In this holiday season Animal People reminds us all that we are privileged to live in a democratic society, where different points of view can be expressed, discussed and debated freely, and where violence has no place as a tool to advance social change.
Speaking of Research welcomes and applauds this statement. We hope the new year will only expand the circle of those open to civil dialogue and public debate.
The Animal People’s board resolution reads in its entirety:
The Animal People, Inc. Board Resolution on Activist Tactics
Arresting the cycle of violence in human affairs is of greater importance than the accomplishment of any single tactical objective–whether trying to stop the slaughter of animals for food, fur, sport, or religious rituals; addressing the scientific use of animals; or dealing with any other particular exploitation of animals. We enjoy the opportunity to address social injustices, inequities, and cruelties (toward animals, children, women, gay people, poor people, and racial and ethnic minorities) because we are privileged to live in a democratic society, which through the effort of generations of our forebears has (however tenuously at times) replaced the old paradigm of “might makes right” with respect for the rights of individuals, democratic process, public debate, freedom of expression, and divergent points of view.
Part of our social contract as civilized people is that we agree to trust in the ability of our ideas to persuade, and to operate within established systems until they can be improved by peaceful means.
We believe that no principle should be more inviolable than the principle that violence–including psychological violence such as intimidation, the invasion of familial privacy, and engagement with persons not responsible for or directly involved in issues (such as relatives of parties with whom there is a dispute)–must never be employed as means to achieve moral progress and advance social change.
Protesters have the right to express dissent, rally, and even agitate in order to arouse public concern in the hope of prompting action, but demonstrations, rallies, and actions involving civil disobedience should be held at appropriate sites, such as public areas including shopping malls, universities, government buildings, or office buildings connected to the issues of concern.
That was the headline of an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which discussed the very promising results of a small clinical trial of gene therapy to treat hemophilia B – also known as Christmas Disease*. Patients with haemophilia B suffer bleeding in the joints and muscles due to deficiency in a coagulation factor IX, which blocks the coagulation cascade that normally leads to blood clots forming and prevents bleeding. Hemophilia B can be successfully managed by intravenous infusion of factor IX several times a week, but this therapy is very expensive – it has to be isolated from donated human blood plasma – and causes allergic reactions at the injection site in some patients.
Studies in mice were key to developing gene therapy for hemophilia B
Clearly a more permanent solution to factor IX deficiency is highly desirable, and to develop one scientists at University College London and the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis turned to a technology that we have discussed on several occasions on this blog in recent years – gene therapy. The results of their clinical trial, published in NEJM, were impressive, all the patients were able to stop regular factor IX injections to maintain adequate factor IX levels, or to greatly reduce the frequency of injections.
As the NEJM editorial points out, this therapy has the potential to not only improve the lives of people with hemophilia B, but also to save millions of dollars over their lifetime.
This treatment is not perfect yet– but its a huge step in a right direction, and only possible because of viruses.”
A very good point, in medicine we usually think of viruses as the enemy, but when it comes to gene therapy they are an ally.
But they are not always the easiest of allies to campaign alongside, and that is where another scientific technique without which this advance would not have been possible comes in – animal research!
A key choice when developing any virus-based gene therapy is the vector used to deliver the replacement gene to the cells of the body. The vector must deliver enough copies of the gene to the target tissue to be effective, enable the gene to express in sufficient quantity to ameliorate the condition, and do so safely. Adenoviruses are often chosen for this task, with the serotype AAV 2 being the most widely studied in animals and humans. But there is a serious problem with AAV2, roughly half the population have been exposed to AAV2 naturally, and mount an immune response that clears the vector from the bloodstream before it can deliver its gene cargo to the target tissue.
The researchers addressed this problem by turning to another adenovirus serotype AAV8, which was isolated from rhesus monkeys a decade ago. They chose AAV8 for three reasons, firstly earlier studies in mice showed that AAV8 injected into a peripheral vein delivered genes to the liver – the natural site of factor IX production – much more efficiently than AAV2, secondly the mouse studies also showed that AAV8 uncoats and delivers its gene payload to cells more swiftly that AAV2, helping to ensure that the gene is delivered before the body can mount an immune response, and thirdly prior immunity is far less common in the human population than immunity to AAV8.
