"I would like to suggest that to be consistent you would have to reject all research that has been undertaken to date using primates."

It is one thing to suggest that, but you would need to actually argue it as well. What is it that is inconsistent with an end to research on primates while still making use of knowledge gained from prior research.

The moral premise operating is the capacity for suffering.

"...it’s not simply similarity to humans but a shared capacity to suffer that should guide our concern for an animal’s welfare."

If future actions are argued to from this premise, the past suffering and interests of animals no longer exposed to such are not part of any moral calculation.

The interests are those who would derive benefit from said research. If the research already exists and no further harm is being done by making use of it's findings, what is the moral argument against it.

From a purely emotive stance, it seems even worse to consider that these animals have suffered for no good reason at all.

"It would be hypocritical to call for an end to this research while deriving the benefits of research from the past."

So, you argue that the potential charges of hypocrisy outweigh the suffering of animals. It is Better to continue research and the associated animal suffering because that is a lesser moral evil than the psychological pain of being considered a hypocrite.

Really?

Yes, really.

Let me start this by suggesting that I have no problem with animal research. I have been involved in it myself. That is why we have ethics committees - and despite the emotive and evidence-free assertions in the article, I happen to believe they do good work and provide an important oversight for researchers.

However, the way this has been presented by the authors suggests that the past (and current) use of primates for scientific research is unethical and immoral, and should cease. Whilst I suggest that to single out primates is anthropomorphic, and there is no valid argument why primates deserve special attention over - say - mice, let's leave that aside for the moment.

The 'immoral and unethical' use of primates can very easily be equated with the experiments on humans by the nazis. And there is an ongoing ethical debate about whether it is proper to use the 'tainted' findings of those experiements. You can easily find differences in opinion on that issue:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

http://www.cedarville.edu/personal/sullivan/cedarethics/papers/2011/wilson.pdf

So yes, you might suggest that it is better to use the findings of past research to ensure that the animals did not suffer for no good reason. And the same case can be made about nazi human research. Where do you stand on that one?

"to single out primates is anthropomorphic"

I agree. If we are generally talking about animal suffering, it is a little arbitrary to end at primates. However, I think the author does go someway to acknowledging this:

"While it’s not simply similarity to humans but a shared capacity to suffer that should guide our concern for an animal’s welfare, non-human primates are granted somewhat special consideration in the laboratory environment compared to other animals."

- She acknowledges that we give special treatment to primates, but at the same time asserts the underlying principle. i.e, capacity to suffer.

"And the same case can be made about nazi human research. Where do you stand on that one? "

- While I do not condone the manner in which the research was done, I am not directly opposed to using results derived in such a manner if they can be of benefit in reducing future suffering. A truth is not less true because the discovery process was morally objectionable, or reprehensible in this case.

However, the case has important differences: There are people, most notably the Jewish community, who experience ongoing suffering as a result of these atrocities, even where not having been immediately exposed to them. I think it is entirely reasonable appropriate to take their interests and heed their objections.

"Yes, really."

So, getting back to the yes really.

If we accept, merely for the sake of argument, the premise that an animals ability to suffer compels us to consider them in our moral reckoning, why is it hypocritical to use older research garnered from experiments on animals?

We are:
1) not the cause of the initial suffering.
2) not contributing to, or condoning, ongoing suffering.
3) are using such research to alleviate further suffering.
4) there are conceivably no interests which are further harmed by the use of said research.

The argument is a utilitarian one premised on suffering. In order to show that it is hypocritical it seems you have show how using that research causes further harm and whose interests are harmed.

Geoffrey

The quote you provided directly undermines and contradicts the point you are trying to make.

"While it’s not simply similarity to humans but a shared capacity to suffer that should guide our concern for an animal’s welfare, non-human primates are granted somewhat special consideration in the laboratory environment compared to other animals."

To me, this is very clearly suggesting that the authors believe that primates are somehow special in comparison to other animals. The 'capacity to suffer' has, on many occasions, been related to sentience, and the argument is usually been made that it is 'higher order animals' which suffer, while others do not. This is biologically nonsensical, and I don't agree that it is the case, and to be fair, neither do you, so let's move on.

I am not sure if you looked at the links I provided, but if you did so you would see exactly the same argument that you are making here, and there are others who disagree with that position and suggest that to use 'tainted' research only opens the door for such research to be used in the future. Now I am not saying that I agree with that, but it is a reasonable position and one which can be equally applied to primate research. Perhaps I am being a provocative devil's advocate, but the point needs to be made and it needs to be addressed if we are talking 'morals' and 'ethics'. It cannot be dismissed with mere hand waving.

