Grad ceremony students picked (April 10, 2009)
- Alcohol: Outside the law, inside the dorms (February 19, 2009)
- The Age of the Volunteer (January 22, 2009)
- Yes, he can? (January 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A national watchdog group that opposes animal research accused the Wisconsin Primate Research Center of "wasting tens of millions in federal tax grants" Tuesday.
Federal funding related to the WPRC has more than doubled in the last eight years, according to Stop Animal Exploitation Now, while the number of animals has increased by only 24 percent.
"If the funding has increased that much and the number of primates has not increased in any amount that correlates, then you have to wonder where the money is going," said Michael Budkie, executive director of SAEN.
Eric Sandgren, director of Animal Care and Use at the University of Wisconsin, said there are two main reasons the increase in funding doesn't directly correlate to more animals.
"There's been a dramatic increase in the expenditures for protective equipment, which protects both the animals from disease from humans, and humans from the potential of getting any disease from the animals," Sandgren said. "When we learn about these things, we address them, and that costs more money."
Funding has also been increasingly used for enrichment, including a new program with its own coordinator, according to Sandgren. This enrichment of animal living conditions includes things like puzzle feeders and other more interesting elements in animal environments, he added.
"Yes, we believe the research is justified, but we are committed to making the lives of these animals more interesting," Sandgren said.
SAEN said much of UW's primate research was in "highly duplicated" areas including neural information processing and the Simeon Immunodeficiency Virus.
Budkie said SIV can affect humans, but Rhesus monkeys cannot be infected with HIV, so studying AIDS in Rhesus monkeys is "nonsensical."
"The reason that they do SIV research in monkeys is because they can't study HIV — the real AIDS virus — in monkeys," Budkie said. "A lot of federal funding goes to AIDS, and they're just trying to get their cut of it."
Thomas Friedrich, an assistant researcher in the UW AIDS Vaccine Research Laboratory, said the accusations of research being duplicated were often inaccurate.
"Unless they can offer examples of exactly how it's duplicated, they're making an accusation without real evidence," Friedrich said, adding the National Institutes of Health, which funds the primate center, mandates a certain amount of research at each primate center focused on HIV.
Friedrich added one of the criteria for receiving NIH funding is that the research be innovative, and therefore not duplicated or copied.
"It's a serious fault that they find with your research if they find that it's lacking in innovation," he said.
Friedrich also defended the use of SIV to study HIV.
"The DNA sequences of these viruses are very similar, the cells that the infection affect are essentially the same, the immune response from monkeys and people are essentially the same," Friedrich said. "In fact, the genetic ability of some individuals to control HIV seems to be reflected in monkeys' ability to control SIV."
But Budkie said money for animal research should instead be spent on clinical research that "could provide information that actually applies to humans."
"The only people that are really benefiting from the animal experimentation that's going on at the PRCs are the people that are being paid to do it," Budkie said.
However, Friedrich said animal research is vital to directing clinical research.
"One common criticism of animal research is that we should just spend money on clinical research. But the two really complement each other," Friedrich said. "There are so many different ideas about how to make an AIDS vaccine that we can't possibly test them all in people."
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 2ed06dcc
Would they prefer the UW have the same number of monkeys but spend less on them? Or do they want the UW to get more monkeys to study. I’m not sure these people know what they are talking about.
IP hash: 5f6f8989
Would Budkie prefer that the PRC’s don’t spend the extra money on the enrichment which enhances the animals’ lives? They should get as much environmental enrichment as possible, and that can cost a lot of money.
IP hash: f0b5a2d3
Funding increases for enrichment and animal/human protection yet SAEN complains with the same rhetoric as before. Seems like they are more interested in their own publicity than in animal welfare. Also, the amount of funding depends on type of research and equipment or number of people involved, not just number of animals involved. Again, this illustrates how shallow SAEN people are and their lack of insight into what is really going on. Groups like this ruin credibility for sincere animal welfare groups.
IP hash: 9c0e5df1
I think that the fact that “animal rights” activists are attacking the research center for doing their job right shows just how good a job they are doing there. There is no legitimate complaint that the accusers can use to attack the center. It seems to me that the complaintant should worry more about the work he is being paid to do. Is it a legitimate expense to be paid to bring illegitimate charges against the center just because one are opposed to the existence of the center itself?