Final Paper

Sean Becker

ILS 252

Final Paper

 

 

How do we go about making the world a better place? “The world” is quite a diverse place. Often times discussions about “improving the world” revolve around making the world better for humans to live in. But because humans are biological entities embedded in an environment with which they must constantly interact, humans have – over the arc of history – been increasingly concerned with the welfare of the environment and other organisms.  And with the rise of the environmental and animals rights movements, there has – perhaps for the first time – been broad human concern for the welfare of the environment and animals beyond those concerns that would have immediate repercussions for humans. That is to say, humans have arguably become concerned over the welfare of non-humans for non-selfish reasons.

Yet, it is still certainly the case that humans care more about those entities with which they identify the most. In the world of animal rights activism, there has been considerable interest in the welfare of primates – the organisms most biologically similar to humans. Among other dangers, primates face the prospect of being subject to scientific testing by humans. Medical and scientific testing on non-human primates is often performed because of their biological and genetic similarities to humans. Yet it is because of this similarity that animal rights activists argue that primates ought to be subject to at least some of the legal protections against unethical testing that humans have obtained.

Scientists have been performing experiments on primates for centuries, mostly with the objective of understanding how drugs may interact with humans. And historically, there has been moral concern for those primates subject to such testing. In 1655, physiologist Edmund O’Meara stated, with regards to primates, that “the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state” (Richard, 2000). As medical science became institutionalized and heavily funded up to and through the 20^th Century, the situation became that tens of thousands of primates were housed and used by humans for no other purpose but their own advancement.

And in fact, primate testing is perhaps a symptom of a larger trend in science. In the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, Western society has put more and more faith in the ability of science to solve the problems that humans face. And as different sectors became funded and institutionalized – such as the National Primate Research Centers in the early 1960s (Alliance for Animals, undated) – people based their careers and livelihoods under assumptions that their practices were ethical and necessary, and thus had a financial interest in the continuation of these practices, despite ethically-questionable practices.

Non-human primates are used in research into HIV, neurology, behavior, cognition, reproduction, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, malaria, respiratory viruses, infectious disease, genetics, xenotransplantation, drug abuse, and also in vaccine and drug testing (Conlee, 2004). Primates often live in cages for the duration of their lives and are used repeatedly in experiments. These experiments usually require restraint and can result in discomfort, pain and sometimes death for the primate (Alliance for Animals, undated).

Toxicological testing and vivisection are performed on non-human primates largely because it would be unethical to do so on humans. Yet the line between ethical and unethical in the realm of primate testing is greatly contested. In general, scientists and other advocates of the use of non-human primates in medical testing believe that these practices result in benefits that outweigh any costs, while opponents of this practice take the opposite view.

Advocates of the use of primates in testing say that this practice has resulted in medical advancements for humans that would have otherwise been impossible. Opponents of primate testing argue either that these advancements were not as great as they may have seemed, that they could have been achieved without the use of primates, that the advancements were not worth the suffering of primates, or that similarities between primates and humans are not sufficient to warrant testing. Advocates tend to sidestep the issue of the welfare of primates by focusing on the benefits to humans. For instance, the WNPRC states that their objective is “to increase our understanding of basic primate biology and to improve human health and quality of life through research” (WNPRC, 2011). Opponents tend to focus on the primates instead of humans. One of the many non-profits involved in this issue stated “These similarities [between humans and primates] are cause for grave concern. The more like us monkeys are, the more similar are our subjective experiences… This means that the experience we would have if we were caged in a barren cubicle and occasionally grabbed and forced to endure painful and frightening procedures is very likely to be very much the same for a monkey” (Alliance for Animals, undated).

Although non-human primates make up less than half a percent of all animals used in research, there are approximately 60,000 primates used for research in the United States currently (Murnaghan, 2010). This number has been on the rise. When the USDA began keeping these records in 1973, there were about 42,000 primates used (AAVS, 2011). There are eight federally-funded National Primate Research Centers in the United States, of which the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) located on the University of Wisconsin – Madison campus is one of the more prominent. It is here that about 1500 primates – some 2 to 3% of the total in the US – are kept for the duration of their lives (Alliance for Animals, undated). The Center is infamous for its historically unethical treatment of monkeys. It was here that psychologist Harry Harlow performed his “pit of despair” experiments that were used to induce clinical depression in monkeys, perhaps giving rise to the “animal liberation movement” that developed in reaction to experiments of these sort (Blum, 2002).

