Patrick J Battuello

Archive for the ‘Experimentation’ Category

Stealing Organs: The Immorality of Xenotransplantation

In Baboons, Experimentation, Monkeys, Pigs, Xenotransplantation on July 2, 2011 at 2:54 pm

“We have to be frank about this: We are exploiting these pigs.” (Dr. David White, former director of research at Imutran in England)

“Generally speaking, our society and our government is at least giving the impression that it’s becoming more sensitive to the welfare needs of animals and we all hope that sensitivity and compassion will develop. But with xenotransplantation, it’s a sort of massive blow to that sense of progression. It’s a step into the Dark Ages. It may look really nice and scientific and clean, but in terms of what we’re actually doing to animals, it’s barbaric.” (Dr. Dan Lyons, expert on British animal research policy)

Xenotransplantation is the transfer of cells, tissues, or whole organs from one species to another. More specifically, animal parts harvested for the good of humanity. The technology is not, at present, practical. Xenozoonoses (infectious diseases transmitted to the recipient, perhaps an AIDS II), hyperacute rejection (the immune system attacking the new organ as foreign), and infections (the immunosuppressive drugs, designed to combat rejection, leave the body susceptible) are not so insignificant hurdles.

The first kidney xenografts (from chimps) were reported in 1963, and a year later the first heart (chimp again) was xenotransplanted. The longest cardiac success came in 1984 with Baby Fae, who received a baboon heart at infancy and survived for three weeks. Ironically, Time ran an essay by Charles Krauthammer in which he decried the exploitation of the baby (the surgeons, knowing it would fail, used her as a guinea pig), not the baboon. In 1984, the modern animal rights movement was in its nascent stage. There were protests, but the debate was largely over Baby Fae’s dignity and the biological integrity of the human race.

In the late 1990’s, Imutran (a subsidiary of Novartis, the pharmaceutical giant) conducted grisly experiments at the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories in England. The scientists grafted genetically-modified (to create a human-like organ) pig hearts into baboons and cynomolgus monkeys. The goal was twofold: first, a marketable xenograft for human use; and second, development of the critical immunosuppressants (hence, Novartis funding the research). Internal documents were leaked to the animal rights group Uncaged Campaigns in early 2000, and a report detailing the research (Imutran sued to block and lost) soon followed.

The 50 or so baboons were kidnapped in Africa, and the 400-600 monkeys were purchased from Asian breeders and transported to England in small metal cages. Most of the baboons had pig hearts transplanted into their necks and abdomens (i.e., not life-supporting). The majority of the monkeys had their own kidneys removed and replaced with one pig kidney (they were life-supporting but abnormally positioned). All of the animals died. The documents revealed collusion between the British government and Imutran to suppress troublesome details. These descriptions of post-surgery come directly from the researchers’ logs:

quiet and huddled…body and head tremors…large vomit in cage…exhibits discomfort when moving…no use of right arm…right arm badly swollen and bruised…skin broken and oozing blood…collapsed on cage floor…very laboured breathing…extreme difficulty trying to walk…holding neck…animal picking at transplant site…keeps holding area where transplanted heart is…yellow fluid seeping from site…animal showing obvious discomfort…uncoordinated limb spasms…retching and salivating…bloody discharge from penis…observed shivering…periodic severe tremors…extreme difficulty breathing, vocalising…died prior to sacrifice…sacrificed for humane reasons

While some died from technical failures within 24 hours, most lingered for 13-99 days before succumbing to infection, rejection, or toxicity. Imutran’s research was discontinued (and moved to the U.S.) largely as a result of Uncaged’s disclosure. In an interview with Frontline, Dan Lyons said: “One of the most unfortunate animals had a piglet heart transplanted into his neck. …for several days he was holding the heart. It was swollen. It was seeping blood, it was seeping pus… He suffered from body tremors, vomiting, diarrhea. And the animal just sat there. I think living hell is really the only sort of real way you can get close to describing what it must be like to have been that animal in that situation.”

