GREAT APE RESEACRH CONTESTED IN BRITAIN

[Guest guest]

* Leave our apes alone

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article624643.ece Conservationists

resist call for medical experiments on primates By Jonathan Owen and

Geoffrey Lean Published: 04 June 2006

 

Medical experiments on great apes are inhumane and unethical, world experts

on the animals insisted yesterday, in the face of an attempt to lift a

British ban on them.

 

The wildlife television presenter Saba Douglas-Hamilton and primatologist

Jane Goodall are fighting back against a proposal by Professor Colin

Blakemore, the head of the official Medical Research Council, that the

eight-year-old ban on using the apes - chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and

bonobos - should be lifted in a global health emergency. Sir David

Attenborough has also come out against the testing.

 

Professor Blakemore - a brain scientist at Oxford University, and an

outspoken supporter of animal experiments - said yesterday that he was

opposed in principle to banning the tests on the great apes, which share

more than 96 per cent of their DNA with humans, because it muddles the

boundary between people and animals. He said: " I worry about the principle

of where the moral boundaries lie. There is only one very secure definition

that can be made and that is between our species and others. "

 

And he added that, though he was " pleased " that experiments are not being

carried out on them at present, they might be needed if a pandemic virus

emerged that affected both them and humans.

 

But conservationists hit back, saying that the tests would be inhumane. Saba

Douglas-Hamilton told The Independent on Sunday: " As humans, we are also

great apes, so where does that leave us ethically? Apes share many

characteristics with us that we consider to be fundamentally human - like

compassion, empathy, self-awareness and a sense of mortality. It is

difficult to see how medical testing on great apes is going to be of any

benefit to them, if at all. "

 

Dr Goodall also believes that the experiments - banned in Britain since

1998, but still conducted in Japan, the United States and the Netherlands -

are unethical. She says: " Most people do not know - and do not want to know

- the grim reality of what happens to non-human primates in laboratories.

Chimpanzees have amazing social, mental and emotional similarities to us. It

is an outrage to incarcerate these wonderful beings in tiny cages and

subject them to repeated intensive techniques, knowing that they can

anticipate what will happen. "

 

Sir David Attenborough has also come out against the tests. He said: " I am

in favour of a European ban on the use of apes in invasive medical

research. "

 

The UN Environment Programme says that all great ape species face a high

risk of extinction within the next 50 years.

 

Medical experiments on great apes are inhumane and unethical, world experts

on the animals insisted yesterday, in the face of an attempt to lift a

British ban on them.

 

The wildlife television presenter Saba Douglas-Hamilton and primatologist

Jane Goodall are fighting back against a proposal by Professor Colin

Blakemore, the head of the official Medical Research Council, that the

eight-year-old ban on using the apes - chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and

bonobos - should be lifted in a global health emergency. Sir David

Attenborough has also come out against the testing.

 

Professor Blakemore - a brain scientist at Oxford University, and an

outspoken supporter of animal experiments - said yesterday that he was

opposed in principle to banning the tests on the great apes, which share

more than 96 per cent of their DNA with humans, because it muddles the

boundary between people and animals. He said: " I worry about the principle

of where the moral boundaries lie. There is only one very secure definition

that can be made and that is between our species and others. "

 

And he added that, though he was " pleased " that experiments are not being

carried out on them at present, they might be needed if a pandemic virus

emerged that affected both them and humans.

 

But conservationists hit back, saying that the tests would be inhumane. Saba

Douglas-Hamilton told The Independent on Sunday: " As humans, we are also

great apes, so where does that leave us ethically? Apes share many

characteristics with us that we consider to be fundamentally human - like

compassion, empathy, self-awareness and a sense of mortality. It is

difficult to see how medical testing on great apes is going to be of any

benefit to them, if at all. "

 

Dr Goodall also believes that the experiments - banned in Britain since

1998, but still conducted in Japan, the United States and the Netherlands -

are unethical. She says: " Most people do not know - and do not want to know

- the grim reality of what happens to non-human primates in laboratories.

Chimpanzees have amazing social, mental and emotional similarities to us. It

is an outrage to incarcerate these wonderful beings in tiny cages and

subject them to repeated intensive techniques, knowing that they can

anticipate what will happen. "

 

Sir David Attenborough has also come out against the tests. He said: " I am

in favour of a European ban on the use of apes in invasive medical

research. "

 

The UN Environment Programme says that all great ape species face a high

risk of extinction within the next 50 years.

