Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the poor-business-decisions dept.

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.

24 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 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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?
    11. Re:OK...and... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That isn't quite what happened.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Really germany? by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    I mean, this is like an onion article.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.