Scientists 'should be allowed to test on apes'

Call me what you will but even I'm not too hot on the idea of aminal testing useing great apes. Make of this what you will.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article624202.ece

The ban on using chimpanzees and other great apes in scientific experiments should be relaxed in a global health emergency, the head of the Medical Research Council (MRC) has said.

Colin Blakemore, an outspoken advocate of animal experiments, said that the existing ban on great apes makes no moral sense because it degrades the clear boundary between humans and animals.

Professor Blakemore, a distinguished brain scientist at Oxford University, said that he is opposed in principle to the ban on experiments with great apes, although he sees no immediate need to lift it. "I'm not entirely comfortable with the decision absolutely to ban the use of great apes," Dr Blakemore said at the launch of an MRC pamphlet explaining the benefits of primate research yesterday.

Great apes - but not monkeys - were banned from medical research in Britain in 1998, although medical experiments on chimps have continued at research facilities in the United States, Japan and the Netherlands.

>>medical experiments on chimps have continued at research facilities in the United States, Japan and the Netherlands.<<

Chimps are closer genetically to humans than great apes are. That's why they use them as subjects.

It's a tough moral question to me. I'm not from PETA, but I do draw the line at some of the animal testing that has gone on. However, in a true global emergency, I would be for lifting the ban temporarily.

see eg http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521555361/103-8372268-1146221?v=glance&n=283155

The jury is still out

to know that the chimperor gets a life of luxury, while his smarter primate siblings are getting the gitmo treatment.

i doubt there will be any great apes in a 100 years, i can't really justify using the last of a species for medical testing

as far as they are concerned, the global health emergency is now

am i right or is there really such a surplus of these animals that they can be used for testing?

I just can't stand to see or hear about animals getting hurt.

only way to preserve these species is to turn them into slaves and bred them for "scientific experiments".

Making them a commercial product will save them

And since we now know how intelligent (and peaceful in terms of gorillas) they are, making them slaves we can abuse will make the GOP base happy as they see the grand old pre-civil war days returning.

these apes are going extinct in the wild because we're destroying their natural habitat

that whoever makes the call "emergency" is going to stretch the term.

Like the labeling of everything bad as "terrorism."

it's kind of late for animal testing.

So, then should experimentation be allowed on those humans ?

Exactly where is the boundary and what are the objective criteria for it ?

Gotta be some televisions preachers out there who could sell it. Hell, pay them a bounty for each volunteer they reel in.

:sarcasm:

Personally I think testing on human volunteers is more ethical than involuntary testing on great apes. Like it or not, the line between humans and chimpanzees is very blury, and if you don't like that, you can blame evolution or God, your choice.

They at least are capable of making informed decisions.

That brings up the question of whether the entire human species is no more than a great experiment for some super intelligent alien race. Tho I would have made the experiment's design a bit tighter, and that's saying nothing about the design of homosapiens. No one who ever experienced back pain would call the human spine a well engineered design.

We were not meant to walk upright. Hmmmm. That certainly sheds a poor light on evolutionary theory.

:rofl:

"They at least are capable of making informed decisions."

Desperate people in desperate times can often make poor choices for a little money.

any animal or human that cannot give their consent. Experimentation should be encouraged on humans that are willing to give everything, including "their last full measure of devotion" to their species. Hard to find these sainted individuals......u bet, but it would be the morally correct thing to do.

Suggesting that research on animals naturally leads to research on humans is as ridiculous as saying that eating animals leads to cannibalism.

Or was B.F. Skinner simply biding his time?

The issue is what is the dividing line and criteria deciding what beings are 'acceptable' to use as experimental subjects ?

"Some apes have higher sentience than some gravely impaired humans"
Correct, such as Terry Schiavo was. (I'm only saying that because it's true, sorry if that offends anyone).

Fetal stem cells, in my opinion, should be used in testing instead of using apes, because those are proto-human-beings, and would give results closest to humans, without harming an individual living being, such as an intelligent, fully formed, primate, which is cruel. Fetal stem cell research is not cruel.

If there is a legitimate cure in progress for diseases like cancer, aids, etc I'm all for testing on these animals.

than the chimps? I don't think you life is more important than that of a chimp. Your attitude makes me sick! I'd rather spend my time here on earth with chimps than with a selfish person like you.

Because I'm human.



Good to know.



Oooh Oooh Eeee Eeee!



So what are you waiting for, buy a one way ticket to an african nature reserve and live with them. I'm sure they will be very accommodating (especially the males).

You might be human, but you are not humane.

