5 ms·

Harvard studies on infant monkeys draw fire, split scientists

31 points by rq1 4y ago

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
From the article: > Such efforts could crush research “critical for human survival and empathy,” says Bertha Madras, a neuroscientist at Harvard who has conducted brain imaging studies of monkeys for decades but doesn’t work directly with Livingstone. “If we’re going to understand how the brain functions, we’re going to have to do experiments that generate visceral reactions,” she says. “We have to be looking at the greater good.” I'm definitely wary if the best argument for continuing this research is that it supports "the greater good". I could fully understand that the line between, for example, what is an acceptable research protocol, and what crosses the line to cruel, inhumane treatment, is sometimes gray. But I think it's morally wrong to be ok with cruel and inhumane treatment of intelligent, social creatures by just arguing that it "is for the greater good". That line of thinking has been used as a defense for nearly every horrific undertaking by man for the past couple of centuries.
- civilized 4y ago
  I am wary too, but of something a little different. I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp, red, punitive moral lines on things that are pretty subjective and that different people will have different opinions on. We're going to be in a bad place if we all draw slightly different lines on various issues, then condemn and work to punish each other for crossing our lines. I think this ideology of moral maximalism - "everything I object to morally should be punished harshly" - has been pretty disastrous for the human race, if you look at history. However passionate people are about primates and their resemblance to humans, I don't see how you can draw an objective line that condemns this research but sanctions all the horrible things we do to, say, rats, for the greater good of medical science. Who can claim to have the objective view of how moral obligations to non-human animals increase with their resemblance to humans? We don't agree on this stuff, and it isn't objective. Can we all find something better to do with our lives than try to punish each other for not toeing the exact line of our individual moral opinions? Let's calm down, stop taking our moral emotions as legitimate universal prescriptions, and put moral maximalism behind us.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    This reads like "since the line might be fuzzy, we should never have lines, move on". Surely there is a middle-ground to be found between your extreme and the other?
    - civilized 4y ago
      I'm not saying we should never have lines, I'm saying we should not automatically turn all of our moral intuitions into bright red lines which we enforce punitively.
  - ss108 4y ago
    We shouldn't do it to rats either. The thing is, your view of this is too anthropocentric. Saying this: "I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp, red, punitive moral lines on things that are pretty subjective and that different people will have different opinions on. We're going to be in a bad place if we all draw slightly different lines on various issues, then condemn and work to punish each other for crossing our lines." ...doesn't take into consideration the experiences of monkeys and other animals. So you're going to have to morally justify why we shouldn't care about them. The argument you are making sounds reasonable if applied to, e.g., cancel culture or something, but it's rather willfully oblivious and glib in this context, IMO. "Can we all find something better to do with our lives than try to punish each other for not toeing the exact line of our individual moral opinions?" Wouldn't by definition many moral opinions necessitate that one try to get them enforced in some way? You're kind of just downplaying morality overall, arguably. Again, I'd be sympathetic to what you're saying in a lot of contexts, either where humans are the only creatures involved or the human actions simply don't directly infringe on anyone else. So, abortion, cancel-culture, gay marriage, etc. This way of thinking could be usefully applied to a lot of hot-button issues where the conduct really doesn't actually harm anyone else, human or otherwise. But if it comes to animal experimentation, genocide (see China), various forms of oppression and discrimination within societies (whether racial or like caste-based, whatever), etc., people are going to become indignant, and if they didn't, we'd all just be amoral and compassion-less in a very dystopian way.
    - 4y ago
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound, but the PR blunder of saying “the greater good” is astounding. The only correct thing is to talk about the human suffering that you hope to alleviate. Let the listener operate their own moral balance. The idea that the greater good is a singular knowable thing and she represents it is patently offensive.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound I disagree, though that's obviously been a central question in philosophy since Aristotle. Is the logic of weighing costs and benefits sound if they had been experimenting on human babies instead of monkeys? I think most people would argue not. So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Honestly, I think trying to defend this in a morally consistent framework requires some mental gymnastics I'm not capable of.
    - jcampbell1 4y ago
      If it is consistency you are after, then join PETA. The logic of weighing cost and benefits is always sound, but there are cases where it is so one sided that it is offensive to pose the question. Experimenting on babies falls in that category. I suppose at this point my personal opinion on this issue is relevant to you. I am personally okay with Neuralink because it isn’t implausibility far from someone walking from a wheelchair. This specific research miles apart both from the welfare side (it requires emotional harm to the monkeys) and the benefits are far less tangible. I think this research should be put up for review and if I were a reviewer I’d start from a position that this needs to stop. I suppose my meta point is that it is okay to have red lines and argue them, but peppering the discussion with arguments against logic unnecessarily makes your commentary less persuasive to me.
    - bambax 4y ago
      > So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Exactly this.
- lupire 4y ago
  > research “critical for human survival and empathy,” If Bethda hasn't figured out empathy yet, I doubt she ever will.
rumpelstinkin 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Monkeys aren't humans though. It's disgusting, I don't like animal abuse, but it'd not the same thing. And wishing we'd go extinct is hardly the moral high ground here.
  - nrb 4y ago
    Rhesus macaque are way closer to us on any scale between “us” and “animals” hence the reason for them being used in this study.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Yea, reading about "infant monkey eyelid sutures" is pretty depressing...
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    Which makes reading about how they no longer do that - because they found something better (goggles) - feel the opposite of depressing right?
imwillofficial 4y ago
theonemind 4y ago
We got some data on human empathy before they even finished the experiment.
dehrmann 4y ago
Between this is the recent Boston University work on playing with covid, I'm worried about the judgement of scientists around "crucial" work necessary to understand something and the safeguards we have to make sure research is safe and ethical.
- lupire 4y ago
  Recent? It's looking less and less plausible that Covid was caused by something other than scientists playing.
bambax 4y ago
There are no words to express how angry that makes me. These "scientists" should do their experiments on their own children. I wish them ill.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  How do you feel about dairy cows being separated from their young after birth? It turns out, they've managed to gather a lot of data quite on the impacts of infant separation in cows (I wonder how that happened?). To sum up, separating them almost immediately after birth results in less psychological trauma than separating them after a few days. Letting them stay together for much longer promotes better long-term health outcomes for both the mother and calf, but dairies are not equipped for that. > Separating the calf from the cow shortly after birth is a routine practice on dairy farms around the world. In brief, calves are separated from their dams within a few hours following birth and then housed in a separate location and fed artificially (with milk or milk replacer). Advocates of this practice argue that it prevents cow and calf from forming a strong bond, and thus reduces the stress associated with separation when it does occur. The results from a series of studies on the short-term acute affects support this claim (e.g. [21,22,23]). Other arguments in support of early separation include better supervision of calf colostrum and milk intake [24]. One economic argument frequently presented by farmers is that the practice facilitates harvesting the maximum amount of milk available for sale [25]. Moreover, currently used housing and husbandry systems are not designed for keeping cow-calf pairs, making a change in practice difficult. Others have also argued that immediate separation reduces the risk of disease transfer to the calf, including paratuberculosis [26]. > Arguments for later separation emphasize allowing more natural living of cow and calf [25], including emotional benefits for both [27]. Furthermore, some research has shown biological benefits for calves, including better weight gains [28] and fewer bouts of diarrhea when separated later [21], as well as improved udder [29] and uterine health [24] for cows. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354428/
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quanto 4y ago
Instead of making vague connections to human disorders, I wish the scientists could pinpoint exactly the critical questions answered by the experiments. As the article says, the harms are definite while the benefits are "potential."
- lupire 4y ago
  There are none. It's just a fishing expedition.
lizardactivist 4y ago
So the "greater good" as they phrase it does not include other primates besides ourselves? Or any other animals? That is remarkably unempathical and selfish.
- lupire 4y ago
  The vast majority of US people do not believe animals have rights, except the dogs and cats they have direct relationship with.

31 points by rq1 4y ago

From the article: > Such efforts could crush research “critical for human survival and empathy,” says Bertha Madras, a neuroscientist at Harvard who has conducted brain imaging studies of monkeys for decades but doesn’t work directly with Livingstone. “If we’re going to understand how the brain functions, we’re going to have to do experiments that generate visceral reactions,” she says. “We have to be looking at the greater good.” I'm definitely wary if the best argument for continuing this research is that it supports "the greater good". I could fully understand that the line between, for example, what is an acceptable research protocol, and what crosses the line to cruel, inhumane treatment, is sometimes gray. But I think it's morally wrong to be ok with cruel and inhumane treatment of intelligent, social creatures by just arguing that it "is for the greater good". That line of thinking has been used as a defense for nearly every horrific undertaking by man for the past couple of centuries.

civilized 4y ago
I am wary too, but of something a little different. I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp, red, punitive moral lines on things that are pretty subjective and that different people will have different opinions on. We're going to be in a bad place if we all draw slightly different lines on various issues, then condemn and work to punish each other for crossing our lines. I think this ideology of moral maximalism - "everything I object to morally should be punished harshly" - has been pretty disastrous for the human race, if you look at history. However passionate people are about primates and their resemblance to humans, I don't see how you can draw an objective line that condemns this research but sanctions all the horrible things we do to, say, rats, for the greater good of medical science. Who can claim to have the objective view of how moral obligations to non-human animals increase with their resemblance to humans? We don't agree on this stuff, and it isn't objective. Can we all find something better to do with our lives than try to punish each other for not toeing the exact line of our individual moral opinions? Let's calm down, stop taking our moral emotions as legitimate universal prescriptions, and put moral maximalism behind us.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  This reads like "since the line might be fuzzy, we should never have lines, move on". Surely there is a middle-ground to be found between your extreme and the other?
  - civilized 4y ago
    I'm not saying we should never have lines, I'm saying we should not automatically turn all of our moral intuitions into bright red lines which we enforce punitively.
- ss108 4y ago
  We shouldn't do it to rats either. The thing is, your view of this is too anthropocentric. Saying this: "I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp, red, punitive moral lines on things that are pretty subjective and that different people will have different opinions on. We're going to be in a bad place if we all draw slightly different lines on various issues, then condemn and work to punish each other for crossing our lines." ...doesn't take into consideration the experiences of monkeys and other animals. So you're going to have to morally justify why we shouldn't care about them. The argument you are making sounds reasonable if applied to, e.g., cancel culture or something, but it's rather willfully oblivious and glib in this context, IMO. "Can we all find something better to do with our lives than try to punish each other for not toeing the exact line of our individual moral opinions?" Wouldn't by definition many moral opinions necessitate that one try to get them enforced in some way? You're kind of just downplaying morality overall, arguably. Again, I'd be sympathetic to what you're saying in a lot of contexts, either where humans are the only creatures involved or the human actions simply don't directly infringe on anyone else. So, abortion, cancel-culture, gay marriage, etc. This way of thinking could be usefully applied to a lot of hot-button issues where the conduct really doesn't actually harm anyone else, human or otherwise. But if it comes to animal experimentation, genocide (see China), various forms of oppression and discrimination within societies (whether racial or like caste-based, whatever), etc., people are going to become indignant, and if they didn't, we'd all just be amoral and compassion-less in a very dystopian way.
  - 4y ago
jcampbell1 4y ago
The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound, but the PR blunder of saying “the greater good” is astounding. The only correct thing is to talk about the human suffering that you hope to alleviate. Let the listener operate their own moral balance. The idea that the greater good is a singular knowable thing and she represents it is patently offensive.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound I disagree, though that's obviously been a central question in philosophy since Aristotle. Is the logic of weighing costs and benefits sound if they had been experimenting on human babies instead of monkeys? I think most people would argue not. So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Honestly, I think trying to defend this in a morally consistent framework requires some mental gymnastics I'm not capable of.
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    If it is consistency you are after, then join PETA. The logic of weighing cost and benefits is always sound, but there are cases where it is so one sided that it is offensive to pose the question. Experimenting on babies falls in that category. I suppose at this point my personal opinion on this issue is relevant to you. I am personally okay with Neuralink because it isn’t implausibility far from someone walking from a wheelchair. This specific research miles apart both from the welfare side (it requires emotional harm to the monkeys) and the benefits are far less tangible. I think this research should be put up for review and if I were a reviewer I’d start from a position that this needs to stop. I suppose my meta point is that it is okay to have red lines and argue them, but peppering the discussion with arguments against logic unnecessarily makes your commentary less persuasive to me.
  - bambax 4y ago
    > So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Exactly this.
lupire 4y ago
> research “critical for human survival and empathy,” If Bethda hasn't figured out empathy yet, I doubt she ever will.

