I am often amazed by the immense human capacity to rationalize and justify cruelty, exemplified by David Carter’s recent column (“Primate experimentation needs utilitarian approach,” Sept. 25). We tend to distance ourselves from difficult moral questions and place blame for blatant transgressions on a shadowy amoral “other,” like Al-Qaeda or Bernie Madoff. The trouble starts, however, when one has that occasional moment of introspective clarity and is startled to discover the grotesque nature of one’s own positions. While examining the status of primate research on this campus, I recently had one of those moments. The results weren’t pretty.
As a veteran of life sciences curriculum on this campus and a former research assistant in a lab that deployed rat and mice models, I for many years justified basic animal research by calling to mind its intended purposes. After all, novel information can be gleaned by the use of “lesser” mammals in scientific investigation.
In my experience, every effort was made to ensure that the animals were comfortable and healthy, at least until they were doused with carcinogens or gassed. It wasn’t difficult to convince myself that a little murine suffering in the name of progress was a small price to pay. But a brief look at the status of primate research on this campus was enough to make my stomach churn.
In the early days of chimp studies on this campus, Dr. Harry Harlow tossed infant Rhesus macaques into the “pit of despair” in order to develop a clinical model of depression by means of long-term sensory deprivation. Despite the appalled reactions these experiments generated from his colleagues, studies at UW continue to abuse their powerless subjects while operating under the auspices of dubious scientific rationales. At the Psychology Primate Laboratory on campus, named after Dr. Harlow, researchers conduct invasive — and often lethal — investigations of simian neuropathology, as well as studies involving the administration of substantial doses of alcohol or jet engine-style noises to pregnant mothers in order to gauge the effects on newborns. Our campus currently holds 2,000 primates for these and other research purposes.
Is all this cruelty necessary to advance our scientific knowledge? And if so, is it ethical? As more studies expose the sophisticated cognitive abilities of our evolutionary cousins, it has become increasingly clear that this type of research is neither necessary nor ethical.
The great similarities between the simian and human mind have made non-human primates coveted objects of psychological research, but with these similarities we must address serious ethical questions. These are animals that have language, emotions and advanced cognitive capacities. Emerging data show they have the capacity for love and metacognition — to think about how they think.
Undoubtedly, many on this campus — including many scientists — are able to brush off this criticism of primate research as the knee-jerk reaction of bleeding heart animal lovers who have an insufficient understanding of biology and basic research. Such a position would be tenable if primate studies offered invaluable assistance in the development of novel therapies and the expansion of biological knowledge. However, that argument is drawn into serious doubt once one considers the recent history of primate studies.
Vioxx, a once wildly popular arthritis drug, was recently found to greatly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in users. Recent lawsuits have argued that an over-reliance on data from primate studies allowed Merck to claim the drug was safe. Not until it was clear that Vioxx was killing its users, and Merck had made massive profits from its sale, was the drug withdrawn from the market.
Non-human primates do not develop AIDS and all successful AIDS studies have used in vitro and in silico methods, without animal testing. Liver function in primates has proven to be too different from humans to yield useful results in a slew of toxicology studies and research into hepatitis viruses. Even in the neurological diseases, where one would expect monkeys to be excellent model systems, major breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research have not relied on data from animal studies.
So why do researchers continue to use chimps as test subjects? For one, they rationalize the abuse of these animals in the name of science, however insubstantial and putatively pointless their goals may be. It is also important to realize that the road to tenure and publication is littered with the corpses of animals sacrificed in the name of science. One can often add something “new” to the knowledge base by pumping a critter full of drugs and seeing what happens. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I know too many scientists.
All things considered, it’s time for students and faculty to earnestly grapple with this issue and follow the example of a handful of EU countries that have banned primate testing by kicking primate research off campus.
Sam Stevenson ([email protected]) is a graduate student in public health.
