[Mb-civic] The sad lot of lab chimps - Jane Goodall, Ray Greek - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  The sad lot of lab chimps

By Jane Goodall and Ray Greek  |  February 17, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

LAST YEAR'S sequencing of the chimpanzee genome was only the first in a 
string of nonhuman primate genome studies. Last week, the National 
Institutes of Health released the draft genome sequence of the rhesus 
macaque monkey and said that sequencing is underway on the genomes of 
the gorilla, orangutan, and marmoset.

These advances have intensified debate about the use of primates, 
especially our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, in medical 
research. Since the early 1900s, scientists have used chimpanzees as 
experimental subjects. Today, infections with human pathogens, 
vital-organ biopsies, repeated inoculations for vaccine testing, and 
transfection for virus production are commonplace. Yet these expensive, 
invasive studies have little benefit for human healthcare.

This isn't difficult to explain. An apparent similarity in genetic 
makeup doesn't take into account differences in how genes are 
''expressed," or turned on and off. Before and after birth, exposure to 
environmental factors -- chemical pollutants, disease, antibiotics -- 
may turn on certain genes. So, even in identical twins, there can be 
widely varying reactions to disease-causing agents and drugs. 
Chimpanzees, despite their relative genetic similarity to us, will be 
even more different.

In fact, chimpanzees make poor models for the study of human disease. 
Take HIV-AIDS research. Despite injecting chimpanzees with several 
strains of the retrovirus HIV, only two developed symptoms similar to -- 
but not the same as -- full-blown AIDS in humans. Experimenters have 
gone so far as to inject human brain tissue infected with HIV directly 
into chimpanzee brains -- but to no avail. The chimpanzees, for all 
their pain and suffering, did little to advance medical science in this 
realm.

Similarly, though chimpanzees may be infected with the virus causing 
hepatitis B in humans, they don't get sick; and even though they do get 
sick when exposed to hepatitis C, the illness is not the same as ours. 
Chimpanzee research did play a role in the development of hepatitis B 
vaccines, and, for years, the Food and Drug Administration required 
every batch of vaccine to be tested on chimpanzees. But since then 
other, more precise methods have been developed.

However, even if the medical research did benefit us, is it ethical to 
use chimpanzees? For they are not only more like us biologically than 
they are like gorillas, they also share with us many behavioral and 
intellectual characteristics.

In the wild, they travel in search of food, and their diet is a wide 
variety of fruits, vegetables, insects, and, sometimes, meat. At night, 
they make leafy sleeping platforms, or nests, high above the ground. 
Above all, they constantly make decisions. With whom to associate? 
Should they join a group patrolling the boundary of a territory, a 
hunting party, or travel peacefully with a group of females? The males 
have various reproductive strategies that include persuading females to 
accompany them on lengthy consortships. Much of chimpanzees' nonverbal 
communication is similar to ours. When greeting after an absence, they 
may kiss, embrace, or pat each other on the back. In aggressive 
incidents, they may swagger, scowl, scream, punch, slap, or kick. There 
are strong, affectionate bonds between individuals, particularly mothers 
and offspring, and maternal siblings, that may persist throughout life.

They're capable of intellectual performances once thought unique to us, 
such as the ability to understand symbols, transfer information from one 
sensory modality (such as sight) to another (such as touch). They show 
emotions clearly similar to those we label happy, sad, angry, and 
depressed. They're certainly capable of mental and physical suffering. 
They have a sense of self and a sense of humor. Like us, they can be 
aggressive and even brutal or compassionate and altruistic.

Can it be morally acceptable to conduct invasive research on beings so 
like us? To imprison them in 5-foot-square, sterile cages, their only 
stimulation, other than the delivery of food and the cleaning of their 
cages, lab personnel performing protocols on them? If we look into the 
eyes of one of these chimpanzees, shall we not feel deep shame?

With the knowledge gained from the sequencing of the human and 
chimpanzee genomes, we must realize that we humans are part of the 
natural world, a world peopled with beings who, like us, think and, 
above all, feel. Their lives have meaning in their own right -- not 
meant for our selfish benefit, to be used, abused, and discarded. It's 
time we used our superior intellect to find alternatives to invasive 
medical experiments on all sapient, sentient beings. Let's hope, too, 
that the new evidence of our close relationship with chimpanzees will 
lead to more support for efforts to save great apes from extinction.

Jane Goodall is a primatologist and founder of the Jane Goodall 
Institute. Dr. Ray Greek is president of Americans for Medical 
Advancement and author of ''Sacred Cows and Golden Geese."  

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/17/the_sad_lot_of_lab_chimps/
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related