
University of Wisconsin to reprise controversial monkey studies - __Joker
http://wisconsinwatch.org/2014/07/university-of-wisconsin-to-reprise-controversial-monkey-studies/
======
jquery
In the time it took you to read that article about 20 Rhesus monkeys who will
be cared for in the most humane way possible given the study parameters,
roughly 1000 pigs and 300 cows were slaughtered in the USA, many living in
ghastly conditions. The Rhesus monkeys will perish so that we can improve
treatment for millions of people suffering from anxiety and depression. The
cows and pigs died so you can eat a bacon cheeseburger.

I'm not a vegetarian, because bacon cheeseburgers are delicious, but I don't
understand why we insist on being so morally inconsistent.

~~~
rayiner
Three-fold:

1) Killing animals for food is something that happens in nature.

2) The purpose of this study is to inflict psychological damage. Death isn't
the worst possible thing.

3) Monkeys are a lot more intelligent. Indeed, that's why the researchers are
studying monkey psychology instead of pig psychology.

I'm no vegetarian either, but I think looking back 50 years from now, we'll
look back regretfully at how we treat certain higher functioning animals like
primates and cetaceans today.

~~~
nospecinterests
How does the intelligence of an animal effect how that living creature should
be treated? For example, do you think it is appropriate to treat a monkey
better then one should treat a dog or cat simply because a monkey has a higher
mental capacity?

~~~
rlanday
Isn’t that the basic justification for why we treat humans much differently
than other animals? I think this is because we each know we’re capable of
suffering and assume other humans are as well, and in the lack of other
evidence, assume that animals with brains more similar to humans’ are more
capable of suffering than less intelligent animals. I also think this
reasoning is a major reason why research into differences in human
intelligence between individuals is so controversial.

~~~
nospecinterests
I think that could be one reason/assumption. Though I think generally humans
think that living creatures can all suffer. After that it comes down to
acceptability and return.

------
DanBC
Be interesting to see if UK animal rights tactics are exported to the US.

Protestors ignore the actual department doing the research but unleash a
shitstorm of protest over anyone providing services to that department.

As more and more service companies decline the contracts the costs for the
department go up and up.

UK groups were very effective at this, but there were also unacceptable forms
of protest involving violence. And UK government had weird ideas about right
to peaceful protest being wrong if it was effective at making people change
their behavior. Thus animal rights groups are sometimes terrorist
organisations (to be fair, a few of them did dig up corpses and other really
unpleasant thing).

Tl:dr don't stand outside the monkey experiment department waving placards; go
to the place that takes their garbage or provides their lunches or does the
cleaning or the gardening or the stationery.

~~~
trhway
>UK government had weird ideas about right to peaceful protest being wrong if
it was effective at making people change their behavior. Thus animal rights
groups are sometimes terrorist organisations

check out AETA laws in states.

------
disbelief
This is pretty sickening. I have spent a lot of time around various monkey
species, including the Rhesus Macaque, and the amount of emotional awareness
and sensitivity they have is comparable to that in humans. To subject such
intelligent and sensitive animals to such fear and cruelty, at such a young
age, and then to euthanize them afterwards, in a reprise of past experiments,
is beyond senseless.

~~~
dsirijus
Well, a committee of scientists that know better than you think results will
be worthwhile and disagree.

I'll take their word over uneducated ethical argument. I apologize for being
presumptuous about your occupation and field of research.

~~~
sxcurry
What makes you think that "scientists" have any better ethics than anyone
else? Given past examples, I really don't trust them to look beyond their own
self interest. Besides, this particular experiment would be much more useful
if performed with "scientists" children.

~~~
nospecinterests
I assume your joking about doing an equivalent experiment with human beings,
right?

~~~
rlanday
He’s not saying it should be done on human beings, he’s arguing it’s also
wrong to do it on monkeys for the same reason it’s wrong to do on humans. You,
and many other people, are making an argument that I find at least somewhat
uncomfortable that it’s OK to treat animals, even those very similar to
humans, much worse than humans because they’re of a different species. Can you
articulate why you believe that, and how comfortable are you with your
reasoning?