You have suggested that there are descendants of nazi human experiment victims who still suffer because of what went before. That is a fair enough point. But if we are claiming some special significance for primates, can not the same point be made about the offspring of primate experiments? If they possess sentience, would they not be aware of the suffering of their parents and be similarly traumatised? You (or the authors) cannot claim that primates are like humans and therefore we should not experiment on them, and in the very next sentence dismiss primates as being unlike humans and not suffering the consequences of earlier research.

I think we agree on many of the points raised in this article. It is a difficult question, and I do not pretend to know all the answers. The difference is, that the authors DO pretend to know the answers - primate research is bad and must stop. It is far more complex than that, and I think this article is far to simplistic and ignores many of the issues.

There is a joke that goes: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"

Answer: "Don't worry. they will tell you" (because they want to spread the gospel of their morals to us immoral carnivores/omnivores)

"To me, this is very clearly suggesting that the authors believe that primates are somehow special in comparison to other animals."

I don't agree there. The first half of the quote again:

" it’s NOT simply similarity to humans but a shared capacity to suffer that should guide our concern for an animal’s welfare"

1) primates should NOT be treated specially as a matter of principle.
2) The fact that they are in practice, as described by the author, is simply a statement of fact.

"suggest that to use 'tainted' research only opens the door for such research to be used in the future."

- I do have a problem with the notion of something being morally tainted. We do tend to have reaction to objects and ideas related to moral transgressors. I recall examples of people being unwilling to wear a jumper that belonged to a mass murder, that sort of thing.

I assume the second part refers to the slippery slope and the idea of the research methodology as opposed to the output. I agree that the erosion of certain moral barriers can lead in certain contexts to further erosion. I guess that this really speaks to the requirement for regular and broad moral engagement, especially in the light of the expansion of knowledge and technology possibility and the related move out of the sway or the religious hegemony in morality that typified previous eras. (long and unwieldy sentence, that one)

"if we are claiming some special significance for primates, can not the same point be made about the offspring of primate experiments?"

- This seems a reasonable point but seems countered by the reality. The absence of recorded language, historical transmission, inter-group communications seems to exclude that possibility. In the future it may need to be re-examined.

"You ... cannot claim that primates are like humans and therefore we should not experiment on them, and in the very next sentence dismiss primates as being unlike humans and not suffering the consequences of earlier research."

- Agree but i think the objection relies on an equivocation or erroneous interpretation. When we say "like" in this context we mean similar in certain respects but NOT equivalent in all respects. The primary "likeness" is in the ability to suffer, and I think we are agreed that the limiting of this to primates is arbitrary and emotional as opposed to factual.

"It is far more complex than that, and I think this article is far to simplistic and ignores many of the issues."

- I would agree but would argue in defence that this is a forum which tends towards the assertion and basic overview as opposed to the full treatment these things ultimately require.

The article does however provide the stepping off point for a...Conversation. boom tish!

The vegan joke reminds me of a line from the Simpsons: "I'm a level 5 vegan - I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

Hi, Monika

Yes, I think that data registries could be useful here.

The same would go for human subjects - neither people nor animals should be subject to tangible risk unless the research has a good chance of showing something useful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBX18maUiM

This treatment was invented by a group that included Dr. John Donoghue. He started his research in monkeys, in the same part of the brain (motor cortex) as the paper mentioned by Monica. What was learned in those experiments is now being used to help paralysed people recover some independence. My point? Many papers don't report on cures, they repersent basic research to understand how the body works. They may seem of no use to you, but without them, no one can proceed to develop such amazing things. Rob, by taking one study only, form what you say is a series that is going on for many years, and picking one statement, you may be doing a big injustice. You look to me like ayoung person full of strong opinions, who is seeing a complex issue as black and white. Have some faith, the people doing research are good human beings like you and me, they just see the probelm from a different perspective.

Sandra what do you say to those who make the claim that there is almost always a more humane method than animal experiments that have better more valid outcomes for human health? Also what is your opinion of animal experiments on eg. Cosmetics, household sprays and cleaning products etc.

Spare a thought for the monkeys used in US experiments to confirm the obvious: that added sugar (50% of which is "fructose") is a key driver of obesity and diabetes in humans.

US scientists recently produced diabetes in Rhesus monkeys within 6-12 months simply by letting them drink 75grams of fructose at their leisure each day via a 15% mix of standard Kool Aid in 500ml of water (http://www.kraftbrands.com/koolaid/ ; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00298.x/abstract ).

