Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Rule Would Drastically Restrict Chimp Research
New rules for labs that use chimpanzees as test subjects may be on the horizon. From the New York Times blog: "The Fish and Wildlife Service proposal came in response to a petition filed in 2010 by the Jane Goodall Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and other groups. It would require permits for interstate commerce involving any chimpanzees, or for what the law calls 'taking,' which could be anything from harassment to major harm to something as simple as obtaining a blood sample. And those permits, Mr. Ashe said, would be granted only if the action could be shown to benefit the survival of the species.
If the new rule is enacted, it will be a major success for animal welfare groups, a grave disappointment for some scientists and another sign of the profound changes over the last half-century in the way animals are used and imagined in science and popular culture." The L.A. Times lauds the proposed rule change in an editorial.
Leave the chimps alone. In fact, we should dedicate a greater share of the world to the rest of the planet's creatures, and that includes limiting the harmful effects of our pollution and industry not because of politics but simply because we have such a precious and finite resource in this jewel of the Earth and the delicate beauty of Life.
In fact, most of the roughly 1,000 chimps held at biomedical laboratories are not being used.
I'd be curious why this is - already too much regulation? The article goes on to say that they hope to pass them on to shelters. I'd certainly hope that's the case if they're not being utilized
Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
...for the biological and biomedical research industries of other countries.
Inhuman practices by research groups gives science a bad name, even if you feel it is mere public perception. This will help science more that it hurts it given advances in simulation and lab grown tissue methods of research. The more social traction we can get the better.
Oh, the article is about research on chimps, not by chimps. Guess I should have read it first.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The fact that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is involved makes me suspect there might be something more to this story than just activist opposition to research involving primates. That association tends to not be very political, and instead is focused more on best practices for zoos, and how to combat things like poaching for the pet or traditional-medicine industries.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Leave the chimps alone. In fact, we should dedicate a greater share of the world to the rest of the planet's creatures, and that includes limiting the harmful effects of our pollution and industry not because of politics but simply because we have such a precious and finite resource in this jewel of the Earth and the delicate beauty of Life.
This is about infinite resource of furry beautiful creatures bred specifically for the purpose of (often) having short unpleasant painful life, for the sake of the possibility (patents permitting and money exchanged) of saving...or preventing damage to humans...Discuss.
This has nothing to do with pollution, or the misuse of the planets finite resources. Its about everything from research on dogs means diabetics today don't die, or humans don't do blind by spaying shampoo in baby rabbits eyes (the fact that the discussion is about chimps at all annoys me...as they are prettier). Its not pretty, its ugly science. The only real question is the validity of that science.
I'm happy to see those rejoicing in this sort of ruling volunteering as test subjects themselves.
What?
If chimps are found a use in science, that would do more for their survival than any preservation program. This regulation shouldn't cover chimps bred in captivity.
> The only real question is the validity of that science.
Also the moral price of that science. The discussion is about chimps instead of rabbits because the evidence all points to chimps being almost as sapient as us, the rabbits... not so much. And sapience is pretty much the only thing we can point to when trying to claim humans are "better" than other animals. Take away that yardstick and we may as well be experimenting directly on humans.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Why use chimps when politicians are so plentiful? As a side benefit, politicians may be biologically closer to humans thus lab resluls may be more applicable.
... Ham would say about all this.
Seriously, fuck off back to your limited view of the world and inability to respect that other people have differing opinions. But no, YOU have the answer because YOU have the ability to make the "tough decisions."
oooh, 666 in your nick, you a real badman tough guy.
The correlation to humans of results obtained from vivisection on any animals (including chimps) has always been questionable at best.
The reasons vivisection is still conducted comes down to 3 points:
1) Inflicting suffering on animals is unfortunately relatively cheap compared to more humane methods, even though the humane methods can produce better results.
2) Nearly all scientists that already perform vivisection simply don't want to adapt from the techniques they already are most familiar with, regardless of the consequent elimination of animal suffering.
3) The legislation covering the release of new products basically assumes vivisection and isn't sufficiently flexible to encourage or even accommodate alternative methods.
http://www.twainquotes.com/Vivisection.html
Also the moral price of that science. The discussion is about chimps instead of rabbits because the evidence all points to chimps being almost as sapient as us, the rabbits... not so much
Chimps are not human...or even nearly human(sentient?). They are perhaps genetically closer to us which means they are better to test on than rabbits. Personally I would like a ban on testing fluffy rabbits...and more testing on chimps, as it seems less wasteful.
Ironically we already do trials on humans, even in progressive countries, which are done by those who have no other means of income, and with no understanding of the risks involved. I actually think that is morally wrong.
There are 7 BILLION of poor people on this planet with 150 MILLION more per year being popped out annually.
Why not pay some of these folks to be experimental subjects?
Isn't that what the poor is for? Exploitation?
I mean, if those people had anything of value to give or produce, they'd be wealthy.
Simple economics.
And I have a solution for them - something of value they DO have - their bodies.
Free Market Economy! The savior of endangered species!
Replace chimp with politician and see how fast things change.
The average intelligence of the government would double?
I have included the parent quote as I am astonished at the stupidity. I suspect everyone were is of the opinion that the problem with politicians is that whatever the politics, they are generally greedy and self serving...and they are (generally...ignoring political families) defiantly not stupid.
Ironically this is about *testing* Corporations would love nothing more than to do less...as its expensive and delays product to markets, and would love an excuse to skip killing chips...and then just pay of a few underprivileged people who have temporary permeate physical and mental damage and death.
This is about politicians protecting us with unpopular choices...until now.
i don't see why we would want to hold back chimp scientists from doing their research?
I think chimps should be able to research any field of science they want. Just because some congressman went and saw Planet of the Apes doesn't mean that we should restrict them in such a way.
Yes, the end justifies the means. I like your style.
Yeah, leave chimps alone. Stick with unborn human fetuses. That's morally acceptable for the lot of you.
Learn what site you're on.
sudo chmod 660 for you :P
Do they restrict research on chimps or by chimps?
Which species?
And that is a strange phrase. I cannot think of any research that helps the survival of either Humans or Chimps.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
They're vastly overpopulated, and a much closer genetic match to our own species.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
There are two ways to measure stupidity of ones decisions. The first is to disagree with ones actions. This can be a legitimate measure if the judging party has sufficient knowledge and experience. You're right in saying that most of our media and the general public really don't qualify to do so (unfortunately). The second is to disagree with the outcome. Based on outcome, I'd say the US government is psychotic. This either means that the legislative bodies as a whole are morons, or that they are too corrupt individually and too unwieldy as a group, or it means that the key leaders are idiots.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Instead of using Chimps in the drug testing, let's use Politicians. That way we can be sure that no potentially intelligent life forms are being abused.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
What this likely does is increase the cost of owning *any* chimp, for *any* purpose, including conservation, in the US. And decrease the benefit.
Most will be sold off abroad where the laws aren't so stringent. The conservationist sympathizers will feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, because all the chimps *they see* will be "retired", but most of the chimps affected end up with worse lives.
Your post reminded me about how Rhinos are endangered due to the black market value of their horn, the sale of which was made completely illegal in order to protect them...
There's numerous people who argue that if you legalized the sale of non-lethally harvested horns* from ranched Rhinos, their endangered status would go away because the black market would essentially be no more.
*Rhino horn is essentially fused hair; it grows back!
I don't read AC A human right
I truly believe that if an alien civilization were to come to Earth in order to study life here, that they would come to different conclusions than you. You tacitly assume that blacks and whites are the same species. What makes you so sure that this is correct, or that this assumption is objective in any way? You're post is tainted by cultural bias that has nothing to do with objetive taxonmy. Don't be so sure that an alien scientific community would harbor your cultural assumptions.
There is a strong argument to be made that blacks and whites are not of ths same species, related perhaps, but the same? Not likely when evaluated from a position free of cultural bias. Indeed, even within our accecepted system of taxonomy, there are species of birds that are considered distinct even though these species are actually closer to each other in acestory than blacks and whites.
Your understanding of science and biology seems to be stuck some time in the 19th century, and your terminology is intended to tie legitimate research to Nazi methods, which involved cutting people open without anesthesia.
Researchers go out of their way to treat chimps as well as possible and keep them comfortable, not just because they actually tend to get attached to the animals, but also because chimps are expensive and because discomfort destroys research results. There is no legislation requiring "vivisection" of chimps, there is no legitimate research meeting the definition of "vivisection" being performed on chimps in the US. When chimps undergo surgery, it's done with great care under anesthesia.
The situation is different for small mammals like mice and rats, in that they are deliberately hurt while conscious for certain kinds of research. But that seems no different from the kind of suffering we inflict on the same species through traps and poisons. And it pales in comparison to the pain and suffering that is inflicted on food animals, and in particular food animals killed according to some religious rituals.
While I am not in favor of harming animals for the sake of harming them. This statute if it goes into effect is a two sided coin. Many of the treatments that we have for human beings were first perfected on animals. Those same treatments also benefit animals. Right now, people, right or wrong, spend millions of dollars on various treatments for their pets that are basically the results of animal testing on the way to perfecting treatments for humans. If you take away that research avenue, then where will the future animal research money come from?
So yes, we will protect the chimps and what ever other animals get included, but when your cat has feline lukemia or your dog needs some type of surgery to repair something, without the research first going from animal to human, it is unlikely that those skills and techniques are going to flow backwards.
Just a thought.
History is a constant expansion of the group definition in size and abstraction. It seems to satisfy some innate group definition and protection part of the evolved human motivation array.
E Proelio Veritas.
Good for you!
Then these laws will not affect your research, or that of all the other biologists who have kept pace with technology, huh? They would probably only affect that small percentage of repetitious experimental work that is done by corporations seeking approval for new cosmetics, food additives, clothing treatments, and so on.
There is a cost associated with regulation. Let us say that there is a group of scientists doing work to detect the biological basis of cancer that does not harm the chimpanzees in any way. They now have to go through the additional steps of getting permits for the most trivial of tasks -- such as transporting the animals from one lab to another. This is not necessary regulation, and it is associated with a small cost that will directly (though in small magnitude) diminish the effectiveness of the science.
As such, the above claim is NOT true.
I am not sure to what extent this particular rule would affect animal research in my field, neuroscience. Typically, the monkeys that we work with are not chimpanzees but rhesus monkeys, so it isn't likely to have a big impact directly. But that said, my experience has taught me that people insisting for more human treatment of animals in the laboratory are rarely scientists who understand what work is necessary. Maybe this would not be true in big pharma (where I have never worked), but my experience is that the rules mostly serve as a hindrance to legitimate science, where approval to do the most basic of things generally gets granted but toils on for weeks or months.