Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Chimps R Us: How Much Longer Are We Going to Keep Our Cousins as Pets?

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.


A life of captivity is too cruel for chimpanzees and dangerous for their owners. We should give them the freedoms we grant ourselves.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Happened to That Prosperity Tax-Cutters Promised Us?
Sam Pizzigati

DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower

Environment:
20 Weird, Crazy Ideas for Helping the Earth

Food:
10 Tips for a Sustainable Thanksgiving
Sarah Newman

Health and Wellness:
Is the House's Health Bill Really Worse than Nothing?
Joshua Holland

Immigration:
Hate Group, FAIR, Is Looking for "Ethnically Ambiguous" Actors to Amplify Its Racism
Adam Luna

Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
Just When You Thought It Was Safe: 3 Potential Obstacles to Health-Care Reform
Adele M. Stan

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond

Rights and Liberties:
Obama Quietly Backs Renewing Patriot Act Surveillance Provisions
Willam Fisher

Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Obama Will Announce 34,000-Troop Escalation in Afghanistan 'Within Days'

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.

The gruesome attack by an adult chimpanzee on its Connecticut owner last month provided a vivid reminder of why Congress should impose a complete ban on keeping chimps as pets. .

Twenty states still permit this dubious instance of animal loving. Last month, the House has passed a bill ending this option. Now the Senate must do the same. The debate in Congress centers on practical reasons against keeping chimpanzees. They are simply too dangerous to live alongside humans; and caring for them properly, in a private home, is virtually impossible.

The utilitarian case against pet ownership obscures a wider moral lesson about relations between chimpanzees and their human kin. They are too much like us not to be included in our what intellectual historian David Hollinger calls "the circle of we.".

A close genetic relative to humans, chimpanzees are intelligent, sensitive, solve problems and form coherent social relationships. They plan, they improvise, they endure. For those who closely study or assist chimpanzees, either in the wild or in African sanctuaries, come to believe, as I do, that chimpanzees are as glorious as humans -- and deserve to exist on some roughly equal plane as us.

"Chimpanzees deserve to be treated with the same dignity as a human being," says Sheri Speede, an Oregon veterinarian who runs a large chimp sanctuary in the West African country of Cameroon. "They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."

If Speede is correct, should not chimpanzees be as free as humans? Should the nation debate -- with the same energy shown in the national conversation over the practice of keeping chimpanzees as pets -- ending the incarceration of the 269 chimpanzees now captive in 35 American zoos?

I perhaps have no standing to ask this question. I am not an expert in chimpanzees, nor have I been a militant defender of their rights and entitlements. At least not for very long.

My first close encounter with a chimpanzee came eight years ago. On a whim, I visited the zoo in Accra, Ghana. I saw an African woman inside a small enclosure, playing with an orphaned 1-year-old chimpanzee named Jimmy. Hunters had killed his mother.

The woman, named Chizo, was his surrogate mother. She joined Jimmy in his cage -- under the supervision of a primate expert from Europe -- bringing him some measure of natural development, since unrelated chimpanzees would not likely befriend him.

Baby chimpanzees are smarter than humans at the same age, research has shown (and orphaned chimps, given human care can be even smarter; one study, published in February, found that such chimps recorded higher scores on IQ tests than many human infants). As I returned to the zoo in successive days in order to strike up a friendship with Chizo, I came to agree with the scientific consensus, marveling at Jimmy's intelligence.

He quickly concluded, for instance, that I was a rival for Chizo's attention. And with an eerie insight, the afternoon that I first asked her on a date, Jimmy mounted a vigorous effort to prevent her from departing his cage, blocking the escape door over and over, even threatening to break out with her.

He kept me waiting on the other side of the bars. Time and again, I thought he'd planned this whole stalemate, simply to upset me. (Indeed, researchers in Sweden this month published a study documenting the "contingency plans" made by one adult chimp in a Swedish zoo.)

Chizo worked closely with Jimmy more than a year. Their partnership was ended by Chizo's decision move with me to the U.S. Before we left Ghana, we both felt sorrow over leaving Jimmy behind.

An effort by a global network of chimpanzees activists failed to secure Jimmy's release to a sanctuary, where he could live in a natural environment, while still under the protection of humans. After we settled in the U.S., another serious attempt was made to gain Jimmy's release, but again the government of Ghana refused.