The AAV8 vector wasn’t perfect though, it would still require a large number of virus particles to be injected – potentially enough to trigger liver damage or stimulate a larger and more rapid immune response – so they designed a modified AAV8 vector known as a self-complementary (SC) vector that delivers the gene to liver cells even more efficiently. Injection of mice with an SC vector containing the factor IX gene was found to lead to a 20-fold increase in liver of factor IX expression compared to the same amount of standard AAV8 vector, with no increase in toxicity. Since the ability of vectors developed from different adenovirus serotypes to target gene expression to particular tissues can vary between mice and primates, they then evaluated this vector in rhesus monkeys, finding that the SC vector could drive safely therapeutic levels of factor IX production in the monkey liver, and that prior immunity to one adenovirus serotype did not diminish the efficiency of factor IX production by a vector based on another serotype.
These studies paved the way for the clinical trial that caused so much excitement in the scientific and popular press earlier this month. Hopefully further development and larger clinical trials in people with hemophilia B will confirm the potential of this exciting new therapy, a therapy that was developed thanks to viruses and to animal research!
* after a patient named Stephen Christmas from whom factor IX was first isolated.
While Best has been open in his enthusiasm for Marino’s campaigns of harassment and intimidation, and Marino has in turn peppered her “Negotiation is Over (NIO)”website with his videos and essays, he has appeared to limit his involvement to moral support.
The NIO membership section directs members to a small PayPal button on the right column of the page if they wish to donate. The group also sells annual memberships for $20 and lifetime memberships for $50. Since that appeal for money, the site has been rapidly pushing out content.”
Why do they need money? Other than website upkeep let us remember that NIO has been offering $100 to anyone who can provide information on biomed undergraduates. See the poster below.
Nonetheless, the article continues:
Click on NIO’s donation button and it takes you to a donation page set up to send money to an account managed by someone using a Road Runner provided email address – the kind that you get for free when you sign up for Internet service.
A quick Google search of the email address reveals the owner of the address, none other than Steven Best, isn’t shy about putting his contact information on everything he touches.”
Oops…providing practical support for a campaign against fellow academics clearly isn’t a good career move for Best, and Marino’s next move proved that they realized this, as Carlton Purvis picks up the story:
Within hours of my email contact with Best on Friday night, the PayPal donation button had been removed from the Negotiation is Over website. Unfortunately, if someone was trying to cover Best’s tracks, they forgot to remove text on the membership page that says, “Please use the Paypal link in the right sidebar of this site or send your enrollment fees through PayPal to sbest1@elp.rr.com.””
DOH!!
The question is now what disciplinary action the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) will take against Best for actions, for although Universities are traditionally – and correctly – very keen to protect their staff’s freedom of expression, it is difficult to argue with the view that:
…despite the university’s policy to not get involved with what faculty do on their personal time, it seems like it would be problematic for a university to employ someone who is affiliated with a bounty program that funds harassment targeting university students and faculty.”
We will be watching this developing story with interest, and welcome Carlton Purvis’ tweet that “Rogue animal rights group stops selling memberships after I uncover a #UTEP professor behind the curtain w/this story”. While we have our doubts about the popularity of NIO memberships, it is always good to see an extremist funding stream closed down.
UTEP President Diana Natalicio will need to think hard about whether her administration can afford to turn a blind eye to behavior directed against other students and staff at other universities that they would never tolerate if it was targeting their own staff and students.
We were also pleased to learn over the weekend that a federal judge has upheld an ordinance that has been critical to UCLA’s efforts to protect its researchers, their families, and their neighbors from harassment by anti–animal research extremists. This ruling makes it clear that there is a difference between legitimate protest and harassment, and shows that society will not stand by and allow citizens to be intimidated and threatened by those who disagree with their work.
All in all a bad week for those who favor harassment and intimidation over dialog and democracy!
Thursday marked an important moment in the history of animal research. The long-anticipated report of a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to consider whether chimpanzee research is scientifically necessary released its report, quickly followed by a statement from Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, the director accepting the committee’s recommendations.