"just because" you're human is not a reason for anything at all. it just demonstrates that you lack human reasoning skills and possess only brainless instinct -- gee, isn't that a defining feature of "nonhuman" animals?

the same non-argument could be applied to any group that feels irrationally that it deserves "special treatment." over the years there have several bogus "intellectual" discourses on the superiority of the white race--these are as spurious and without merit as your own non-argument.

BTW, stem-cell research (research on human life) is going to be a very hard sell to Catholics and many other religions if it is attempted by people who think that research involving animals is an abomination.

How about we use your carcass for research. You might be just the one that puts the experiment over the top when we find out out latest drug cocktail sure does cure cancer but blinds you,,,,,,have to work on those side effects. Come-on step up for your species. This could be your chance to prove your "superiority".

How in the world could you endorse the torment of innocent animals just to add a short time to another species already over extended life span?

Look at the big picture. We (humans) act very much like a virus on the earth and now we are mutating like a virus to spread throughout the universe. We will most likely destroy it as we go, just as we are the earth.

However, I'm not sure he's genetically close enough to human kind to be useful. ;)

I was thinking that I might be insulting chimps worldwide. :)

entire Bush Crime Family should volunteer. Hell, it would be a good way for cowards like chimp and Cheney to finally "serve" their country.

Really - when you think of it - what have the Bushes done for their country over the past five decades?

medical experiments.

conduct experiments like using blow torches on pigs (without painkillers since it would interfere with shock reactions) while developing burn treatments?

How about the FDA approving pesticide experiments on poor black children in Florida and when there was an outcry they banned it in the U.S. and took the experiments to Africa.

Are we entitled to destroy other species in order to save ourselves? What does it say about us as a society? Who decides how far we should go in order to save ourselves. I personally feel that when we sink to these levels, we're not worth saving any more.

I have worked a Burn Unit, there are plenty of humans out there that have suffered horrible burns, and advances have taken great strides because of what we've learned from these patients.

I can see no reason for this type of behavior to be allowed.

every DUer knows what horrible acts are committed against animals in the name or "research". One thing we can all do is stop buying personal care products from companies that test on animals. For shampoos, rinses, etc., look for "professional" on the label. Apparently, those products are not tested on animals.

Horrible things are done to animals every day in testing women's beauty products. They are treated with every kind of chemical, given hideous skin diseases, etc. If more Americans were aware of what is being done to animals so that we could look and smell good, they'd be stunned and saddened.

I am not a PETA member, but they make many good points. Much of this "research" is done for the sake of vanity, not out of medical necessity.

cure cancer or AIDS, diabetes and a host of other illness that afflict humans, I think some limited tests on animals is appropriate. I would be in favor of sacrificing an animal if there was something that would benefit all of mankind...but the wanton abuse of animals or humans is intolerable.

I'm not PETA either, but I am a humanitarian.

Many justify these atrocities by declaring that animals have no souls, yet it is our behavior that is soulless.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." — Peter Singer


===
This bunny appears on many vegan products:

so far. Survival of the fittest and all that.

that's a pretty hamfisted misrepresentation of "survival of the fittest". IMNSHO I think our cruelty is not why we "made it" as a species but I suspect it will be our UNDOING

When humans have finally made the earth unfit for human life (and unfit for most every other life form), don't fret too much, because life will go on.

Cockroaches, ants, bacteria, plankton, will keep the torch of life lit.

"fitness" in the theory of natural selection has nothing to do with war-mongering, plundering, thieving, looting, raping and pillaging. It means adaptation to the environment that gives the individual the edge to bear offspring that successfully reproduce.

Look, most scientists I know are disgusted by it as well. Yeah, they did that, and it was intended to recreate wounds experienced by soldiers in war.

Are we entitled to destroy other species in order to save ourselves? Isn't that what humanity has done since existence?

Read the last post from FarceofNature. It's quite informative about animal use through the history of humanity.

and leave the apes alone! :grr:

We should use them for research........

Animal testing of any kind is just plain wrong. What gives us the right to harm another sentient being???

"Colin Blakemore, an outspoken advocate of animal experiments, said that the existing ban on great apes makes no moral sense because it degrades the clear boundary between humans and animals."

The guy quoted above has the gall to mention the word morals?? He has no morals.

Humans are animals, like it or not, we just happen to be the most advanced animal. This superiority shit drives me crazy.

No I am not PETA, but I am a person who realizes that animals need not be killed for our survival, not as food and certainly not as test subjects.

I know I will get flamed because some on this board feel that humans are somehow more deserving than animals. As I already said, more intelligent? without a doubt, more compassionate, sometimes I wonder, more deserving? I don't think so.

Our lack of regard for anything other than human is such a small minded way to behave. Our species could be so much more.


Oh, & welcome to DU! :hi:

And the support

leather, etc? Not using any animals products? When you get sick, you make sure no treatments were developed using animal testing? That must be it, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Not there quite yet, but meat intake has gone to almost nothing in the past few years. I own one leather jacket, bought for me as a gift years ago and one pair of leather dress shoes. As far as getting sick...I am in pretty good health (luckily for me, as I one of the millions without insurance) Am I perfect? No Do I realize that I can do better? Yes

Do I feel that animals were put on this earth to serve humankind and die for humankind, etc? No

How about you?

Is unnecessary animal testing something you are comfortable with? Do you feel that meat consumption is absolutely imperative for good health? Do you have pets?

Just wondering.

Because the fact that you question my statements above would lead one to believe that you disagree with my position.

For all kinds of purposes. We would never get where we are if we did not. We would be extinct a long time ago.
So, I find it kind of silly for someone to declare that any animal testing is wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion....as devoid of compassion as I find it.

Have a nice day

The great apes, such as the gorilla, are herbivores.
And yet they have been around much longer than humans.
How is that possible, based on your assertion that human primates must "use" other creatures to "get where we are"?
It was the agricultural advances in the fertile crescent, 7,000 years ago, that enabled humans to progress.
Figuring out how to plant and harvest wheat to insure a stable food supply is the primary reason for our rapid advancement.
That knowledge enabled humans to have leisure time, to study and create. Human population and culture exploded from that point forward.
For the millenia before wheat harvests, humans did nothing other than grunt and spend their whole day looking for berries, tubers and small animals.
Today, burning out the eyes of rabbits to test mascara doesn't get us anywhere, other than disgraceland.

the billions, or are they hovering at the brink of extinction?

the fact remains that our pillaging of the earth has been catastrophic for many, many species...including OUR OWN. This socially Darwinistic homo sapiens manifest destiny bullshit saddens my soul.

But the fact is, we made it so far not due to being nice.

many scholars argue that what made our ancestor hominid species successful was their ability to communicate with each other, band together, cooperate, and accumulate for collective benefit. The 1950's depiction of hominids as warlike, bestial, savage and violent has been under sustained attack for some time now. Yes, they ate animals but as others have pointed out humans' animal domestication was (and STILL is in many parts of the world) primarily for labor sources and to a lesser extent milk/cheese since it makes little caloric sense to raise and butcher meat for eating without industrial methods, which is a fairly recent phenomenon. Wild animals were a sporadic source of nutrition, which is part of the promt to intensive agriculture and crop raising. It wasn't until extremely recently, and well after widespread "civilization" that factory farming and animal testing was widespread. Tangentially, from a demographic perspective no advances in medical science ever had any impact on survival rates. The knowledge and technology is just not widely enough available for many reasons. So I guess it's just another example of "fuck everyone else, I've got mine". sad....

Here's a hint as to why:

http://karlammann.com/

Warning: This site spares nothing. Be sure to click on the photo galleries.

The only perfect vegan is a dead vegan. ;)

Most vegans see veganism as a journey not a destination. We realize we live in an imperfect world where animal exploitation permeates every aspect of our culture. When it comes to choosing what we eat, wear, put on our faces, take for our headaches, etc. we try to choose things that cause the least amount of harm possible. We may not be perfect but that doesn't make us hypocrites.

I really like what you said. I wish those people swinging from one extreme to the other on this thread would read your post. Do the least amount of harm possible. Imagine what this place would look like if everyone even tried to just do a little less harm. Just a little, and the world would be unrecognizable.

Our species is currently engaged in wars, genocide, and the destruction of the planet. How "intelligent" and "deserving" are we really? I look at a dolphin, or bonobo, or even something as common as a squirrel, and I seeing thinking, emotional beings that really know how to experience life without destructive egos getting in their way. Like it or not we are all interconnected and, imo, all deserving of the right to live unmolested.

Intelligence and sentience are two different things. Chimps and dolphins are intelligent but are not sentient. Only us, and prehaps Neandertals, can be given the label sentient.

Being sentient simply means that you have the ability to percieve and feel, in this case, ALL vertabrates, at the very least, are sentient. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Now, onto higher animals, like Great Apes, Dolphins, other Cetaceans, and the Elephants, they have not only been demonstrated to be able to have higher intelligence than most other mammals, but also have demonstrated self awareness, and even possibly thinking about about time abstractly, like humans do.

