Many countries have outlawed research on chimps and now legislation has been filed to do that here. Scientists are not amused. From the story:
In the latest twist in the protracted debate over the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research, U.S. senators on 3 August introduced the Great Ape Protection Act, an identical bill to one that has been stuck in a House of Representatives committee for more than a year. The move comes on the heels of a letter sent by a who’s who of chimpanzee researchers to Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), that sharply criticizes the bill, warning that it “would put extreme and unreasonable restrictions on future chimpanzee research.” The matching bill would ban invasive research on the estimated 1000 “research” chimpanzees in the country that live in laboratories. A key issue is the definition of “invasive.” The bill would explicitly bar any research that “may cause death, bodily injury, pain, distress, fear, injury or trauma.”
The stealth animal rights group the Humane Society of the United States–of course–is involved:
The Humane Society of the United States, which helped draft the legislation, claimed in a press release that chimpanzees have “historically failed as a research model.”
Not true. Chimps were used very beneficially, as just one example, to create the hepatitis B vaccine. The scientists make an important point:
In April 2010, 171 researchers sent a letter to Francis Collins decrying the bill and expressing their “most profound concern about the impending loss of chimpanzees.” Their thoroughly referenced letter includes a citation of Chimpanzees in Research, a report published by the National Research Council in 1997 that advocated maintaining a self-sustaining population of research chimps. The report also concluded that chimp research “has led to numerous biomedical advances, including the development of a vaccine for hepatitis B virus.” The letter—signed by chimpanzee researchers from the most renowned universities in the country—asserts that “human-chimpanzee comparisons are essential for understanding the unique characteristics of human biology.” The letter further contends that recent chimp studies for the first time have identified “unique features of the human brain and have documented the unusual vulnerability of humans to a variety of disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, infectious diseases, cancer, and heart disease.
I covered this controversy in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. From the book:
A 2005 commentary written by primate researchers John VendeBerg and Stuart Zola in the science journal Nature demonstrated how such a universal prohibition could be deleterious to ameliorating serious human illnesses. Chimpanzees’ genomic similarity to humans—a major rationale, as we shall see, behind the GAP—is precisely the biological attribute that makes these animals “invaluable” for use in some medical experiments. One exciting example involves the development of revolutionary bioengineered substances known as “monoclonal antibodies” that offer tremendous potential to treat a wide range of human maladies, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and “virtually any disease caused by a viral infection.” Chimpanzees are essential to this research because unlike other animals, their immune systems do not attack these genetically engineered antibodies. Consequently, the experimental substance remains in the chimps’ blood for extended periods, permitting researchers to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of such interventions before commencing human trials.
Chimpanzees also are occasionally necessary in drug testing because they “predict…the time course of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of [experimental] drugs in the body more accurately than other animal models, including rats, dogs and other non-human primates.” But perhaps most compellingly, they are the only other animal capable of being infected with the human HIV-I virus, which for reasons not fully understood, does not usually make them ill. Thus, VendeBerg and Zola write, chimpanzees are “important for testing vaccines aimed at preventing HIV-I infection or reducing the virus load in infected individuals.”[i]
[i] John L. VandeBerg & Stuart M. Zola, “A Unique Biomedical Resource at Risk,” Nature 437 (September 1, 2005), pp. 30-32.
I think that scientists should have to justify using chimps by showing no other option offers the same potential benefits and that the research is essential to human welfare. But we should not ban research on chimps. The potential cost to human well being would be too high.
August 10th, 2010 | 2:43 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Don’t Outlaw Chimp Research–Keep It Rare » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/0mDMJ [...]
August 10th, 2010 | 3:59 pm
There are enough practical barriers to chimpanzee research to ensure that it isn’t done unnecessarily or frivolously. For one thing, they’re insanely expensive to purchase and maintain. They require specialized handlers, who work with them at great personal risk. I mean, we’re talking about an animal that can literally tear a human’s arm off.
Now that’s all before you get to the competitive grant application process, which demands maximum scientific benefit with minimal use of animals of any kind. I think it’s safe to say that grants that involve using primates of any kind face a far higher standard than, say, one using lab mice.
No work that can be effectively done without chimps is going to use them.
This is obviously a wedge issue created by animal rights activists as a path to outlawing all research using any primates, and from there to outlawing any animal research and testing whatsoever.
