Scientific Experimentation of Nonhuman Primates - Admission/Application Essay Example

Scientific Experimentation of Nonhuman Primates Introduction Scientific research on nonhuman primates did not draw much of the attention of scientists engaged in human behavior research, and anthropologists exhibited little to no interest in the research of nonhuman primates in their natural environment prior to the 1950s. Only six researchers carried out notable field studies on the behavior of nonhuman primate until the 1950s (Strum & Fedigan 89). It was not until after the culmination of the Second World War that the subfield of primatology became firmly recognized. Research of nonhuman primates in their natural habitats started once more in the 1950s (Abee et al. 72). This essay argues that the only way scientific experimentation could be successful is to experiment on an ape in their natural habitat or environment, just like how the renowned primatologist Diane Fossey studied gorillas in their natural habitat. Studying Primates in their Natural Habitat It does seem that various primate species manifest different levels of unpredictability or inconsistency in social behavior, and hence have different abilities to change their social behavior in reaction to outside forces or demands (Savage-Rumbaugh et al. 8). That this can influence the perspective or interpretation of the researcher regarding how constant or species-specific primate social group is can be explained by the following divergent statements from Rowell and Kummer (Fedigan 46): It is important that we recognize at an early stage in the accumulation of comparative studies of social organization that there may be no such thing as a normal social structure for a given species, and that a description of social organization is only useful if accompanied by a description of the environment in which it occurs—and further, that we are still only guessing about which features of the environment will be essential in such a description. On the other hand, the evidence of hamadryas baboons suggests that the generic potential of some nonhuman species may indeed be restricted to one type of society which environmental change would hardly alter. Although the investigations of Rowell of common baboons’ social organizations in various different settings, as well as natural and unnatural (captive) environments, discover these animals to be fairly flexible in social behavior, the research of Kummer of hamadryas baboons’ social organizations, also in various natural and unnatural environments, discovered those in their natural habitats to be quite fixed in social patterns (Fedigan 46-47). Such conflicting discoveries raise a controversial issue in the field of primate behavior—how to identify the ‘normal’ behavior of nonhuman primates? In addition, if certain primates show varying behavior tendencies in different settings, which setting or environment can be regarded ‘natural’? Being ‘normal’ is to abide by a widely accepted or general pattern, and the natural behavior is commonly regarded to be that which is in agreement with behavioral patterns observed in the natural environment. Hence the natural environment implies the untouched or pristine habitat wherein the species being investigated developed, and to which its behavior patterns are ‘naturally’ evolved (Strum & Fedigan 22). The concept of ‘untouched’ or ‘original’ environment implies a habitat untouched by human exploits, especially the exploits of commercialized societies, or as the textbook states, nature “is the material world which exists independently of human activities” (Fedigan 46). Obviously, if a researcher wants to gain accurate knowledge of the importance of a specific behavior, it is helpful or at times required to observe such behavior in its natural environment. Hence, it is not unexpected that nearly all researchers of animal behavior argue that investigations of the animal in its natural environment are a must, or at best a required supplement to, controlled laboratory research of animal behavior (Nienaber 32). Unfortunately, primatology has, in several regards, endured a history of division between laboratory or experimental researchers and field researchers. This, partly, is because of the disagreement over the observation of behaviors which are manifested differently in unnatural and natural environments (Carpenter 12). The generally contrasting perspectives and models of some laboratory researchers and some field researchers to interpreting or analyzing primate behavior can be grasped in the following statements from the alleged ‘pioneers’ of natural and experimental models. The earliest primate field researcher, C.R. Carpenter, declared that the below principle is needed in studies of nonhuman primate social behavior (Carpenter 342): That for the valid investigation of some problems in comparative behavior it is obligatory not only to study “animals as wholes” but to observe whole animals in natural, organized undisturbed groups living in that environment which operated selectively on the species and to which the species is fittingly adapted. The main issue, therefore, is to identify by what processes primate organizations are sustained under different environmental situations. Such processes have been referred to as social life’s ‘infrastructure’ (Strum & Fedigan 28). Nevertheless, one of the main arguments against scientific experimentation of nonhuman primates in controlled laboratory settings state that in these unnatural environments these animals are maltreated and killed in frightening, painful, and intrusive experiments. Although it is widely acknowledged that apes are responsive, mentally capable animals who have in common numerous vital psychological and biological features with human beings, these core characteristics, sadly, make them principal targets for scientific researchers, who use them as though they were throwaway laboratory tools (Committee on Wellbeing of Nonhuman Primates 18). Hence animal welfare activists condemn scientific experiments on apes in controlled laboratory settings. Diane Fossey, a renowned primatologist, proved to the world that nonhuman primates can be successfully observed in their natural habitats, that it is unnecessary to take them away from their natural environments and bring them to laboratories. She observed and studied the threatened gorillas in the forests of Rwanda for twenty years (Nienaber 12). She completely devoted herself to the protection of these ‘gentle giants’ from human and environmental dangers. She discovered that these primates are well-behaved, social beings with unique characteristics and well-built family ties. She learned to imitate the movements, sounds, and practices of the gorillas so that she would be able to successfully study them in their natural environments. She was successful, and eventually the gorillas became familiar and at ease with her, even letting her make physical contact with them (Nienaber 12-14). On the other hand, the Project Nim was the complete opposite of what Diane Fossey did. Project Nim was a disastrous chimp experiment. In November 1973, a newly born chimpanzee at a primate research facility is taken away or separated from his mother, who is pacified by a tranquilizer, and handed over to the care of a woman researcher. The consequent scientific experiment is designed to prove that chimps, making use of sign language, can talk with human beings if raised like a human being. A good deal is explained about the psychological status of Nim, how he communicated his wants and anxieties to his caregivers, but the project appears fixed to a core reality—Nim was severely devastated by his early separation from his mother. The researchers