The recent controversy over pet chimpanzees made me think about the hundreds of chimps in zoos in America and around the world -- and of Jimmy, too. He remains in a zoo in Ghana, although he's been joined by another orphan, a younger female, also rescued and brought to the zoo after the slaughter by hunters of her parents.

In September, Chizo and I visited Jimmy and his new friend. Jimmy instantly recognized Chizo from a distance of more than 100 feet. Jimmy, now 7 years old, is too big and strong to permit Chizo to join him in his cage. Yet they played anyway, hugging and dancing separated by steel bars. Jimmy showed off, jumping from a high perch onto a trampoline and doing endless somersaults.

He remembered me, too, though with less affection. Shrewdly drawing close to him by extending one hand in friendship, I approached the bars, looked in the eyes -- and then watched in astonishment as he three a hand full of waste at me. I ducked, adroitly, causing him to miss.

For a few hours, we played a game of cat and mouse. He drew me closer through acts of kindness, and then turned against me. Sometimes, he tossed waste at me with an unnerving accuracy, other times he spat in my direction.

Those days visiting Jimmy in the Kumasi zoo convinced me that, while he could not understand why Chizo and I had vanished from his life, he had felt long and hard our absence -- and now celebrated our return.

Before I departed, I asked the zoo director might he ever release Jimmy? I offered, as others have before, to arrange his transfer to sanctuary -- a kind of "gated community" where chimps experience something akin to living in the wild, yet are protected from hunters, each other and truly wild chimps who might attack them with lethal force.

I've visited Speede's sanctuary in Cameroon and seen up close the excellent care the chimps receive -- and their happy communion with each other and the forest. There are two other chimpanzee sanctuaries in this West African country, and together they are searching for land where a select group of their chimps can be released into a freer environment.

Releasing chimps, grown accustomed to the comforts of a sanctuary, is fraught; their survival skills diminished, these chimps can fall prey to other animals, hunters or even disease.

Speede, for instance, gives chimps medical care, and her sanctuary has special fencing, even at the canopy of the forest, to keep wild chimps from mounting attacks.

Lovers of chimpanzees worry of course that these human relatives are doomed to extinction as the lush forests they inhabit get cut down by loggers, bisected by roads and infiltrated by hunters. Trade in so-called bush meat, while illegal and constrained, continues. Demand comes from wealthier city dwellers, some of whom live in Europe or America.

Speede believes that sanctuaries -- and "release" programs of the sort she's preparing -- may be the only means of preventing the ultimate destruction of chimpanzees and their extraordinary ways of being.

If she's right, should Americans consider supporting such sanctuaries rather than the zoos where we now visit chimpanzees? In the case of Jimmy, I'm certain he would prefer to live in one of the two dozen sanctuaries around Africa. His cage in Ghana is small and has a cold concrete floor. The zoo director's desire for Jimmy to impregnate a female at the zoo strikes me as unwise. Given the longevity of chimps, Jimmy could easily live 30 or more years in his cage -- outliving me, easily, yet serving as a source of amusement and education for visitors to the Kumasi Zoo.

"He's our top attraction," the zoo director told me, when he once more rejected the idea of letting Jimmy go.

To free the 269 chimpanzees in American zoos is perhaps less urgent, because these zoos long ago switched to larger, more flexible enclosures that produce an illusion of open space. I do not doubt that the 269 chimpanzees residing in these advanced enclosures are unaware of their captivity.

The question is how long can we, the jailers, allow that to continue?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: pets, monkeys, chimpanzees, zoos

G. Pascal Zachary, a frequent contributor to AlterNet, is the author of Married to Africa, a memoir of his marriage to Chizo and his affection for Africa (Scribner 2009) and Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What About the Chimp We Had in the White House for 8 Years?
Posted by: DrBrian on Mar 17, 2009 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only have people kept them as pets, we had one as president for 8 years. What other proof do we need that they are vicious and incompatible with civilized life?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't forget Bonzo! Posted by: Cybershaman
According to certain conservative Radio windbags, ......
Posted by: GerryAttric on Mar 17, 2009 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
right wing news rags, and of course Republicans, you have one in the White House. So where is the simian discrimination you speak of?