*

 

**

 

*http://www.idthink.net/back/dawkins/index.html*

 

*RICHARD DAWKINS WORLD*

 

By Mike Gene

 

 

 

*This page is not completely in character for this site. Nevertheless,

Prof. Richard Dawkins is such a Big Player[1] in this overall debate that

some aspects of his extremism beg for comment. As such, I will use the page

to comment on some of Dawkins' extremism and update it accordingly (so you

might want to check back periodically).*

 

 

 

 

 

*4-15-05***

 

* *

 

Back in October of 2002, Richard Dawkins wrote a short essay for *The

Dubliner* entitled, " The God Shaped Hole " . In this essay, Dawkins actually

compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues the

former is worse:

 

 

 

*Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests,

deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to

the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic

in the first place.* I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties,

who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic,

two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her

parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school

died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to

hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the

greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell.

Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's

a fairly common experience. *I can't speak about the really grave sexual

abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent

physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of

the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit

of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The

damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not

physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you

will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be

a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. *[9]

**

 

* *

 

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the

letter from " a woman in America " as a) we have no idea whether her account

is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a

drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much

more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

 

 

 

So let's think through on Dawkins' logic. First, where is the science? What

scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that

believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where

is the evidence of this " grievous mental harm " in bringing up the child

Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?!

 

 

 

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are

plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long

term, negative effects. Dismissing it as " a bit of fondling " and being

" mental damage anyway " is insulting to the many victims of child

molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious

belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in

terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to

the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being

sexually abused.

 

 

 

But let's follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands,

it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal

to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to

raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as

Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins'

logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a

Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since

it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and

Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It's his logic, thus his

choice to clarify.

 

 

 

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two

families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic

family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has

taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The

second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he

also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child

molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man.

 

 

 

* *

 

* *

 

*12-22-04***

 

 

 

As of November 2003, Cambridge University had planned to build a primate

research center. *Professor Tony Minson, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, of **Cambridge

** **University**,** **said*

 

" We are pleased that this important research centre has been given the

go-ahead by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. *It is reassuring that

the Government is sending this unequivocal message of support for

neuroscience in the **UK**. *

 

" The University remains convinced of the national importance of this

research to medical advancement. Neurological diseases have a huge worldwide

impact and combating these devastating conditions is a major scientific

priority. " [2]

 

*Lord Robert Winston**, **Professor Of Fertility Studies at **Hammersmith**

**Hospital**, **Imperial** **College**, **London**, *said:* *

 

" *This is a decision which will save many human lives* and support

continuing developments in treating our biggest medical problem - severe

mental illness " [3]

 

*Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council,

*said:* *

 

" We know that many people find the use of primates in medical research

distressing but the Cambridge research facility is needed to enable

scientists to find treatments for life threatening diseases.

 

" Primates are very rarely used in medical research *but because of their

similarity to humans in terms of biological make-up and brain function,

sometimes they are the only option to answer particular research

questions.*However, it is extremely important that every effort is

made to find

alternatives and to ensure that, where primates are used, any suffering is

reduced to the minimum possible. " [2]

 

However, one year later, things had changed:

 

Plans to build a controversial centre for experiments on monkeys have been

shelved by Cambridge University.

 

It has decided the costs, including measures needed to *protect the facility

from animal rights militants*, would make the laboratory uneconomic. [3]

 

The extremists in the animal rights movement have successfully prevented a

new state-of-the-art science laboratory from being built. This is not

simply a blow against medical and neuroscience research, but an assault on

science itself. Because of the terrorist-like tactics of the animal rights

extremists, tangible scientific research will not be done.

 

Eighty miles away from Cambridge is Oxford University, home of Richard

Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at

Oxford University. Dawkins " interprets his role in the world as the banger

of the drum for science. " [4] Yet the Professor of the Public Understanding

of Science, who is the UK's leading drum banger for science, has not

publicly condemned this recent attack on science. He's been oddly *silent*.

What gives?

 

Perhaps Professor Dawkins is too busy. He has, after all, lots of other

things to tend to, such as trashing President George Bush and speaking out

against Religion. With such important items on his agenda, I suppose he

might not notice that science was under assault in his own country, only 80

miles from his office. But it gets more interesting.