That particular study was only a first stage, seeking to confirm (again?) that the Rhesus monkey primate is a suitable model to substitute for humans instead of the usual rats and mice. Yes, it is. The Rhesus monkeys involved did indeed become chunky and (some) diabetic: “…within a 6- to 12-month period of time, consumption of a high-fructose diet in monkeys produces many of the features of metabolic syndrome in humans, including central obesity, insulin resistance, inflammation, and dyslipidemia. In a subset of animals, the high-fructose diet also results in overt T2DM [diabetes]. Thus, this rhesus monkey model of diet-induced obesity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia is directly translatable to metabolic syndrome in humans” (pp.247).

Interestingly, the University of Sydney's most-influential nutritionists - who operate a business stamping low-GI sugar and other sugary products as Healthy - claim in "the diabetes and pre-diabetes handbook" (sic) that “alarmist reports about fructose” involve only “rats and mice fed excessive quantities” (p.180).

Things clearly have moved on. The animals shown to suffer from human-sized fructose intakes now are a bit closer to home than teensy-weensy mice and rats.

Yes, one could conduct an improved experiment by having another group of monkeys nearby not consuming Kool Aid (think the children’s drink “Tang”), but that's already been done in the sense that those particular monkeys had lived a long life in captivity and had remained healthy, until they started drinking child-sized serves of Kool Aid.

In any case, it is already blindingly obvious that added sugar eaten in unnaturally large quantities is a key driver of global obesity and diabetes (http://www.australianparadox.com/part-2 ).

Should these monkey studies go ahead at great cost to hapless monkeys - to further nail down what seems obvious - or should responsible doctors across the globe start saying clearly to anyone trending towards obesity and diabetes that they must eliminate added sugar from their diet (immediately)?

Well put, Sandra. It is hard to argue that research should only show direct clinical benefit, as the basic research is required first. And, when it comes to brain connections, I can see a reason for wanting to use a primate model rather than rodents.

It still comes down to minimising animal use, minimising suffering, and ensuring that no animal dies without the work having a good chance of adding to important knowledge. It does appear, from looking at the marmoset research, that Burman's team IS producing useful data.

There is still a lot to be discovered about brain function and disease. How does one get to the clinical research without doing the basic research first?

Sue and Sandra. Do our species have the right to make that decision to sacrifice a fellow primates life and freedom to gain knowledge or health benefits for humans.

Rob, this is where I say that you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, and that your arguments did not do much to change mine. IN fact, maybe you don't notice this, but the things you write come across as rather cold. It is like hearing a general speaking of acceptable causalities before starting a battle. You know that unless animal research continues, people who are paralysed/ have heart disease/ have multiple sclerosis/ are blind (pick your disease) will in 10 years still be still be suffering as much as they do now, but still think that the cost of having a go at trying to understand these diseases and maybe, just maybe, trying to improve things a bit is unacceptable. It's like saying, well, some people will be denied a chance to get better, but that's OK, because it is the inevitable price of doing the "right" thing. They are the acceptable causalities. For me the main flaw in your argument is basically equate people to animals. Here is our fundamental difference: I believe that in the case of animal research the benefits or potential benefits DO justify the harm done.

I honestly don't see what talking about potentially experimenting on human prisioners have to do with this. A rat or a monkey is not the same as someone's brother, mother, friend, no matter what kind of convoluted argument you want to make. We don't go out and kill a person that annoys us, but I can easily do that to a cockroach. If I am hungry I can go to Sainsbury's and buy some cuts from a cow someone killed. However, I couldn't (and wouldnt' want to) eat my neighbour even if I hated her. Yet insects and cows they are made of DNA and proteins, and have a brain, too. Where do you draw the line, and if so, why?

I am a bit surprised by the statistics. Can you provide a source for the information that Australia is the fourth biggest used of experimental animals in the world? Also, the marmoset brain study that was linked from within this article used one female and two male adult marmosets. Is this "one of the worst excesses and biggest numbers"?

As for the uncertainty of the benefits: The only certain thing is that, by deciding not to try something, there will be no progress. Yes, unlike in the movies some research sometimes ends up going down a wrong track, and no practical outcome appears. I think that even in this case, this will at least alert other researchers not to pursue this, and try something else.

To conlcude an equally lengthy reply, you can perhaps notice that your arugments fired me up a bit, and I apologise in advance if something does not come out as it should. I agree that unethical research should not be done, but don't see anything in your post to convince me that in the particular case of research on animals your ethical viewpoint is the correct one. In fact, it seems very unethical for you to try to argue in favour of a position that will mean extending the suffering for other people.

"I am sure you would be glad if someone had developed it, even if it involved illegal experiments on non-consenting humans."