Sorry for the sarcasm and satire. I totally agree with you. If this keeps up Planet of the Apes may have been a future vision. How long after they become pets will it take for them to become trained slaves like every other animal on the planet. And all treated with the same disdain, and disgust as the Former Slaves were by their masters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keeping 'em as pets?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Mar 17, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you mean why do we elect them president?

(You realize, don't you, that America was ruled by chimps from 1968 to 2008.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Now now now.. Posted by: 2thepoint
» Wake up! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Wake up! Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Wake up! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Wake up! Posted by: redhead1954
Well, Rats are Us Too
Posted by: edgar_michel on Mar 17, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever taken a close look at the hands of a rat? Look close and you'll see four fingers and a thumb. The nails are slghtly different, but thats it. Watch the way rats hold their food in their hands when then eat and you'll be reminded of someone you know eating corn on the cob.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Central Washington State University Primate Lab
Posted by: billwald on Mar 17, 2009 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
makes a big deal about their chimps conversing in ASL and having normal "human" conversations with humans. It is claimed they have an extensive ASL vocabulary and teach it to each other.

I asked them two simple questions: have the chimps ever been shown the Declaration of Independence and have any of the chimps ever asked to be freed? I got a non-responsive answer referring me to www.greatapetrust.org

From them I got a request for money. Still think they are interesting questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Factual error first crack out of the barrel....
Posted by: morticia on Mar 17, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Travis, the mauling Connecticut chimp, did not attack his owner. The person he savaged was a visitor, albeit a friend of his owner, and someone he knew, but definitely not his owner.

Considering our record of treatment of our own species down through the ages, I sadly and seriously doubt that any of the great apes are going to be the beneficiaries of "human rights" anytime soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

xanax, not the chimp, was the hazard?
Posted by: tazdelaney on Mar 17, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the tabloids made the most of the chimp story, of course, snarling with rabies... much talk of chimps 'violence' & being unfit for interaction among us civilized. yeah, right.

then it came out that the trouble started with the keeper giving the chimp the psych-pharma xanax, which also causes occasionally shocking violence in people, too. generally speaking, spychiatrists and their pharmaceuticals should be on a short leash. it is statistically quite arguable that crack is safer than prozac.

congress does their usual knee-jerk harumph & throws some law at a complex situation they lack the intelligence to understand. man hasn't 'risen above the animal state' so much as 'fallen from animal grace.' when a species makes its own public nudity or intercourse illegal; it's time for a quarrentine lest that disease spread to other species.

the famous gorilla, koko, had a 2500 sign-language vocabulary last i read. that's 700 words larger than the average american's working vocabulary. koko could use a nikon camera & would relish the delivery of her photos. when given a pile of photos, she would separate them into piles. she'd put other gorillas into one pile, put herself in the pile with her keepers & other humans elsewhere.

an indiana farmer has taught a pig to play videogames to the extent that it beats humans, joystick in snout. as we say, our ferrets teach us more than vice versa.

on several fronts, the much-vaunted superiority of the human cerebrum is in question. know any other species that makes 'child targeting weapons' like clusterbombs?

to suggest that human interaction with other animals is wrong is much to deep an issue for smalltalk. yes, the whole concept of 'pets' has something not right about it, but...

as jean harlow said, "the more i see of men; the more i love my dog."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misanthropes exit right Posted by: cmaciain
Quality of life?
Posted by: on Mar 17, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."

I disagree. I believe that all humans have a right to medical care. Would I support universal veterinary care for all chimpanzees? Meh...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some thoughts
Posted by: willymack on Mar 17, 2009 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chimps, especially Bonobos share about 98% of their genes with us, making them our first cousins.
This makes them quite a lot like us.
Their young are cute and cuddly, affectionate and mild, as human children are. They evoke the same feelings of affection in humans that human children do.
They laugh when tickled form attachments with us, and imitate us quite a bit.
Like us, they grow into ferocious adults, perfectly capable of murderous rages, attacking anything and anybody hapless enough to be present.
They, like us are WILD CREATURES, and should be allowed to be so, in the company of their own kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Animal Scam" -- a critique
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 17, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, writes:

"It does seem somewhat disingenuous for Christians to speak so solidly for human rights and then query the appropriateness of rights language when it comes to animals. The most consistent position is that of Raymond Frey, who opposes all claims for rights from a philosophical perspective, or that of Christians who consistently refrain from all such language...