In order to produce workable xenografts, the above cited experiments are necessary. Armed with that knowledge, we must ask: How much suffering and destruction is acceptable in the pursuit of medical progress? For me, the answer is simple. The exploitation of the weak and the voiceless is always immoral, no matter the species. We do not harvest the organs of small children or the mentally enfeebled (i.e., those intellectually comparable to apes and pigs) because they are us. Speciesism defined. Other sentient beings are not resources to be carved and plucked. Support mechanical devices, become an organ donor, and bequeath your body to education. That is the least we can do.

Porcine Soldiers

In Experimentation, Pigs on June 26, 2011 at 7:40 pm

“Military researchers have dressed live pigs in body armor and strapped them into Humvee simulators that were then blown up with explosives to study the link between roadside bomb blasts and brain injury. For an 11-month period that ended in December, researchers subjected pigs and rats to about 200 blasts, according to Pentagon documents and interviews. The explosions have ranged in intensity, wounding some of the pigs and killing others.” (USA Today, 04/06/09)

Given the U.S. Military’s (often) furtive nature, specifics on animal experimentation can be elusive. The Department of Defense (DoD), though, is required to file annual reports to Congress (since 1994) through a Biomedical Research Database. The Government Accountability Office wrote this: “GAO found that the database has improved public access to information about DOD’s use of animals in its research activities. However, GAO also found instances in which the information in the database was inaccurate, incomplete, and inconsistent.”

Pigs, goats, and vervet monkeys are the favored subjects for battlefield trauma training. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) reports that in 2007 the U.S. Military used about 60 monkeys, 5000 goats, and 3500 pigs. Yet, the DoD prohibits the use of dogs, cats, and nonhuman primates for that same training. Stabbed, shot, and burned, pigs and goats also have limbs amputated and bones broken. The monkeys are exposed to nerve gasses, which lead to paralyzing breakdowns. The military, of course, defends the occasional use of animals as necessary and insists that anesthesia is used when appropriate. But, DoD facilities have twice as many Column E totals as nonmilitary laboratories (SAEN information), and federally-owned labs are not even subject to USDA inspection.

According to the PCRM, over 90% of U.S. and Canadian medical-training facilities no longer use animals for trauma training (Albany Med abolished the practice in March 2009). Alternatives include: human simulators (complete with vital signs), human cadavers, and advanced training at hospital trauma centers. Common sense dictates that training on human or humanlike bodies (TraumaMan or The Ultimate Hurt) would be (is) more effective and cost-efficient. Dr. John Pawlowski, a Harvard anesthesia professor, says, (Medill Reports, 08/27/09) “The alternative [to using animals in casualty testing] is a rich clinical setting using whole-body manikins, vital sign monitors and actual clinical equipment. There is nothing like [the impression of] a dead colleague, dying manikins and a full hazmat suit to convey the realism of such a situation.”

The PCRM’s Dr. John Pippin calls the military’s animal testing “an archaic, outdated program.” Is it not time for our military to emerge from the middle ages and spare at least some (granted, a small fraction) of our intelligent porcine cousins? And isn’t there a certain obscenity in blowing up animals so that scientists can determine how best to extend the lives of human beings whose job it is (through no fault of their own) to blow up other human beings? What a piece of work is man.

The Cle Elum Seven

In Chimpanzees, Experimentation on June 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm

They were once just numbered research material sentenced to a hellish existence inside tiny cages at nondescript, windowless laboratories. Their lives meant nothing beyond their value (to human beings) as test subjects. Given our genetic connection with chimpanzees, is it that difficult to imagine (empathize with) their sadness? Their helplessness? A sadness and helplessness, by the way, measured in decades. A sadness and helplessness sometimes descending into madness. Now, though, we can call them a family:

