critics of the research study claimed that monkeys

GMAT Sentence Correction (EA only) Questions

2024 US News MBA Rankings are Out: Stanford is #1, HBS is #6

Customized for You

Track Your Progress

Practice Pays

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan Prep. All are free for GMAT Club members.

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application status, and more

Download thousands of study notes, question collections, GMAT Club’s Grammar and Math books. All are free!

• Register now! It`s easy!
• Already registered? Sign in!

Thank you for using the timer! We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer. There are many benefits to timing your practice , including:

We’ll give you an estimate of your score

We’ll provide personalized question recommendations

Your score will improve and your results will be more realistic

How to score 705+ in GMAT

10 Hardest Graphical Interpretation Questions | Data Insights Series EP2, GMAT Focus Edition

Earn Top GMAT Focus Scores with Target Test Prep

How Conner Scored GMAT Focus 755 (100%)

How to Finance Your MBA with Little to No Savings? Non-Cosigner Education Loans

Transform Your GMAT Score: A Focused Approach to Data Insights (Free Webinar)

Exclusive GMAT Strategy Webinar

Ace Arithmetic on the Current GMAT & the GMAT Focus Edition

Free GMAT Prep Hour

Subscribe to the world's most powerful GMAT channel!

09:00 AM PDT

10:00 AM PDT

08:30 AM PDT

09:30 AM PDT

12:00 PM EDT

01:00 PM EDT

10:00 AM EDT

05:30 AM PDT

07:30 AM PDT

11:00 AM IST

01:00 PM IST

06:00 PM EDT

07:00 PM EDT

08:00 PM PDT

09:00 PM PDT

Critics of the research study claimed that monkeys are different enoug

Difficulty:

Question Stats:

• GMAT Prep Courses
• MBA Programs
• Build Your Study Plan
• Best GMAT Books
• All the GMAT Tests
• GMAT Focus Tests
• GMAT Verbal
• Error Log Templates
• GMAT Official Guide
• Manhattan Prep
• Target Test Prep
• Experts' Global
• Full Time MBA Rankings
• Part Time MBA Rankings
• Executive MBA Rankings
• International MBA Rankings
• Best App Tips
• Best MBA Books
• Application Reference
• Free Profile Evaluation

Copyright © 2024 GMAT Club

GMAT ® is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council ® (GMAC ®). GMAT Club's website has not been reviewed or endorsed by GMAC.

The post is bookmarked successfully

• 我的GMAT 我的班课 我的1V1 练习记录 活动中心

应版权方要求，不支持在线看题功能，感谢您的理解。

• A different enough from human beings that comparing the two species can 分析该选项
• B different enough from human beings so that comparing the two species can 分析该选项
• C different enough from human beings for comparing the two species to 分析该选项
• D so different from human beings that comparisons between the two species can 分析该选项
• E so different from human beings for comparisons between the two species to 分析该选项

讨论题目 或 发起提问

• PREP07 Test 1
• PREP07 Test 2
• PREP08 Test 1
• PREP08 Test 2

题目来源1:PREP07 Test 2

Is it time to end biomedical experiments on monkeys?

Some researchers argue testing on primates is both unethical and irrelevant, but vaccine developers and others say it saves human lives — and the pandemic is their latest example, niranjana rajalakshmi • february 11, 2022.

Confining monkeys in small cages instead of their natural forest environment changes the results of experiments, some researchers say. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons]

Chimpanzee justice, roni jacobson • november 19, 2012, the monkey in the mirror, mary beth griggs • january 19, 2011, the end of biomedical research on u.s. chimps may imperil their wild brethren, mark d. kaufman • february 17, 2017.

In 2015 , the National Institutes of Health banned experiments on chimps, our closest genetic relatives . But that hasn’t ended tests on other primates, despite never-ending criticism from both ethicists and some researchers. 

This is the kind of research that Pfizer and Moderna relied on to get their COVID-19 vaccines to the market as soon as possible. Tests on rhesus macaques were important in speeding along the process, says Matthew R. Bailey , president of the Foundation For Biomedical Research . “To argue that primate research should not be conducted is itself unethical. It means you’ve delivered a death sentence to a lot of people who are depending on that research to save their lives,” he says.

But other animal experts, including several who formerly worked in research facilities, think it’s time to consider an outright ban on all monkey experiments. Noting that experimenting on chimps and other large apes is already banned in most countries , including the U.S., they argue that the monkeys in medical experiments suffer physically and psychologically. That raises not only ethical concerns but also scientific ones, since research monkeys living in a lab are more restricted in their movement than are monkeys that are free to roam.

In justifying the phase-out of chimp testing, NIH Director Dr. Frances Collins stated that “ new scientific methods and technologies have rendered their use in research largely unnecessary.” However, Collins has also said that continued testing on monkeys and other primates is vital to improving human health – even though chimps are actually much closer to humans than monkeys. We share almost 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, compared to just 93% with rhesus monkeys . 

“It’s deeply illogical,” asserts Lisa Jones-Engel , a former primate scientist at the University of Washington who is now a consultant to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). “It’s just about money. Monkeys are smaller and cheaper than chimpanzees. There are more of them available in the wild. It has nothing to do with scientific or ethical relevance.”

The cost associated with buying and maintaining chimps was one of the factors that influenced the NIH to ban chimpanzee testing, according to Dr. Larry Carbone , a former university veterinarian in San Francisco who is now an independent animal welfare consultant. “Chimps will cost you $100,000, and you spend $100 a day to house them”, he says. On the other hand, a rhesus monkey costs about $7,000, and just $15 to $20 per day to house and feed, Carbone adds. 

Ultimately, the NIH concluded that “chimps are not useful enough” to justify the expense and the regulatory complications, since chimps are also an endangered species, unlike rhesus macaques, Carbone says.

No one knows exactly how many monkeys are used in research projects in the U.S. because the private companies that do much of the testing don’t have to disclose that information, according to Carbone. However, a 2019 federal report  puts the total at more than 68,000. Even so, there was a monkey shortage when the COVID vaccine research was at its peak — one that still continues. “The shortfall of monkeys began in 2018 and their overall demand increased when the pandemic struck”, says Sheri Hild , an NIH program director for primate research. 

The strongest case for continuing to use monkeys in experiments is for research on diseases like HIV and Ebola : diseases that monkeys are known carriers for . “The immune systems between humans and monkeys are so similar. That allows the testing of new treatment interventions,” says Caroline Pereira Bittencourt Passaes , who studies HIV-induced inflammation in rhesus macaques at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. “Giving HIV vaccines directly to humans would be a disaster,” she says. 

But even in HIV research, monkeys are not an ideal experimental model for humans. For one thing, they tend to get less severe HIV infections than humans, making it more difficult to design appropriate drugs and vaccines.  

Opponents of monkey testing, like Jones-Engels, extend this argument, claiming that “95% of drugs and treatments that work in animals, including monkeys, actually fail in humans.”. However, the NIH says the 95% failure rate applies to the entire drug discovery process, not to the animal tests that occur just before the human clinical trials. 