Given this information, most Great Apes and other animals as mentioned have approximately the cognitive ability of Children, the morality of experimenting on them is blurred to say the least.

Bastards.

6 billion humans, a couple of thousand gorillas, bonobo...which is more important one to one?

could be 30 billion to 2 and the answer doesn't change.

But it's likely that medical advances have been made because of it. If it's done in the name of saving future lives (and ONLY that, not making somebody prettier or making toys), AND if there is a clear link between the experiment and such scientific progress, AND if it's done in as compassionate a manner as possible, ONLY then should it be acceptable. There is too much human-inflicted wanton destruction going on.

Do we not meet the taxonimonical definition already? Humans, (Homo) are members of the superfamily Hominidae along with the gorillas, and chimps (Pan). Orans are their own branch of Hominidae, Pongo subfamily.
How could anyone use an ape as a research subject -- it is as repulsive to me as using Homo sapiens sapiens. Were there any Neanderthals left would they be fair game? They were closer to we Cro Magnons than a gorilla or chimp...

Apes = Superfamily Hominoidea. Most scientists also agree that there are 3 ape families, Hylobatidae (gibbons, or lesser apes), Pongidae, and Hominidae. The debate is whether chimps and gorrilas should be grouped with orangutans (Pongidae, as is traditional) or humans (Hominidae). Supporters of the traditional placement use the argument that humans live in a different adaptive zone then the other great apes, Australopithicus living in open woodland and Homo in savanna, while the other great apes live in forests, and so humans should be in a seperate family; that is the traditional taxonomic approach pioneered by the great biologists of the mid 20th century like Ernst Mayr which used by biologists untill around 30 years ago. The other side of the argument is the Cladist position, which says that all taxonomic groups must contain ALL the decendents of a common ancestor, thus requiring gorrilas and chimps to be grouped with humans. It's all semantics in my opinion, everyone knows chimps are more closely related to us then they are to orangs no matter which taxonomic tradition you use.

But not really because they aren't human. But everything about them is exactly the same. Almost.

Hah?

And I do still eat meat, to a certain extent. But not like I use to. Beef is out. Pork should be from a small farm. My hamburgers are always ground turkey.

It sucks. And in fact, the solution to almost all of our problems is that we change from consumers and go back to being producers.

Argh!

SAY NO TO ANIMAL TESTING!!


THEY LIKE TO USE KITTIES TOO

Trust us. We know what's best.
The idea behind animal testing is that it is ultimately for the good of humanity. Give the scientists rights to test on animals, whenever they feel it is appropriate. They won't mistreat the animals in the process.

The idea behind NSA surveillance is that it is ultimately for our freedom. Give the NSA rights to snoop on ordinary Americans whenever they feel it's necessary. They won't break any laws in the process.

The idea behind torture is that is should be a legal, accepted form of interrogation, in cases that are deemed appropriate. So, give the CIA full authorization to use torture at their discretion. They will follow the letter of the law.

Heard any of this before?

'CHEERS' Children and Pesticides Debate Widens to Congress

Congressional Committee Questions EPA's Plan to Videotape Children as They Are Exposed to Dangerous Pesticides with Chemical Industry Money

http://www.ewg.org/issues/humantesting/20041029/release20041223.php

http://www.peer.org/campaigns/testing/about.php

It would be nice for me to be able to tell you we won that battle- but we really didn't.

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IS NOW EPA’S MAIN RESEARCH PARTNER

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=596

The guy behind human testing? He was nominated and confirmed as your new head of the EPA:

Stephen "Steve" Johnson.

Either animals are enough like humans to make effective test subjects or they're so unlike us that we can in good concience torture them in the hope of finding a better boner pill, but they can't be both at the same time.

and are bred to be even less so.

:evilgrin:

They need stern & serious oversight led by those who actually respect life.
Many"scientists" do become dangerously callous as their threshold for cruelty ever increases.
Allowing them to continue on that path is allowing for future Mengele's.