Whoa! is this how you tackle all your "philosophical" arguments- by insulting and bullying people who disagree?

And I thought that this site was monitored to avoid personal attacks. If this is the standard of the conversation, this will be my last posting.

Robert, I echo here the question posed by one of the other people who replied to your article: why exactly should anyone pay attention to your strange arguments? What exactly do you teach in Melbourne University? I noticed that your reply never answered the question about what are your qualifications...

Robert, and Denise; I won't go point by point, but there is one thing you might consider. I am a vetereinarian and I have worked with wild monkeys in both Africa and South America. Even though I can follow the details of the drugs and surgical procedures I can't, as I said, pretend that I can understand the entire context behind those papers. My question to you was to what extent you can provide an informed view of those papers. As I tried to point out there were some basic mistakes- you mixed intracortical microstimulation with electric shocks to the head, and so on- something I happen to know about entirely due to my condition. Maybe we should all be all a bit acknowledging of limitations in our knowledge, and try to give the benefit of doubt to others who have studied these topics in more detail.

You reinforce my point. Some people are unable to feel compassion beyond their kin. For a society to move towards halting animal experimentation people are more likely to relate to their fellow primates than eg. Rodents or reptiles.

You have also made an unfounded assumption that the horror for a Palestinian is greater than that of an animal in a laboratory experiment.

Denise:

If an animal in a laboratory experiment in a laboratory experiment suffers the horrors to which the Palestinians have been subjected to over the past 60 odd years, then it is time all such laboratories, whatever good they may do, were closed down!

1: experiments, I assume, are conducted on only a few of the animals in each facility.
2: I assume that the experiments are structured. That they have a beginning and an end.
3: that the husbandry of the research animals is of high quality: ie the animals are well housed, well fed, not subjected to ongoing terror inducing tactics.
4: that random slaughter/destruction of the population is not a routine event.

Further, in the unlikely event that the above is not observed, I doubt, for I cannot ‘know’, that the animals do not understand each and all of the above events are part of their future reality.

The reality for the Palestinians, in the West Bank and especially in Gaza are subjected to the opposite of the above, and much, much, more, more horrible, more vicious. The difference between the ‘better’ times and the worst, for there are no ‘good’ times, are only a matter of degree.

Peter you need to read more about animal experimentation both now and in the past. Your assumptions are incorrect. I gather you assume humans are more important than animals. What is your philosophical reasoning behind this?
I also wonder what area of consultation you are involved in?

People, particularly kids welfare ahead of an animal? Absolutely!

I have read of experimentation, the points listed earlier still stand.

Area of competence? Mechanical engineering.

Peter. Can you explain why you believe humans are more important than animals?

Denise:
I didn’t say that humans were more important than animals.

I was making the point that the vast majority of people do not care about animal welfare generally, nor for the welfare of other people, or groups of people.

Further, I was making the point that lab animals in general, suffer relatively short periods of pain, as opposed to a human group such as the Palestinians who have been systematically abused, murdered, raped, imprisoned, starved, denied medical supplies and medical attention for some 60 years. I propose further that a human population in this situation suffers more, in that they understand that their situation will not improve until death puts an end to it.

I did not suggest that immediate physical pain inflicted upon a human is more severe than it would be for an animal subjected to the treatment.

Yes, I would protect a child from an animal. An adult? Would depend upon what the adult was doing to cause the attack, if indeed it was provoked.

Humans for lab experiments? I could provide a list of those for whom I would have no sympathy, and lose no sleep over.

Peter, I suggest you have a look at the current WSPA website photos of experiments being carried out on a domestic cat. We are not talking here about the right to defend a child against an animal attack or the slaughter of an animal for food and skin as primitive societies had to do for survival. Animals have been tortured and abused for in various ways for hundreds of years and modern experiments torture animals often from birth to death.it is not limited to a few animals or to short term experiments as you suggest in an earlier letter. I would hope that modern knowledge gives us greater insight into the way animals like humans feel terror and pain. There may be another site where your can discuss the plight of Palestinians but we are not discussing here whether animal torture is more or less excusable than the torture of humans. They are both inherently unethical in my opinion. but on this site we are discussing question of whether or not the torture of animals in the ( frequently invalid) experiments for human gain including those for the marketing of such products as shampoos and hairsprays is ethical or not.

PS. " Humans for lab experiments? I could provide a list of those for whom I would have no sympathy and lose no sleep over ".Extraordinary that you would think it ok in your subjective opinion to experiment on certain human beings. Jews perhaps? I am lost in the jungle of your tangled arguments.