Slashdot Mirror


Volkswagen Admits To Testing Diesel Fumes On Monkeys (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: In what seems like a John Henry versus the steam shovel-style competition to dig diesel's grave, Volkswagen has admitted to funding (and subsequently cheating on) animal testing to prove the relative safety of diesel exhaust fumes, according to findings by the New York Times. The tests, which were undertaken at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque in 2014, involved as many as 10 monkeys and had them sitting in airtight containers as they breathed exhaust fumes from a diesel-powered Volkswagen Beetle while they watched cartoons for entertainment. The tests went on for 4 hours. "We apologize for the misconduct and the lack of judgment of individuals," said a Volkswagen representative in a statement. "We're convinced the scientific methods chosen then were wrong. It would have been better to do without such a study in the first place." The Volkswagen Beetle used in the test was equipped with the same compromised emissions software that could detect when the car was being tested in a lab environment so it was running as cleanly as it could, which I guess proves that Volkswagen will waste no opportunity to be hoisted by its own oil-burning petard.

68 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

    1. Re: OK...and... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did. It wasn't until they were done with LA that they moved on to monkeys.

    2. Re:OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did. I don't know why that's not the news here.

    4. Re:OK...and... by sheramil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why do you need to test it at all? Obviously inhaling exhaust fumes is bad.

      Not necessarily. If the car is burning hydrogen, inhaling the exhaust is just going to make you damp.

      I guess if you inhaled enough of it, you might drown.

      Is no-one else entertained by the idea of tiny volkswagens with monkeys behind the wheel? How cute!

    5. Re:OK...and... by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      I have no issue with animal testing.

      But the question here is what scientific value was gained from the experiments.

      Now, if you've already tested on lower forms, like rats, and established that there is no harm, I'm personally fine with testing on primates to be doubly sure (though I'm not sure if that's the official standard). But I find it hard to believe that breathing emissions for 4 hours qualifies as no harm.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      They actually wanted to use Humans riding exercise bikes for this, until there genral council objected. Its documented in the show Dirty Money.

    7. Re:OK...and... by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans...

      The problem is this gives the PETA crowd more ammunition for their "animal testing = BAD!" agenda. There is little scientific knowledge to be gained by slightly poisoning a few monkeys, and it sounds disturbingly close to what Germany was doing to Jews during the Holocaust.

      Thing is, there are legitimate reasons to test things on animals. You want to be pretty damn sure your experimental drug isn't going to kill anyone when you start human trials. But good luck trying to convince a bunch of emotion-driven PETA morons why it's necessary, when they start chanting about saving monkeys from the gas chamber.

      Seaworld is going through exactly the same crap. They actually do a lot of good educating the public about marine life conservation, and they even rescue injured/stranded animals in the wild. But ask any "drain the tanks" activist and all they see is "Blackfish".

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    8. Re:OK...and... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had just read the BBC story and was a bit surprised by that glaring omission here.

      Mod parent up as Informative.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disturbingly close my ass. Jews are people and monkeys aren't. That, and only that, is why gassing Jews, Gypsies, and gays was Wrong with a capital W.

      Gassing people because you want to and testing on monkeys because you need to don't live on the same planet.

    10. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, and Ford was a nazi sympathizer. But there's not necessarily a correlation (of even any resemblance) between the actions of a company seven or eight decades later.

    11. Re:OK...and... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem was that they trained the monkeys to recognize when they were being tested and, under those specific circumstances, pretend that they like it.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re:OK...and... by chispito · · Score: 1

      The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.

      Citation please.

      I see a well-publicized paper making long-term projections, but I can't find anything with observed higher death rates.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    13. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since you don't seem to be able to use the Google, I'll get you started,.
      https://phys.org/news/2015-09-...
      https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollut...
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:OK...and... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    15. Re:OK...and... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not necessarily. If the car is burning hydrogen, inhaling the exhaust is just going to make you damp.

      NOx is produced by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) with atmospheric oxygen (O2) at high temperatures. So yes, in fact, an engine which burns hydrogen will produce NOx. NOx production is not an inherent property of the fuel, just the combustion temperature. This is why diesel engines have a greater problem with NOx emissions than gasoline engines - they burn more efficiently, but that higher efficiency means higher temperatures, which means more NOx produced.

      Hydrogen fuel cells do not produce NOx because they combine the hydrogen fuel with atmospheric oxygen electrochemically, instead of via combustion.

    16. Re: OK...and... by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      As was I. One wonders if there's a scientific standard, if it's the researchers' favorite, or if it's just whatever's on Cartoon Network.

    17. Re:OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx.

      Don't be fucking stupid. No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Failing to mitigate a side effect does not mean you've designed it in.

    18. Re:OK...and... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Of course they did: they put combustion engines in them!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      No that's racist. Instead they tested on humans in New Mexico. Interesting that the CNET article left out this minor detail.

    20. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Of course they did. High NOx emissions are a well know effect of pushing a diesel engine to combust more efficiently which is precisely what VW have been pushing for many years.

