Should primate experimentation be banned?

‘Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead in droves.’ When confronted about the controversial subject of Animal experimentation, scientists argue that this method of research has enabled them to make major advances in the medical world. Many examples are then thrown about, such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease. However, several medical historians have in fact argued that many of these discoveries were in fact due to clinical research and human autopsy.They argue that experimentation is justifiable as animals are of lesser intelligence to humans, however, as discussed below, this too is a flawed argument. The issue of primate experimentation is a highly controversial one with both sides arguing strongly for their cause. However, due to modern scientific advancements, it may be that primate experimentation is unnecessary and should now be banned. It has sometimes been the case that unreliable evidence produced by animal experimentation, has resulted in evidence produced by human testing to be discounted. For example, when a correlation between smoking and lung cancer was first discovered, animal tests were used to prove it. However, efforts to produce lung cancer in animals failed, and it was therefore believed that there was no link between smoking and cancer. It was said that ‘The failure of many investigators to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during fifty years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory.’ Due to this, warnings were delayed for years, resulting in many cancer related deaths. Similarly, during the 1940’s human clinical trials showed that exposure to asbestos causes cancer, however, due to this not being proven during animal trials, proper precautions were not implemented until decades later. We also delayed our understanding of polio, heart disease and diabetes because of animal testing. ‘animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death.’ An article from the prestigious British Medical Journal says ‘Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view.’ Reactions to drugs vary enormously in different species. For example, penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits. In fact, Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin commented ‘How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.’ An article in the British Medical Journal states that ‘because we share no common ancestry with other animals we know not whether we share similar reactions to new drugs.’ Therefore, what may be inactive in primates may be lethal in humans. ‘The rate of drug metabolism can vary greatly between human and non-human primate.’In As well as this, It is also a common view that Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Scientists argue that during experiments, they cause no more harm and suffering than absolutely necessary. Stating that laws such as the Animal (scientific procedures) Act, prevents unnecessary suffering. However, opposition argues that it would be very easy to become blasé in their treatment of animals. Working with them every single day would mean that soon they would stop being seen as living creatures, and simply be seen as an object of study which is disposable. Not only this, but many of the animals endure a great amount of suffering and stress simply from capture, not to mention the isolation, confusion and depression that they so often live with. In the wild, many primates are highly social, living in large groups and staying together for many years. However, for the purpose of experimentation, they are often put in a metal cage on their own with barely enough space to move. They have nothing that is natural to them, or anything to stimulate their minds. This, more often not, results in insanity; it is not uncommon to witness this in undercover footage. The animals will circle their cage for hours or repeat movements over and over. The Animal (scientific procedures) Act does indeed regulate the treatment of the animals, however, there are many loopholes in the law, and more often than not, it is simply the bare minimum that it adhered to. In many cases the act is simply ignored and nothing is done about it. ‘The RSPCA believes that the consistent infringements of the act are unacceptable and recommends that such infringements are dealt with more forcefully by the Home Office, either by immediate revocation of the license of the perpetrator or by prosecution by the Director of Prosecutions.’It has also been said that ‘the only measure that would completely protect primates, and ensure more productive medical research, is an outright ban.’ Zoologist-Russel and microbiologist-Burch 1959 book principles of humane experimental technique, first introduced the three R’s, introduction of the concept of alternatives. The three Rs are now a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. The first of the three R’s is reduction; this says that scientists should aim to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, either through the improvement of experimental techniques or through the sharing of information with other researchers. The second of the three R’s is refinement. This is where scientists are urged to refine the experiment or refine the way that the animals are cared for in order to reduce their suffering. This can occur through a number of changes, such as the use of less invasive techniques, for example, using x-rays, rather than cutting animals open. It can also be achieved through better medical care, such as the administration of pain medication, or better living conditions. Finally there is replacement; scientists are urged to replace animal experimentation with alternative techniques as much as possible. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, for example experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals, using computer models and simulations statistical modelling, Studying human volunteers, using epidemiological studies, Replacement eyes, for example, instead of using rabbit eyes, they use eye balls of cows and chickens that have already died. There is also artificial skin that is being developed for the testing of things such as toiletries and household products Some argue that animal experimentation is justified because animals are of less intelligence than humans and do not possess logic. This is one of the most flawed arguments that can be used, if this was the case then it would be just as ethical to experiment on humans that were of lesser intelligence, someone with learning difficulties for example. Not only that, but it has been said that pigs have the same intelligence level as a toddler; therefore, using the intelligence argument, it would be ethical to use toddlers. Not to mention that primates show very high levels of intelligence and logic, sharing many traits with humans. In Japan, a group of macaques established a culture when they began washing their food. This proved that they were highly intelligent and they share knowledge just like humans. There are countless reports and stories of how primates has shocked scientists by demonstrating new levels of intelligence. It is said that, ‘If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalist for the same reasons’ Similarly, some people stand by the notion that ‘an animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.’‘ Professor Charles R. Magel says that animal experimentation ‘rests on a logical contradiction’, he says that ‘Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Dr. Christian Barnard, a South African surgeon who performed the first ever open heart transplant has spoken of his experiences with primates. He spoke of how he purchased two male chimps from a colony in Holland who lived next to each other in cages for many months before one of them was used as a heart donor. When the donor was put to sleep he cried incessantly and once his body was removed, the other chimp wept and was inconsolable for days. After seeing this, Dr. Christian Barnard vowed to never experiment with such sensitive creatures ever again. How absurd to say that all beasts are machines, devoid of knowledge and feeling.’ Prior to the Great Ape Project (GAP), apes such as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos were used in experiments. Now they are protected and given basic rights, such as the right to life and the right not to be tortured (torture includes medical experiments). In 1996, the British Animal Procedures Committee recommended new measures for dealing with NHPs. The use of wild-caught primates was banned, except where "exceptional and specific justification can be established"; specific justification must be made for the use of old world primates. Britain, Austria and Netherlands banned cosmetic testing in 2003 however prior to this 'It was claimed there were no alternatives to animal tests on cosmetics... 'But when these tests were banned, the industry quickly found alternatives. Banning primate experiments would concentrate scientists' minds in exactly the same way ‘Non-human primates are thought to be amongst the most intelligent animals and are most likely to have human like thought.’small steps are being taken because deep down people know that it’s wrong. Sexism, racism have been phased out and seen as bad, now apes are off limits, soon other animals will follow and spec seism will be a thing of the past. There have been many controversies around the use of primate experimentation, all of which are discovered either by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUVA). One case that caught the media attention was the case of Britches the macaque monkey. Britches was born into a breeding colony at the university of California. Straight from birth he was removed from his mother and had his eyelids sewn shut. He then had an electronic device, which was almost the same weight as him, attached to his head. The justification for this was that it was part of a three year sensory deprivation study designed to study the behavioral and neural development of monkeys reared with a sensory substitution device. Britches was eventually rescued by the Animal Liberation Front. Similarly, in an investigation carried out by the BUVA, it was discovered that marmosets were getting the top of their heads sawn off in order to induce strokes in Cambridge University’s primate testing labs. They were then left overnight without any veterinary care because the staff were not paid to work through the night. Prior to the strokes, the marmosets were trained to perform certain behavioral and cognitive tasks, they were then retested after they had suffered brain damage to determine how they had been affected. It was alleged that the monkeys were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, water was withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours. Another shocking story that caught the media’s attention was that of some of the atrocities that occur in the animal testing center, Covanance. Here monkeys were shown to lead miserable lives, living alone in small metal cages with hardly any natural light. They were constantly subjected to high levels of noise, either from staff members shouting or from the radio. It was alleged that during an autopsy, for which the monkeys were supposed to be dead, three monkeys pushed themselves up onto their elbows gasping for breath after their eyeballs had been removed and there intestines were in the process of being removed. It was claimed that this was simply a reflex, however it was suggested that it was not a reflex, but "botched euthanasia performed by inadequately trained personnel. In the wild, non-human primates(from here simply primates) are known to have a highly social life, macaques, the most commonly used primate for experimentation, live in troops of up to 100 members and can recognize complex relationships. Primatologists have proven that when shown photographs of family members, the monkeys are able to recognize them. ‘A young female rhesus monkey stays with her mother and sisters for life, forming "one of the tightest and most complicated social systems known in the animal kingdom,"During an average day in the wild, primates will hunt for food, swim, play and travel for many miles. However, in Laboratories, primates are deprived of all that is natural to them. They are confined to metal cages, usually alone, with barely enough room to move. They are given nothing to stimulate them, except for occasionally a cheap plastic toy. This, more often than not results in lab induced insanity. ‘Research shows that 90 percent of primates in laboratories exhibit abnormal behaviors that are caused by the physical abuse, psychological stress, social isolation, and barren confinement that they are forced to endure’ It is not uncommon for laboratory primates to pace in their cages and rock backwards and forwards. ‘They even engage in acts of self-mutilation, including tearing out their own hair or biting their own flesh.’ During their time in laboratory’s, primates are subjected to toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation, not to mention Maternal-deprivation experiments, Invasive brain experiments, Military experiments and training, Pharmaceutical tests. One author describes animal experimentation as ‘tough, rigorous, rational, impersonal, competitive and unemotional.’The are held in restraining chairs or forced into restraining tubes in order for experiments to be carried out, not being able to ove to protect themselves is highly distressing. Sir Thomas Aquinas claimed that only Humans have a soul and are capable of rationality, and therefore non- human animals were merely objects as they do not have a soul. They existed only for human needs and were bereft of moral status A recent review of primate research carried out by the BUAV found that primates are being subjected to experiments that cause pain, trauma and misery. It was revealed that despite the special protection given to primates, they are still being used in experiments that are considered to be unnecessary or where alternatives are available and would provide better results. Such experiments are usually very invasive and can be highly distressing for the primates. For example at the University of Oxford, researchers wanted to investigate whether the source of ‘afterimages’ is in the eye or in the brain. In this shocking experiment, they used two monkeys who were anaesthetised and then kept paralysed with a poison throughout the study. Their skulls were sawn open and electrodes were inserted into their brains to record brain activity. Their eyes were forced open and focused on images on a TV screen for testing. They were kept in this paralysed state for five continuous days during which they were kept alive through intravenous fluids. At the end of the experiment, the monkeys were killed. This study was apparently done to confirm data already obtained humanely from humans In July 2011, another review of the use of primates, led by Sir Patrick Bateson showed that one in 10 projects involving primates ended with no medical or social benefits and the justification for carrying out these experiments was not convincing.The Bateson report was put into effect to assess whether or not research on primates was necessary, he said that "Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit (of research on monkeys).The findings of the report showed that there was "little direct evidence of medical benefit". The chief of the BUAV described the report as "a chilling insight into primate research in the UK.’The report followed the Weatherall Report 2006 which also found difficulty finding evidence to support the idea that primate experimentation benefits medicine. Primate experimentation is often reaching the headlines lately, people nowadays are genrally against the idea and this is evident by the boycotting of companies that aid primate experimentation. Recently, upon discovering that Air France were intending to transport 60 primates to a research centre, thousands of calls and letters were sent urging the company not to. As a result, Air France decided to withdraw from transporting the animals and this has made other companies think about their own policies. It has been reported in the media that many scientists are worried as many transport companies are refusing to take part in the transport of the animals. It seems to be that animal experimentation, especially involving primates is outdated and unnecessary. There are many available alternatives to experimentation which are both time saving and more accurate. Primates are among the most intelligent and sensitive creatures, highly social and highly active, they are arguably the most affected of all creatures that are experimented on. It is questionable even whether primate experimentation even provides any scientific advantages, with many claims that it even hinders progression. It is unreasonable to condone the suffering of primates for the benefit of humans, it has been asked ‘is it a greater wrong to kill a person than a non-person, and if so, does this mean that human life is more morally significant than animal life?’ With improvements such as GAP, bans on wild primates and many companies such as Air France not condoning experimentation, it may just be that slowly, primate experimentation is being phased out.