Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Friday March 10 2017, @01:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the they're-not-threatened-while-in-the-cage dept.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering repealing a rule that exempts captive members of 11 threatened primate species from protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). If the agency approves a repeal, the captive animals would be designated as threatened, like their wild counterparts, and researchers would need to apply for permits for experiments. To be approved, studies would have to be aimed at species survival and recovery.

[...] Writing to PETA on 1 March, FWS promised to "consider your petition request promptly," and assess whether ESA protection is warranted for each species. There is precedent indicating that the agency might agree with PETA. In 2015, it designated captive chimpanzees as endangered, like their wild counterparts. In doing so, it wrote that its reading of the ESA indicated that "Congress did not intend for captive specimens of wildlife to be subject to separate legal status on the basis of their captive state."

PETA's Goodman says a listing change would allow animal rights activists to better track—and challenge—research involving captive Japanese macaques. When a researcher applies for a permit to conduct an experiment on a species listed under ESA, the application is published in the Federal Register and open to public comment. That means, says Goodman, "We have the opportunity to stop experiments before they happen. And we have more information as to what the animals are actually being used for, how invasive the experiments are."

The Japanese macaques, also known as snow monkeys, have been housed at the Oregon center, part of Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), since 1965. The troop has provided animal models for multiple sclerosis and for an inherited form of age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of human blindness. Ongoing work studies the effects on offspring when pregnant dams are fed a high-fat diet. Several years ago, some males were castrated and received hormone replacement to study the effect of androgens on neurons thought to motivate aggressive behavior. Females with their ovaries removed have been used to study the effects of hormone replacement therapy on stress and anxiety, with potential applications to mood and stress in menopausal women.

[...] FWS designated the wild Japanese macaque as threatened in 1976, because the Japanese forests needed for its survival had been heavily logged.

Note: PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Wikipedia page)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/us-considers-designating-300-primates-oregon-research-center-threatened

Related:
Ebola Vaccine for Great Apes Hindered by Chimpanzee Research Restrictions


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday March 10 2017, @08:59PM (1 child)

    by CoolHand (438) on Friday March 10 2017, @08:59PM (#477522) Journal

    "we shouldn't be on any animals IMHO"

    I don't see you volunteering for new treatments. Are you suggesting we should conscript people and force experimental drugs and procedures on them? Maybe we should do it on babies. Or prisoners. Or immigrants? How about people who belong to the "wrong" political party, or drug users? Or maybe just people I don't like?

    Animal experimentation is necessary. The closer these animals' anatomy and biochemistry is to human, the more necessary they become. What is important isn't focusing on how sad animal experiments make you feel, because a chronic/terminal disease with no treatment will also make you feel pretty fucking sad. What's important is to ensure that ONLY necessary experiments are carried out, that the numbers are kept to the minimum to validate the experiment, and that the animals do not suffer needless pain or cruelty.

    There are better alternatives.. Do some research. Here is a start [sciencedirect.com] :

    Various alternatives to the use of animals have been suggested, such as in vitro models, cell cultures, computer models, and new imaging/analyzing techniques ( Balls, 2002). The in vitro models provide the opportunity to study the cellular response in a closed system, where the experimental conditions are maintained. Such models provide preliminary information for outcome of an experiment in vivo. For example, computer models were used to study the working of the heart and to select the potential drug candidates ( Gipson and Sugrue, 1994). In many countries, in vitro cell cultures have replaced the skin irritancy test and Draize eye irritancy test and use of animals in those. Another example is, extraction of insulin from the pancreas of pigs and cow, but now it is obtained from the bacterial cultures which are lifeline drugs for diabetic patients. This extracted insulin needs to be checked for its purity, efficacy and dose. Use of animals was routine for such checking, but now chromatography techniques are used for checking the purity, efficacy and calculation of dosages of drugs ( Foreman et al., 1996). Overall, replacement substantially reduces the use of animals in various processes. [..]Various methods have been suggested to avoid the animal use in experimentation. These methods provide an alternative means for the drug and chemical testing, up to some levels. Advantages associated with these methods are, time efficiency, requires less man power, and cost effectiveness.

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @09:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @09:14PM (#477530)

    Lets test your alternatives against the first example in TFS: multiple sclerosis.

    There is no in vitro model for multiple sclerosis and it would be impossible to generate one.

    There is no cell culture model for multiple sclerosis and it would be impossible to generate one with current technology.

    Computational models can't model a multiple sclerosis because we do not understand the disease, the immune system, the blood brain barrier, the brain, cell biology, and molecular biology enough.

    Bacteria, yeast, C. elegans, D. melanogaster, and D. rerio cannot get multiple sclerosis. The organisms mentioned, that actually have an immune system, are so divergent that there would be no translation of the findings.