    21. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Oh thank God. The humans were only subjected to NOx to see if it causes cancer and not tailpipe emissions. Here I was worried they may be breathing in something dangerous.

    22. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Fortunately they skipped all of that ethical nonesense and proceeded directly to human testing

    23. Re:OK...and... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      No, it would have been better to not test it on living beings at all. We already know which components of various vehicle exhausts are damaging to us, and we have a fairly good idea of how damaging they are. And we already know that we need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway if we want our species to have a future on this rock. But hey, let's gas some innocent monkeys anyway, so we can arrive at a half-assed determination of just how badly we're fucking over our fellow humans in the name of profit. If you truly "fail to see what the problem is" in that, then I pity you.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    24. Re:OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You missed the part where I suggested not being fucking stupid.

      High NOx emissions are a well know effect of pushing a diesel engine to combust more efficiently

      Oddly enough the design criteria is "efficient combustion" not "high NOx".

      Fucking amazing that. Who would've thought you'd be stupid enough to contradict yourself.

    25. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      They designed the cars for high efficiency and they knew their design increased NOx so they designed the emissions control system to hide that fact from regulators. The high NOx was their design.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    26. Re: OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Invent a high efficiency diesel engine that has zero NOx emissions and VW will fucking licence it from you. They don't want the high NOx emissions, and didn't fucking design it in.

      How fucking dense are you all?

      High NOx emissions are not a design parameter. Minimising NOx emissions is a design parameter that takes lower priority than fuel efficiency. Since both can't be achieved the higher priority one took precedence.

      Give VW shit for the shit they've done but stop making new shit up because you're the cunt that looks stupid as a result.

    27. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the design criteria is "efficient combustion" not "high NOx".

      Yep because engineers target one thing and don't know how combustion works. People have known the relationship between thermal combustion and NOx since the 40s. By raising efficiency they were directly and knowingly raising NOx. By not putting a constraint on NOx they effectively were designing cars with this in mind.

      Fucking amazing that. Who would've thought you'd be stupid enough to contradict yourself.

      You're a special kind of idiot.

    28. Re: OK...and... by chispito · · Score: 1

      Since you don't seem to be able to use the Google, I'll get you started,. https://phys.org/news/2015-09-... https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollut... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      Nice links--none of which show or even claim to show a correlation between Volkswagens specifically and the death rate.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    29. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      That was the best they could do. Their design emitted high NOx because that wasn't a priority. But they went ahead and built millions because of the money.
      London reaches legal air pollution limit just one month into the new year

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    30. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I know this might be a stretch for you but: VW - NO2 - Death
      Some people can't process that middle step. My apologies if you can't.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    31. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To be fair...

      Let me stop you right there. "Fair" doesn't come into it. "Ethics" is the only thing that matters here and subjecting to a bunch of humans to: "Lets see what this does" doesn't pass muster. Also "irritant" is a strange way of describing something that can have lasting effects on lung function. And something that in studies have shown to have adverse impact on other living things such as massively stunting growth of plants.

    32. Re:OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      'Considered' and 'objectively evaluated to be' are not the same. In 50 years' time, monkeys will still be monkeys, dogs will still be dogs, insects will still be insects, and people will still be people.

  2. Germans... by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Must REALLY hate monkeys.

    1. Re:Germans... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Way to fail basic logic. Since when is New Mexico located in Germany?

      More correct (but still idiotic and dishonest would be): "What is it with US corporations supporting gas chambers?"

  3. LRRI/ITRI by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    While LRRI is in Albuquerque, the tests themselves were likely conducted a few miles south, out on Kirtland/SNL (at the AF's "Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute"). Surreal place.

    1. Re:LRRI/ITRI by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      They are now one and the same. https://goo.gl/maps/Vc6vk9F7BWm

      I used to eat my lunch just outside the ITL (as it was formerly known), under the two water towers. It's at the very edge of Kirtland AFB. Pretty quiet, no one really goes out there... knew some folks who worked there who said it was a soul crushing place, as you might imagine. My sister once interviewed for a position that would've required her to take care of the dog and cat subjects.

    2. Re: LRRI/ITRI by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Was it called ITRI or ITL?

    3. Re: LRRI/ITRI by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      It was formerly known as as the ITL - Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory. https://www.lm.doe.gov/ITL/ITL_factsheet.pdf

      It developed a reputation as a horrible workplace (not just the usual killing-a-bunch-of-strays stuff), so I'm sure they decided they needed to rebrand themselves away from that.

  4. Hopefully the cars were in VW "smog test" mode by JoeyRox · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That way the monkeys got a much smaller does of carbon monoxide, as in much less than us human's got from the thousands of VW cars on the road.

  5. They did test it on humans by klingens · · Score: 5, Informative

    They did test it on 25 humans in university clinic of Aachen https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

    Also the usual /. headline is as usual: crap. EUGT did all this, which is a lobby organisation by BMW, Mercedes and VW. They all are responsible, not just VW alone.

  6. In Other News by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · · Score: 1

    People are going to be really hacked off when they find out the rest of the industry has been testing their fumes on great apes worldwide!

    --
    Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
  7. Correct link by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Informative

    VW condemned for testing diesel fumes on humans and monkeys

    That's what the preview button is there for...

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  8. Better to test baby seals by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    I guess they were out of baby seals.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    optics could not be worse for a german automaker.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Chilling thing about that article was that, given both the Nazis and the Communists used gas vans to exterminate groups of people, at some point in the 1930s when it was clear either the Nazis or the Commies would win the use of gas vans in Germany was inevitable.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  10. An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:An unanswered question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did. Or are you calling fake news because it was the NYT, and you don't believe this happened at all, ever. Sorry, muchacho, they cheated on the emission systems, and performed pointless experiments. You can wait until the legal system plays out completely, but I have enough to go on that Volkswagen isn't on top of the ethics list. And I'll use that admitted info to pass judgement.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:An unanswered question by BillTheKatt · · Score: 1

      Netflix just released a series called Dirty Money that has an episode on the VW scandal. I just wanted to bury my face in my hands. It's obvious exactly what went on and that senior executives knew. It's a very interesting, but depressing documentary.

    3. Re:An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did.

      Yes, but who authorized the experiment? Was it somebody in middle management, somebody in upper management, the Board of Directors; we don't know. There's no question that this was wrong, that it never should have happened and that whoever's responsible deserves punishment, but TFA doesn't say who that was, and I, for one, want to see the right people prosecuted, not some underling who was set up as a fall guy. Now would be the best time to punish Volkswagen for allowing this to happen, but there also needs to be proper retribution to the person or persons who decided that this was an acceptable experiment in the first place.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:An unanswered question by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It was an industry group, not one manufacturer specifically. VW just admitted to being part of the group.

    5. Re:An unanswered question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement?

      Obviously the best time to judge VW is when you're going to exonerate, no, laud them for their conduct.

      Don't you know how it works?

      I know a janitor will be fired over this.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Thank you; asked and answered.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  11. Really germany? by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    I mean, this is like an onion article.

  12. But why? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    My interest is not in the fact that they tested on monkeys but rather why were they testing on animals in the first place? They had their emissions targets, so if they are testing on animals I can only conclude that the test was to see if they could get away with cheating those emissions targets without bringing attention to themselves.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  13. Not the shocking part by vix86 · · Score: 1

    The most shocking part isn't that they tested it on monkeys, its that they originally wanted to run the test on humans. They did still go ahead and do a test where they exposed humans to Nitrogen Dioxide though. The optics of a German company wanting to do gas chamber tests on humans is hilariously bad and one of the top people involved even admitted to it on video.

    1. Re:Not the shocking part by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sure, sure, if anyone else gasses people it's just war or terrorism, but if a kraut does it it's nazism

  14. Test Monkeys by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Yep we used test monkeys at a couple of places where I worked on games. Both cafeteria looked like the bar scene from Star Wars. Oh wait, Disney did buy Lucus, didn't they. Never mind.
    What, not *that* type of test monkeys, never, never mind.

  15. On the upside by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The monkeys wrote three new Avengers movies while they were in the chamber, and Michael Bay just hired them to write a new Transformers sequel.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  16. This all sounds like a smoke screen by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Volkswagen has admitted to funding (and subsequently cheating on) animal testing to prove the relative safety of diesel exhaust fumes...

    emphasis added by me. We're all talking about the poor monkeys and I haven't seen one headline with "Volkswagen cheated on diesel safety tests". Seriously, Monkeys are cute and all, but shouldn't the bigger story be that they falsified research showing diesel fumes were safe?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. I fail to see any problem... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ....I have zee SIGNED AUTHORIZATION for zis testing.

    Vhat?

    Sure - see? Signed in ink. Dated 5/13/44.

    --
    -Styopa
  18. I'm no treehugger... by bsdaddict · · Score: 2

    ...but this is sorta sickening. In the market for a new (to me) car, atm. VW's out.

    1. Re:I'm no treehugger... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      BTW, BMW, Daimler, and VW funded the study. https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

  19. Re: Germans gasing primates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Americans, not Germans. This was done in the USA by Americans. It wouldn't even have been legal in Germany.

  20. Why is this a bigger deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    than what American manufacturers do? Did you know American automanufacturers performed crash-tests with live animals for over 5 decades into the 90's? Why aren't we talking about this?

  21. Old News is New News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sitting here wondering why the New York Times didn't state that they lifted the entire article from the Netflix documentary series "Dirty Money", which has an entire episode dedicated to "Dieselgate"...

  22. Volkswagen... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    das Tortur.

    Also, das Lügen.

    I know it's highly unlikely, but I hope their utter bankruptcy in the moral sense translates into financial bankruptcy because of their wilful cruelty, lying, and cheating. At times like this I wish I subscribed to some form of magic sky-daddyism so I could comfort myself with thoughts of those bastards rotting in hell for all eternity.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  23. Animal testing by ai4px · · Score: 1

    Marketing Director: We've got to stop testing our products on animals. It is bad for PR.
    CEO: Other companies test their products on animals, why shouldn't we?
    Marketing Director: Because we make hammers.