seriously misjudged the difficulties of raising, nurturing, and teaching a chimp and completely failed to understand Nim’s emotions. Project Nim simply shows how nonhuman primates suffer from abuse in unnatural settings. The abandonment and negligence Nim endured is distressing. Nim was not constantly compliant, willing, or effective. When he does become non-cooperative he immediately suffers from neglect. But Nim was not the sole chimp to suffer from such agonizing loss. The experiences of other chimps transferred to human caregivers were recounted. Many became very ill and some even passed away when taken away from their human ‘parents’. Regrettably, when financial support declined, Nim was transferred to a clinical laboratory, important now merely as a scientific subject for vaccines. In contrast, Rupert Wyatt’s The Rise of the Planet of the Apes showed some major principles of animal welfare. James Franco was satisfying specific criteria of animal welfare when he decided to take Caesar home and raise him as a human. First, primates have to live in an acceptable and improved environment in captivity to play, move around, explore, and look for food. Caesar was provided with a home where he can freely explore and learn. Second, Caesar was provided with “enclosures that allow normal elaborate patterns of boisterous locomotion” (Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 83) in order to guarantee his wellbeing. Third, Caesar was transferred to a specialized facility that was adequately equipped with human and physical resources intended to generate improved scientific findings as well as greater animal welfare. Nonhuman primates like apes and chimpanzees have extensive, remarkable social, cognitive, and emotional capabilities and are especially vulnerable and at risk of mental anguish in controlled environments (Savage-Rumbaugh et al. 10). This could also be true to other species but inadequate number of studies has been conducted to conclusively verify this. The degree of awareness, consciousness, and intelligence of nonhuman primates raise ethical issues concerning their involvement in aggressive scientific study (Committee on Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates 49). If nonhuman primates are kept in controlled environments they have to be handled or treated in ways that satisfy their needs within the limits of the general goals of the scientific research—for instance, seclusion of animals may be needed for specific communicable disease studies (Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 85). In member states of the European Union (EU), the use of apes and chimps is allowed only when there are no replacement options (Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 86). Poor treatment or handling of primates in scientific research will affect adversely scientific outcomes and probable to enlarge the population of animals needed, hence, ethical and sensible treatment of animal research subjects has to be observed at all times. There is constantly a requirement to conduct an evaluation of the welfare effect of a scientific research process on the species suggested to be made as research subjects (Committee on Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates 33). So as to satisfy the behavioral, physical, and physiological requirements and demands of a particular primate species in controlled laboratory settings, additional studies are required on their social, cognitive, and emotional capabilities, their self-consciousness, and their vulnerability to mental anguish in captivity. Studies are also required for the widely used primate species on their social patterns, behavioral tendencies, environmental inclinations, physiology, and behavioral patterns in their natural habitats so as to formulate suitable, ethical, proactive procedures. It is crucial to study ethological and physiological distress that correctly reveals the behavioral and physiological nature of individual animal in a specific laboratory setting. Specifically, additional studies are required on the welfare effects of the following (Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 93): Different housing systems (e.g. dimensions and design of enclosures, type of equipment provided) and husbandry procedures used; Environmental enrichment techniques (e.g. devices provided, mode and time of presentation etc.); Methods used to train animals to cooperate during experimental and husbandry procedures; Various capture and restraint procedures used for non-human primates; and Weaning and separation from the mother All of these components can be accurately identified through an observation of the nonhuman primates’ behavior and practices within their natural habitat. Hence, a welfare-oriented scientific experimentation of primates is informed by scientific observations of nonhuman primates in their natural environments. Conclusions Scientific experimentation of nonhuman primates is better and more successful than those conducted under controlled laboratory settings. Natural behavior can only be observed in its natural habitat. However, there are constraints to the study of nonhuman primates in their natural environments, such as harsh conditions that could threaten the life of researchers. And so controlled laboratory experiments are at times allowed provided that the researchers will strictly observe animal welfare rights. Yet, the most successful scientific research on primate behavior is bolstered or informed by preliminary observations of the primates’ behavior in their natural habitats. Studies on apes, chimps, and other nonhuman primates involve a broad range of processes. A great deal of it includes research of human illnesses that cannot be studied experimentally in human beings. Due to their numerous commonalities to human beings, nonhuman primates are generally the targets of scientific research. Theoretical and practical knowledge obtained from these studies can enhance the wellbeing of both nonhuman primates and human beings. However, it must always be kept in mind that these nonhuman primates deserve respect for they are like humans, they can feel physical, emotional, and psychological pain. Nevertheless, under all situations, adverse impact on psychological health must be lessened to the highest level possible. To assist researchers in predicting, alleviating, or avoiding processes that are probable to bring about suffering in nonhuman primate research subjects, numerous scientific groups have formulated codes of conduct as rules for the use and treatment of animal subjects. Works Cited Abee, Christian et al. Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research: Biology and Management. New York: Academic Press, 2012. Print. Carpenter, Clarence. Naturalistic Behavior of Nonhuman Primates. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965. Print. Committee on Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates. The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates. New York: National Academies Press, 1998. Print. Fedigan, Linda. Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Print. Nienaber, Georgianne. Gorilla Dreams: The Legacy of Dian Fossey. New York: iUniverse, 2006. Print. Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue et al. “Welfare of Apes in Captive Environments: Comments on, and by, a Specific Group of Apes.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10.1(2007): 7-19. Print. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The Welfare of Nonhuman Primates Used in Research. European Commission, 2002. Print. Strum, Shirley & Linda Fedigan. Primate Encounters: Models of Science, Gender, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print. Read More