 

It turns out Oxford University also has plans on building a new primate

research center. The animal rights extremists then targeted that proposal,

and through the use of harassment, intimated construction workers to stop

working on the project. Things have gotten so serious that Oxford's new

Chancellor, Chris Patten, made these animal rights tactics the centerpiece

of his first speech, entitled *Save British Science*.

 

Mr Patten used his first speech last night as Chancellor of Oxford

University to warn that some anti-vivisectionists were threatening

fundamental principles of liberal democracy.

 

He said the right of university researchers to pursue open and independent

inquiry without fear of intimidation was one of the bastions of free

society, the Times reported. [5]

 

Since science is being attacked outside the very doors of his own office,

has the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science spoken out yet?

Nope. Still completely silent. Doesn't a person who fancies himself as a

drum banger for Science, and goes by the esteemed title of Professor of the

Public Understanding of Science, have an academic responsibility to speak

out and inform the public about the importance of such scientific research?

What can explain his uncanny silence?

 

Might Dawkins actually be sympathetic with those who want to shut down these

labs and put an end to such science? The thought might sound blasphemous to

many of Dawkins' fans, but in my opinion, this looks like the best

explanation for his silence.

 

Britain's No. 1 public intellectual has been a leading advocate of the

" Great Apes Project, " a movement of intellectuals who are trying to confer

human rights to chimpanzees and their close relatives. As *European

Vegetarian* gleefully explains:

 

The main representatives of the project are chimpanzee researcher Jane

Goodall, biologist of evolution Richard Dawkins, and the Australian

philosopher Peter Singer. They compare their fight against the injustice in

the treatment of the great apes with the fight for the rights of women,

homosexuals or mentally or physically disabled people. [6]

 

As the Project members explain:

 

The Great Ape Project aims at taking just one step in this process of

extending the community of equals. We shall provide ethical argument, based

on scientific evidence about the capacities of chimpanzees, gorillas and

orangutans, for taking this step. Whether this step should also be the first

of many others is not for The Great Ape Project to say. No doubt some of us,

speaking individually, would want to extend the community of equals to many

other animals as well; others may consider that extending the community to

include all great apes is as far as we should go at present. We leave the

consideration of that question for another occasion. [7]

 

No, we should not leave that question for another occasion. For example,

consider this:

 

While focusing specifically on the great apes, this book suggests that

extending the moral community to include them could be the beginning of a

larger break in the species barrier….. In any case, there should be no

quibbles regarding the personhood, hence the rights, of birds, for as

Rogerssays, " it is now clear that birds have cognitive capacities

equivalent to

those of mammals, even primates " (p. 217). This recognition has cost birds

dearly in terms of the enormous amount of pain and suffering which they have

endured in the process of our " proving " avian intelligence scientifically.

It is now time to put the knowledge that has been acquired to use on their

behalf.[8]

 

So what do we have? Real world scientific progress is being blocked by

extremists in Richard Dawkins own back yard. Dawkins, Britain's #1

intellectual and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, has been

sleeping at the wheel. Or has he? Given that he supports the Grape Apes

Project, it only makes sense that he would support efforts to shut down

primate research. What's even more troublesome is that Dawkins appears to

be flirting with a philosophy that is anti-science at the core. Animal

experimentation is essential to progress in biology, yet Dawkins' logic

promises to take us down a slippery slope where step-by-step, more and more

species are removed from the list of experimental subjects.

 

But for now, let's just stick with the current strain of Dawkins' extremism.

Since a position that grants human rights to great apes would ban primate

research, let's consider just a sampling of the science that is being

targeted.

 

*A critical role for the chimpanzee model in the study of hepatitis C.

*Bukh J.

*Hepatology*. 2004 Jun;39(6):1469-75

 

Chimpanzees remain the only recognized animal model for the study of

hepatitis C virus (HCV). Studies performed in chimpanzees played a critical

role in the discovery of HCV and are continuing to play an essential role in

defining the natural history of this important human pathogen. In the

absence of a reproducible cell culture system, the infectivity titer of HCV

challenge pools can be determined only in chimpanzees. Recent studies in

chimpanzees have provided new insight into the nature of host immune

responses-particularly the intrahepatic responses-following primary and

secondary experimental HCV infections. The immunogenicity and efficacy of

vaccine candidates against HCV can be tested only in chimpanzees. Finally,

it would not have been possible to demonstrate the infectivity of infectious

clones of HCV without chimpanzees. Chimpanzees became infected when RNA

transcripts from molecular clones were inoculated directly into the liver.

