As I've pointed out in many essays (see also) our relationships with other animals are confused, challenging, frustrating, and range all over the place. Recently we've learned that rhesus monkeys, called "Furry couch potatoes," are being used to study human obesity and diabetes. In response to inquiries about this study conducted at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC), Diana Gordon, their Education Outreach Coordinator, sends out a dismissive boilerplate form letter rich in self-serving platitudes concerning their research specifically, and the use of animals in biomedical research generally. She notes that obesity is a huge problem - about 1/3rd of American adults are obese and that obesity is a risk factor for other serious diseases. Of course, many cases of obesity can easily be avoided by not eating all the horrible unhealthy foods that are advertised widely in mass media and by getting off the couch and taking some exercise. Ms. Gordon's letter also notes that the facilities at the ONPRC are better "than any zoo would have," as if this is a relevant standard of comparison. Neither research facilities nor zoos can come close to providing what these sentient beings need to have meaningful lives and to thrive and surely they are stressed.
Concerning the obesity studies, about 50 of the approximately 4300 monkeys who are imprisoned at the ONPRC are being used in this study. The monkeys are fattened up by giving them lots of rich, fattening food, and kept in small cages so they can't have any exercise, as if this sort of regime is going to tell us much about human obesity. Monkeys don't normally eat like this and are very active so the way in which they're treated is thoroughly abnormal and severely compromises their well being. It's highly likely that they're stressed and researchers are concerned about how stress compromises the reliability of the data they collect (see also). So, even if one doesn't care about how these monkeys are treated, indeed a frightening thought, we should all be concerned about whether the data are relevant to the questions at hand. Some of the monkeys will also undergo gastric surgery and be euthanized, a sanitized way of saying they're killed so that their pancreas and brain can be examined.
Ignoring the horrific ways in which these monkeys are treated, Ms. Gordon boldly claims, "This research could change how we look at and treat such childhood diseases." This is a self-serving assertion because this study, like numerous others that have been done on other non-human primates and other non-human animals, will likely shed little or no useful information on human disease. She also claims the researchers who are conducting this research are doing it for the "satisfaction of knowing that [they] are helping millions of people and animals who are suffering from disease." Once again this is misleadingly self-serving because there is little or no likelihood that any non-human animal will benefit from this research. Animals themselves rarely benefit from any research that is done in laboratories that focus on human diseases.
The ONPRC like other research facilities is not a place that a monkey would choose to inhabit. The ONPRC has previously been cited for the mistreatment of animals (see also). In my book The Emotional Lives of Animals I reported on a serious case of abuse at the ONPRC. Rhesus monkey number 14609 (numbered as if he were an object rather than a sentient, feeling being) was subjected to electro-ejaculation 241 times from 1991-2000. In this procedure, an awake male monkey is strapped into a restraining chair, two metal bands are wrapped around the base of his penis, and an electric charge is applied to cause ejaculation. Monkey 14609 was nicknamed "Jaws" by the researchers because one of the researchers taught him to bite the bars of his cage. As a result of the investigation of the egregious way in which Jaws was treated, one veterinarian resigned and some scientists made critical comments about conditions in the laboratory.
Concerning the treatment of animals at the ONPRC Ms. Gordon notes, "All research studies that are conducted at ONPRC must pass through an extensive review process by a number of oversight bodies before they are funded. Only the most important research questions and the most meticulously crafted research designs are undertaken. The care of all animals at the Center is regulated by a number of laws (including the Animal Welfare Act), and overseen by the USDA, which visits the Center at least twice a year (unannounced) to ensure that rules and regulations are being followed."
But we really can't have much faith in the review process at the ONPRC or elsewhere because numerous violations have been detected at major research facilities (see also) and these are only the violations that have been reported. The Federal Animal Welfare Act is not especially effective at protecting the vast number of animals who are used in research, including nonhuman primates. It's perfectly okay not only to fatten up monkeys and produce diseases that result in suffering and death, but also to starve, blind, and socially deprive them and millions of other animals, among other forms of use and abuse.
You can decide for yourself on the ethics of this sort of research. Should we induce obesity or subject animals to diseases from which they don't normally suffer in order to learn about human disease? At least one researcher doesn't think so. Barbara Hansen of the University of South Florida "prefers animals that become naturally obese with age, just as many humans do. Fat Albert, one of her monkeys who she said was at one time the world's heaviest rhesus, at 70 pounds, ate 'nothing but an American Heart Association-recommended diet.'"
A good deal of obesity can be easily prevented so these monkeys are being used to study a condition that many people can we can avoid simply by choosing healthier lifestyles. The monkeys shouldn't have to pay for our indiscretions and poor choices.
Please let the ONPRC that you don't support the use of these monkeys in this study by signing this petition.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/10/what-fat-animals-tell-us-about-human-obesity.html
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/19/rspb.2010.1890.abstract
Case Western Reserve University, in cooperation with the Cleveland Zoo, took a completely nature-based approach to solving the riddle of primate obesity and heart disease, using gorillas as a model. They found that simply by switching to foods that nature evolved the primates to eat, their weight would normalize, and their health would return. The gorillas lost weight and reversed heart disease, even though they ate more often and consumed more calories than when they ate Frankenfoods. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9A74LvPxU8&feature=player_embedded
For a video, see:
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/42383
A description of what nature intended humans to eat can be found in "The Original Diet."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
While Case Western's study sounds interesting - it is not the same as our research as you sugest. They were studying heart disease - we are studying eating habits and impacts on the individual and their offspring. Our research as revealed very significant and alarming information that will impact generations of Americans.
Because our study is different, the study design must also be different. Saying that we could adopt the same methods is an oversimplification and incorrect.
Thanks for sharing your personal opinions. I do not understand the logic behind your comments, which appear to create a distinction without a difference.
You state that you are studying eating habits and impacts on the individual. The Case study was examining the same thing, including heart disease and obesity. I feel confident that as their study progresses, they will find that feeding primates a diet that is in alignment with their evolutionary heritage will also prevent/reverse diabetes and virtually every other chronic illness. Decades of research have convinced me that this is the likely outcome.
You state that your research has revealed very significant and alarming information that will impact generations of Americans. Likewise, the Case study has also revealed very significant and alarming information that will impact generations of all primates.
You comment that because your study is different, the study design must also be different. That is not necessarily a correct statement. You certainly could adopt the same methods if you chose to do so.
Regarding medical study efficacy in general, see:
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Research:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect - http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/29-why-scientific-studies-often-wrong-streetlight-effect
Correlation or causation? In research, bet on the former - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/02/correlation-or-causation-in-research-bet-on-the-former-.html
This 'Archie Bunker' moment could have easily been avoided with a little research -- every obesity scientist knows that obesity is an extremely difficult problem because it is the result of a complex interplay of genes and environment.
http://drumlib.com
Obesity is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than people eating to much.
For example:
Weight loss is often unsuccessful as the body contains natural mechanisms to keep a person at higher weight...therefore keeping them at risk. In other words - people who are trying to be healthy also face obesity issues
In addition, babies born to those eating a high fat diet pay lifelong consequences - this is something the Oregon center's research revealed. In other words...obesity is not just an issue of individual choice.