UW-Madison’s current complicity in the ethically-questionable practice of primate testing was brought to my attention two years ago by a friend who had been at a meeting between two Madison-based groups; the political party Progressive Dane, and the non-profit animal rights organization Alliance for Animals. My friend and I spoke of the need to create greater awareness of this issue on campus. It was apparent to both of us that a large majority of UW students were unaware of the existence of the Primate Research Center on campus let alone these ethically-questionable practices that occurred there.

As an Associate Director for the Wisconsin Union Directorate’s Society and Politics Committee, I had a position that allowed me to create events that dealt with contemporary social and political issues. I found myself in the ideal position to disseminate knowledge about the issue of primate testing to students on campus. The committee decided that a moderated debate would be the best format for understanding the different sides of the issue and I began seeking out advocates for and against the use of primates in scientific and medical research.

The debate was moderated by ethics professor Rob Streiffer and was between animal rights activist Rick Bogle and ophthalmology professor Paul Kaufman (who often experiments on primates). During the marketing for the event, the local television news heard of the event and decided to do a story on it in which they interviewed me for their broadcast. As interest in the event grew, so did concern from the staff of the Memorial Union (the location of the debate). Although I had been the creator and planner of this event, concerns over safety resulted in my authority being stripped from me. Apparently, previous disruptions and violence by animals rights activists had happened in the Union before. Memorial Union staff and the UW police determined that in order to control the size of the crowd, the event would become ticketed. They also decided that there would be police presence at the event, including an undercover cop. This all seemed like overkill to me for a simple academic debate. Yet as my event became increasingly popular, it fell out of my hands.

The event went on without any problems and generally succeeded in our objective of bringing an informative and educative discussion to campus. Both sides of the issue were really discussed at great lengths. The event was well attended and covered by many press outlets. But yet the experience left me somewhat disillusioned about the ability to discuss controversial topics on campus. Before this event I had always viewed the UW as a really open environment in which all points of view were accepted and were free to be expressed irrespective of time or place. Yet this event showed me that it is not so easy to discuss controversies in an open way when you are working within established institutions. The UW administration and police, under the guise of the rationale of “ensuring safety”, ended up limiting both the attendance of the event and the freedom of expression of the attendees and debaters, via implicit police intimidation.

So to revisit this issue of the ethics of primate testing at the UW, I will here write a journalistic review of the developments in Madison since the time of my debate surrounding the challenges to the current system of primate testing. Most of the recent energy around this issue has been sparked by the group Alliance for Animals, the group with which Rick Bogle (one of the two debaters) is affiliated. The debate that I had organized came at an advantageous time for the group, which was in the midst of a campaign to raise awareness about primate testing in Madison.

A little over two months before my debate, on January 8, 2010, UW-Madison’s All-Campus Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC), had decided that its standards with regards to the use of primates were appropriate for determining whether or not testing procedures were ethical. They were called on to make the decision after animal rights activists had petitioned them (Finkelmeyer, January 9, 2010)

But less than a month after the Committee’s decision, twenty members of the Dane County Board sent a letter to Chancellor Martin complaining that the ACUC was not the appropriate body to make a decision on the ethics of primate research since they have vested financial interests in the continuation of primate research. They also complained that the committee’s decision was a closed process that took no studies or comments from experts into consideration when making their decision (Ziff, February 9, 2010). Chancellor Martin responded to this with a public letter arguing that plenty of the committee members had no vested financial interests and that the committee used a case-by-case method of evaluating primate research proposals (Finkelmeyer, February 10, 2010).

My debate then garnered enough media attention that Chancellor Martin felt the need to make a public statement reiterating the University’s support for research involving the use of non-human primates, just four days after my event (Finkelmeyer, March 19, 2010).

In the following months, animal rights activists of Madison engaged in a concerted effort to persuade government officials to take action on the issue of primate testing. In late June, the Health and Human Needs Committee of the Dane Count Board “voted 5-2 to pass a resolution which asks the chair of the Dane County Board to appoint a citizens advisory panel to examine whether or not experimenting on monkeys is humane and ethical”. (Finkelmeyer, June 30, 2010).

But this resolution ultimately failed when it was withdrawn from a vote by the Executive Committee on September 17^th. Biddy Martin and the UW administration had made public remarks prior to this stating that forming a panel would not be a good idea. One County Board member indicated that the Board doesn’t actually have any authority on the issue and that actions by them would not have any sway over the state of research practices (Finkelmeyer, September 17, 2010).