Annie

Burrito

Foxie

Jamie

Jody

Missy

Negra

They live among friends at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW) near Seattle. CSNW was founded by Keith LaChappelle (with his $200,000 life’s savings) in 2003 after he read an article about research chimps. Keith told Seattle Met Magazine, “It talked about how a lot of chimpanzees aren’t actively being used for research, but they’re still languishing in these five-by-five lab cages because there’s nowhere for them to go.” While visiting other sanctuaries (at one, he looked into the eyes of a chimp who had endured 50 biopsies and knew what must be done), LaChappelle met Sarah Baeckler (see Chimps on (and off) Stage), and they decided to join forces (along with Diana Goodrich and J.P. Mulcahy). It so happened that seven chimpanzees were rotting away in a basement pen at Buckshire in Pennsylvania (a business that leased animals for laboratory testing). LaChappelle says, (Seattle Times, 8/25/08) “The…idea of these individuals stuck in a cage, with nowhere to go, and to keep them in those cages for decades… I just couldn’t imagine that. Chimps have self-awareness and understand where they’re at.”

There are at least 1,000 chimpanzees withering in American laboratories (and roughly 600 in 10 American/Canadian sanctuaries). There is a pending bill in Congress (the Great Ape Protection Act) that would prohibit invasive procedures on all great apes and provide for the permanent retirement of those who are federally-owned (the estimated 500 who belong to us). Public sentiment is trending towards a quasi-legal recognition of our closest cousins.

The evil that has been visited upon laboratory chimps is unconscionable. The painful procedures, will-breaking confinement, psychological abuse, and emotional trauma (which often includes severing the mother-child bond) cannot be defended, no matter the benefits gained.

Primatologist Debra Durham is studying the effects of trauma on chimpanzees who have been imprisoned for most of their lives. She writes: “The United States is the only nation in the world to continue using chimpanzees in large-scale invasive experiments. Even in America, many chimpanzees in laboratories are essentially warehoused, no longer used in active protocols because they haven’t proved useful as models for human diseases, but still kept in laboratory cages.” One such chimp was Jeannie. Her story is profoundly sad.

These wonderful, beautiful beings, once rescued, should be sterilized (which appears to be sanctuary norm). The bastardization of their species should end with this generation. For now, the good people at CSNW deserve our admiration, gratitude, and respect. Though hoping to provide a measure of happiness after the storm, LaChappelle cautions, “It’s not retirement. They’re really still captive chimpanzees. It’s dignity. We’re giving them dignity.” Please encourage your congressperson to support HR1326. Please, also, consider sponsoring a chimp at CSNW (or any other sanctuary). It’s the least we can do.

R.G. Frey Defends Animal Experimentation

In Experimentation, Philosophy on June 12, 2011 at 10:53 am

In April 1995, philosopher R.G. Frey (Bowling Green) published an article (Medicine and the Ethics of Animal Experimentation, Washington Times). In it, he defends the use (and killing) of animals in experiments that could benefit humankind. Before offering his justification, however, he concedes that the following are not sound defenses for using animals…

Because experimentation is permitted by law, the question of rightness has been settled. Frey replies that even though the law permits us to stand onshore and watch someone drown, it is not considered morally acceptable to do so.

Animals are not morally relevant. Ethics committees and peer reviews function as safeguards in limiting, mitigating, and justifying animal pain and suffering during research. In short, the scientific community acknowledges that there are moral implications.

Animal life has no value beyond its benefit to humankind. For Frey, recognizing and minimizing animal pain necessarily implies that their lives have at least some value. “In the play “Equus,” a man goes around blinding horses; it seems extraordinary to claim that his doing this to children is wrong, whereas his doing it to horses is not.”

Why, then, should we be permitted to exploit animals in research? Frey: “…what matters is not life but quality of life. The value of a life is a function of its quality, its quality of its richness, and its richness of its capacities and scope for enrichment; it matters, then, what a creature’s capacities for a rich life are.” Frey concedes value to a chicken’s life (the chicken has experiences) but, “The fullest chicken life there has ever been, so science suggests, does not approach the full life of a human; the differences in capacities are just too great.”

Human beings can create (and appreciate) art, break scientific boundaries, and strive for excellence in a myriad of fields. Animals cannot. While Frey agrees that a dog’s life is enriched by playing fetch, he argues that the variety and depth of enrichment in your life is always going to be greater than your dog’s. Hence, your life is more valuable than your dog’s. Here, though, is where Frey’s theory becomes vulnerable: “Why all this matters should be obvious: If killing is related to the value of a life, then I can explain why we think that killing a man is worse than killing a chicken and in a way that does not rely on species membership to account for the wrongness of killing.” But if we are not relying on species membership, why not experiment (without consent) on lower-functioning human beings?

