I Googled my primate's number to see if anything would show up, and I found a 5-page document from an experiment on HIV vaccinations done on primates at a Wisconsin lab, and on page 4, I saw my primate's number--#97106, apparently one of the last two macaques still alive after the experiment. This document was originally dated back in March of 2004, which confirms even more that she is no longer alive. This would mean that she died very young, at age 6. The thought of how she lived and died makes me sick to my stomach. No sentient being deserves that. At least she is finally at peace, but even that is barely a comfort. I want so much more. I wrote a letter to the director of the lab, Joseph Kemnitz:
I am writing out of concern for primate #R97106, a female rhesus macaque imprisoned and used as a laboratory tool at your facility. My first question: is she still alive? I Googled her number and found a .PDF document about HIV vaccination studies done on primates. Her number came up along with a primate identified as "AJ11". After what I have read of this document, and have taken notice of the original date (2004), I am assuming she was killed. Below is a fragment of the .PDF file:
(Source: http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/78/6/3140.pdf, page 4/5)
T-cell immune responses as described previously (11, 15–17).
The peripheral blood mononuclear cells and peptides were
coincubated for 16 to 18 h, and the spots were visualized
directly by using an AID reader system (Cell Technologies,
Inc., Columbia, Md.). Responses were considered positive
when the frequency of gamma interferon-secreting T cells exceeded
the mean spot-forming cell count of the negative controls
plus twice the standard deviation. In all of the study
animals, we detected T-cell responses across the SIVmac239
proteome from the earliest time point tested after successful
intrarectal challenge until the time of sacrifice. At more than
27 weeks postinfection, the two animals that are still alive,
AJ11 and 97106, had broad T-cell responses to 27 and 24% of
the SIVmac239 pools tested, respectively (Fig. 4). Analysis of
the average number of pools recognized by animals in the
different groups shows that, at time points before 11 weeks,
11.5 (14%), 19.5 (23%), and 46.5 (56%) SIVmac239 pools per
animal were recognized in the 3,000, 300, and 30 TCID50
groups, respectively. This would suggest that more immune
responses are recognized in the lower-dose-challenge inoculum
groups than in the 3,000-TCID50 dose of SIVmac239 early
in infection. However, given the small number of animals and
the inherent genetic variation in outbred rhesus macaques, this
trend may not be significant.
Assuming she is dead, I will be speaking of her in past-tense. Was she caged alone? Primates are very social beings (like we are), and become very depressed when isolated. Did she have anything to play with for mental stimulation? Primates are very intelligent and get bored easily if given nothing to do. Confining primates (or any other being, for all that matter) in small cages alone, and with nothing to do, makes them become erratic. Primates will self-inflict harm by biting themselves or pulling out their hair, will continuously smack themselves against the side of their cage, will display repetitive movement, and may even refuse to eat. How many lab workers did it take to remove her from her cage and hold her down while foreign instruments and toxins were forced into her body? Did she scream? How much did she weigh, and how many scars were on her little emaciated body at the time of her death (if she is indeed dead)?
I also must ask how much like us does the rest of the animal kingdom have to be in order to be given equal consideration as far as not being treated as a means to an end? Sentience is all that should matter, and is all that matters when concerning humans -- including infants and the severely mentally disabled. The difference between the rest of the sentient world and us is quantitative, not qualitative. Yet if there is something that makes humans superior, such as morality (not that it would be relevant, because not everyone in the human community is expected to be “moral” in order to be given the basic right not to be treated as a thing), then I must ask why rhesus macaques are considered inferior, when they (and also rats in the same experiment) surpassed humans in a moral psychology test?
In Milgram’s experiment, 65% of participants were willing to deliver the final 450-volt shock to their neighboring participant when they answered a problem incorrectly. A similar experiment was done on unconsenting rhesus macaques (and who were actually shocked), who were confined in a laboratory where they were trained to receive food by pulling on one of two chains, right or left, depending on the color of a flashing light. After they had properly learned the sequence, another monkey was introduced, visible through a one-way mirror and held in restraints. By pulling the chains in the correct fashion, the first monkey could still get his snack, but one of the chains now delivered a powerful electric shock to the other animal whose agony was in plain view. In effect, animals who refused to deliver the shock were cut to starvation rations.
Trapped in this situation, it was discovered that most of the monkeys would not cooperate. In one experiment, 87% chose to go hungry instead of shocking their neighbor. One of the animals refused to pull either of the chains and went without food for twelve days rather than hurt his/her companion. The experimenters, who were interested in learning whether kinship plays a role in altruistic behavior, found that unrelated macaques were just as likely to be spared as those who were genetically similar. Only one variable really seemed to predict how the animal would respond to the dilemma. Monkeys who had been shocked in previous experiments themselves were even less willing to pull the chain and subject others to such torment.
Again, what does it take for nonhuman animals to be given equal consideration? Does it just all come down to physical appearance? DNA? Convenience? The law? Social acceptability? What was so inadequate about #R97106 that she deserved to be torn away from her mother, caged and subjected to torturous, invasive experiments her entire life, and then die young at age 6, alone on a cold, steel table?
I am asking, because I want to know how many more animals must die in your labs, how many more primate identification tags I--and other people--must hear clanging around our necks, before you realize that these beings are not disposable laboratory tools or mere statistics or numbers in scientific documents, but individual lives who are being destroyed by human apathy.
I will be waiting for your response.
Feel free to contact Joseph Kemnitz regarding #R97106 and his use of animals in experiments, at:
Joseph Kemnitz, Director
Wisconsin National Primate Research Center
1220 Capitol Court
Madison, WI 53715
His E-mail: KEMNITZ@PRIMATE.WISC.EDU
*NOTE: I am not encouraging threatening or otherwise hostile behavior towards Joseph Kemnitz, nor shall I be held responsible if anyone resorts to such behavior.
0 comments:
Post a Comment