The report acknowledged that chimpanzees were vital to past progress, but that at present there is limited necessity and justification for them in research. It did not endorse a ban on chimpanzee research, nor the continuation of the moratorium on breeding, stating that these could potentially cause “unacceptable losses to the public’s health”. It also made clear that “animal research remains a critical tool in protecting and advancing the public’s health”. Both animal activists and biomedical researchers were simultaneously pleased and disappointed by different aspects of the report.
Speaking of Research believes there are many positive elements in the IoM report and to the surrounding discussion. Above all, the report encouraged public dialogue, education, and serious civil conversation about the scientific and ethical (as well as practical and political) issues that surround animal research. The IoM report provides a thoughtful, expert review of a range of issues involved in the consideration of the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research.
There were, however, a couple important points to note within the IoM report and its deliberations.
First, the charge of the IoM committee to assess the “scientific necessity” of the work, while specifically avoiding ethical issues, was clearly ill-posed, and – as the committee quickly realized – nearly impossible to carry out.
We acknowledge the committee held serious discussions about the science of chimpanzee research and the availability of alternative methods, but it is notable that these were guided by principles that are ethical in nature. Namely:
The knowledge gained must be necessary to advance the public’s health.
There must be no other research model by which the knowledge could be obtained, and the research cannot be ethically performed on human subjects.
The animals used in the proposed research must be maintained in either ethologically appropriate physical and social environments or in natural habitats.
Moreover, the IoM committee explicitly recognized that “ethics was at the core of any discussion [...] on the continued used of chimpanzees in research”.
It is evident that the tension about the use of chimpanzees in research is not merely about science. In fact, it is not even primarily about science, as arguably chimps can stand as valid scientific models in many areas of research. It isn’t even about the cost of research.
It is largely about ethics.
Consequently, the panel appears to have felt, at points, uncomfortable in their own shoes. On one hand it maintained that considering ethical issues was not part of its charge; on the other, it produced a list of guiding principles that reflect ethical rather than scientific considerations, finally concluding that it did not have the required expertise to evaluate the ethical dimensions of chimpanzee research.
We believe discussions on the science and ethics of animal research are inextricably linked and both should be part of any public discussion on animal research. An honest, open and civil discussion on both the science and ethics of animal research that includes animal advocates, animal welfare organizations, scientists, patients and their families, patient advocacy groups, public health officials and the medical leadership of the country.
We would like emphasize that the guiding principles “adopted” by the panel are in fact very similar to the three Rs and current NIH guidelines that already guide decision-making regarding animal research. By quickly adopting the IoM committee’s recommendations without additional comment, NIH may be sending the unintentional message that such principles are not at play in work with other species. We think this issue needs to be addressed and clarified by the NIH.
The IOM panel clearly demonstrated the power of a comprehensive and critical analysis that accounts for progress in research, changes in technologies, models, and questions. However, proceeding in critical analysis on a species-by-species basis is problematic for a number of reasons. We argue that a more general appraisal of the ethics and science of animal research is warranted.
a) As illustrated by the IOM report and surrounding discussion, the “species-wise” approach ignores the more basic and important questions that are at the heart of the issue (the ethical dimension) and that this deserves a much more thorough and broader public discussion based upon empirical data and facts.
b) There is no reason to think that changes in the technology, questions, and need for certain projects that contributed to a reduction in the requirement for chimpanzees in research might not also apply to other types of animals. One may productively ask, for example, whether some studies currently conducted using mice might turn to zebra fish or drosophila instead?
c) A broad review, beyond a single species, is also requisite to addressing the value of comparative studies, which are an integral part of strong science. Repeating work in more than one species is sometimes essential. Just because a finding is demonstrated in one species doesn’t mean it is a commonality in all. Whereas the US Guiding Principles require that the lowest possible species be used, there are legitimate scientific reasons to repeat some studies in multiple species.
We believe that conducting a broader review of animal research could significantly advance public understanding of the role that it plays in medical and scientific progress. In many ways, such an exercise is long overdue. The report’s conclusions clearly show the value of a rigorous, thoughtful, and public review of even the most controversial type of research. But public interest in animal studies extends far beyond chimpanzee research.
Addendum: There is an interesting discussion of the implications of the IOM report in Nature News this week, which highlights the fact that the majority of biomedical research projects that currently use Chimpanzees are likely to meet the new criteria proposed by the IOM panel http://www.nature.com/news/chimp-research-under-scrutiny-1.9693
Speaking of Research
This is the fifth of a series of posts aimed at encouraging thoughtful and fact-based consideration of the full range of complex issues associated with chimpanzee research and both short- and long-term responsibility for their welfare, care and housing. Previous Speaking of Research posts on chimpanzee research include:
My husband died of stage 4 metastatic esophageal cancer on August 19, 2011.
I have been an advocate for biomedical research, specifically involving animals, for decades. I go to work each and every day supporting researchers involved with discovering new cures or treatments. I dedicate time outside of those duties to promote education regarding the use of animals in such research. I want people to be able to make up their own minds free of rhetoric and sound bites empty of any real information. Research is part of who I am.
All of this became intensely personal for me, more so than it was, in February of 2010 when my husband was diagnosed. They did not need to explain to me how serious his diagnosis was. I already knew. I knew it was going to be a tough battle but he was a fighter. He was not ready to leave me or his daughters or the life we built. Not now. Not to cancer. No way.
He remained a fighter until his very last day on this earth. In our last conversation he told me cancer had only taken his body but he was still free and he will be waiting for me when the time comes for me to shed my body too. I still work in the same hospital where all his treatments had taken place and I eat at the same cafeteria where I bought all his food when he was in the hospital. I still see some of his caregivers in the hallways and they always ask me how I am. They are very caring people and I am sure each and every one of them would applaud an end to cancer. I know I would. I am pretty sure everyone that has been touched by this horrible disease would love to see an end to it, just as I am sure people were very happy to see an end to polio or small pox.
On Monday, author Sharon Begley published an article in The Daily Beast entitled “Could This Be The End Of Cancer?”outlining some of the new developments in the fight against cancer, particularly using vaccines. It is detailed but easy to read, and it was nice to see more information on some of the treatments my husband received. Research for cancer and many other diseases go on each and every day by thousands of people. Some of those people remember what life was like before the current vaccines we take for granted were widely used. In reading the evaluation results for the polio vaccine, you can see how many children were affected and see pictures of them in iron lungs. My generation has never known a friend confined to one of those thanks to those who continued the research that lead to the vaccine. The mortality rates for small pox were up to 35% and yet according to the WHO this disease was eradicated in 1979, thanks to those who developed the first vaccine. I doubt anyone who was born after 1975 could really tell you what small pox looked like without looking it up thanks to those who continued to search and refine the current vaccine.
Immunotherapy – developed through animal research – offers new hope to patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, and is an example of recent advances in cancer treatment discussed by Sharon Bagley
Without research, both with animals and humans, or those dedicated to searching for answers, no cures are possible. Will we see vaccines for all cancers in the next 30 years? No one can answer that, just like no one can give you a date when the human race will finally stop wars. But does that mean we should stop looking? Stop striving? Stop hoping for a cure? Absolutely not. Polio and small pox are simple diseases if compared with the complexity of cancer. It is going to take lots of time, lots of man hours and a lot of dedication from a lot of people to finally put this monstrous disease in the “eradicated” file.
It is also going to take a lot of money. On Ms. Begley’s article page is a comment regarding this money. The poster states:
This is a nice read, but … this will never happen. At least not in our life time as Cancer has become a big business. I am a ovarian 3 cancer survivor and I can tell you that there would be a lot of people out of work if there ever was a cure. The Government would fail. “
Do you suppose she is happy about the treatments she received for her disease that has extended her life? Would she reject a vaccine in favor of current treatments if her cancer was to reappear? Somehow I think she would take the easier treatment.
Is finding cures and treatments expensive? You bet it is. Is funding from the government and charities vital to this research? Absolutely. Without it we would not be able to hire the scientists, the biologists, the doctors or the nurses who work tirelessly each and every day, not only to find a cure, but to make every day in the life of a cancer patient the best it can be. And believe me, we are not a rich bunch. We shop at dollar stores and check the clearance section too just like so many people do in our current economic state.
However…
Do you think any one of us would give up their job to find that cure tomorrow? I know I would. In a heartbeat. It is too late to save my husband. But if I could save everyone else, every kid, mother, father, wife, husband and friend, from having to go through what I just went through, I would collect my last paycheck today. Right now.
But until that cure happens, we are going to come to work and continue searching, perfecting, refining and aiming for that day to come. And it will come.
A recent paper in Science discussed behavioral data in rats suggestive of empathically motivated behavior. This is a potentially very important report for two major reasons. First, a deep understanding of the mental and psychological abilities of rats, and other species, is a crucial goal for comparative psychologists, evolutionary biologists and other basic scientists. Second, the autism spectrum disorders are characterized by atypical reciprocal social interactions, and difficulty with experiencing and understanding the emotions of others appear to contribute; therefore, an animal model system in which we can learn how the brain responds to and processes the emotions of others is crucial to progress in this area. For these reasons, the experiments address a very significant question.
The experiment consisted of having a rat placed in an arena (the free rat) who is able to see and interact with a companion that is trapped in a cylindrical restrainer with a door (the trapped rat). It was found that the free rat learned over time to free the trapped rat by intentionally opening the door. In control experiments, rats did not open empty tubes or ones containing an inanimate object. When given a choice between getting access to chocolate and freeing the trapped rat, they would often free the rat even before eating the chocolate, suggesting that the motivation to liberate its companion trumped even its desire for the chocolate, a potential sign of altruism.
The authors concluded that “the free rat was not simply empathically sensitive to another rat’s distress but acted intentionally to liberate a trapped conspecific.”
It appears that both the press, and perhaps even the authors, interpret the findings as implying the following:
The free rat has a mental state that represents the well-being of a conspecific.
This representation generates a distressful response in the free rat.
The free rat learns it can act in a way to relieve the distress of the caged rat by opening the door of the cage.
The rat intentionally acts to relieve the caged rat from distress even when there it has nothing to gain from the action.
Dr. Daniel Povinelli, in a Nature coverage of the paper, had a different view, saying that “This work is not evidence of empathy — defined as the ability to mentally put oneself into another being’s emotional shoes.”
Though the view that rats exhibit empathic behavior may be consistent with the data, we must ask if there could be alternative, simpler explanations that do not necessarily involve invoking assumptions 1-4, above.
One possibility is that the trapped animal is generating an alarm signal, either in the form of vocalizations or pheromones, that generates stress in the free rat. The free rat may then learn it can stop the distressing signal by opening the door (so-called negative reinforcement). In acting in such a way, the free rat would then be relieving its own distress rather than the perceived and shared stress of a conspecific.
Is this possible?
The authors did not measure chemical signals but did measure vocalizations during their experiments and found that “significantly more alarm calls were recorded during the trapped condition (13%) than during the empty and object conditions.”
So this alternative scenario is, in principle, a possibility. The authors dismissed this alternative explanation because the rate of alarm calls was relatively low and yet they remained open to the possibility when they concluded:
Thus, the most parsimonious interpretation of the observed helping behavior is that rats free their cage-mate in order to end distress, either their own or that of the trapped rat [...] This emotional motivation, arguably the rodent homolog of empathy, appears to drive the pro-social behavior observed in the present study.
This is a bit confusing and requires clarification.
There are at least two different interpretations of the data. Not one.
Either the rat is freeing the companion to end its own stress (caused by an alarm signal) or it is doing it to end the perceived stress of the caged rat. The interpretation of a pro-social, empathically motivated, altruistic behavior is only applicable to the second interpretation and not the first one.
To differentiate among these possibilities one can conduct some additional control experiments. One could, for example, just play alarm calls that are stopped once a rat presses a lever once placed in the arena. Or we could use chemical signaling if we learn the behavior is mediated by pheromones and identify the pheromone in question. One could have offered the free rat the option to leave the arena to a dark, quiet place, potentially ending its own distress and leaving the companion trapped. Or the free rat could be offered the possibility of a “personal sacrifice” (such as a mild shock) to free the other rat, thus paying a price to help his companion. These are all doable experiments that would help tease apart the different interpretations of these data.
Another potential explanation of the data is raised by video records of these experiments provided as part of the Science article shown below.
In this example, taken after the rat has learned to free its counterpart, we see the free rat going right into the restraint immediately after opening the door. Why would the rat enter the tube if it truly felt and understood the distress the other rat experienced by being confined?
If one has ever seen rats at the pet store, you know that you will often find them snuggled up together in tubes and tight spaces because they apparently enjoy the safety and security of these types of experiences. This view was raised in an online discussion of the data:
Rats enjoy access to tight enclosures. We routinely put plastic tubes in home cages for “environmental enrichment” and the rats are often found “snuggled” together in them, especially when resting – presumably an inherent protective response. In fact, if you try to grab a rat in a cage with a tube, the rat will immediately go for the tube and try to stay in it. Thus the “trapped” rat could also be seen by the “free” rat as enjoying a protected situation, and the free rat could in fact be displaying “envy” by freeing his companion so that he can enjoy the same protection and/or being motivated for social reasons to have a companion to “snuggle” with. Indeed, the first thing the free rat did in the video after opening the enclosure was to go right into the tube with the other rat!
So the basic question is, does the free rat want to get in, believing that his cagemate enjoys the privilege of a protected space, or does he fear for his cagemate and want to release him?
Again, only additional experiments can address this. Resolution of these alternative views is crucial in terms of both of the prevailing motivations for conducting the study. Either rats are acting to relieve their own distress, or that of another – the difference bears strongly on our understanding of their mental abilities. In addition, if the former, but not latter, phenomena is correct, the value of studying the biology of empathy using rats is significantly challenged.
Still, we are left with a provocative phenomena — rats freeing one another, invoking similarities with human behavior. There are plenty of other examples in nature where individuals of a species cooperate and interact in ways that could be described in terms of our own (human) mental states as altruistic or empathic behavior. The examples range from bonobos, to bats, to even single-cell organisms, such as social amoeba (see here and here.) The behavior is essentially the same across all these species and yet one would be hard pressed to argue that single-cell organisms have a notion of altruism and empathy in the same sense humans do.
Our brains (including those of scientists) are wired in such a way that they readily interpret the behavior of others in terms of our own mental states. Such ability is useful in many situations, form navigating daily social interactions and even in the description of scientific data. Care must be exercise in descriptions based on our own mental states when the outcome can have clear moral and scientific consequences.
Scientists must always keep an open mind. But before rushing to declare that humans must seek moral guidance from rats, we should pause and try to understand exactly what the data say. As new experiments are done and more information is available, we will surely be able to discern which of the alternative explanations is the correct one. If additional work confirms the (premature) conclusions of the authors, it will lay the ground work for developing new animal models for human psychological disorders, which will be a welcome development. For now, however, we must await that conclusive work.
The status and future of chimpanzee research in the US are at the heart of much discussion lately in both scientific and public (also here and here) spheres. A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to consider the issue held a number of meetings and is expected to report its findings to the NIH by the end of this year. Legislation to end great ape research, also introduced in 2007 and 2009 (H.R. 1513: Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011; S. 810: Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011; GAPA), was again introduced last Spring. This is the fourth of a series of posts aimed at encouraging thoughtful and fact-based consideration of the full range of complex issues associated with chimpanzee research and both short- and long-term responsibility for their welfare, care and housing. Posts include:
Previous posts and other discussions of chimpanzee research have focused on ethical questions, animal welfare, and ongoing evaluation of the role chimpanzees do play, or should play, in scientific research. These are the most important issues to address in discussion of the future of great apes in the U.S. At the same time, this year’s version of the Great Ape Protection Act has included a new focus, with addition of the phrase “and Cost Savings.” The new language and the calculations given as basis for its assertions have received relatively little careful broad discussion or evaluation.
According to cost analysis for the legislation compiled by the Humane Society of the United States, the majority of cost-savings from GAPA – 76% – would result from ending federal grants for projects involving chimpanzees. Of the “nearly $30 million saved annually” over $22 million reflects funds committed to support research projects that involve chimpanzees and are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
It appears that this number was arrived at by summing the cost of all NIH grants that involve chimpanzees, regardless of their topic or the types of activities in which the animals are engaged. Whether this number could reflect the total funds invested in what is commonly considered invasive research is not readily apparent. Some of these grants may involve noninvasive studies, others may be dedicated to studies that require as little as samples of DNA—something commonly done in human studies. It does appear that the underlying assumption for the cost analysis is a complete block on any NIH research grants that involve chimpanzees. (We welcome correction if this is not an assumption of the HSUS analysis or any cost analysis used to support the claims associated with GAPA.)