~~~
nospecinterests
Under that line of reasoning there could be no science done involving any type
of living creature, both big and small (like bacteria), unless it was purely
non-contact observational.

~~~
rlanday
Monkeys are much more similar to humans, and presumably much more able to
experience suffering, than bacteria are. People like to draw an arbitrary line
between humans and other animals, and there are good reasons for that in a lot
of cases (e.g., should we give chimpanzees the right to vote in government
elections, or start giving them drivers’ licenses?), but that might not be the
most relevant line to draw in terms of ability to experience suffering. Many
people clearly experience some cognitive dissonance when deciding how to treat
animals: for example, many people treat pet dogs as family members but eat
other animals like pigs, even though dogs and pigs probably aren’t really very
different in any ethically relevant way.

------
swamp40
The University of Wisconsin has a reputation for being unusually liberal for a
Midwest campus.

I can assure you that the Madison Veterinary school is far removed from that
liberal slant.

There are several intensive essays involved in the Vet school application
process, and if they get a hint that you are applying because you've "always
loved animals" and/or you "want to help ease their suffering", your
application gets tossed fast.

That vet school is a serious business for serious professionals.

Maybe they are all like that - I don't know.

I have a feeling it's because the Midwest has such a strong farming background
that the kids are already used to the animals getting slaughtered at the end
of the season.

The corporations know the hardcore testing/experimentation is necessary, so
they help make the school successful and also help mold the students'
attitudes while they are young.

It's like being a soldier.

The rest of the world can argue about what's morally right or wrong, but you
do your job, stay professional, push the boundaries, make discoveries and help
mankind.

At the end of every experiment, the subjects get euthanized. SOP. Do it until
it doesn't bother you anymore.

Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys.

It's hardcore, but somebody has to do it. (Or maybe not. But what do I know?)

~~~
nilved
> Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys.

Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical
experiments as a means to an end, then why not perform them on humans for the
maximum benefit? Unit 731's experiments provided agreeably valuable evidence,
demonstrating the value in human experimentation; and it's hotly debated that
many tests on animals are applicable to humans to begin with, demonstrating
the overstated value of animal experimentation. So if it's true that knowledge
trumps morality, we're not taking advantage of that fact.

~~~
nospecinterests
Where in this article did it state that the experiment was unethical?

Only 2 people objected over what was essentially 2 different committees (with
different people on those committees). Both committees approved two different,
yet closely similar, plans. The person they quoted, who objected on the
similar plan 2 years ago, seemed to object based on nothing but his feelings.
In the article he stated, “We’re killing baby monkeys.” That is not anything
near a reasoned, logical, scientifically backed statement on why their plan
was unethical. Would it have been ethical if they proceeded with their plan,
let it run its course for the year, then let the monkeys live until their
natural deaths?

~~~
nilved
Sorry, I thought it was implied. Like an article about baby eating or
something. If your argument is that you're a nihilist and don't value life (be
it baby monkey or human) then that's something I can reason with, but if
you're saying it's ethical to kill baby monkeys and not humans, re-read my
post.

------
recalibrator
If your day-to-day job consists of inflicting harm on animals, you should be
tested for psychopathic tendencies. It should be mandatory.

~~~
bagels
For what purpose?

Suppose this test indicated that one of the lab workers had 'psychopathic
tendencies', what do you propose happens next?

~~~
maxxxxx
Remove them from the job? I work in a company that does animal experiments and
I have noticed that some of the scientists don't seem to have any empathy with
the animals. They treat them like any other device they work with. In my view
they could treat the animals much better without having a negative impact on
the study but it's just not a concern for management or scientists.

~~~
Spooky23
It's a coping strategy, that indicates that they aren't psychopaths.

People who deal in harsh conditions become more clinical and detached.
Farmers, doctors, soldiers and call center agents all share similar behaviors
in this area.

~~~
maxxxxx
I never thought it about as a coping strategy. It's an interesting thought
though. I know quite a few people who couldn't deal with animal testing
anymore and did something else. I guess that leaves a certain kind of people.
I still think there should be stronger rules for animal testing and how the
animals are being kept. The cost for better treatment would be small compared
to all other costs. I bet somewhen in the future people will look at animal
cruelty (animal testing and meat production) the same way we look at things
like slavery or chopping off a thief's hands now.

------
higherpurpose
Facebook might be interested in them. Not as good raw material as live humans,
but hey, if it works, it works.