Harming defenseless animals with feelings much like our own is bad enough...but
Humans are NEXT !!-
Behind a veil of "secrecy"-->one created by this ADMIN. of Criminals.

you who would have failed had you taken my evolutionary anthropology class :eyes:

very much. To suggest that doing animal research turns someone into a serial killer is completely idiotic. I have met plenty of people who do animal research, and none of them are serial killers. Now, I don't know who you keep company with...but it ain't scientists that do animal research.

who then? As a scientist, I also do not appreciate specious arguments that malign us, but the truth is that scientists DO test on animals...right now as we speak. Some of it can be defended in the name of lifesaving medicine, but a great deal of it is unnecessarily cruel. But this is a bit off base from the issues I had with your posts, suggesting that we are somehow innately violent, vicious and destructive as a species. I do not appreciate that characterization, and a great deal of contemporary research into human behavior and evolution has had to contend with this socially Darwinistic stereotype of "natural man" sans cultural controls as hordes of murdering, raping, no respect for life(animal and human, if we are to make that dichotomy in the first place; many cultures don't). This view is historically seen in my discipline as a Western construct which simultaneously reinforces and reflects "man" as sexist, violent, and selfish.

for itself.

I never said we don't have a capacity for cruelty. On the individual or even group level, of course humans are cruel all the time. What I take issue with is the characterization that it is the/a fundamental behavioral drive for our whole evolutionary history as a species, which is what the initial post of yours I replied to was implying. I give up. I'm finished trying to discuss this with you, since you're being either disingenuous or dense. Either way, waste of my time.

is that supposed to be aggressive?
I'm sure you can do better that THAT!!
I'm not even offended at all!

in the medical research field, as it pertains to animals. Someday...

"The US Food and Drug Administration now acknowledges that of all the drugs which pass tests on animals, including primates, 92 per cent will never reach the market, mainly because of safety or efficacy problems. This is an appalling indictment of 21st-century science." -- Dr Gill Langley

that doesn't even factor in cosmetics and cleaning products, etc.

if that's not cruel I don't know what is--
OH WAIT...that's not even accounting for VIVISECTION.

You'd have to be one cruel hearted psychologically screwed up individual to kiss the wife and kids goodbye each morning and pat the dog only to get to work and dismember/disfigure/ destroy a perfectly healthy being-

Human nature in its exhalted state is kind and compassionate--
out of balance and it can seem to justify the cruelest of actions--
like invading a country and killing 200thousand or so innocent civilians to steal some oil.--justified

sitting on your leather couch?

:applause:
I'm proud to be VEGAN baybee-

so no, I don't stuff myself with ANYTHING--
much less a dismembered decomposing body part of some poor unfortunate animal.

it's sooooo sad when overindulgence is the assumption-
the norm?!!!wow!!
If you can likely gamble that meat eating and overindulgence is a characteristic trait or habit of someone you do not know then what is this world comming to ?are we doomed?

Question:do you gnaw on body parts regularly, occasionally, or not at all?

like the double bacon whopper with cheese is meat free.

Imagine how many people would get hurt if they didn't screen them on animals first.

....that's about the only way the smirking chimp will ever be of any use to society. :sarcasm:

yea, I know a chimp is not an ape and vice-versa. And for the record, I'm against testing on apes, chimps or any animals, for the most part.

without experiments?

I know, I know they will rebel and kill us all and then a group of mutant humans will blow up the world, but think about the convenence. All the fun of a slave but with fur too!

Film audiences that missed the point of the film, were outraged that apes were conducting experiments on humans.

I am so tired of people who reap the benefits of medical science and then demonize it for animal research. Most labs try to be as humane as possible using strains of animals breed for lab work. The only alternative is to use humans as test subjects, and although big pharm has been using the third world in this way I don't consider it ethical. So if you stand by your belief in no animal testing stop taking your medications and become a vegetarian. Otherwise your just a hypocrite.

Animal research is not fun. I have yet to meet a single person who enjoys it, although I will admit to having met the occasional person who seemed less sensitive than they ought to be (in my opinion). It's hard to gauge that, though. Most scientists have to distance themselves somehow, and I think that may be what's going on with some of the scientists I've viewed as being "less sensitive."

If you spend time working with animals, you will begin to notice their individual traits, you will develope affection for them, and you will feel remorse if they suffer pain or have to be sacrificed. I don't think the latest shampoo should be tested on unsuspecting bunnies, but there is, in my opinion, valid medical research which does require animal experimentation. Yeah, it sucks, but I don't have a better answer or solution.

As to work with apes, my understanding is that this is extremely limited. One of the caveats to non-human primate research is that you MUST allocate funds to provide for the caretaking of the ape for the remainder of its life. That comes out to $20-25,000 per year for the rest of its life. It isn't something done lightly.

And, for the record, the vets on staff which I have worked with are some of the kindest people I've known. They throw an absolute bitch-fit if the animal's meds are even 30 minutes off.