Introduction

Sean Becker

ILS 252

Introduction

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 now undertake a modest attempt to raise awareness of the WNPRC and its practices outside of the established institutions that usually serve this function. Besides my distrust of the ability of campus institutions to achieve greater awareness (they have a vested interest in the continuation of primate testing), I am under time and financial constraints that I was not during the planning of this previous event. I will be spreading informational flyers around campus and will be using chalking and other “direct” tactics such as these in order to draw attention to the WNPRC and its practices on campus .

 

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

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>