August 10th, 2010 | 5:27 pm
Hi Wesley. I agree with your recommendation that chimp research should not be outlawed and that it should be rare. Note, though, that this illustrates something about your expressions of human exceptionalism. Humans are not the only exceptional creatures. Although humans are exceptional among all creatures that we know of, animals like chimps are also exceptional among non-human creatures. Our exceptional categorization arises from a distinction in degree rather than a distinction in kind.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Hey, Lincoln: Long time no hear from. Glad you commented.
Not in the same sense. Chimps are magnificent and their intelligence and social needs–as we figured out and alone care about–means that based on animal welfare principles, their use should be rare. But they are not rights or duties bearing creatures, nor the other morally relevant attributes that we possess as part of human nature.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
Wesley: are chimps rational and self-aware creatures? Why doesn’t this qualify them for personhood which, as Christians know, is not limited to the species homo sapiens given that angels are also considered persons.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
No, they are not persons. They are animals.
August 11th, 2010 | 5:58 am
We should use severly disabled human who lack any sense of awareness instead. That would be much more ethical and likely to produce more accurate research results as they are member of our own species.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 11th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Precisely they tyranny of personhood theory, Fiona. Reject human exceptionalism and you have rejected universal human rights. Moreover, there aren’t enough of us to dehumanize and turn into lab rats to do that much good.
August 11th, 2010 | 10:13 am
I simply don’t care if chimps are, or are not good “research models” for humans. It’s simply immoral, to use chimps, our closest relatives, in this way. You’ve, frankly crossed a line, here, Wesley.
There can simply be no question, unless one is caught up in the grips of some heartless ideology, that chimps, who share about 99% of their DNA with us, are persons. They recognize themselves in mirrors, they can be taught rudimentary forms of sign language, and moreover, the history, of utilizing chimps in experimentation, has resulted in an overwhelming amount of suffering on the part of the chimps used. Do you care?
At one point, they were thought to be “good research models” for HIV. That turned out to be false. Look Wesley: chimps are simply too much like us. To continue to allow them to be experimented on, would be immoral, unless you think that only humans matter, a rather selfish view indeed.
It seems, that you took great offense, when Mathew Scully stated that you advocated using chimps for experimentation, when, in fact, you advocated monkeys, in your book. So clarify the issue, for us, please: is there ANY experiment, using chimps, that you would be against?
August 11th, 2010 | 10:55 am
I’m certainly glad, that you believe that this research should be rare Wesley. but what if it’s determined that, in order to reduce human suffering, it should NOT be rare?
I did not mean to sound harsh, in my previous comments, but chimps are too close to us, to morally justify using them at all. They’re closer to us, genetically, at least, than they are to gorillas, for example.
By the way, it simply won’t do, to assert that chimps are “animals” not persons. With respect, this is a rather intellectually lazy response, to an intellegent comment.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Sorry Wesley, but your assertion, from your book, that chimp experimentation is essential to HIV research, is now not supported. And the result, is that we have aging chimps, with HIV, having to be cared for, in sanctuaries.
Obviously, you support animal research. I profoundly disagree with that, but you’ve made a respectable case for it, in your latest book, and in your various articles, dealing with the subject.
But I hope, sincerely, that you will reconsider your support for chimp research, because of the considerable suffering that this causes. Obviously, you’re a decent man, who cares for animal welfare. This, in my judgment, regardless of where one stands, vis a vis animal rights, is fully within the relhm of animal welfare.
I didn’t want to get into this, but your posting, of chimp research, has made it relevant. You were, rightly, upset, that Micheal Scully, in his National Review review of your latest book, incorrectly, stated that you supported chimp research, when it was monkey research that was what you supported.
But, although you did not support using chimps, in this particular example, that Scully cited, you do, support using chimps, in concept, even though rarely.
So, although I support your defending yourself, against Scully’s, dishonest attack, you, frankly, have not been honest, completely, either. Anyone reading your replies to Scully, in NR, without reading your book, would get the false impression, that you’re against all chimp research, which you’re clearly not.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:14 pm
Outlaw it! I have severe, aggressive multiple sclerosis but I would sooner die than have a drug that’s been tested on a primate!
August 11th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
If chimps are outlawed what can we use? I’ve heard that we should use criminals…or maybe we should use humans that volunteer- if they die- oh well they signed a release.
