The medical experiments on great apes raise issues of morality - the fact that they are similar to humans makes it difficult to deal with the suffering caused to them as a result of the research. So what is the solution?
Yaron Caspi Galileo
Does the benefit justify the suffering the chimpanzees go through? The National Institute of Health of the United States is trying to find a solution to this important issue.
Among the moral problems associated with science, the problem of animal experiments is undoubtedly one of the most important and complicated. Those who support these experiments in general claim that they are necessary for the advancement of human knowledge and scientific research, and especially for the ability of modern medicine to continue to improve the quality of our lives.
Those who oppose experiments in general claim that it does not matter what the benefit is to the human race or to scientific research, the experiments are immoral, since they harm creatures that feel pain. Between these two polar views you can find the whole range of opinions. Among animals, experiments on monkeys, and especially on apes, give rise to the greatest difficulty.
The fact that they are so similar to us biologically, cognitively and socially makes it difficult to justify the scientific experiments on them. On the other hand, the same fact makes it possible to use them to draw direct scientific conclusions (or in the closest way) about humans, to develop medicines that will be safe for humans and to study human diseases.
The public is involved
In 2010, the National Institute of Health (NIH) decided to finance the transfer of 200 chimpanzees in 'retirement' from a research center in New Mexico to a research center in Texas, which raised concerns that they would be forced to return to serve as "guinea pigs" ".
The ensuing public uproar, and the fact that at the same time the European Union Parliament banned further experiments on apes, led the NIH to form a committee to advise it on future policy on experiments on chimpanzees.
It should be noted that the NIH funds research on about two-thirds of the chimpanzees kept for research purposes in the United States (612 out of 937), while the remaining third is funded by private entities. In total, the chimpanzees funded by the NIH are kept in four centers across the United States.
Although the committee was chaired by Professor Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist from Johns Hopkins University, the committee was not asked to engage in moral considerations, but only to recommend lines that would guide future policy on the subject. The committee met twice, conducted a survey of the scientific literature and asked for responses from the public (and even received over 5,700 responses).
Last month, she submitted her final report, in which she stated that although chimpanzees were previously used as animals for biomedical research, scientific developments led to the development of alternative research methods, which make most experiments on chimpanzees unnecessary. However, the committee did not recommend completely stopping the experiments on chimpanzees and even recommended continuing to finance research that has already begun so as not to delay the development of new drugs.
According to the report, between the years 2010-2001, the NIH funded about 50-40 studies per year in chimpanzees (and a total of about 110 different experiments throughout the period). The larger group of studies dealt with hepatitis (jaundice, viral hepatitis) of types B and C (about 40%). Other major research areas were neurobiology, AIDS, behavioral research and comparative genomic research. The committee recommended criteria to be used to examine the scientific necessity of each and every study individually.
Today, most experiments on chimpanzees are unnecessary. Illustration: ingimage
Clear criteria for experiments
Regarding biomedical research, the committee recommended that only experiments meeting the following three criteria receive funding from the NIH:
A. The knowledge that will be obtained from the experiment is necessary to prevent delaying the development of new medical measures against factors that threaten human life or those that weaken human medical resistance.
B. There are no other systems where the research can be conducted, and it cannot be conducted on humans, for ethical reasons.
third. The chimpanzees will be kept in a physically and socially appropriate environment (such as in special cages used to keep apes, cages called Primadomes), or they will be found in their natural environment.
As an example of the use of these criteria, the committee examined the studies on viral hepatitis type C. The committee recommended stopping the experiments on chimpanzees for the purpose of developing a therapeutic vaccine for this disease. The committee recognized the medical need for the development of this vaccine and the fact that there are no other animals that can be used to test its effectiveness.
However, since it is possible to test the vaccine with the help of human volunteers who are sick with the disease, by exposing them to tiny amounts after the compound itself has been tested on other animals and found to be non-toxic, these experiments do not meet the second criterion proposed by the committee.
On the other hand, regarding the use of chimpanzees to develop a preventive vaccine for viral hepatitis C, the committee was unable to reach an agreed recommendation. Unlike a therapeutic vaccine, a preventive vaccine can only be tested on high-risk human populations, but not those who have already contracted the disease. Therefore, there is a danger that stopping the use of chimpanzees will delay the development of the vaccine.