The remaining savings are projected from reduction in care costs if the animals were moved to sanctuaries. Whether sanctuaries provide lower-cost care than research facilities is subject to some debate, in part because care costs vary across facilities. This is illustrated in the most recent data published by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) October 31, 2011 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees:”
Based on the most recent awards and payments, NIH is spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67.00 per day per chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and $47 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. The average for research facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at APF is included. See Table 1 for detailed figures.”
The reasons for variance in costs are complex. Among other things, they do not reflect differences in housing, clinical care, or health status of the animals (e.g., older animals or animals with chronic health problems may require more expensive treatment and care). But overall, the numbers reported by NCRR show a rough equivalence in care costs at the federal sanctuary and many research facilities.
Table 1 “Costs for Maintaining Humane Care and Welfare of Chimpanzees, October 31, 2011“
Research
Facility
# of Chimpanzees, as of 10/31/11 (total)
NCRR cost*, $M/year (total)
NCRR cost, $/animal/day, (avg)
NIRC
117
1.23
28.8
K-CCMR
154
2.56
45.5
SNPRC (P51)
125
1.02
22.4
SNPRC (U42)
25
.047
56.3
Total
(421)
(5.3)
(34.5)
Research Reserve
Facility
# of Chimpanzees, as of 10/31/11 (total)
NCRR cost*, $M/year (total)
NCRR cost, $/animal/day, (avg)
APF
173
4.25
67.4
Federal Sanctuary
Facility
# of Chimpanzees, as of 10/31/11 (total)
NCRR cost*, $M/year (total)
NCRR cost, $/animal/day, (avg)
Chimp
Haven
119
2.03
46.7
What is not shown by these numbers or by most of the discussion of GAPA are the number of other issues that should accompany thoughtful consideration of the long-term care and housing of chimpanzees. Dr. Joseph Erwin provided commentary on many of these in a previous guest post, among them concerns about ensuring the highest quality of care for the animals:
Most chimpanzees in scientific and educational institutions (research colonies and zoological gardens) live in spacious, social, and secure environments, where they are provided with excellent professional healthcare, and are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act, through inspection by the USDA, and publicly available reports of those inspections. The legislative ban would require removal of chimpanzees from decent facilities that were built at great public expense, and would deposit hundreds of chimpanzees in “sanctuaries” that provide no assurance of competent professional care, are not subject to Animal Welfare Act protection, and are not publicly transparent.”
One of the biggest unanswered (and virtually unmentioned in public spheres) questions surrounding the effects of this legislation is where it is that these chimpanzees would go? Is the intent that they would stay in current facilities? That new facilities would be constructed? While some animal rights groups have advocated for moving chimpanzees from their current research facilities to Chimp Haven, there is little information that would indicate that is a feasible option. Nor do the discussions of cost-savings and future plans include information about projected costs to build sufficient sanctuary space that could accommodate the number of animals currently housed in research facilities.
This is a non-trivial issue. For example, the publicly-available NCRR cost information informs us that the cost to construct the only federally-funded chimpanzee sanctuary, Chimp Haven, was $11.8 million. Chimp Haven houses 130 animals. In other words, the initial construction cost was just over $90,000 per chimpanzee.
There are an additional 594 NIH-supported chimpanzees currently housed in research facilities. There are also hundreds of privately-owned chimpanzees. Thus, on even rough calculation based on the construction cost of Chimp Haven, it would appear that at least many millions of dollars would be required to extend the capacity for sanctuary housing to these animals.
