NIH to retire all research chimpanzees | Hacker News Reader

NIH to retire all research chimpanzees

nature.com

81 pointssethbannon32 comments

I'd like to challenge the underlying assumption of NIH's reasoning here: “We reached a point where in that five years the need for research has essentially shrunk to zero. “

This is not true. The demand for research animals is huge, and growing. Due to extremely restrictive laws and procedures governing the use of animals in research in the US and the EU (source: my own experience), virtually all interesting research (=breakthrough/publishable) becomes impractical.

What has already happened is that all interesting research moved to countries with less restrictive laws, namely China (source: direct exposure to my Chinese colleagues in neuroscience). With their vast and unrestrictive funding (CAS etc.), it is the Chinese who are now coming out with some fascinating results. More than that, some of my EU/US colleagues collaborate directly with them, on the exact same research, just on the Chinese soil (read: inconvenience of relocation, but that's about it).

I agree that this comment “We reached a point where in that five years the need for research has essentially shrunk to zero.” is a bit disingenuous as it is the same restrictive regulations that these institutes have put into place that have driven the demand to zero.

However, that was the intended consequence I would argue. And rather than say, “This is the state of affairs we wanted, we wanted zero invasive research on primates.” they are going to deflect blame because they get charged with endangering public health, “Given NIH’s primary mission to protect public health, it seems surprising,”

And that _is_ what is happening. It's an ethical trade-off. I'd actually prefer them to say that they were aware that some science might take longer but that the chimpanzee's well-being was now being taken into consideration, so sorry about that. I can see why they don't though, even if that's what they believe.

This makes a lot of sense, and makes me wonder how much experimentation on humans has risen in the time it took for that demand to reach zero. Or maybe how much regulation of human experiments has relaxed. I doubt there's much advocacy for these people, who are often just people in need.

A setback for science, but a large ethical step forward.

I am a bit unsettled by the idea that even non-invasive and neutral research will stop; this means that some of the work I did on SIV vaccine efficacy (for the purposes of learning in service of making an HIV vaccine) a few years ago might not get the ethical approval to be performed today even though we were using macaques instead of chimps.

I anticipate a chilling effect on primate studies in general after this policy change as the review boards attune to the new current of cash flow from the NIH. Monkey trials have always been exorbitantly expensive, and non-chimp studies will probably see cost rises in addition to reduced funding. In our trials, the monkeys were given harmless vaccinations, and had blood draws every once in a while, then retired to a sanctuary at the end of the study... not remotely unethical, but probably not consistent with the highest standards of animal rights that are coming into vogue.

A lot of these monkeys are very well cared for-- not loved, but definitely attended to. There are federal IACUC regulations on how many toys they are allowed to have, and how to rotate their selection of toys such that they only have access to their favorite toy/food/drink some of the time so that they don't get hedonic desensitization. These monkeys even have privacy rights regarding their medical info in some niche cases.

I would argue that your premise that science and ethics are mutually exclusive (they must be if you can say good/bad for science but good/bad for ethics) is completely, utterly false.

science := 1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; 2) a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

ethics := 1) moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior; 2) the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles

To take an either or approach to endeavors which touch on both science and ethics is to immediately set out with a means to ends vs ends to means approach depending on where one's priorities lie.

I'd argue that ethics is pervasive and pertinent across every and all human endeavors, including ethics, and that the task is to work the scientific process in an ethical manner. Not to put the two at odds.

Eh, my premise isn't that science and ethics are always are mutually exclusive. Like I said, you can do a perfectly ethical primate study and get great data, it's just that philosophically there are many people opposed to the very concept of an animal study because it will infringe upon the animal's "right" to self determination so they'll fight against these ethical studies too.

Without these regulations, the animals get abused... it's not sufficient to trust scientists to be ethical.

My bad. I said mutually exclusive. I meant and should have said independent.

Which I would have meant to mean, since ethics pervades all human endeavors, and science is a human endeavor, they are not completely independent.

So yeah, that's what I was trying to mean, but clearly said something else.

Ethics as generally portrayed costs lives and increases misery in part by preventing useful studies from being done, but also though overhead from review boards.

Pretending there is no conflict is simply sticking your head into the ground.

The real question is if this cost is worth paying and that's both more important and harder to defend.

You've grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Normally I'd not reply or reply rather dryly, but given that you've taken to implying that I'm "sticking my head into the ground" and avoiding the "more important and harder to defend" question, decision, and so I'll take a moment here to answer your points individually.

I argued that they are not mutually exclusive and therefore must be balanced, which requires a decision, which is very much not sticking one's head in the ground. It is explicitly taking responsibility for any actions or decisions made from having weighed the, at times conflicting, issues / interests involved.

"Ethics as generally portrayed costs lives and increases misery in part by preventing useful studies from being done, but also though overhead from review boards."

This is an overly general statement (I'm not sure by what evidence you feel comfortable or on what basis you claim the authority to make such a claim on how ethics is generally portrayed) and not sure how you've calculate the overhead costs versus the overhead benefits (in situations where review boards prevent misery).

As to your reply, it makes a poor attempt at a "straw man" strategy, but even then lacks any evidence to support your counter-argument. You then proceed to the strategy of an "ad hominem argument", nakedly, and come across petty doing so, given the weight of the issue and the lack of seriousness with which you've treated the discussion up to that point. Finally, you've basically clumsily reworded a portion of the argument I put forth, betraying the fact that you either didn't understand my argument or are purposely trying to misconstrue my argument, while not engaging with the rest of what I put forth.

The chimpanzees are living creatures. Humans are living creature. This is an important and sober issue for many, many people. Please don't interject petty personal attacks into the conversation.

Ethics can't increase the rate of scientific advancement. (Feel free to disagree but your going to need a lot of evidence.)

It can and has slowed things down when review boards rejected some research on ethical grounds. Q.E.D.

Technically I only need two example studies. But fetal tissue research does not cause direct suffering or death and has benefits. It also involves significant review processes even when approved.

Good talk.

About time. I was watching a CBC documentary on a sanctuary in Louisiana and the US was clearly criticized as an outlier in this respect. The chimpanzees are treated terribly with no regard given for their livelihood. Nothing should have to go through that in my opinion. This policy is a few decades late but better late than never.

Finally! I think it was obvious decades ago that this was ethically wrong, but we were blinded by the benefits to us.

We experiment on lab mice, in which we torture them, give them cancer, force them to eat unhealthy diets, and so on.

It's also great for medical research.

But on the other hand, mices living in the wild also meet brutal ends, either by starvation or predation or natural diseases.

So, where do we draw the line?

> which we torture them

I'm not sure to which extent this is true. From what I read (for example S. Pinker mentions this in his Better Nature..) these days all research on animals needs to be ok-ed by ethics committees, and the types of famous research from the past we read about wouldn't fly today. Pinker mentions explicitly his experience as an undergrad with experiments that involved rat torture and says that would never happen today. I guess people who actually work at labs would know more about this, but it appears that things have changed even for lab rats (even though we still destroy them mercilessly when they become pests to us.

The article makes it seem more like there's just no demand for research on chimps anymore.

Interestingly, the only ones who demand it seem to be people who do conservation work for the chimps.

>was ethically wrong

Debatable and depends on the choice of either deontological or consequentialist theory of ethics.

If you believe Peter Singer's argument, then regardless of a deontological or consequentialist viewpoint, you must accept experimentation on mentally retarded humans in order to accept experimentation on great apes. Neither deontology nor consequentialism has any justification for specicism.

Why should one accept Peter Singer's argument?

For instance, if you regard morality as a framework for negotiating conflicts of interest within the species, it could make sense to reject experimentation on handicapped humans while allowing experimentation on apes belonging to other species.

Yes, hiding immoral, cruel behavior behind obscure words and abstract theories is a time-honored tradition.

I take issue with the suggestion that this is an unambiguous sign of ethical progress in scientific research.

One problem is that there is rather little clarity on the set of ethical principles that warrants the inclusion of other species into our sphere of moral concern. It seems that, from a detached perspective, the only identifiable basis for our moral sense is that it enables human beings to negotiate conflict and cooperate in social settings without recourse to violence. It's difficult for some to see how a concern for the other great apes advances this goal. On the other hand, there are many research contexts where the close evolutionary relationship between Homo sapiens and the other great apes makes the latter an extremely useful pool of specimens in situations where experimenting directly on the former would conflict with this goal. In other words, we need to clarify the justification for concern for the well-being of the other great apes. Is this mere empathy, or is there a rational basis for the ethical judgment which accounts for the basis of morality?

Reminded me of this story I read a while back:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/25-years-ago-in-virginia-a-very-...

And those wanting to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston_virus

How do you all feel about testing on dogs? I know a guy who has induced strokes in beagles while they were anesthetized and inside an MRI. In the past we were never able to see a stroke occur and the brain's response in real time. The research might lead to breakthroughs in how we treat stroke which could save thousands of human lives... an ethical conundrum without a doubt.

Primates are a very valuable resource for medical research. Lots of research programes would highly benefit from higher primates. But researches have been driven to be even afraid to ask for access to such a resource if they want grants accepted anywhere in the world! Gould luck asking for any higher primate for any neuroscience research if you want it approved!

By artificially making them prohibitively expensive (by, for examples, demanding higher quality of animal care and all sorts of authorizations) and by adding tons of ethical and regulatory concerns, nobody even asks for them because the cost/risk ratio for any project makes it not worth it.

It's "probably" X times cheaper to go to a third world country and cladestinely test any crucial biotech stuff directly on humans as they are cheap and in some places "unwanted" anyhow. Governments/army probably have access to prisons for their needs also.

I can imagine when cool and useful stuff like implantable high-res-and-bandwidth brain-computer-interfaces come to market with killer side-effects because of improper prior testing. Oh wait... they'll probably come 50 years later anyhow because they're too risky/expensive to develop and test.

This kinds of stupid policy moves could have even nastier species-level consequences: imagine having a superhuman-AI pop up before we have human-mind-uploading capabilities and wipe out the whole goddamn human race before we get to upload even one human-intelligence to the cloud :| ...simply because the mind uploading stuff and its precursor technologies would've had to be developed through iterative testing on chimpanzees because it was illegal or too expensive (or the army/gov was not interested in it strongly enough to have the experiments done directly on humans).

Sad...

Your comment is:

_strident/emotive_ very valuable resource, even afraid to ask, prohibitively expensive, etc.

_melodramatic_ "cladestinely test any crucial biotech stuff directly on humans"

_fantastical_ "cool and useful stuff like implantable high-res-and-bandwidth brain-computer-interfaces"

_hyperbolic_ "wipe out the whole goddamn human race"

Meanwhile back on planet Earth some higher primates in one corner of the world get to not be experimented on.

> Meanwhile back on planet Earth some higher primates in one corner of the world get to not be experimented on.

don't care that much about what you call "planet Earth". yeah, someone has to care about this too (we also need to survive the present in order to steer the world towards our visions) but I choose to not be one of them.

my little "vision of future" is cool enough for me. and when back on "planet Earth" I strive to pull people and things as strong as possible towards my vision, and hopefully one day the future will get close enough to it, and at least my grandchildren will enjoy some of it.

actually, the only reason I cared about this piece of news is because its consequences have the possibility to steer the future to a point that might be different from my vision, and this is something I care about, and I instinctively attack anything threatening my vision event potentially ...especially when bored enough to enjoy some trolling.

...but I sincerely appreciate you comment :) mine was a crazy-ish rant, but yours actually has useful copy writing style tips that I might find useful here on "planet earth". cheers!

I think your vision will come about whether or not we experiment on chimps and their like. It might take ever so slightly longer to arrive at your vision, but in the mean time we cut down on what some of us believe to be the unnecessary suffering of non-human animals.

But think about it this way. Maybe it'll force us to ramp up computer bio-simulation, and that might be very successful, and that might mean that it might take ever so slightly shorter to arrive at your vision!

I want to comment on this assertion of yours, "I strive to pull people and things as strong as possible towards my vision, and hopefully one day the future will get close enough to it, and at least my grandchildren will enjoy some of it."

What happens if someone else's vision is at variance with yours? Or they disagree with the means to achieve your vision? No amount of pulling will make people move in your direction if they really don't want to go there. How are you going to get to where you want to go without conflict? Is there a place for the element of compromise along your path? :)

Thanks for saying you appreciate what I wrote! Keep on dreaming big!

While true, none of those address or refute the points raised in the comment.

This is wrong:

    It's "probably" X times cheaper to go to a third world
    country and cladestinely test any crucial biotech stuff
    directly on humans as they are cheap and in some places
    "unwanted" anyhow. Governments/army probably have access
    to prisons for their needs also.

I provide network engineering/support for biomedical research in low- to middle-income countries, and I can tell you right now all of the controls that apply to human research ${here} also apply to human research ${over there}. You can't just round up a bunch of undesirables, perform a bunch of tests on them, and publish it as science. Any human studies that do not provide adequate human subject protection would not be allowed to be used in any kind of regulated clinical trial, and no regulatory authority or reputable scientific forum would accept as valid such a study's conclusions. To give some examples of the relevant regulatory frameworks:

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClin...

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/labsandresources/resources/dmidclin...

I am less familiar with medical research in the military, but I did find this:

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/ethics...

These implement internationally agreed upon standards for good clinical practice:

http://ichgcp.net/

Do you have any consideration for the animals are suffering from this research? Just curious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com