I love animals but advocate for their use by humans in the most humane way possible. Chimps are ANIMALS. If they are so close to us why don’t we give them driver licenses and other things reserved for humans? I’m hearing arguments that they deserve the same rights- but it’s simple, they AREN’T humans.
Someone mentioned the Bible- it’s mentioned that animals were put here for human use….if we are going to pick apart the Bible for personal use I can do that too. It also states that we were put here to care for the animals- I don’t know a scientist that DOESN’T care for their animals and follow strict protocol to minimize suffering.
August 11th, 2010 | 7:11 pm
Don’t outlaw chimp research but keep it rare? Sounds like something your utilitarian pal Peter Singer would say.
August 11th, 2010 | 7:18 pm
Bret and Graeme,
Chimps are not people. They have similarities but they are not people. It is correct that using them for research is extremely difficult, so they will only be used when they can justify it. If you choose not to benefit from the medical knowledge we have for you, that is your right to choose. However, it is not your right to choose the life of a chimp over the life of my grandchild, my family member or even me.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:04 am
Mary: It’s not a matter of you, your grandchild, or the chimp. No one would advocate using a human in place of a chimp. The reason being, that humans are conscious, intelligent creatures, who possess rights. This same reasoning process is the basis for my argument that chimps should not be used.
These creatures behave in ways that are, well, hauntingly human. They’re not human, of course, but it simply does not matter to their moral status. They are conscious, feeling, and a good argument can be made that they also think, in a rudimentary way. After knowing this, to still insist on using chimps in painful experiments, is an assault on OUR dignity.
Part of what makes humans special, is our ability to bypass our selfishness, for the good of others.
When you state, Mary, that we should only use chimps, if it’s “justified”, well, that’s exactly what I’m disputing. It’s not morally justified.
Please remember, that humans and chimps have 99% of their DNA in common. That’s more than chimps have in common with gorillas! This information should really prompt us to re-think our old fashioned notions of us, and other animals being metaphysically so distinct.
When you talk about the medical information, that’s derived from chimp research, I don’t dispute its importance. But the moral objections, to this research, supercede the pragmatic medical benefits, derived from it.
Certianly, if one used humans, in this research, we would derive EVEN MORE benefits for other humans, but we rightly conclude that the moral concerns outweigh the medical benefits.
August 12th, 2010 | 7:07 am
Mary. Researching with primates is simply immoral. A tortured life for a sentient being whose IQ is high enough to demand that this cruelty be outlawed? I hope your family stays healthy but, if not, then I’m afraid research into a cure for their ailments ought to be conducted without the use of primates.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
It is unfortunate that ALL living things suffer and die. It is the fact of life. Keeping suffering to a minimum is essential. An animal is not and never will be equal to any human. Animals deserve kindness and good general welfare. They are not entitled to rights of a human scale. People of compassion understand this. Being Speciest is not being racist.
From the Urban Dictionary:
Speciest – Anyone who believes that certain species are above others. Animal rights activists think that most humans are speciest against animals like cows, and while it may be true, most of them are speciest against humans.
Me: I think if I had to kill a snail to save a human being, I would.
PETA Member: How dare you! That speciest! I would kill fifty humans with medieval torture devices just to spare a slug half a second of discomfort!
August 12th, 2010 | 8:07 pm
Why is HSUS still tax exempt??? If any other organization tried this the IRS would yank their exempt status! HSUS has paid off too many senators…
August 13th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
The Veganist Jihad wants to turn the entire human race into lab animals and run a world-wide experiment on all of us, by forcing us all to be Vegans. This being the case, they could hardly be said to object to a few hundred or a few thousand “undesireable” people, (i.e., “those who don’t agree with them), being used for medical experiments right now. Interestingly enough, there was this group of folks in Germany, about 50 years ago, who felt the same way. Fun fact: THEIR leader was a vegan, too.
August 14th, 2010 | 10:20 pm
Oh, come on, BADKarma, you can do better than that? Don’t you realize how fallacious it is, to compare animal rights activists with nazis?
Perhaps you’re being ironic? Just in case you’re serious, I ‘ll point out that your comparision is silly. The nazis also supported bans on smoking, and were rather fond of volkswagons. Are you, therefore, now for smoking, and against volkswagons?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact