My purpose with this comment is to come from the perspective of a potential beneficiary of some of your research rather than as an animal rights activist.

Lynn wrote, “Either we are a species capable of taking on responsibilities and are therefore deserving of “rights” or we are not, which is it?”

As a recovering drug addict (clean since 1996) and alcoholic (sober since 1992) who took himself to the depths of emotional, financial, social, and spiritual hell, and as a recovering smoker (no cigarettes since 1997), I agree with Lynn. Each individual needs to take responsibility for their choice to self-medicate, realize that they are self-destructing AND hurting those who love them, and choose to do something about it.

I know from personal experience that there were myriad “life-lines” for addicts in the 1990′s, including 12 step programs, therapy, transitional living programs, homeless shelters, in-patient hospitalization, and a variety of other holisitic/self-help approaches. I’m certain that there are even more available today.

The last thing in the world an addict needs is another way to avoid personal responsibility for their substance abuse. Genetic predisposition and complex socioeconomic factors be damned. Ultimately, drinking, smoking, and/or drugging are personal choices. We who choose the path to self-destruction create our own personal hells, and while we deserve help in escaping the Inferno (if we seek it and are willing to help ourselves too), we have no right to expect other sentient beings to suffer to make it “easier” for us to get clean.

I wouldn’t have wanted you to torture monkeys on my behalf then, I don’t want you to do it now (as a recovering addict, I am subject to recidivism), and I have plenty of friends who are recovering addicts who would tell you to take your “research” and go to Hell.

What you are doing, David, is not the RIGHT THING. If you have a prayer of justifying your abominable, perverse sadism that you carry out on innocent, defenseless primates, you’d better stick to the scientific side of the equation. Morally, you haven’t a toe to stand upon—let alone a leg.

and yet “socioeconomic status, family environment, nationality, etc, and bad choices” are not factor that can be assessed by addicting animals to drugs — even though you’ve been doing it over and over and over again.

By the way, why are you sending a boy in to do a man’s job? Is it because you fear that just as Dr. Greek deconstructs Dario Ringach’s fallacies in his response to this post, http://negotiationisover.com/?p=3675, he will also expose you?

He closes his response by AGAIN availing himself to debate your fraudulent “research”.

“Hubert H. Humphrey also said, “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.” I agree. If researchers like Ringach want society to believe their rhetoric then let them engage in a time honored American tradition and debate the science behind their claim that animals are predictive for humans. I am still available.” Ray Greek MD, President, Americans For Medical Advancement

I must dispute some of your facts. In fact, the science of addictions has come very far in the past few years. It is now really quite clear that a variety of biological and sociocultural factors dramatically increase the risk that individuals will get “trapped” in addictions.

For example, statistical genetic modeling has provided indisputable evidence that specific genetic factors make people more likely to develop an addiction if they try a drug. And we know that people are more likely to try and drug if they are born in an environment where drugs are readily available and visibly used (poor neighborhoods, families with rampant drug use, certain geographical locations). Yes, I ultimately concur with the notion that there is a ‘voluntary’ aspect to the early initiation of drug use, but so is there to HIV infection and certain forms of HPV-linked cervical cancer. After all, if people just remained abstinent, there wouldn’t be an issue for them, now would there? Does acknowledging that many HIV infections result from avoidable behavior mean the science should not move forwards? Should we avoid looking for a cure because it will – in your words – encourage others to “abuse their bodies”? If that is what you really mean, then I must say that I am quite shocked and horrified.

Addiction is a horrible end-stage process that is hinged upon factors out of one’s control (genes, socioeconomic status, family environment, nationality, etc.) and – yes – upon some bad choices. No one wants an end to addiction more than those affected and those trying to save their lives. I believe that we are doing the RIGHT THING in tackling this insidious problem, and I consider it a major accomplishment when my work helps even a few people escape from this trap.

For a somewhat more enlightened discussion of this topic (and not just the animal research aspect of it) I’d recommend a recent discussion on Science Blogs

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/11/funding_scientific_research_th.php

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/11/double_standards_politics_and.php