A special chapter was devoted by the committee to the examination of behavioral studies and comparative genome studies.
Regarding these studies, the committee recommended funding only if they meet the following criteria:
A. The studies provide scientific knowledge that cannot be obtained in any other way on subjects such as consciousness, mental health, emotions or the development of the human genome.
B. The studies are carried out on chimpanzees who do not object, and who give their tacit consent to the study. Also, they must be carried out in such a way as to minimize the pain and distress felt by the chimpanzees as well as the use of invasive methods.
The head of the committee claims that the new criteria set a very high bar, which will lead to the cessation of most experiments on chimpanzees. On the other hand, voices were heard claiming that the committee's recommendations are actually just a re-ratification of the current policy. Due to the report, the NIH announced that it would temporarily stop supporting new research that uses chimpanzees for experiments.
for further reading:
The summary of the report and the summary presentation of the committee
The full article in the March issue of "Galileo" magazine
The full article was published in Galileo magazine, March 2012
13 תגובות
It's a pain in the ass, until one of your family is sick with some disease for which there is no cure.
A person from the stage is allowed.
Stop being nice.
Indeed, the priests of Beit Zadok are my soul's beloved ♥ 🙂
The phrase "the house of the Syrians" in the verses "A poor and wise child is better than an old and foolish king who no longer knew how to warn, because he came out of the house of the Syrians to reign" (Ecclesiastes XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX) is usually interpreted as "the house of the forbidden". But these verses clearly reflect what happened to the high priest Khunio, who fell into the trap of the Syrian king Antiochus IV, and to the younger brother of Khunio, Jesus, who received the high appointment from the Syrian king. The continuation "For even in his kingdom was born Resh, I saw all life that goes under the sun with the second child who will stand under him" also corresponds to the historical process in which Jesus was also removed from the priesthood and it was given to someone who was not from the family.
I wouldn't have gone into it here if it weren't for the quote provided by the fourth commenter, and with the readers, apologies.
We live in a cruel world. Our abuse of the helpless does not end with animal experiments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kXTulGfnWKs#!
jubilee,
I don't know the answer, but knowing you, I'm guessing you mean one of the priests from Beit Zadok, beloved of your soul?
R.H., nice 🙂 but I wasn't aiming for them.
"King" in the language of the Bible can also be a high priest such as "Melchizedek is a complete king...he is a priest of the Most High God".
I mean a deposed high priest.
jubilee,
Jehoiachin or Zedekiah? I will bet on Jehoiachin because Zedekiah, even when he had the poor, did not show any wise worldview. Is that what you meant?
Most researchers suffer from laziness and narrow vision, which is what makes them shut themselves in the laboratory and surround themselves with animals. There is no lack of sick people in the world, seriously or terminally, who are willing to experiment with new drugs, but the researchers have to locate them, and travel to them, or finance their stay near the laboratory, which requires a lot of money. And in general dealing with people requires effort and also participation in suffering, which is not convenient for those who want to sleep well at night.
It is indeed a charged topic, on the one hand, serious scientists who argue in favor of the importance of experiments (I hope that only the good of humanity is in front of them, and they are not lobbyists for companies that deal with the issue)... and on the other hand, activists who make an important moral claim about the suffering of animals (it's a shame that those activists most of the time use demagoguery cheap and don't bring research arguments that support practical alternatives), I am against the experiments in principle, but if the only (real) alternative is humans or monkeys, the answer is clear "humans before monkeys"... and in general it is appropriate that these experiments should not take place in the State of Israel...
The smartest of all?
Only because a later editor added in the title "Ben David" is attributed Ecclesiastes to a fictitious figure.
"I am I was A king in Jerusalem". In the Bible, there are no kings who could talk about their reign in the past tense.
Still, Baal Kohelat was indeed a king in Jerusalem who was deposed and lived for a while to tell about it.
And the daily riddle: Who is it?
I am actually very much in favor of animal experiments to reduce suffering in the world.
That's why I suggest using people as guinea pigs to reduce the suffering of monkeys, puppies, and guinea pigs.
And on this the wise man has already said of every man: It is permissible to take an animal from a man - it is not.
"Does the benefit justify the suffering?" The very act of asking the question is not moral
🙁
Glad to know that there is a discussion on the subject, and it is not completely hacked. In any case, a complex and sad matter.