7 ms·

University of Wisconsin to reprise controversial monkey studies

41 points by __Joker 12y ago

disbelief 12y ago
This is pretty sickening. I have spent a lot of time around various monkey species, including the Rhesus Macaque, and the amount of emotional awareness and sensitivity they have is comparable to that in humans. To subject such intelligent and sensitive animals to such fear and cruelty, at such a young age, and then to euthanize them afterwards, in a reprise of past experiments, is beyond senseless.
- dsirijus 12y ago
  Well, a committee of scientists that know better than you think results will be worthwhile and disagree. I'll take their word over uneducated ethical argument. I apologize for being presumptuous about your occupation and field of research.
  - lliwta 12y ago
    > Well, a committee of scientists that know better than you think results will be worthwhile and disagree. The article stressed that green lighting the research was a hugely controversial decision. I'm also pretty certain there are a huge number of scientists who do research on animals are wouldn't be comfortable with this research. Also, I think the parent was rejecting the deontological framework in which the decision was made, rather than calling into question the resulting calculation by the ethics board. So an appeal to the expertise of the panel doesn't make much sense.
    - nospecinterests 12y ago
      So what if it was controversial? Some decisions are controversial. This one received more discussion, input, and thought than most other plans. Just because it did it doesn't make that decisions wrong or unethical.
      - nmrm 12y ago
        Another committee of scientists -- another IRB board -- probably would have not allowed the study. Therefore, the parent's appeal to the IRB process as the harbinger of ethics is misguided. If any IRB would deem a study ethical, then there's probably consensus among the scientific community on the cost-benefit tradeoff of the study. If one IRB deemed the study ethical, and if there're probably a lot of other potential IRBs that would not, then appealing to some sort of scientific consensus on the matter is a misnomer.
  - sxcurry 12y ago
    What makes you think that "scientists" have any better ethics than anyone else? Given past examples, I really don't trust them to look beyond their own self interest. Besides, this particular experiment would be much more useful if performed with "scientists" children.
    - nospecinterests 12y ago
      I assume your joking about doing an equivalent experiment with human beings, right?
      - rlanday 12y ago
        He’s not saying it should be done on human beings, he’s arguing it’s also wrong to do it on monkeys for the same reason it’s wrong to do on humans. You, and many other people, are making an argument that I find at least somewhat uncomfortable that it’s OK to treat animals, even those very similar to humans, much worse than humans because they’re of a different species. Can you articulate why you believe that, and how comfortable are you with your reasoning?
        nospecinterests 12y ago
        Under that line of reasoning there could be no science done involving any type of living creature, both big and small (like bacteria), unless it was purely non-contact observational.
        rlanday 12y ago
        Monkeys are much more similar to humans, and presumably much more able to experience suffering, than bacteria are. People like to draw an arbitrary line between humans and other animals, and there are good reasons for that in a lot of cases (e.g., should we give chimpanzees the right to vote in government elections, or start giving them drivers’ licenses?), but that might not be the most relevant line to draw in terms of ability to experience suffering. Many people clearly experience some cognitive dissonance when deciding how to treat animals: for example, many people treat pet dogs as family members but eat other animals like pigs, even though dogs and pigs probably aren’t really very different in any ethically relevant way.
  - recalibrator 12y ago
    Ethical concerns should trump all. How and why are the two most important questions when conducting research. And besides, animal suffering matters to many people, often more than the answer itself matters.
  - disbelief 12y ago
    Must I have a degree in the field of research related to this study in order to have a valid opinion on the torment, suffering, and eventual euthanization of 20 innocent monkeys?
    - Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
      Likely. You have to be able to see the trade offs and cascading effects. It is similar to the ethical question where if you reroute the train track it kills someone and if you don't it kills two. Of course, it is more hairy than that. There is an estimate of the number of people on the original track as well as a probability that the reroute does not save them.
      - disbelief 12y ago
        The ends don't justify the means for me. The study hopes to gain a better understanding of the early causes of anxiety and depression. We're not saving the human race here, we're not necessarily even saving lives. Even if a new treatment for depression were developed due to this research (which it probably won't), and you were clinically depressed, would you want to receive it knowing it was came about after the torture and eventual deaths of 20 baby monkeys? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.
        Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
        If it developed a better treatment or prevention for depression, lives would be saved. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking said treatment, but I know that others may have different feelings about that. The ends don't justify the means is a very valid ethical opinion, how relatively extreme it is in this case depends on the size of the possible award vs. the trade-off, which takes professional knowledge to properly estimate.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Scientists don't get to write the rules about what is and isn't morally acceptable in society.
DanBC 12y ago
Be interesting to see if UK animal rights tactics are exported to the US. Protestors ignore the actual department doing the research but unleash a shitstorm of protest over anyone providing services to that department. As more and more service companies decline the contracts the costs for the department go up and up. UK groups were very effective at this, but there were also unacceptable forms of protest involving violence. And UK government had weird ideas about right to peaceful protest being wrong if it was effective at making people change their behavior. Thus animal rights groups are sometimes terrorist organisations (to be fair, a few of them did dig up corpses and other really unpleasant thing). Tl:dr don't stand outside the monkey experiment department waving placards; go to the place that takes their garbage or provides their lunches or does the cleaning or the gardening or the stationery.
- trhway 12y ago
  >UK government had weird ideas about right to peaceful protest being wrong if it was effective at making people change their behavior. Thus animal rights groups are sometimes terrorist organisations check out AETA laws in states.
recalibrator 12y ago
If your day-to-day job consists of inflicting harm on animals, you should be tested for psychopathic tendencies. It should be mandatory.
- bagels 12y ago
  For what purpose? Suppose this test indicated that one of the lab workers had 'psychopathic tendencies', what do you propose happens next?
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    Remove them from the job? I work in a company that does animal experiments and I have noticed that some of the scientists don't seem to have any empathy with the animals. They treat them like any other device they work with. In my view they could treat the animals much better without having a negative impact on the study but it's just not a concern for management or scientists.
    - nospecinterests 12y ago
      I think it is a natural human reaction to physiologically distance yourself. If you didn't then there would be no scientific progress. That being said if a person were to go out of their way to be especially cruel or sadistic or unethical (obviously it depends on your definition of cruel) then I would say that the person needs to be removed and if necessary charged with a crime.
    - Spooky23 12y ago
      It's a coping strategy, that indicates that they aren't psychopaths. People who deal in harsh conditions become more clinical and detached. Farmers, doctors, soldiers and call center agents all share similar behaviors in this area.
      - maxxxxx 12y ago
        I never thought it about as a coping strategy. It's an interesting thought though. I know quite a few people who couldn't deal with animal testing anymore and did something else. I guess that leaves a certain kind of people. I still think there should be stronger rules for animal testing and how the animals are being kept. The cost for better treatment would be small compared to all other costs. I bet somewhen in the future people will look at animal cruelty (animal testing and meat production) the same way we look at things like slavery or chopping off a thief's hands now.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Facebook might be interested in them. Not as good raw material as live humans, but hey, if it works, it works.
jquery 12y ago
In the time it took you to read that article about 20 Rhesus monkeys who will be cared for in the most humane way possible given the study parameters, roughly 1000 pigs and 300 cows were slaughtered in the USA, many living in ghastly conditions. The Rhesus monkeys will perish so that we can improve treatment for millions of people suffering from anxiety and depression. The cows and pigs died so you can eat a bacon cheeseburger. I'm not a vegetarian, because bacon cheeseburgers are delicious, but I don't understand why we insist on being so morally inconsistent.
- leeoniya 12y ago
  likely cause we're further genetically and emotionally removed from farm animals than from primates. i don't think many will consider the use of pesticides an inhumane way to kill insects (even though it likely is). the word itself (humane) implies a standard derived from/for humans.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  > I don't understand why we insist on being so morally inconsistent Where is this inconsistency? Both are bad. Are you not aware of people who object to consumption of animals?
  - 001sky 12y ago
    The 'ethical treatment' of animals includes respect for their natural diets. A significant portion of the bio-mass of the planet is genetically architected to consume other animals--they are true carnivores. You might as well go feed the bears in yosemtie a snickers bar. Its not consistent (morally or scientifically) to pretend the world is designed another way. In the same way its not consistent to feed (even) omnivores human-junk-food.
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      Not sure I follow.
      - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
swamp40 12y ago
The University of Wisconsin has a reputation for being unusually liberal for a Midwest campus. I can assure you that the Madison Veterinary school is far removed from that liberal slant. There are several intensive essays involved in the Vet school application process, and if they get a hint that you are applying because you've "always loved animals" and/or you "want to help ease their suffering", your application gets tossed fast. That vet school is a serious business for serious professionals. Maybe they are all like that - I don't know. I have a feeling it's because the Midwest has such a strong farming background that the kids are already used to the animals getting slaughtered at the end of the season. The corporations know the hardcore testing/experimentation is necessary, so they help make the school successful and also help mold the students' attitudes while they are young. It's like being a soldier. The rest of the world can argue about what's morally right or wrong, but you do your job, stay professional, push the boundaries, make discoveries and help mankind. At the end of every experiment, the subjects get euthanized. SOP. Do it until it doesn't bother you anymore. Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys. It's hardcore, but somebody has to do it. (Or maybe not. But what do I know?)
- nospecinterests 12y ago
  I can tell you with 100% certainty that Madison in general is one of the most left of center, left leaning (more liberal than liberal), cities in the country, not just the midwest. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that the University is even more left than the city. I think the difference here is that this is an example of people seeing how their hot dogs and hamburgers are made and they are not used to it. Its messy and sometimes unpleasant. The people at the UW are highly ethical, talented, dedicated professional scientists who are doing their best give as much dignity to these test subjects as possible while at the same time trying to further science and the betterment of mankind.
- nilved 12y ago
  > Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys. Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical experiments as a means to an end, then why not perform them on humans for the maximum benefit? Unit 731's experiments provided agreeably valuable evidence, demonstrating the value in human experimentation; and it's hotly debated that many tests on animals are applicable to humans to begin with, demonstrating the overstated value of animal experimentation. So if it's true that knowledge trumps morality, we're not taking advantage of that fact.

41 points by __Joker 12y ago

This is pretty sickening. I have spent a lot of time around various monkey species, including the Rhesus Macaque, and the amount of emotional awareness and sensitivity they have is comparable to that in humans. To subject such intelligent and sensitive animals to such fear and cruelty, at such a young age, and then to euthanize them afterwards, in a reprise of past experiments, is beyond senseless.

dsirijus 12y ago
Well, a committee of scientists that know better than you think results will be worthwhile and disagree. I'll take their word over uneducated ethical argument. I apologize for being presumptuous about your occupation and field of research.
- lliwta 12y ago
  > Well, a committee of scientists that know better than you think results will be worthwhile and disagree. The article stressed that green lighting the research was a hugely controversial decision. I'm also pretty certain there are a huge number of scientists who do research on animals are wouldn't be comfortable with this research. Also, I think the parent was rejecting the deontological framework in which the decision was made, rather than calling into question the resulting calculation by the ethics board. So an appeal to the expertise of the panel doesn't make much sense.
  - nospecinterests 12y ago
    So what if it was controversial? Some decisions are controversial. This one received more discussion, input, and thought than most other plans. Just because it did it doesn't make that decisions wrong or unethical.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      Another committee of scientists -- another IRB board -- probably would have not allowed the study. Therefore, the parent's appeal to the IRB process as the harbinger of ethics is misguided. If any IRB would deem a study ethical, then there's probably consensus among the scientific community on the cost-benefit tradeoff of the study. If one IRB deemed the study ethical, and if there're probably a lot of other potential IRBs that would not, then appealing to some sort of scientific consensus on the matter is a misnomer.
- sxcurry 12y ago
  What makes you think that "scientists" have any better ethics than anyone else? Given past examples, I really don't trust them to look beyond their own self interest. Besides, this particular experiment would be much more useful if performed with "scientists" children.
  - nospecinterests 12y ago
    I assume your joking about doing an equivalent experiment with human beings, right?
    - rlanday 12y ago
      He’s not saying it should be done on human beings, he’s arguing it’s also wrong to do it on monkeys for the same reason it’s wrong to do on humans. You, and many other people, are making an argument that I find at least somewhat uncomfortable that it’s OK to treat animals, even those very similar to humans, much worse than humans because they’re of a different species. Can you articulate why you believe that, and how comfortable are you with your reasoning?
      - nospecinterests 12y ago
        Under that line of reasoning there could be no science done involving any type of living creature, both big and small (like bacteria), unless it was purely non-contact observational.
        rlanday 12y ago
        Monkeys are much more similar to humans, and presumably much more able to experience suffering, than bacteria are. People like to draw an arbitrary line between humans and other animals, and there are good reasons for that in a lot of cases (e.g., should we give chimpanzees the right to vote in government elections, or start giving them drivers’ licenses?), but that might not be the most relevant line to draw in terms of ability to experience suffering. Many people clearly experience some cognitive dissonance when deciding how to treat animals: for example, many people treat pet dogs as family members but eat other animals like pigs, even though dogs and pigs probably aren’t really very different in any ethically relevant way.
- recalibrator 12y ago
  Ethical concerns should trump all. How and why are the two most important questions when conducting research. And besides, animal suffering matters to many people, often more than the answer itself matters.
- disbelief 12y ago
  Must I have a degree in the field of research related to this study in order to have a valid opinion on the torment, suffering, and eventual euthanization of 20 innocent monkeys?
  - Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
    Likely. You have to be able to see the trade offs and cascading effects. It is similar to the ethical question where if you reroute the train track it kills someone and if you don't it kills two. Of course, it is more hairy than that. There is an estimate of the number of people on the original track as well as a probability that the reroute does not save them.
    - disbelief 12y ago
      The ends don't justify the means for me. The study hopes to gain a better understanding of the early causes of anxiety and depression. We're not saving the human race here, we're not necessarily even saving lives. Even if a new treatment for depression were developed due to this research (which it probably won't), and you were clinically depressed, would you want to receive it knowing it was came about after the torture and eventual deaths of 20 baby monkeys? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.
      - Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
        If it developed a better treatment or prevention for depression, lives would be saved. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking said treatment, but I know that others may have different feelings about that. The ends don't justify the means is a very valid ethical opinion, how relatively extreme it is in this case depends on the size of the possible award vs. the trade-off, which takes professional knowledge to properly estimate.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Scientists don't get to write the rules about what is and isn't morally acceptable in society.

DanBC 12y ago

Be interesting to see if UK animal rights tactics are exported to the US. Protestors ignore the actual department doing the research but unleash a shitstorm of protest over anyone providing services to that department. As more and more service companies decline the contracts the costs for the department go up and up. UK groups were very effective at this, but there were also unacceptable forms of protest involving violence. And UK government had weird ideas about right to peaceful protest being wrong if it was effective at making people change their behavior. Thus animal rights groups are sometimes terrorist organisations (to be fair, a few of them did dig up corpses and other really unpleasant thing). Tl:dr don't stand outside the monkey experiment department waving placards; go to the place that takes their garbage or provides their lunches or does the cleaning or the gardening or the stationery.

trhway 12y ago
>UK government had weird ideas about right to peaceful protest being wrong if it was effective at making people change their behavior. Thus animal rights groups are sometimes terrorist organisations check out AETA laws in states.

recalibrator 12y ago

If your day-to-day job consists of inflicting harm on animals, you should be tested for psychopathic tendencies. It should be mandatory.