rumpelstinkin 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CodeSgt 4y ago
Monkeys aren't humans though. It's disgusting, I don't like animal abuse, but it'd not the same thing. And wishing we'd go extinct is hardly the moral high ground here.
- nrb 4y ago
  Rhesus macaque are way closer to us on any scale between “us” and “animals” hence the reason for them being used in this study.
imwillofficial 4y ago
nullish_signal 4y ago
Yea, reading about "infant monkey eyelid sutures" is pretty depressing...
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  Which makes reading about how they no longer do that - because they found something better (goggles) - feel the opposite of depressing right?

imwillofficial 4y ago

theonemind 4y ago

We got some data on human empathy before they even finished the experiment.

dehrmann 4y ago

Between this is the recent Boston University work on playing with covid, I'm worried about the judgement of scientists around "crucial" work necessary to understand something and the safeguards we have to make sure research is safe and ethical.

lupire 4y ago
Recent? It's looking less and less plausible that Covid was caused by something other than scientists playing.

bambax 4y ago

There are no words to express how angry that makes me. These "scientists" should do their experiments on their own children. I wish them ill.

DangitBobby 4y ago
How do you feel about dairy cows being separated from their young after birth? It turns out, they've managed to gather a lot of data quite on the impacts of infant separation in cows (I wonder how that happened?). To sum up, separating them almost immediately after birth results in less psychological trauma than separating them after a few days. Letting them stay together for much longer promotes better long-term health outcomes for both the mother and calf, but dairies are not equipped for that. > Separating the calf from the cow shortly after birth is a routine practice on dairy farms around the world. In brief, calves are separated from their dams within a few hours following birth and then housed in a separate location and fed artificially (with milk or milk replacer). Advocates of this practice argue that it prevents cow and calf from forming a strong bond, and thus reduces the stress associated with separation when it does occur. The results from a series of studies on the short-term acute affects support this claim (e.g. [21,22,23]). Other arguments in support of early separation include better supervision of calf colostrum and milk intake [24]. One economic argument frequently presented by farmers is that the practice facilitates harvesting the maximum amount of milk available for sale [25]. Moreover, currently used housing and husbandry systems are not designed for keeping cow-calf pairs, making a change in practice difficult. Others have also argued that immediate separation reduces the risk of disease transfer to the calf, including paratuberculosis [26]. > Arguments for later separation emphasize allowing more natural living of cow and calf [25], including emotional benefits for both [27]. Furthermore, some research has shown biological benefits for calves, including better weight gains [28] and fewer bouts of diarrhea when separated later [21], as well as improved udder [29] and uterine health [24] for cows. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354428/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

quanto 4y ago

Instead of making vague connections to human disorders, I wish the scientists could pinpoint exactly the critical questions answered by the experiments. As the article says, the harms are definite while the benefits are "potential."

lupire 4y ago
There are none. It's just a fishing expedition.

lizardactivist 4y ago

So the "greater good" as they phrase it does not include other primates besides ourselves? Or any other animals? That is remarkably unempathical and selfish.

lupire 4y ago
The vast majority of US people do not believe animals have rights, except the dogs and cats they have direct relationship with.