The cost, feasibility, and plan for constructing additional facilities that could provide care for these chimpanzees does not seem apparent in the cost calculations for the current legislation. Nor is it an issue raised much in public discussion. It is a relatively easy thing to call for an end to chimpanzee research and to encourage public support by appealing to fiscal conservatism. What is far more challenging is to include consideration of real factors that significantly influence the outcomes for the animals, including an accurate assessment of where they can be housed, how best practices for care can be supported, real costs and dedicated sources of funding for long-term maintenance and facilities. Those details matter and deserve far more attention than they currently receive by those claiming to have chimpanzees’ welfare as the utmost priority.
There is a classical argument against animal research that surfaced in a recent conversation with Robert C. Jones. It is a thought experiment that can be traced back to science fiction work in the 50s, although its exact origin is unknown.
The story involves the landing of an aliens on Earth. Robert calls them “The Gorgons.”
The Gorgons are an extremely advanced civilization only a few light years away from Earth. It is nearly impossible for humans to grasp the vast cognitive gap that separates our species. Suffice it to say, our most magnificent cities are to them as ant mounds are to us. Our artistic masterpieces are to their sophisticated senses as dull and mundane as a blank wall is to our eyes. They consider our greatest achievements in mathematics and physics nothing more than child’s play.
The Gorgons also have a deep scientific interest in learning about the nature of the Universe. It is not surprising that, upon landing on Earth, they debate the use of humans in harmful invasive experiments as a means to learn more about aspects of galactic biology.
Would such experiments be ethically permissible?
What would a Gorgon think?
In order to answer the question we need more information than a statement about the Gorgons’ intellectual superiority.
Namely — Do the Gorgons have a moral society?
Perhaps not.
Perhaps the Gorgons are like the Borg in the Star Trek series — a race of cybernetic organisms designed to adapt and efficiently assimilate any other civilization they encounter, but considerate enough to warn their victims that “resistance is futile”.
An amoral, technologically advanced civilization (the Borg) attempts to assimilate humans.
The Borg is capable of acquiring the technological knowledge of other civilizations, but incapable of absorbing any of their moral principles. There is no doubt the Borg is highly intelligent and technologically advanced. There is also no doubt that the Borg is amoral.
The Borg sees the assimilation of a civilization as neither right nor wrong — assimilation is simply what the Borg does. It is its nature. The same is true for a lion killing a gazelle. The lion has no concept of his killing being right or wrong — that’s just what lions do.
If the Gorgons are an intellectually advanced but amoral civilization (like the Borg), then the question “What would a Gorgon think about harmful human experimentation?” is meaningless. Gorgons are simply unable to pose themselves such question and we cannot answer for them. What is certain is that if we were to run into amoral Gorgons the result would be the same as if we were to run into the Borg… or a hungry lion for that matter.
Of course there is another possibility. The Gorgons may happen to be a race with moral principles. In this case, one may argue the inferior intellectual capacities of our species would not be as important to them as the fact that we are share basic moral principles, such as the golden rule.
Basic rules of reciprocity among moral agents are expected to be shared among intelligent, rational life in the universe. If the Gorgons are a moral society, we would expect they will recognize us as one too and treat accordingly under the self-evident (and now expanded) principle that:
“All moral agents in our universe are created equal…”
This is a natural outcome in many fictional encounters with other worlds we read about in the science fiction literature, where different versions of a “prime directive” are at work — a binding principle of non-interference by humans with other less developed cultures and civilizations.
If mere humans can concoct such a prime directive, it is difficult to see how the more advanced, intelligent, rational and moral Gorgons would fail to reach the same conclusion. No; a moral Gorgon civilization would not experiment on a moral human species.
But lets consider for completeness the remote possibility that the Gorgons will actually be a malevolent species and attack Earth in what develops to be an Independence Day scenario.
Here, Bernard Williams, wrote there is only one question left to ask.
[...] hopes for self-improvement can lie dangerously close to the risk of self-hatred. When the hope is to improve humanity to the point at which every aspect of its hold on the world can be justified before a higher court, the result is likely to be either self-deception, if you think you have succeed, or self-hatred and self-contempt when you recognize that you will always fail. The self-hatred, in this case, is a hatred of humanity. Personally I think that there are many things to loathe about human beings, but their sense of their ethical identity as a species is not one of them.”
*I thank Robert C. Jones for pointing out the science fiction story “To Serve Man” and the work of Bernard Williams and Hugh LaFollette on this topic.