No one, of course, is advocating human experimentation. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the Belmont Report in 1979 (a direct result of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study): “Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.” Alas, nothing of the sort exists for animals.

Professor Frey uses words like richness, variety, and depth in determining a life’s value. But this is inescapably arbitrary; an arbitrariness that we are unwilling (and legally unable) to apply to our own species. Yes, in the abstract, the average human life is of a higher quality than the average animal life. But a similar distinction can be drawn between any two humans. A child born into abject poverty or an abusive home will probably not have the same quality-of-life as a child reared with comfort, love, and stability. Does, or should, that have any bearing on their respective moral statuses? Is one to be protected, the other exploited?

Instead of searching for differences between us and them, academia should focus on what unites human beings with the rest of the sentient world: the capacity for pain, suffering, and pleasurable experiences. Professor Frey’s denial aside, animal experimentation rests on speciesism. Speciesism, like racism and sexism, is irrational and necessarily (because the moral code should be rational) immoral.

The Silver Spring Monkeys and the Age of PETA

In Activism, Experimentation on June 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm

Dr. Edward Taub is a renowned behavioral neuroscientist with degrees from Columbia and NYU. He is also an infamous vivisector whose grisly animal experiments at the Institute of Behavioral Research (Maryland) some 30 years ago would launch a fledgling organization into the world’s most recognizable animal rights group. It all began when Alex Pacheco, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with Ingrid Newkirk, took a volunteer job in Taub’s laboratory in 1981.

Taub surgically severed the sensory ganglia in monkeys in a procedure called deafferentation. The sensory input (for their digits and limbs) was removed but not the motor output; the arms and legs continued to mechanically function, but the monkeys could not feel them and had no sense of where they were in space. This, of course, would sometimes lead to self-destructive and aggressive behavior (Taub would admit at trial that deafferented monkeys are difficult to handle because they would regard their useless limbs as foreign objects and self-mutilate).

Pacheco collected evidence of: physical pain (torn or chewed-off fingers, protruding bones); psychological pain (confined to 18″-wide metal cages, the monkeys would neurotically spin around, sway, pace, and cry out); and gross neglect (filthy conditions, haphazardly-applied and seldom-changed bandages, food deliberately withheld for testing purposes). Monkeys were strapped in a medieval-like immobilizing chair and forced to squeeze a bottle in their crippled limbs to stop electric shocks; some would break their arms in desperate attempts to escape.

Pacheco: “[A student assistant] told me that Caligula had been in such bad shape that he had begun to mutilate his own chest cavity, and she then confided that putting him in a restraining device, and administering the noxious stimuli test, with his chest ripped open, and having to experience the stench of his rotting body, was the most disgusting thing she had ever done. After the acute pain test, she said, he was destroyed.”

Eventually, with Taub on vacation, Pacheco brought in five expert witnesses (an ethologist, a veterinarian, a physician, a primate anatomist, and a former military animal-researcher) to corroborate. The Silver Spring Police Department was alerted, the lab raided, and the monkeys confiscated (a first in American history). Taub was initially charged with 119 counts of animal cruelty (another precedent). He initially escaped with only six misdemeanor convictions (failing to provide adequate veterinary care). On appeal, five of those counts were dismissed. Guilt, the jurors had been instructed, could only be adjudged if they unanimously agreed that physical pain was inflicted beyond the deafferented limbs. In other words, the pain relative to the experiment was permissible. The Maryland Court of Appeals then overturned the final count, ruling that the prosecution had no standing because this was a federally-funded project.

Though Taub had won the legal battle, the ensuing media coverage shocked an unsuspecting public. These “few young activists in a basement” had arrived. What Pacheco had accomplished was nothing short of astounding: Infiltrating a publicly-funded laboratory, he helped establish the model for future undercover animal-cruelty investigations. Everything had changed. Here is Mr. Pacheco’s story.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.