Chimpanzees in Research

Non-Human Animals in Research

The more we learn of the nature of animals, especially those with complex brains and corresponding complex social behavior, the more ethical concerns are raised regarding their use in the service of man - whether this be in entertainment, as 'pets,' for food, in research laboratories or in any of the other uses to which we subject them. This concern is sharpened when the usage in question leads to intense physical or mental suffering - as is so often true with regard to vivisection.

Biomedical research involving the use of living animals began in an era when the man in the street, while believing that animals felt pain (and other emotions), was not, for the most part, much concerned by their suffering. And scientists, at least during the hours they spent in the lab, maintained that animals were mere machines, incapable of feeling pain or any other emotion. It was not considered important, or even necessary, to cater to the wants and needs of experimental animals. There was, at that time, no understanding of the effects of stress on the endocrine and nervous systems, no inkling of the fact that the use of a stressed animal could effect the results of an experiment. Thus the conditions in which animals were kept - size and furnishings of the cage, social versus solitary confinement - were designed to make the life of the caretaker and experimenter as easy as possible. The smaller the cage the cheaper it was to make, the easier to clean, and the simpler the task of handling its inmate. Thus, it was hardly surprising that research animals were kept in tiny sterile cages, stacked one on top of the other, usually one animal per cage. And ethical concern for the animal subjects was kept firmly outside the (locked) doors.

As time went on, the use of animals in the laboratories increased, particularly as certain kinds of research and testing on human animals became, for ethical reasons, more difficult to carry out legally. Animal research was increasingly perceived, by scientists and the general public, as being crucial to all medical progress. Today it is, by and large, taken for granted - the accepted way of gaining new knowledge about disease, its treatment and prevention. And, too, the accepted way of testing all manner of products, destined for human use, before they go on the market.

Of course I would like to see the lab cages standing empty. So would every caring, compassionate human, including most of those who work with animals in biomedical research. If all use of animals in the laboratory was abruptly stopped there would probably, for a while anyway, be a great deal of confusion, and many lines of inquiry would be brought to a sudden halt. This might lead to an increase in human suffering. This means that, until alternatives to the use of live animals in the research labs are widely available and, moreover, researchers and drug companies are legally compelled to use them, society will demand - and accept - the continued abuse of animals on its behalf.

Alternatives: Already, in many fields of research and testing, the growing concern for animal suffering has led to major advances in the development of techniques such as tissue cultures, in vitro testing, computer simulation and so on. Much understanding of disease has derived from epidemiology and clinical observation.

The day will eventually come when it will no longer be necessary to use animals at all. It must. But much more pressure should be brought to bear on scientists to develop additional techniques. We should put far more money into the research, and give due acknowledgment and acclaim to those who make new breakthroughs - at the very least a series of Nobel prizes. It is necessary to attract the brightest in the field. Moreover, steps should be taken to require the use of techniques already developed and proven. In the meantime, it is imperative that the numbers of animals used be reduced drastically. Unnecessary duplication of research must be avoided. There should be more stringent rules regarding what animals may and may not be used for. They should be used only for the most pressing projects that have clear-cut health benefits for many people, and contribute significantly to the alleviation of human suffering. Other uses of animals in the labs should be stopped immediately, including the testing of cosmetics and household products.

Humane treatment: Finally, as long as animals are used in our labs for any reason whatsoever, they should be given the most humane treatment possible, and the best living conditions. Why is it that only relatively few scientists are prepared to back those who are insisting on better, more humane conditions for laboratory animals? The usual answer is that changes of this sort would cost so much money that all progress in medical knowledge would come to an end. This is not true. Essential research would continue - the cost of building new cages and instigating better care - giving programs would be considerable, but negligible, I am assured, when compared to the cost of sophisticated equipment used by research scientists today. Unfortunately, though, many projects are poorly conceived and often totally unnecessary. They might indeed suffer if the costs of maintaining the research animals are increased. People making their living from them would lose their jobs. So be it.

Finally, we need a new mindset. Instead of saying "Sadly we shall always need to use some animals for some purposes" we should say "This abuse of animals is not ethical. Let us therefore get together and use our awesome intellect to speed up the day when this practice is a thing of the past." When people complain about the costs of introducing humane living conditions, my response is: 'Look at your lifestyle, your house, your car, your clothes. Think of the administrative building in which you work, your salary, your expenses, the holidays you take. And, after thinking about all those things, then tell me that we should begrudge the extra dollars spent in making a little less grim the lives of the animals used to reduce human suffering.' Surely it should be a matter of moral responsibility that we humans, differing from other animals mainly by virtue of our more highly-developed intellect and, with it, our greater capacity for understanding and compassion, ensure that the medical progress slowly detaches its roots from the manure of non-human animal suffering and despair. Particularly when this involves the servitude of our closest relatives.

From: Goodall, Jane: Through A Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research

"It is time to rethink our mindless acceptance of animal experimentation in our labs, as well as other acts of abuse to non-human animals, and to extend our ethical concern to the animal world. It is wrong of us to use animals any way that we see fit. As long as they are used in laboratory experimentation, we must fight for humane treatment and legislation to make using animals illegal if alternative methods have been found or if the experiment is unnecessary. A large percentage of testing is useless, and should be stopped today." - Jane Goodall

Chimpanzees and other primates - along with dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rats, and mice and a variety of farm animals - have been used in biomedical research as animal models for human diseases. Chimpanzees have also been used for assessing the damage done to the brain and skull during simulated head impact crashes and social deprivation studies. Chimpanzees are so like us that they can catch or be infected by nearly all known human infectious diseases.

In 1978, the National Institutes of Health called the chimp an "irreplaceable model" for certain diseases. Chimpanzees infected with the human strain of HIV keep the retrovirus alive in the blood stream. But during almost 20 years of research, with the exception of two male chimpanzees at Yerkes Primate Research Center, no chimp has come down with full-blown symptoms of AIDS. Defenders of chimpanzee research maintain that using chimpanzees has yielded many valuable and important insights into human diseases and their cures. Opponents argue that there are alternatives to using chimpanzees, including the use of human volunteers.

As long as chimpanzees are used in medical research, it is our responsibility to treat them as humanely as possible. Their similarities to humans do not end with their physiology and immune systems. Chimp babies need the same things as their human counterparts: they need to be held, loved, talked to, and played with, to interact with other chimpanzees for play and romping, to have toys and enrichment so that they do not become bored and listless. Conditions for most lab chimpanzee have improved over the past several years. But we still have far to go. We must recognize our responsibility for the pain and suffering we have inflicted.