"Raymond Frey, that dedicated opponent of rights theory, has sadly to conclude that ‘we cannot, without the appeal to benefit, justify (painful) animal experiments without justifying (painful) human experiments.’

"Frey accepts this even though he justifies experimentation on animals. Again, ‘The case for anti-vivisectionism, I think, is far stronger than most people allow,’ he writes. Alas, Frey does not seem to regard it as sufficiently strong to oppose experiments on animals OR humans."

Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group. In her 1993 book, Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:

"The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die." Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt says the ASPCA "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research." Marquardt says the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.

Marquardt says animal activists identify with liberal causes like feminism and environmentalism. "Every year," writes Reverend Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so." It is not surprising, then, that Marquardt says, "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

Marquardt says, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt mentions Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.

Marquardt admits, "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt says, "Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies...across the ideological spectrum, the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animals have only the right human beings give them
Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal on Mar 17, 2009 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as Animal Rights. The rights of animals are only because we as human give them rights. If we give them no rights they have none.

We as the human species have to treat them humanely but if a human life needs to be saved we have the right to sacrifice any amount of animals to achieve this. We humans have of course an obligation to minimize pain and suffering but that is all.

As regards to wild animals in general and chimpanzees in particular it is a difficult issue. In my opinion we can keep them in captivity as long as they are not threaten by extinction. When it comes to using animals as Guinea Pigs it is in my opinion allowable to use Chimpanzees, they are after all the animals that are most like us genetically and biologically i.e. they are prefect to experiment on. That being said we should use animal experimentation as little as possible. But there is no way we can do away with animal experimentation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The right-winger writes, "There is no such thing as Animal Rights." Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: The classical liberal writes, "There is no such thing as Animal Rights." Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: the social conservative left and right wingers are equally deluded Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: Animals have only the right human beings give them Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
animals have rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 17, 2009 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kathleen Marquardt begins her attack on animal rights as a secular, moral philosophy by claiming that it is anti-human. She quotes a 1989 statement by Dr. Tom Regan, the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement and author of The Case for Animal Rights (a landmark in moral philosophy—comparable to Rawls’ A Theory of Justice). When asked if he were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which would he rescue, the baby or the dog? Regan replied, "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I’d save the dog."

If this sounds "anti-human," it is merely because the status quo is anti-animal, or speciesist. Why do only humans have rights? Why do we protect mentally handicapped children while experimenting upon chimpanzees (who, by the way, share 98-99 percent of our DNA)? Isn’t this discrimination?

On what basis have we arbitrarily decreed that only humans can have rights and other animals cannot? Is it because most members of the human species possess a higher level of intelligence than most animals? Then why do we protect mentally defective humans? Isn’t this a personal, or rather, an anthropomorphic prejudice?

"Animal rights is against all animal use," warns Marquardt, "even to save lives." Yes. In 1988, the Los Angeles Times reported on medical data gathered by Nazi scientists experimenting upon concentration camp prisoners. Such data might now save human lives, but it was obtained through unethical means. At a rally in San Francisco, CA, protesting animal experimentation, former Alameda County Supervisor John George pointed out that black Americans were the first laboratory animals in America.

The fact that protection of all sentient species may not be a part of the present-day Judeo-Christian ethic does not make it invalid. Human slavery was once considered an acceptable part of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human ‘dominion’ over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does animal testing help human medicine?
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 17, 2009 6:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.

2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25% of the time."

3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%

4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.

6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.

7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin."

8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.

9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.

10) Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.

11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.

12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.

13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.

14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.

15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.

16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.

17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.

18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.

19) In the UK's House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

20) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.

21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.

22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.

23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.

24) 78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.

25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does animal testing help human medicine? (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 17, 2009 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies)was delayed 40 years by vivisection.

27) The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anesthesia."

28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed.

29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.

30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.

31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.

32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.

33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."

No copyright is enforced for education towards ending vivisection. Copy and pass on.

Produced by V.I.N. P O Box 223, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 5ZU, UK
References available by post or by email
Email: vivisectionkills@hotmail.com Leaflets available from V.I.N,
Recommended website: www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a history of anti-vivisectionism
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 17, 2009 8:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Opposition to animal experimentation has a long history. The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) was founded by Caroline Earle White in 1883...long before PETA (which was founded in 1980), and even longer than before the current debate over stem-cell research!

An editorial in the now-defunct Animals' Agenda from several years ago noted that animal research goes on unquestioned, while debate rages over stem-cell research, for no other reason than the stem-cells have human chromosomes. This is speciesism.

"The women we recognize today as the founders of AAVS," writes Lily Santoro, "were pioneers in the world of animal welfare but not in the sphere of reform movements. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a rise in reform movements known as the Progessive Era.

"Inspired by the new science of sociology and cultural movements like the social gospel, middle and upper class Americans increasingly engaged in reform movements aimed at uplifting the downtrodden and improving society.

"Women were central to the Progressive Era reforms. In the late nineteenth century, women made great strides in reform movements like Temperance, Sunday Schools, food and drug regulation, women's suffrage, and child-labor laws.

"In a world where women were supposed to be relegated to their own 'separate sphere,' many women joined reform movements wherein they acted as the 'moral compass of American society. Caring for the weak and voiceless in society was the focus of progressive era reforms. Animal welfare met this category perfectly."

Christian writer C.S. Lewis noted that animals were included in the first Passover. The application of the “blood of the lamb” on the doorposts, not only saved a man and his family from death that night in Egypt, it saved his animals as well. Lewis put forth a rational argument concerning the resurrection of animals in The Problem of Pain. His 1947 essay, “A Case for Abolition,” attacked vivisection (animal experimentation) and reads as follows:

“Once the old Christian idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men. If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we re backing up our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason. Indeed, experiments on men have already begun. We all hear that Nazi scientists have done them. We all suspect that our own scientists may begin to do so, in secret, at any moment.

“The victory of vivisection marks a great advance in the triumph of ruthless, non-moral utilitarianism over the old world of ethical law; a triumph in which we, as well as animals, are already the victims, and of which Dachau and Hiroshima mark the more recent achievements. In justifying cruelty to animals we put ourselves also on the animal level. We choose the jungle and must abide by our choice.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speaking of butchers.... Posted by: morticia
Nature is harsh...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Mar 18, 2009 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I wish people would get over themselves. We do what we must because (for most of history) we don't have many options.

Animal testing is necessary until we are able to engineering human bodies without brains or human consciousness. As disgusting as this may sound to you, you need to realize that your body is attacked and eaten everyday by countless organisms, are we going to have bacterial rights, or virus's rights someday?

Animal rights activists are hypocritical bunch, ever seen an animal rights activist swat a fly? or get squash a spider? Most animal rights activists are SELECTIVE animal rights activists, every form of life is at its foundation cellular, to discriminate on teh arbitrary basis people do is the hypocritical thing in the world.

Given the chance many other organisms, lpants and animals would eat without mercy or conscience. I wish human beings would stop projecting themselves onto other life forms. No animal on earth is going to be capable of saving itself when the sun starts to die, and eventually wipe out everything.

Peoples scope of thinking is so narrow, I don't know about you, but I'm willing to sacrifice some amount of life for humanity to escape the death of the solar system that is coming when the sun starts to die.

Animals are quite irrelevant to nature's destructive forces quite beyond the narrow human concerns shown in this thread.

The sun going nova is indifferent and impersonal process, so is human beings killing animals to eat, or experimenting on them to improve their chances of their own and their children's survival.

I don't see anyone claiming we should be saving the many ugly insects who people abhor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Indeed chimps and all primates should be retired to sanctuaries
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 19, 2009 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed chimps and all primates should be retired to sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are privately funded by donors and most sanctuaries are struggling more than ever now. Sanctuaries cost a huge load of $$ to operate even with large volunteer staffing. Just buying enough land, building comfy and interesting enclosures, food, electricity, water, mulch, toys, laundry, etc.etc.. is a fortune. Even fundraising costs $. If you love primates, please pick a sanctuary and donate by sending cash, adopting a monkey or ape, or buying a tshirt or mug from a sanctuary site.

No chimps here but check out Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary. They ROCK (I've volunteered twice over the winter holidays) and they are really struggling.

www.junglefriends.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement