No place for animal experiments that cross the line

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/28/no-place-for-animal-experiments-cross-line

Version 0 of 1.

Opposition to animal experimentation is based on compassion and scientific evidence. It has nothing to do with provoking fear among animal researchers (We can experiment on monkeys without harming them. Scientists should not be frightened away, Editorial, 26 May). Brain research on monkeys typically involves appalling suffering, including invasive surgery so that restraining and recording devices can be implanted in their heads (these implants can easily become infected). Monkeys used in research will often be left hungry or thirsty, so that they will be sufficiently motivated to perform tasks for a small food or fluid “reward”. Yet a recent government-commissioned report into brain research on monkeys commented that in most cases “little direct evidence was available of actual medical benefit in the form of changes in clinical practice or new treatments.” Like other forms of vivisection, experiments on monkeys should be replaced with non-animal methods that provide results directly relevant to humans.Isobel HutchinsonCampaigner, Animal Aid

• Your editorial on monkey experiments was unbalanced and inaccurate. Monkey experiments are not – and cannot be – “humane”. While the BUAV deplores personal threats by any individuals, rejection of intimidation shouldn’t justify an “open season” that permits any suffering for human knowledge. Most people, including most scientists, will draw a line somewhere, and this type of primate research surely crosses the line.

The BUAV investigated the laboratory mentioned and uncovered disturbing evidence of how those monkeys suffered severely. Neither is acknowledged by the Guardian. Monkeys were forcibly dragged from their cages, had parts of their skulls removed and electrodes implanted into their brains, were restrained and immobilised by their heads for hours, and deprived of water for days.

This has no place in civilised society, but is also to no avail: the value of these, and other, monkey experiments to human medicine is speculative and exaggerated; there are important differences between primates and humans in brain structure and function; the significance of results of ethical research on humans is grossly underestimated, while ethically conducted studies in humans are more than feasible – they already take place widely. Compassion for animals in laboratories is not “sentimentality”; it goes hand-in-hand with compassion for humans, both of which would be served by leaving cruel and demonstrably unnecessary monkey experiments behind in favour of truly humane and human-relevant science.Jarrod BaileySenior research scientist, BUAV

• I support “pushback” against primate research not out of “sentimentality and fear” but because life as a whole is more important than the purely human part of it – without all the rest we wouldn’t even be here; because we’re animals (and primates) ourselves – otherwise animal models couldn’t deliver knowledge; because anthropocentrism is just as biologically illiterate as anthropomorphism; and because whether ends justify means should always be open to challenge. Perhaps research on monkeys can be conducted without harming them, but you can’t do pain research (for instance) without inflicting pain. So there will always be dispute about “compassionate” priorities.David William EvansLeeds

• I was very disappointed in your editorial. It purports to be objective and rational yet it builds in so many assumptions that it leads inevitably to the conclusion that animal experiments are necessary. To quote just one: “So here is a specific and valuable advance in knowledge that could only have been attained by experimentation on animals that closely resemble us; experiments which are, as far as we can tell, almost painless.” Why could these almost painless experiments not have been carried out on humans? If there is a good reason, then why does it not also preclude carrying out that experiment on animals that closely resemble us? Close enough to be useful to us but not close enough to worry about their pain? As far as I can tell that’s unjustifiable.Robin GardnerWest Bridgford, Nottinghamshire

• Your editorial concludes with a chilling phrase: “... that urge to understand which seems uniquely human should triumph over sentimentality and fear”. Does such a triumph of the will to understand reduce compassion for the welfare of those who are less than human to mere sentimentality?

It’s precisely that kind of assertion that has led to the violation of the bodies of many people considered less than human (for example people with learning disabilities) and in civilised countries many decades after Mengele.

The crucial ethical point as made by the philosopher Peter Singer is: it’s not whether they’re intelligent, or whether they’re human, it’s whether they can suffer. I like to think we value another quality that is uniquely human: our capacity for ethics.Mike KayeWest Slaithwaite, West Yorkshire