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.

Comments

Re:Already not in use

[Trepidity]

Partly because there's been a decreasing number of cases where the scientific consensus is that the use of chimpanzees as animal models is needed, relative to alternatives. Since you need to convince an Institutional Review Board (for any study, not only involving chimps) that your study is necessary, beneficial, and the best choice relative to alternatives when considering both scientific merit and ethics, there are a decreasing number of cases where IRBs approve chimpanzee studies. Cost is also a factor besides IRB issues: if you can do something without chimps, it's usually cheaper to take that option.

Here's a blurb from the National Research Council's 2011 study on the subject, in which they set up a "Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research" to assess the current situation and make recommendations:

While the chimpanzee has been a valuable animal model in past research, most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary, based on the criteria established by the committee, except potentially for two current research uses:

1. Development of future monoclonal antibody therapies will not require the chimpanzee, due to currently available technologies. However, there may be a limited number of monoclonal antibodies already in the development pipeline that may require the continued use of chimpanzees.

2. The committee was evenly split and unable to reach consensus on the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of a prophylactic hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine. Specifically, the committee could not reach agreement on whether a preclinical challenge study using the chimpanzee model was necessary and if or how much the chimpanzee model would accelerate or improve prophylactic HCV vaccine development.

That's from the biomedical-research recommendations; their conclusions on behavior research were that chimpanzee models may still be quite valuable in that area. In addition, they recommended that genomics research using chimpanzee genomes was both valuable and of relatively little ethical concern, so should continue.

Valid science isn't the only yardstick.

[Immerman]

> 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.

Re:Valid science isn't the only yardstick.

[Time_Ngler]

Fuck nature.

Nature itself is one constant experiment to promote successful genes and weed out unsuccessful ones. That fear of falling from a great height you have? Millions or billions of creatures had to fall from cliffs for that. Those wonderful ocular orbs which are versatile to see in bright sunlight and very dim night light, millions or billions of creatures that could not see as well were caught and eaten by predators, too.

These experiments that scientists are doing, what maybe at most a 100 thousand creatures died in the last century for them? And what about all the people that were saved by that? The ratio of benefit vs suffering is much better from the experiments we carry out on our own, rather than the giant wasteful experiment that nature carries out.

Re:Valid science isn't the only yardstick.

[Immerman]

>The day when almost all research can be done this way is not far off.

Maybe not on geologic timescales...

Sure, we'll have simulated test subjects suitable for high school and maybe even undergraduate level "experiments" before long. But we're probably a long way away from being able to simulate even the simplest animals on a molecular level, and anything short of that has limited utility to original research. Sure, if we simulate all the known chemical responses then we can get a first-order approximation of reactions to screen for any unanticipated side effects within the realm of known responses, and millions of mice and grad student hours will be saved from time-consuming preliminary experiments (presumably I can set my experiment running and come back in the morning to see in painstaking detail the possible progress of a ten-year exposure). But that won't actually tell you anything about the effect on poorly understood processes, which at present are still most of them.

Re:Valid science isn't the only yardstick.

[lgw]

No, that wasn't his claim. His claim is that nature is a world without moral consideration, and we're treating chimps no worse than nature does (and far better than chimps treat others - they're vicious hunters), in a way that produces real and measurable moral good as a consequence.
 

Re:Valid science isn't the only yardstick.

[Bowling Moses]

"A key part of the problem is that too many of today's researchers are only trained in the techniques that were made elegant 100 years ago and naturally see the increasing use of newer technology as a threat to their way of life."

I do biological research for a living, and have done so for many years, in multiple different fields, in different universities and now in the biotech/pharma industry. No technique I use existed 100 years ago any more than any technique a programmer uses existed 100 years ago. The majority of biochemistry and molecular biology techniques that I use have their primitive origins in the 1960s-1990s, depending on what the technique is, and the overwhelming majority have been heavily modified, adapted, repurposed, and improved since their introduction. Far from being afraid of new technologies and new techniques biologists are absolutely driven to use them, find them, adapt them, and invent them. Who do you think comes up with new techniques, including computer simulations relevant to biological research? People who do biological research of course! There are whole research journals devoted to nothing but new techniques, every one of them invented by some variety of biologist! There are hundreds of biotechnology companies where biologists do little else besides come up with new techniques (yes, including computer simulations and programs) that they can then package and sell to other biologists. Pharmaceutical companies spend many millions of dollars testing new techniques--I've got several different projects assigned to me right now that are nothing but testing and adapting new technologies. A pharmaceutical company that is not constantly innovating goes bankrupt, and a biologist who doesn't innovate is an unemployed and starving biologist.