bagels 12y ago
For what purpose? Suppose this test indicated that one of the lab workers had 'psychopathic tendencies', what do you propose happens next?
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  Remove them from the job? I work in a company that does animal experiments and I have noticed that some of the scientists don't seem to have any empathy with the animals. They treat them like any other device they work with. In my view they could treat the animals much better without having a negative impact on the study but it's just not a concern for management or scientists.
  - nospecinterests 12y ago
    I think it is a natural human reaction to physiologically distance yourself. If you didn't then there would be no scientific progress. That being said if a person were to go out of their way to be especially cruel or sadistic or unethical (obviously it depends on your definition of cruel) then I would say that the person needs to be removed and if necessary charged with a crime.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    It's a coping strategy, that indicates that they aren't psychopaths. People who deal in harsh conditions become more clinical and detached. Farmers, doctors, soldiers and call center agents all share similar behaviors in this area.
    - maxxxxx 12y ago
      I never thought it about as a coping strategy. It's an interesting thought though. I know quite a few people who couldn't deal with animal testing anymore and did something else. I guess that leaves a certain kind of people. I still think there should be stronger rules for animal testing and how the animals are being kept. The cost for better treatment would be small compared to all other costs. I bet somewhen in the future people will look at animal cruelty (animal testing and meat production) the same way we look at things like slavery or chopping off a thief's hands now.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Facebook might be interested in them. Not as good raw material as live humans, but hey, if it works, it works.

jquery 12y ago

In the time it took you to read that article about 20 Rhesus monkeys who will be cared for in the most humane way possible given the study parameters, roughly 1000 pigs and 300 cows were slaughtered in the USA, many living in ghastly conditions. The Rhesus monkeys will perish so that we can improve treatment for millions of people suffering from anxiety and depression. The cows and pigs died so you can eat a bacon cheeseburger. I'm not a vegetarian, because bacon cheeseburgers are delicious, but I don't understand why we insist on being so morally inconsistent.

leeoniya 12y ago
likely cause we're further genetically and emotionally removed from farm animals than from primates. i don't think many will consider the use of pesticides an inhumane way to kill insects (even though it likely is). the word itself (humane) implies a standard derived from/for humans.
adamnemecek 12y ago
> I don't understand why we insist on being so morally inconsistent Where is this inconsistency? Both are bad. Are you not aware of people who object to consumption of animals?
- 001sky 12y ago
  The 'ethical treatment' of animals includes respect for their natural diets. A significant portion of the bio-mass of the planet is genetically architected to consume other animals--they are true carnivores. You might as well go feed the bears in yosemtie a snickers bar. Its not consistent (morally or scientifically) to pretend the world is designed another way. In the same way its not consistent to feed (even) omnivores human-junk-food.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Not sure I follow.
    - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

swamp40 12y ago

The University of Wisconsin has a reputation for being unusually liberal for a Midwest campus. I can assure you that the Madison Veterinary school is far removed from that liberal slant. There are several intensive essays involved in the Vet school application process, and if they get a hint that you are applying because you've "always loved animals" and/or you "want to help ease their suffering", your application gets tossed fast. That vet school is a serious business for serious professionals. Maybe they are all like that - I don't know. I have a feeling it's because the Midwest has such a strong farming background that the kids are already used to the animals getting slaughtered at the end of the season. The corporations know the hardcore testing/experimentation is necessary, so they help make the school successful and also help mold the students' attitudes while they are young. It's like being a soldier. The rest of the world can argue about what's morally right or wrong, but you do your job, stay professional, push the boundaries, make discoveries and help mankind. At the end of every experiment, the subjects get euthanized. SOP. Do it until it doesn't bother you anymore. Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys. It's hardcore, but somebody has to do it. (Or maybe not. But what do I know?)

nospecinterests 12y ago
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Madison in general is one of the most left of center, left leaning (more liberal than liberal), cities in the country, not just the midwest. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that the University is even more left than the city. I think the difference here is that this is an example of people seeing how their hot dogs and hamburgers are made and they are not used to it. Its messy and sometimes unpleasant. The people at the UW are highly ethical, talented, dedicated professional scientists who are doing their best give as much dignity to these test subjects as possible while at the same time trying to further science and the betterment of mankind.
nilved 12y ago
> Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys. Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical experiments as a means to an end, then why not perform them on humans for the maximum benefit? Unit 731's experiments provided agreeably valuable evidence, demonstrating the value in human experimentation; and it's hotly debated that many tests on animals are applicable to humans to begin with, demonstrating the overstated value of animal experimentation. So if it's true that knowledge trumps morality, we're not taking advantage of that fact.