The infection generated by such transfection did not differ significantly

from that observed in animals infected intravenously with wild-type HCV. The

RNA inoculated into chimpanzees originated from a single sequence, and the

animals therefore had a monoclonal HCV infection. Monoclonal infection

simplifies studies of HCV, because virus interaction with the host is not

confounded by the quasispecies invariably present in a natural infection. It

furthermore permits true homologous challenge in studies of protective

immunity and in testing the efficacy of vaccine candidates. Finally, this in

vivo transfection system has made it possible to test for the first time the

importance of genetic elements for HCV infectivity.

 

 

 

 

*Interlaminar** astroglial processes in the cerebral cortex of great apes.*

Colombo JA, Sherwood CC, Hof PR.

 

*Anat** Embryol (Berl)*. 2004 Jun;208(3):215-8.

 

The present study was designed to document the architecture of neocortical

astroglia in great apes, following glial fibrillary acidic protein

immunohistochemistry. These anthropoid species were missing from previous

phylogenetic descriptions of astroglia with interlaminar processes, a

characteristic event of the cerebral cortex within the Primate Order. Pongo

pygmaeus (orangutan), Gorilla gorilla (gorilla) and Pan troglodytes

(chimpanzee) brain samples showed the typical " palisade " of

interlaminarprocesses. Yet, those from Pan troglodytes were less

uniform, showing

extended cortical segments with astrocytic ( " syncytial-type " ) appearance,

intermingled with segments expressing the interlaminar " palisade " . Present

observations contribute to fill in missing data on the

phylogeneticemergence of the cerebral cortex

astroglial interlaminar processes. Considering the extreme consistency of

the expression of astroglial interlaminar " palisades " among anthropoid

species, this apparent variability among Pan individuals could be due to

various possibilities, which are considered in this report.

 

 

*Brain structure variation in great apes, with attention to the mountain

gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei).*

 

Sherwood CC, Cranfield MR, Mehlman PT, Lilly AA, Garbe JA, Whittier CA,

Nutter FB, Rein TR, Bruner HJ, Holloway RL, Tang CY, Naidich TP, Delman BN,

Steklis HD, Erwin JM, Hof PR.

 

*Am J Primatol*. 2004 Jul;63(3):149-64.

 

This report presents data regarding the brain structure of mountain gorillas

(Gorilla beringei beringei) in comparison with other great apes. Magnetic

resonance (MR) images of three mountain gorilla brains were obtained with a

3T scanner, and the volume of major neuroanatomical structures (neocortical

gray matter, hippocampus, thalamus, striatum, and cerebellum) was measured.

These data were included with our existing database that includes 23

chimpanzees, three western lowland gorillas, and six orang-utans. We defined

a multidimensional space by calculating the principal components (PCs) from

the correlation matrix of brain structure fractions in the well-represented

sample of chimpanzees. We then plotted data from all of the taxa in this

space to examine phyletic variation in neural organization. Most of the

variance in mountain gorillas, as well as other great apes, was contained

within the chimpanzee range along the first two PCs, which accounted for

61.73% of the total variance. Thus, the majority of interspecific variation

in brain structure observed among these ape taxa was no greater than the

within-species variation seen in chimpanzees. The loadings on PCs indicated

that the brain structure of great apes differs among taxa mostly in the

relative sizes of the striatum, cerebellum, and hippocampus. These findings

suggest possible functional differences among taxa in terms of neural

adaptations for ecological and locomotor capacities. Importantly, these

results fill a critical gap in current knowledge regarding great ape

neuroanatomical diversity. Am. J. Primatol. 63:149-164, 2004. Copyright 2004

Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 

 

*The chimpanzee (pan troglodytes) as a pharmacokinetic model for selection

of drug candidates: model characterization and application.*

 

Wong H, Grossman SJ, Bai SA, Diamond S, Wright MR, Grace JE Jr, Qian M, He

K, Yeleswaram K, Christ DD.

 

*Drug Metab Dispos*. 2004 Dec;32(12):1359-69

 

The chimpanzee (CHP) was evaluated as a pharmacokinetic model for humans (

HUMs) using propranolol, verapamil, theophylline, and 12 proprietary

compounds. Species differences were observed in the systemic clearance of

theophylline ( approximately 5-fold higher in CHPs), a low clearance

compound, and the bioavailability of propranolol and verapamil (lower in

CHPs), both high clearance compounds. The systemic clearance of

propranolol( approximately

1.53 l/h/kg) suggested that the hepatic blood flow in CHPs is comparable to

that in humans. No substantial differences were observed in the in vitro

protein binding. A preliminary attempt was made to characterize

cytochromeP450 (P450) activities in CHP and HUM liver

microsomes. Testosterone 6beta-hydroxylation and tolbutamide

methylhydroxylation activities were comparable in CHP and HUM liver

microsomes. In contrast, dextromethorphan O-demethylation and phenacetin O-

deethylation activities were approximately 10-fold higher (per mg protein)

in CHP liver microsomes. Intrinsic clearance estimates in CHP liver

microsomes were higher for propranolol ( approximately 10-fold) and

theophylline ( approximately 5-fold) and similar for verapamil. Of the 12

proprietary compounds, 3 had oral clearances that differed in the two

species by more than 3-fold, an acceptable range for biological variability.

Most of the observed differences are consistent with species differences in

P450 enzyme activity. Oral clearances of proprietary compounds in HUMs were

significantly correlated to those from CHPs (r = 0.68; p = 0.015), but not

to estimates from rat, dog, and monkey. In summary, the chimpanzee serves as

a valuable surrogate model for human pharmacokinetics, especially when

species differences in P450 enzyme activity are considered.

 

 

*Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis.*

 

Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Bryan VE, Carlson CS.

 

*Spine.* 2003 Oct 15;28(20):S186-94.

 

 

STUDY DESIGN: In vitro wear testing of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis

was performed in a cervical spine simulator. The biologic response was

assessed in chimpanzee and goat animal models. OBJECTIVE: Determine the wear

characteristics of the Bryan disc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Large joint

arthroplasties fail most commonly by wear and consequent formation of

particulate material, which induces an inflammatory response. Therefore,

measuring the wear characteristics of the new spinal disc replacements is

important. METHODS: Six prosthetic assembles were tested to 10 or 40 million

cycles by load and motion and 3 additional assemblies were tested by load

only in a cervical spine simulator. Any debris was examined using ASTM

standards. The local biologic response to the prosthesis was examined in two

chimpanzees. Nine goats were used to assess the biologic response in both

local and distant tissues. Arthrodesis was performed on three additional

control goats that received an allograft and an anterior cervical plate.

RESULTS: Wear results: cervical spine simulators that applied the loads and

motions associated with activities of daily living produced wear particulate

at a rate of 1.2 mg per million cycles. Device height decreased 0.02 mm per

million cycles with approximately 77% of this decrease due to gradual creep

of the nucleus under the constant compressive load. Particles generated were

granular in shape with a mean feret diameter of 3.9 microm. All animals

tolerated placement of the Bryan disc. Wear debris was present in the

periprosthetic and epidural spaces in some animals. However, no significant

inflammatory response was observed. No wear material was found distant from

the implant in draining lymph tissue, the liver, or the spleen. CONCLUSIONS:

The Bryan disc has satisfactory wear characteristics and does not produce a

significant inflammatory response.

 

According to Dawkins' logic, this research must be banned and any scientist

conducting similar research after the banning should be punished.

 

One of the anti-vivisection web pages claims, " It is time the public knew

that using nonhuman primates is outdated and dangerous to human health. "

 

It is time the *Professor of the Public Understanding of Science* tell the

public whether this is a correct statement about science.

 

*Sources*

 

1. He was recently Britain's No. 1 public intellectual. See

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110249/

 

2. See " Cambridge Primate Centre to Go Ahead " for more enthusiastic

comments about this new research center at:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/press_releases/11-21-03_primates.htm

 

3. " Primate research lab plans axed " :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3432531.stm

 

4. " Bryan Appleyard meets Richard Dawkins " :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1377906,00.html

 

5. " New Chancellor Patten Attacks Animal Rights Extremists " :

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3777010

 

6. http://www.purifymind.com/HumanMonkeys.htm

 

7. http://www.psyeta.org/hia/vol8/tgap.html

 

8. http://www.upc-online.org/expand.html

 

9.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040426104433/http://www.thedubliner.ie/cover_story_\

october_2002.php<http://web.archive.org/web/20040426104433/http:/www.thedubliner\

..ie/cover_story_october_2002.php>

 

10.

 

 

------------------------------

 

 

 

*TeleoLogic <http://www.idthink.net/back/dawkins/www.idthink.net>*