In the midst of this back and forth between the UW, the Dane County Board and Alliance For Animals, the UW made a good will gesture by agreeing to host some discussions the following year on the topic of animal research, which it did in February, March and April of 2011 (Finkelmeyer, February 15, 2011). Yet, in an amazing move that exposed the lack of sincerity the UW had toward honestly considering the ethics of primate research, the Capital Planning and Budget Committee – at the same time that these discussions were occurring – approved the UW and WNPRC’s request to lease a new 20,000 square foot facility for the purposes of housing more primates to perform research on.

The rest of this year has seen less energy around the issue of primate testing, though Alliance for Animals has sponsored a couple of debates. But despite its push for greater awareness of the issue, primate testing seems not to have stuck in the consciousness of most Madisonians as an important issue. Regardless, animal rights activists around the world continue to educate people about the issue of primate testing. And hopefully, someday, humanity will gain the consciousness that animal testing of this sort will never be ethical; no benefits for humans are worth the systematic pain and suffering of other living beings.

Overall, the purpose of this paper has been to summarize the ongoing debate of the ethics of primate research, both generally and locally. But also, I have hoped to illustrate the difficulties of discussing and addressing controversial issues in any meaningful way within traditional institutions. The difficulties I encountered when simply trying to organize a public discussion about the issue are as telling as the difficulties that Madison animal rights activists encountered when trying to get committees to even hear them. This world will be a better place when primates – and all of life on this planet – are treated by humans with the same respect that they treat themselves. But to achieve this we must make the world a better place by transforming the dialogue regarding animal ethics and reforming the institutions that make decisions about this.

Sources

 

 

AAVS. “Non-Human Primates Used in Research”. American Anti-Vivisection Society. 2011. Accessed November 11, 2011 <http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/ b.6456925/k.63CB/Nonhuman_Primates_Used_in_Research.htm>

 

Alliance for Animals. “WPRC” and “Monkeys”. Madison’s Hidden Monkeys. Undated. Accessed November 11, 2011. <http://madisonmonkeys.com/WPRC.htm>

 

Blum, Deborah. Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

 

Conlee, Kathleen M; Hoffeld, Erika H; Stephens, Martin L. “A Demographic Analysis of Primate Research in the United States”. ATLA (Alternatives to Laboratory Animals) 32 (2004): 315–322

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “Biddy Martin Responds to Letter from County Board”. The Capital Times (February 10, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/ education/campus_connection/campus-connection-biddy-martin-responds-to-letter-from-county-board/article_1407f176-1676-11df-b005-001cc4c002e0.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “County Board Says No More Monkey Business”. The Capital Times (September 17, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/ campus_connection/article_b45594ca-c211-11df-9dd3-001cc4c002e0.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “County Committee Pushes for Citizen Panel to Examine Monkey Research”. The Capital Times (June 30, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/ local/education/university/article_a55e4f7a-35f9-5434-92d8-77fe57c3dd55.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “Martin Releases Statement on Animal Research”. The Capital Times (March 19, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/ university/article_4d5b4216-3386-11df-baff-001cc4c002e0.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “Panel Says Ethics Considered Before Monkey Research”. The Capital Times (January 9, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/ education/university/county-committee-pushes-for-citizen-panel-to-examine-monkey-research/article_a55e4f7a-35f9-5434-92d8-77fe57c3dd55.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “UW Gets Approval to Rent Space to House More Monkeys”. The Capital Times (February 11, 2011). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/ education/campus_connection/campus-connection-uw-gets-approval-to-rent-space-to-house/article_f7e6f708-3578-11e0-b143-001cc4c03286.html>

 

Finkelmeyer, Todd. “UW Hosting Forums Examining Ethics of Animal Studies”. The Capital Times (February 15, 2011). <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/ education/campus_connection/campus-connection-uw-hosting-forums-examining-ethics-of-animal-studies/article_f3ee424e-388b-11e0-99da-001cc4c002e0.html>

 

Murnaghan, Ian. “Non-human Primates Used for Testing”. About Animal Testing. November 29, 2010. Accessed November 11, 2011 <http://www.aboutanimaltestin g.co.uk/non-human-primates-used-testing.html>

 

Ryder, Richard. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Oxford, UK: Berg, 2000.

 

WNPRC Public Information Office. “Primate Center Mission & Objectives”. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin –Madison. January 11, 2011. Accessed November 12, 2011. http://www.primate. wisc.edu/wprc/objectives.html

 

Ziff, Deborah. “Dane County Board Wants Answers on the Ethics of Monkey Experiments”. The Capital Times (February 9, 2010). <http://host.madison.com/ wsj/news/local/education/on_campus/on-campus-dane-county-board-wants-answers-on-the-ethics/article_bfa8c360-1596-11df-996d-001cc4c03286.html>