COVID-19 vaccines are the latest reason most biomedical researchers continue to defend monkey experimentation. In a recent statement , a network of seven primate research centers argued that monkey tests were essential for getting fast approval for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, as did a group of European researchers . Both companies tested their vaccines in monkeys and found they could induce SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. 

Monkey testing was important in the development of the COVID treatments and vaccines because the SARS-CoV-2 cellular receptor in humans is more similar to the one in monkeys than in other lab animals such as mice, according to the Pasteur Institute’s Passaes. “Monkeys have given a very valuable contribution to all these preclinical studies of drugs, monoclonal antibodies and of course, vaccines to fight COVID pandemic.”

But there was a dark side to some of that COVID-19 research, according to Jones-Engel. She says some monkeys used in the research were captured in forests in India and Bangladesh instead of being bred in captivity. “That is completely antithetical to best practices in the scientific community,” she says. “These monkeys were not bred for experiments. They were not specific-pathogen-free. How do you expect the results to be accurate?” For India’s COVAXIN  vaccine, for example, authorities allowed researchers to capture 30 rhesus monkeys from the wild. 

Primatologists point out that monkeys in cages are very different from their wild cousins, which inevitably affects experimental outcomes. “Some primates can walk for 50 kilometers a day, and they cannot do that in any lab. That’s a very big limitation,” says Constança Carvalho , a biologist at the University of Lisbon. 

Wild monkeys not only range widely, they also engage in a variety of mind-stimulating behaviors, everything from gouging holes in tree trunks and cracking open nuts to being curious like humans . Restricting their movement and suppressing their natural instincts in the lab setting makes some scientists doubt the accuracy of research conducted on them.

“Housing animals with large brains in cramped cages has a powerful effect on their physiological and neurological systems”, says John P. Gluck , a retired primatologist at the University of New Mexico who now works on animal welfare issues. “Practically, primate models are not as good as we once thought and that has a lot to do with how we house them.” This could be relevant for vaccine studies, since at least one study has shown that separating young monkeys from their families and housing them indoors affects their immune system .

If monkeys are used at all for research, Carvalho thinks that they should be treated the same way as humans. “You need to have someone appointed to be in charge of defending the best interests of that particular animal, in the same way you have someone responsible for a child. And this is not what is done in labs.”

Operators of primate research labs, however, say critics are misrepresenting conditions at some facilities. At the California Primate Research Center , for example, most monkeys are housed outdoors with their families, says  Kent Pinkerton , who is a scientist there. Outdoor monkeys “are happy with each other,” he adds, “and it’s not just one monkey with its offspring — it’s a colony.”

Opponents of monkey research cite the rise of alternative ways to model how humans may respond to experimental drugs, including  3D-printed human tissues and organoids and even organs on chips . Most of those tools, however, are still being developed and are not ready for widespread use yet.

And even when they are ready for prime time, alternative techniques like organs on chips can only be complementary tools to animal models, according to Hild, the NIH program director for primate research. “They definitely cannot be viewed as replacements for a whole organism,” she says. “They are just refinements that help in reducing animal usage in research.”

Even critics like Gluck acknowledge that ending primate testing overnight would slow down drug development — for the simple reason that the use of animals is such an ingrained tradition in biomedical research. “If all the primate research centers were emptied in the middle of a pandemic like this, it would have slowed down vaccine development, because that’s the way we think,” Gluck says, “even if it’s inferior thinking.”

About the Author

Niranjana Rajalakshmi

Niranjana Rajalakshmi is a veterinarian from South India. After a master’s in veterinary microbiology, she has combined her subject matter expertise with her fervor for storytelling and transitioned as a science journalist. From the three seasons of her city – summer, summerer, and summerest – she thinks moving to NYC will add at least one more season to her life and more flavor to her writing. Niranjana enjoys cooking, singing, and feeling nostalgic about her furry patients.

Experimenting on other species is fundamentally flawed because while they are like humans in their ability to feel pain and suffer, their physiology differs significantly from humans’. That’s why drugs that have passed animal tests with flying colors have sickened and even killed humans. Testing drugs on animals is as unnecessary as it is cruel. A prime example is the development of COVID vaccines. To expedite the process, the FDA and NIH allowed potential COVID vaccines to go to human clinical trials without first being tested extensively on animals. If they had required the usual years of animal tests, we still might not have an effective vaccine available.

YES YES YES! There are kinder and more accurate research methods available that take advantage of cutting-edge technology instead of cutting into animals.

It’s good to see this being written about, but the article needed some additional vetting. For instance: “But even in HIV research, monkeys are not an ideal experimental model for humans. For one thing, they tend to get less severe HIV infections than humans, making it more difficult to design appropriate drugs and vaccines.”

Monkeys are immune to HIV. Monkeys used in HIV research are infected with a different retrovirus called SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus.) So, a different species being infected with a different virus is claimed to be HIV research.

I think that it is barbaric to experiment on any animals. How could any human experiment on any animal knowing the pain and suffering is going to be inflicted on that animal. This is something that needs to stop.

Yes let’s let’s end this!!!! Please! Hard to see these monkey suffering!

Yes shut down these labs. How can a human being do this. It’s barbaric. A person that does this has no soul or feelings.

A big thank you to the author of this article. How can we respect or believe the medical researchers for being so cruel to animals!! I agree their motivation is purely money and trying to win a prize. Leave the animals to live their lives free of human cruelty. People fighting for animal rights deserve a huge prize.

I wish someone would let people know that the monkey videos are staged and the monkeys were abused and most are dead, Kaka and Deim ones, multi pages fooling people thinking they are good people and treat Kaka like family, someone please make an article about what happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Scienceline Newsletter

Sign up for regular updates.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 28 January 2015

NIH defends monkey experiments

• Sara Reardon  

Nature ( 2015 ) Cite this article

1538 Accesses

118 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Animal behaviour

Director Francis Collins says the agency has changed how it conducts controversial studies, but argues the work is necessary.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has modified the way a controversial lab studies stress in monkeys in response to criticism by animal-rights activists and members of Congress who say that the research is inhumane.

At issue are experiments led by Stephen Suomi, a psychologist at the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in Poolesville, Maryland. Suomi’s lab studies how removing newborn rhesus macaques from their mothers affects biological processes such as brain activity and gene expression, and behaviours such as alcohol consumption in the infants. He has performed similar experiments for about three decades, and has received roughly US$30 million over the past seven years for the work, according to the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is based in Norfolk, Virginia. The group obtained documents and videos from the NIH through a freedom-of-information request.

In September, PETA began posting ads in the subway station near the NIH’s campus in Bethesda, Maryland, and in newspapers, condemning the experiments as “cruel and archaic”, and arguing that they yielded results that were not relevant to human health. The group also posted videos of NIH monkey experiments on its website.

PETA’s campaign drew the attention of Congress. In December, four Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote to the NIH, demanding that the agency’s Department of Bioethics investigate the Suomi lab’s practices and the justification for the experiments. “We know what the impact is when children are taken from their parents,” says one of the lawmakers, Lucille Roybal-Allard (Democrat, California). “While [animal] research is necessary in many cases, we can’t just do it without evaluation and having a clear purpose.”

NIH responds

In a 23 January letter to Roybal-Allard and her colleagues, NIH director Francis Collins said that the agency had changed some details of the experiments after a review by the agency's Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Suomi’s lab has stopped conducting some invasive procedures on the monkeys — such as spinal taps — and reduced the number of blood draws after determining that they were not necessary to achieve scientific goals.

But the NIH investigation concluded that the experiments were correctly classified under the US Department of Agriculture’s rating system for pain and distress in lab animals. The monkey studies were placed in 'category C', which applies to experiments that cause only momentary or slight pain or distress and do not require the use of pain‐relieving drugs.

Meanwhile, NICHD scientific director Constantine Stratakis notes that the videos that PETA posted are from 2008, and show an experiment in which young monkeys were not separated from their mothers. Suomi did not conduct that work, although it used animals from his lab. By contrast, the investigation requested by members of Congress, and subsequent changes to Suomi's research protocols, address his ongoing studies of maternal separation and other early-life stressors.

Mixed reaction

Debbie Jessup, Roybal-Allard’s health-policy adviser, says that her office was not satisfied with the NIH’s response, which describes changes made in September, before the lawmakers sent their letter. Roybal-Allard will continue to pursue the issue, Jessup adds.

PETA is not satisfied with the NIH response either, arguing that the experiments present a bioethical, not a welfare, problem and that human experiments could answer the same questions. “There may be interesting and novel results, but they’re co-emerging in humans,” says Katherine Roe from PETA’s Laboratory Investigations Department.

Suomi disagrees. He says that the use of monkeys in his experiments is necessary because the animals mature up to four times faster than people. Carrying out his studies with human subjects would take decades, and would make it harder to isolate individual stressors.

Others are jumping to the NIH's defence. Howard Kurtzman, acting executive director for science at the American Psychological Association in Washington DC, defended Suomi's work in a 28 January letter to the four House members. “Dr. Suomi’s work has been critical in understanding how the interactions between genes and the physical and social environments affect individual development, which in turn has enhanced our understanding of and treatments for mental illnesses such as depression, addiction, and autism,” Kurtzman said.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Animal-rights activists ramp up campaigns in Europe 2014-Dec-22

Biomedicine: The changing face of primate research 2014-Feb-05

Behaviour and biology: The accidental epigeneticist 2013-Dec-30

Lab-animal flights squeezed 2012-Sep-19

Related external links

PETA campaign

Letter from NIH to Congress

Kurtzman letter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reardon, S. NIH defends monkey experiments. Nature (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.16814

Download citation

Published : 28 January 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.16814

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Chinese scientists insert human brain gene into monkeys, spark ethical debate

When scientists in China added human genes to monkeys, they were hoping to gain a better understanding of how human brains develop. In the process, they triggered an ethical debate over research that some say blurs the line between humans and animals .

The scientists behind the new research, which was published March 27 in the journal National Science Review , say genetically altered monkeys can advance our understanding of brain development, which could lead to new treatments for autism and other developmental disorders.

But critics of the research — including one scientist who contributed to it — have called foul, arguing that the scientific gains don’t justify the creation of monkeys that could wind up with more humanlike intelligence.

“My personal opinion is now that, from an ethical point of view, such research should actually not be done,” Martin Styner, a computer scientist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who was a member of the team of scientists behind the research, told NBC News MACH in an email.

Still others say that, ethical pitfalls and all, genetically altered monkeys are our best hope for unlocking the secrets of the brain and its disorders.

The conflict illustrates what Jessica Mayhew, director of the primate behavior and ecology program at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, calls the "ethical quagmire" of animal testing .

A simple question

The research grew out of a simple question: How does our DNA lay out the blueprint for humans’ powerful brains? Specifically, the scientists, based at the Chinese Academy of Science’s Kunming Institute of Zoology, wanted to understand the role of the MCPH1 gene in human brain development.

Babies with malfunctioning copies of the gene are often born with unusually small heads, a condition known as microcephaly . And since the human and monkey versions of MCPH1 are slightly different, scientists think the gene may be partly responsible for humans’ high intelligence.

Science Why scientists created a human-chicken hybrid embryo

In the study, the scientists added the human version of MCPH1 to 11 embryos that would become rhesus macaques, dirty-blond monkeys that share about 93 percent of their DNA with humans. The so-called transgenic embryos were then implanted in the wombs of female monkeys.

Two embryos were lost to miscarriage; three more were euthanized before birth so that scientists could examine their brains. Of the six monkeys that were born, one died about two months in. The other five were given memory tests and had their brains imaged in an MRI machine at regular intervals.

The transgenic monkeys behaved much like their unaltered counterparts, and their brains were roughly the same size. But their brain cells took longer to develop compared to those of the unaltered monkeys — a sign that the researchers interpreted as neoteny, the super-slow maturation of the human brain that is thought to be linked to our species’ high intelligence.

They also outperformed the unaltered monkeys on the memory tests and had quicker reaction times.

A link between smarts and suffering?

The results led some to wonder whether the MCPH1 monkeys were one step closer to something like consciousness .

Styner said he worried that the transgenic monkeys could be shunned by their unaltered counterparts, though he acknowledged that he didn’t observe the animals and had no expertise in genetics or bioethics. Other experts echoed Styner’s concerns.

“I do not think all animal/human genetic hybrid experiments are unethical,” Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at NYU School of Medicine, said in an email. “Inserting human genes into monkey brains is a different matter.” Like Styner, Caplan felt that the study ran the risk of creating something not human, but not quite a monkey.

But Megan Dennis, a biochemist and geneticist at the University of California, Davis, said the insertion of a human gene probably wasn’t enough to create monkeys that think like humans.

“Rhesus monkeys are far enough evolutionarily from humans that a few additions of genes will not create a 'Planet of the Apes' scenario,” she said, referring to fears that the transgenic monkeys could be self-aware.

Built-in protections

Rhesus monkeys and other Old World monkeys can be a useful model for studying the human brain. Their brains resemble humans’ brains much more closely than those of other common research animals, such as mice. And with 25 million years of evolution separating them from humans, they’re considered less ethically dicey to use in experiments than chimpanzees and other great apes, which share with humans all but a few percentage points of their genomes.

“Rhesus macaques are one of the best animal models for studying brain development and evolution, and have the best translational value for improving human health,” Anthony Chan, a researcher at Emory University’s Yerkes National Primate Research Center, said in an email. But, he added, scientists must tread carefully whenever they add human genes to animals, designing their experiments to keep suffering to a minimum.

In 2015, the National Institutes of Health announced it would no longer support biomedical research on chimpanzees . Research on great apes is either banned or restricted in many places, including nations in the European Union.

In the United States, the National Institutes of Health funds both monkey research and research involving the introduction of human genes into animals. NIH gave 249 grants supporting nonhuman primate research in 2017, Science magazine reported. Still, the research is often cheaper and more convenient in China than in the U.S., making the country a hotbed of genetics research on monkeys .

Another scientist involved in the new study, Bing Su of Kunming Institute of Zoology, said in an email that the institute’s ethics board had approved the study and that the monkeys were handled in accordance with international standards. He added that, apart from the pace of their brain development, the transgenic monkeys weren’t much different from their unaltered counterparts.

“In theory and in reality, there is no ‘humanness’ observed in the MCPH1 transgenic monkeys, since only one gene was changed among tens of millions of genetic differences between humans and monkeys,” he said.

As for the misgivings of his coauthor, Su said Styner never expressed any concerns to him personally, and that when told that their research had been published, Styner emailed back, "Congrats to the whole team!!”

“With two exclamation marks,” Su said.

For his part, Styner said he didn’t make up his mind on the ethics of the experiment until later. “This is the first time where I regret sending out such an congratulatory email,” he wrote when asked about the exchange.

The five surviving monkeys are reported to be in good health.

Want more stories about science?

• In radical experiment, scientists restore activity in pigs' brains hours after slaughter
• Fossils of new human species discovered in Philippines cave
• Scientists create mice with night vision. Here's what that means for humans.

SIGN UP FOR THE MACH NEWSLETTER AND FOLLOW NBC NEWS MACH ON TWITTER , FACEBOOK , AND INSTAGRAM .

• Editor's Pick

Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line

At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions

Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists

‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam

‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6

There’s Nothing Ethical About Experimenting On Monkeys

The controversy around experiments involving infant monkeys and their mothers in professor Margaret S. Livingstone’s lab at Harvard Medical School highlights the importance of education at the intersection of science and ethics. It also calls our attention to a very specific set of injustices happening within our own community.

As a student in the Master of Bioethics program at Harvard Medical School, I am deeply invested in the ethics underpinning the research on which we base our medical advancements. It’s clear that other people are, too. Recently, tens of thousands of individuals, including members of the Harvard community, have signed petitions and letters that get it right : Despite her statements to the contrary , Livingstone’s research is cruel, unnecessary, and morally indefensible.

The backlash against invasive research on primate infants and their mothers is no surprise. Such research conflicts with some of our strongest beliefs. Our sense of how we ought to behave — the normative component of ethics — is informed by deeply ingrained values stemming from culture, religion, our families, and more. The belief that we should not harm others is a value that’s widely accepted and reflected in law. But our actions and laws sometimes exclude animals from this sphere of moral consideration, even though they should not.

It turns out that Americans are concerned with how animals are treated in all settings, including scientific research. According to Gallup , 67 percent of Americans surveyed indicated they’re “Very/Somewhat Concerned” with the treatment of animals used in research. Only three percent of respondents said they believed animals need minimal protections from harm “since they are just animals.”

That we love and care about animals is no surprise. They’re members of our families. We’ve formed core childhood memories with them during visits to parks, on camping trips, and in classrooms.

Why, then, do we accept a status quo that says it is acceptable to harm animals in scientific research so long as there’s a small chance it might benefit humans?

Many gifts given to us by scientific research have come at the expense of the subjects involved in that research, some of whom have been human, the majority of whom have been nonhuman, and nearly all of whom can suffer and feel pain. Still, according to the National Institutes of Health, an estimated 95 percent of drugs proven safe and effective in animal models fail during human clinical trials. Both humans and animals are harmed by such failures.

The claim that Livingstone’s current research is scientifically justifiable has been criticized by individuals with far more expertise in primatology, neurobiology, and bioethics than myself, and I will only point you to their well-documented dissenting views .

It should be clear: It is a mistake to question the credibility of their views by classifying them as emotional appeals. We cannot and should not disconnect one of the defining features of humanity — our capacity for empathy — from our moral sensibilities. As bioethicists-in-training at HMS, we’re taught to interrogate our emotional biases and carefully consider them in decision-making — not to silence or dismiss them.

Where would we be if we stuffed our emotions into our pockets when witnessing suffering and injustice? Bearing witness to suffering has inspired critical social change in response to atrocities like slavery, apartheid, and the Holocaust. And, as I’ve argued before , excluding emotion from research does not make for good science. Moreover, it’s been demonstrated that people who care for animals in research labs suffer severe mental anguish . There is harm in ignoring emotion and violating one’s own moral values.

But the harder question we need to answer is: Even if this research is beneficial to humanity, should we be doing it?

Livingstone’s research is legal, but legality is not morality. We can all easily recall many instances in which what was legal was shockingly immoral. Is human exceptionalism in scientific research different from the other forms of legalized exceptionalism that have hurt vulnerable groups?

Neither the awards and large sums of funding that Dr. Livingstone’s research on monkeys has received, nor its approval by Harvard’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, indicates it is ethical or even necessary. IACUCs are self-regulating bodies whose standards vary by institution and based on the individual composition of each IACUC. This does not make those involved in this research immoral people. Instead, it evidences a broken system that devalues the moral worth of nonhuman animals.

Alternative technologies to replace animals in research are in development, but they aren’t yet fully sufficient. This shouldn’t hold us back. It is intellectually dishonest to use moral arguments to justify technological and scientific insufficiencies. Our present (and seemingly temporary) inability to completely replace monkeys with non-sentient technologies does not make their exploitation ethically justifiable — not even when it might help humans.

In the meantime, we can commit to urgently advancing those replacement technologies . We can also commit to research frameworks that emphasize non-maleficence to better protect animals. Harvard prides itself on being a leader, and this is a place where it can lead.

Being critical of institutional practices is not a rejection of the institution or its constituents. As a proud Harvard Medical School student, I aim to elevate both myself and our school. Just as I push myself to question my long-held beliefs, so too should the place where I learn. We’re fortunate to be surrounded by abundant intellect and innovation. Here in the Harvard ecosystem, viable alternatives to animal research are being developed. Sometimes, we neglect to question the status quo. At a leading institution like ours, that’s just not good enough.

Erin Sharoni is a second-year Master’s in Bioethics student at Harvard Medical School.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Monkeys are smarter than we thought

A paradigm-shifting study published today in Nature Neuroscience shows that, just like humans, monkeys are capable of complex deliberation and careful decision-making. The study is first to show that monkeys can think deeply about a problem and consider combinations of factors such as costs, consequences and constraints. In doing so, monkeys can find optimal outcomes rather than impulsively reaching for the first available option.

"Humans are not the only animals capable of slow and thoughtful deliberation," said senior author William Stauffer, Ph.D., assistant professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "Our work shows that monkeys have a rich mental state that renders them capable of intelligent thinking. It's a new paradigm for studying the neurophysiological basis for deliberative thought."

Consider a fundamental question: how do we, as humans, think about what we want? What happens in our brains when we close our eyes and deliberate over complex questions, such as who to spend time with or what to study at school? And are other animals, including monkeys, capable of the same complexity of thought?

Several decades ago, the Nobel Prize laureate Daniel Kahneman, Ph.D., revolutionized the field of behavioral economics with Prospect Theory. In his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow," he postulated that humans employ two distinct systems of thinking: one nearly instantaneous that happens automatically, and the other much slower conscious logical reasoning that requires more mental effort.

Kahneman dubbed the first, effortless, type of thinking as 'fast' and the second as 'slow.' Slow, effortful thinking enables us to write music, develop scientific hypothesis and balance our checkbooks.

As it turns out, humans' slow thinking is not unique.

By presenting monkeys with combinatorial optimization problems in what Pitt neuroscientists dubbed the 'knapsack task' and rewarding the animals based on the value of the submitted solutions, researchers showed that monkeys employed sophisticated mathematical reasoning and used efficient computational algorithms to tackle complex problems.

The scientists discovered that the animals' performance and speed of deliberation was dependent on the task's complexity, and that their solutions closely matched those generated by efficient computer algorithms designed specifically to solve the optimization problem.

"Results from this work will contribute neurophysiological evidence to enlighten centuries of discussions about dual process theories of the mind, the structure of thoughts, and the neurobiological basis of intuition and reasoning," wrote Stauffer in an accompanying research briefing.

Tao Hong of Carnegie Mellon University is the lead author of the paper.

• Animal Learning and Intelligence
• Life Sciences
• Wild Animals
• Howler monkey
• Jane Goodall

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Pittsburgh . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Tao Hong, William R. Stauffer. Computational complexity drives sustained deliberation . Nature Neuroscience , 2023; DOI: 10.1038/s41593-023-01307-6

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Drug Development Made Easier
• RNA That Doesn't Age
• 'Rainbow' Detected On an Exoplanet
• Spears and Throwing Sticks 300,000 Years Old
• High Carbon Impact of Tourism at Yellowstone
• Extreme Starburst Galaxy
• Asthma: Disease May Be Stoppable
• Stellar Collisions and Zombie-Like Survivors
• Tiny Robot Swarms Inspired by Herd Mentality
• How the Brain Regulates Emotions

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Brandon Keim

Monkeys have cognitive abilities once thought unique to humans

Monkeys may possess cognitive abilities once thought unique to humans, raising questions about the nature of animal awareness and our ability to measure it.

In the lab of University of Wisconsin neuroscientist Luis Populin, five rhesus macaques seem to recognise their own reflections in a mirror. Monkeys weren’t supposed to do this.

“We thought these subjects didn’t have this ability. The indications are that if you fail the mark test, you’re not self-aware. This opens up a whole field of possibilities,” Populin said.

Populin doesn’t usually study monkey self-awareness. The macaques described in this study, published Sept. 29 in Public Library of Science One , were originally part of his work on attention deficit disorder. But during that experiment, study co-author Abigail Rajala noticed the monkeys using mirrors to study themselves.

So-called mirror self-recognition is thought to indicate self-awareness, which is required to understand selfhood in others, and ultimately to be empathic. Researchers measure this with the “mark test.” They paint or ink a mark on unconscious animals, then see if they use mirrors to discover the marks.

It was once thought that only humans could pass the mark test. Then chimpanzees did, followed by dolphins and elephants. These successes challenged the notions that humans were alone on one side of a cognitive divide. Many researchers think the notion of a divide is itself mistaken. Instead, they propose a gradual spectrum of cognitive powers, a spectrum crudely measured by mirrors.

Indeed, macaques -- including those in Populin’s study -- have repeatedly failed the mark test. But after Rajala called attention to their strange behaviours, the researchers paid closer attention. The highly social monkeys only rarely tried to interact with the reflections. They used mirrors to study otherwise-hidden parts of their bodies, such as their genitals and the implants in their heads. Mark tests not withstanding, they seemed quite self-aware.

“I think that these findings show that self-awareness is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon,” said Lori Marino, an Emory University evolutionary neurobiologist who was not involved in the study. “There may be much more of a continuum in self-awareness than we thought before,”

According to Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal, the new findings fit with his work on capuchin monkeys who don’t quite recognise themselves in mirrors, but don’t treat the reflections as belonging to strangers. “As a result, we proposed a gradual scale of self awareness. The piece of intriguing information presented here may support this view,” he said.

However, de Waal cautioned that “many scientists would want more tests and more controls” -- a warning especially salient in light of a high-profile controversy involving Marc Hauser, a Harvard University evolutionary biologist who appears to have overstated the cognitive powers of his own monkeys.

“What you’re seeing in the videos is subject to all kinds of interpretations,” said Gordon Gallup, a State University of New York at Albany psychologist who invented the mirror test, and has administered it with negative results to rhesus monkeys. “I don’t think these findings in any way demonstrate that rhesus monkeys are capable of recognising themselves in mirrors.”

Reece Rogers

David Gilbert

Scott Gilbertson

Andy Greenberg

Populin said his monkeys may have developed an unusual familiarity with mirrors, which are given to them as toys during infancy. The presence of saltshaker-sized implants screwed into their skulls may also have captured their interest more readily than an inked mark.

Marino, who helped demonstrate self-recognition in bottlenose dolphins, disagreed with Gallup. “The videos are absolutely convincing,” she said. “I have been trying to find an alternative explanation for the results – and haven’t come up with one yet.”

Marino said the findings fit with other research on monkey cognition, including a since-replicated Journal of Experimental Psychology study in which macaques displayed unexpectedly sophisticated math skills and passed other, non-mirror-based tests of self-awareness.

“There are many ways to look at animals. Mirror tests are not the end-all and be-all,” said Diana Reiss, a mammal cognition specialist at the City University of New York.

If research continues to find that monkeys possess higher-than-expected awareness, it could influence how researchers and the public think about biomedical research on monkeys. Macaques were critical in the development of a polio vaccine during the 20th century and, more recently, the refinement of embryonic stem cell techniques.

“I would absolutely hope that we do not stop using them now. Their contributions have been immense,” said Populin, who studies how Ritalin affects the brain’s prefrontal cortex.

“There are decisions I would make with a monkey, that I would not feel comfortable making with a chimpanzee,” said University of Wisconsin psychologist Chris Coe, who was not involved in the study. “Some of the other cognitive abilities that monkeys would have to show, I don’t believe they do. I don’t believe they sit and ponder their fate, or reflect on the past, or fret about the future, because they are able to see themselves in a mirror,” he said.

“We don’t know whether they have a sense of past or future,” said Marino, who called the distinction an ethical non-sequitur. “Whether an animal has a sense of the past or future is irrelevant to the issue of whether they can suffer in the present.”

Even if Coe accepts research involving contagious diseases or invasive procedures in monkeys that he wouldn’t in chimps, however, he thinks the findings underscore the importance of improving conditions for research macaques.

The macaques’ unexpected self-awareness certainly influences the equations by which society must continually balance the harms and benefits of research. “A study such as this one, that pushes our own awareness of what monkeys can and can’t do, challenges us,” Coe said. “I’m not going to argue that having animals live in small cages is so wonderful. One has to reflect on that.”

A more accurate understanding of animal awareness may ultimately require better tools. Many researchers are sceptical of the mirror test, which Marino said “is shaped more by the cognitive limitations of human researchers than anything else.”

Wrote Marino in an email, “Other animals may be more deeply contemplative than humans – we just don’t know. That’s really the bottom line. Any scientist who tells you they know that other animals don’t think as richly or as complexly as humans -- is, well, not being scientific.”

Note: From the study: “All efforts were made to ameliorate suffering of the animals. Specifically, all procedures were approved by the University of Wisconsin Animal Care Committee and were in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals .”

This article was originally published by WIRED UK

Karen Williams

David Kushner

Geraldine Castro

Rhett Allain

Elise Cutts

Emily Mullin

share this!

April 24, 2023

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Study shows monkeys are capable of complex deliberation and careful decision-making

by University of Pittsburgh

A paradigm-shifting study published today in Nature Neuroscience shows that, just like humans, monkeys are capable of complex deliberation and careful decision-making. The study is the first to show that monkeys can think deeply about a problem and consider combinations of factors such as costs, consequences and constraints. In doing so, monkeys can find optimal outcomes rather than impulsively reaching for the first available option.

"Humans are not the only animals capable of slow and thoughtful deliberation," said senior author William Stauffer, Ph.D., assistant professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "Our work shows that monkeys have a rich mental state that renders them capable of intelligent thinking. It's a new paradigm for studying the neurophysiological basis for deliberative thought."

Consider a fundamental question: how do we, as humans, think about what we want? What happens in our brains when we close our eyes and deliberate over complex questions, such as who to spend time with or what to study at school? And are other animals, including monkeys, capable of the same complexity of thought?

Several decades ago, the Nobel Prize laureate Daniel Kahneman, Ph.D., revolutionized the field of behavioral economics with Prospect Theory. In his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow," he postulated that humans employ two distinct systems of thinking: one nearly instantaneous that happens automatically, and the other much slower conscious logical reasoning that requires more mental effort.

Kahneman dubbed the first, effortless, type of thinking as 'fast' and the second as 'slow." Slow, effortful thinking enables us to write music, develop scientific hypothesis and balance our checkbooks.

As it turns out, humans' slow thinking is not unique.

By presenting monkeys with combinatorial optimization problems in what Pitt neuroscientists dubbed the 'knapsack task' and rewarding the animals based on the value of the submitted solutions, researchers showed that monkeys employed sophisticated mathematical reasoning and used efficient computational algorithms to tackle complex problems .

The scientists discovered that the animals' performance and speed of deliberation was dependent on the task's complexity, and that their solutions closely matched those generated by efficient computer algorithms designed specifically to solve the optimization problem .

"Results from this work will contribute neurophysiological evidence to enlighten centuries of discussions about dual process theories of the mind, the structure of thoughts, and the neurobiological basis of intuition and reasoning," wrote Stauffer in an accompanying research briefing.

Journal information: Nature Neuroscience

Provided by University of Pittsburgh

Explore further

Feedback to editors

A natural touch for coastal defense: Hybrid solutions may offer more benefits in lower-risk areas

4 hours ago

Public transit agencies may need to adapt to the rise of remote work, says new study

Broken record: March is 10th straight month to be hottest on record, scientists say

5 hours ago

Early medieval money mystery solved

14 hours ago

Finding new chemistry to capture double the carbon

16 hours ago

Americans are bad at recognizing conspiracy theories when they believe they're true, says study

17 hours ago

A total solar eclipse races across North America as clouds part along totality

New statistical-modeling workflow may help advance drug discovery and synthetic chemistry

Researchers develop better way to make painkiller from trees

Replacing plastics with alternatives is worse for greenhouse gas emissions in most cases, study finds

18 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the colorado river.

6 hours ago

What do large moles on the body indicate?

Mar 30, 2024

Avian flu - A new study led by a team from the University of Maryland

Mar 27, 2024

Are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic?

Mar 20, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 18, 2024

Biological culture and cultural biology

Mar 17, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Slow down your thinking to spot fake websites, says study

Apr 4, 2023

How complex is your life? Computer scientists found a way to measure it

Aug 10, 2022

Crows able to understand the concept of recursion

Nov 3, 2022

Rhesus monkeys found to see faces in inanimate objects too

Aug 28, 2017

Monkeys can sense their own heartbeats, an ability tied to mental health, consciousness and memory in humans

Apr 12, 2022

Brain-machine interface study suggests how brains prepare for action

Feb 16, 2018

Recommended for you

Mediterranean marine worm has developed eyes 'as big as millstones'

21 hours ago

Toothed whale echolocation organs evolved from jaw muscles, new research suggests

23 hours ago

Rare Javan rhino calf spotted in Indonesia

Apr 7, 2024

Corals can bounce back after heat waves, but only if there's enough time between them

Apr 5, 2024

Insect immune insights: Researchers unveil immune system dynamics

Heat stress from ocean warming harms octopus vision

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

U.S. Research Labs Home to 100,000 Monkeys, Critics Call Experiments ‘Outdated and Barbaric'

Scientists argue primate research has already led to several medical breakthroughs, and say it is likely to yield even more treatments, cures, or vaccines for parkinson’s disease, aids, and paralysis., by bigad shaban and robert campos and mark villarreal • published february 16, 2017 • updated on march 24, 2017 at 2:55 pm.

The protest begins at noon at the University of California at Davis.  It’s the busiest time of day, when students are changing classes. Four students put on monkey masks and plant themselves at the Memorial Union – the central hub of campus.  One of the protesters, Lindsay Rubin, started “Free Davis Primates” in 2014, along with partners Grace Amico and Caroline Webb. 

“Our first and foremost goal is to let people know that the Primate Center exists,” says Rubin.  “So much of the community in Davis doesn’t even know this happens.”

There more than 6,000 monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center at UC Davis.  A little more than half are in a breeding area, and more than 2,700 are in research studies. Rubin and her fellow protesters think the research should stop. 

“Their natural instinct tells them to live in colonies of over one hundred,” says Webb.  She points out that the confinement of a research cage is the opposite of the free-roaming nature of these Rhesus Macaque monkeys.  “It would be like a human living in a cage the size of a refrigerator by themselves their entire life.” 

MORE THAN 100,000 PRIMATES IN RESEARCH CENTERS

San Jose city leaders to vote on homeless encampments crackdown

Report: State Farm indicates where in California homeowner's policies won't be renewed

Across the country, there are 159 research centers as well as 15 federal facilities that test on primates.  Collectively, those facilities house over 100,000 nonhuman primates as part of ongoing studies or breeding colonies used as part of future research, according to government records obtained and analyzed by the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit.

Of those primates, 25,483 are involved in experiments that can cause pain or distress.  About 740 of those monkeys are not given any form of pain medication, since that could interfere with the research.

RESEARCH MONKEYS SHARE 93% OF HUMAN DNA

Macaque monkeys are anatomically and physiologically very similar to humans, and share 93 percent of the same DNA.  Supporters of primate research argue the striking similarities make nonhuman primates ideal candidates for studying drugs, vaccines, and medical procedures before human trials begin.

Animal rights advocates, however, point to another nearby campus – University of California at Berkeley, where new research holds the promise of eliminating drug tests on monkeys.  Dr. Kevin Healy and his staff are developing “heart-on-a-chip” technology:  actual human heart cells – living and beating on a plate that is wired to a computer, which could eventually be used to test the effects of drugs in humans. 

As Dr. Healy explains, the “ion channels” of the human heart are very different from those of the monkey, and yet they’re very important in determining how the heart responds to a drug.  His team is even working on a “liver component,” which they would add on to the heart chip to get an accurate read on how the liver would react to a drug as well.  If perfected, this technology could one day replace the testing of human drugs on monkeys.   

“The science is not there yet,” says Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, Director of Science Policy at the National Institutes of Health, which funds much of the primate research in the United States.   “I think these animals really remain critical to our ability to both understand disease and to develop treatments and therapies for human diseases.” 

That said, she still acknowledges that new technology is on the horizon that could drastically alter the landscape. 

“Scientists are always exploring new ways to answer the scientific questions … helping us understand in new and different ways how human disease works,” Wolinetz said.  “But right now they’re not sufficient to entirely replace our use of primates or any other species.”

Primates are at the leading edge of human health research for treatments, cures, and medical advancements relating to Parkinson’s disease, vaccine development, and prosthetics. 

At Duke University, for example, scientists are utilizing monkeys to develop new technology that enables prosthethic arms and legs to communicate directly with the human brain.  

'IF WE DO NOT DO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH … THAT’S A RISK'

Research centers across the country have been issued 377 citations for noncompliance over the past three years, which includes 77 violations that directly impacted the health of animals, according to government records obtained by the Investigative Unit.

“We must weigh scientific objectives with animal welfare,” said Dr. Allyson Bennett, faculty director of the Animal Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which houses more than 2,500 primates.

The primate center focuses on research dealing with infectious diseases, including HIV, Ebola, and Zika.  Additionally, scientists at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center are working to develop new treatments to combat Parkinson’s disease.

Since 2014, federal inspectors have cited the facility for nine violations.  That includes a noncompliance citation in 2015 that noted 12 incidents of nonhuman primates escaping enclosures during 2015.  Those incidents resulted in several injuries that left some monkeys without portions of their tongues, whiles others required “partial digit amputations,” according to inspection records.

“It’s a small rate of errors, but we expect better and we regret those errors, so we continue to work to minimize the risk,” Bennett said.

“We also recognize there is harm in doing nothing – if we do not do scientific research, if we walk away from questions that could potentially benefit society, that’s a risk.”

NBC Bay Area spent months compiling data and records from the federal government in order to gain a better understanding of the scope of primate testing across the country.  The Investigative Unit obtained violation records and primate population totals for every research facility in the country.  

Using the interactive map below, you can easily locate primate research centers in your area and learn how many primates are being studied and what kinds of research are being done.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURGES SITE OF ANIMAL WELFARE VIOLATION RECORDS

Violation records and reports animal research have long been available to the public through government websites and public databases.  On Feb. 3, however, the USDA, which regulates animal research facilities, hastily purged its website, citing “privacy concerns.”  The Investigative Unit obtained the data just days before the public records were taken offline.  In its place, the USDA posted the following message:

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information .

See full USDA statement here .

UC DAVIS HOME TO MORE THAN 6,000 PRIMATES 

The California National Primate Research Center at the UC Davis is one of the largest primate research centers in the country, with more than 6,000 monkeys.  The facility has been cited 13 times in the past three years by the USDA for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. 

UC Davis declined repeated requests for interviews by NBC Bay Area, but offered a statement defending its research center.

"Animal research at UC Davis is strictly regulated," the statement read.  "UC Davis follows all applicable laws and regulations, and we strive to continuously improve our standards of animal care."

According to the statement, "breakthroughs in treatments for illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, heart disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS would not have been possible without preclinical studies using animal models of disease."

See complete UC Davis statement

Last year, a monkey at UC Davis had to be euthanized after suffering serious injuries.  Seven other primates died at the facility in 2004 after a heating system malfunctioned, sending the temperature in the room up to 115 degrees fahrenheit.  Two monkeys had temperatures of 109 degrees -- more than 10 degrees above what is considered normal.

Davis says such incidents involving their research monkeys are “rare,” however, animal rights activists argue the research itself is cruel and unusual.

“This is surgery, this is implants in their skull and their craniums, implants in other parts of their bodies, their backs and their spines,” said Bob Ingersoll, a well-known animal activist who has studied primates for more than 40 years.

Ingersoll says monkey collars are routinely used by technicians to administer medicine to the primates.

“Researchers don’t want to get too close to monkeys because they can have all kinds of diseases,” he explains, “so with [the collars] on their necks, they can put a stick into the cage with a hook on the end, and pull the monkey right up against the front of the cage to give it medication or whatever they need to do with it.” 

[[414035866, C]]

Ingersoll said he is often sought out by technicians and scientists who are eager to find homes for their lab monkeys once their research is complete.

“We hope that the labs will have a non-adversarial relationship with us and we can work with them,” Ingersoll said.

“This is about doing the right thing … they formed a relationship with one of the animals that they’re using and testing.”

Ingersoll often finds those monkeys a home at Mindy’s Memory – a primate rehab facility in Newcastle, Oklahoma that welcomes former pets and research animals.

UNEXPLAINED BEHAVIORS

Maya, an 11-year-old male Macaque, has lived at the sanctuary ever since he was released from a California research laboratory four years ago.   Each time he makes direct eye contact with a human, he makes a sudden motion to bite his hand.

“Once they’re in captivity, they’re always going to be affected from it for the rest of their lives,” said Darren Tindall, who runs Mindy’s Memory and takes care of the monkeys each day.  “We have some monkeys that will pace back and forth in the same spot.” 

The pacing, according to Tindell, could be from living in confinement, or a way of coping with stress. 

Both he and Ingersoll are now calling for a larger focus on alternative testing in hopes of reducing the number of monkeys in research labs and, eventually, animal sanctuaries across the country.

“Ideally, places like this shouldn’t have to exist,” said Tindall.  “But in the long term, there’s just going to be a lot of this going on.”  

______________________________________

Need to contact our Investigative Unit?

      •   You can remain anonymous

      •   Click here to submit tips

     •  1-888-996-TIPS

     •   [email protected]

Follow @BigadShaban

This article tagged under:

Study: Monkeys are much smarter than we thought they were

In a groundbreaking study published today in the journal Nature Neuroscience , researchers have discovered that monkeys, much like humans , are capable of complex deliberation and careful decision-making. 

This new finding challenges the long-held belief that humans alone possess the ability to think deeply about a problem and consider multiple factors such as costs, consequences, and constraints in order to arrive at optimal outcomes.

“Humans are not the only animals capable of slow and thoughtful deliberation,” said study senior author Dr. William Stauffer from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “Our work shows that monkeys have a rich mental state that renders them capable of intelligent thinking. It’s a new paradigm for studying the neurophysiological basis for deliberative thought.”

The study raises important questions about the nature of thought processes and decision-making in animals, and whether other species are also capable of engaging in the same level of complexity as humans. It also helps to shed light on the cognitive processes at work when we, as humans, make decisions about various aspects of our lives, such as who to spend time with or what to study in school.

Several decades ago, Dr. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize laureate, revolutionized the field of behavioral economics with his Prospect Theory. In his seminal book, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” Dr. Kahneman posited that humans employ two distinct systems of thinking: one nearly instantaneous and automatic, and the other much slower and reliant on conscious logical reasoning that requires greater mental effort.

How the study was done with monkeys

Dr. Kahneman referred to the first type of thinking as “slow” and the second as “fast.” Slow, effortful thinking enables us to engage in complex activities such as writing music, developing scientific hypotheses, and balancing our checkbooks. Until now, it was believed that slow thinking was a uniquely human trait.

However, this latest research turns that notion on its head. By presenting monkeys with combinatorial optimization problems, which the researchers dubbed the “knapsack task,” and rewarding the animals based on the value of their solutions, the study demonstrated that monkeys employed sophisticated mathematical reasoning and used efficient computational algorithms to tackle complex problems.

The scientists found that the animals’ performance and speed of deliberation were dependent on the task’s complexity, and that their solutions closely mirrored those generated by efficient computer algorithms specifically designed to solve the optimization problem.

“Results from this work will contribute neurophysiological evidence to enlighten centuries of discussions about dual process theories of the mind, the structure of thoughts, and the neurobiological basis of intuition and reasoning,” wrote Stauffer in an accompanying research briefing.

Tao Hong of Carnegie Mellon University is the lead author of the paper. The study’s findings not only provide valuable insights into the cognitive abilities of monkeys but also pave the way for a new paradigm in studying the neurophysiological basis for deliberative thought, with potential implications for better understanding the complex nature of decision-making across various species.

More about monkeys

Monkeys are a diverse group of primates that belong to the infraorder Simiiformes. They are divided into two major groups: New World monkeys, native to Central and South America, and Old World monkeys, native to Africa and Asia. Monkeys are known for their intelligence, social behavior, and adaptability to different environments.

Physical characteristics of monkeys

Monkeys vary greatly in size and appearance, ranging from the tiny pygmy marmoset, which measures just 4.6-6.2 inches (12-16 cm) in length, to the large mandrill, which can reach up to 37 inches (94 cm) in length. 

Monkeys typically have forward-facing eyes, flat faces, and dexterous hands with opposable thumbs. Some species also have prehensile tails, which they use to grasp and manipulate objects or to hang from branches.

Diet of monkeys

Most monkeys are omnivores, eating a diverse diet that includes fruits, leaves, seeds, insects, and small animals. Some species, like the howler monkey, primarily consume leaves, while others, like the capuchin monkey, have a more varied diet.

Social behavior of monkeys

Monkeys are highly social animals that usually live in groups called troops. These troops can range in size from just a few individuals to hundreds of members. Social hierarchies are common in monkey troops, with dominant individuals enjoying benefits like better access to food and mating opportunities. Monkeys communicate through vocalizations, body language, and facial expressions, and they often engage in grooming behaviors to maintain social bonds.

Intelligence and tool use

Monkeys are known for their cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, and in some cases, their use of tools. Capuchin monkeys, for example, have been observed using rocks to crack open nuts, while some macaques have been seen using sticks to extract insects from tree bark. 

Research has also shown that monkeys are capable of understanding basic arithmetic and recognizing themselves in mirrors, which is considered a sign of self-awareness.

Conservation of monkeys

Many monkey species are threatened by habitat loss, hunting, and the illegal pet trade. Conservation efforts are underway to protect these primates and their habitats, including the establishment of protected areas, reintroduction programs, and education campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of monkey conservation.

In conclusion, monkeys are fascinating and intelligent creatures with complex social structures and diverse behaviors. As we continue to study these primates, we gain a greater understanding of their cognitive abilities and the evolutionary links between humans and other primates.

Other animals that demonstrate problem-solving ability

Yes, numerous animals demonstrate problem-solving abilities, indicating the presence of intelligence and cognitive skills across various species. Some examples of animals with notable problem-solving capabilities include:

Crows and other corvids

These birds are known for their exceptional problem-solving skills and have been observed using tools to access food. For instance, they can use sticks to extract insects from tree bark or crevices and even bend wires to create hooks for retrieving food from hard-to-reach places.

Elephants are highly intelligent animals capable of complex problem-solving. They have been observed using sticks and branches to swat flies or scratch hard-to-reach areas and can also recognize themselves in mirrors, suggesting self-awareness. Elephants have displayed the ability to cooperate and work together to solve problems, such as pulling a rope simultaneously to access food.

Dolphins are known for their intelligence and problem-solving abilities. They have been observed using tools like sponges to protect their snouts while foraging on the ocean floor. Dolphins can also learn and understand complex commands and have been shown to recognize themselves in mirrors, indicating self-awareness.

These highly intelligent invertebrates have demonstrated remarkable problem-solving skills. Octopuses have been observed opening jars, navigating mazes, and escaping from enclosures by manipulating objects and their environment. Their impressive learning and memory capabilities make them formidable problem solvers.

Domesticated dogs have evolved alongside humans and have developed a range of problem-solving skills. They can learn commands, understand gestures, and follow human cues to solve problems, such as locating hidden objects or navigating obstacles. Some breeds, like border collies and poodles, are especially known for their intelligence and problem-solving abilities.

Chimpanzees

As our closest living relatives, chimpanzees share many cognitive traits with humans. They have been observed using tools, such as sticks to extract termites from their mounds, and leaves as sponges to collect water. Chimpanzees also display complex social behaviors, such as cooperation and deception, which require problem-solving skills.

Rats are intelligent rodents that have shown the ability to solve problems and learn from their experiences. They can navigate complex mazes, recognize patterns, and demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of cause and effect. Rats have also been observed using tools and adapting their behavior based on previous experiences.

These examples illustrate that problem-solving abilities are not exclusive to humans and can be found across various animal species. Studying these animals and their cognitive skills can provide valuable insights into the evolution of intelligence and the diversity of problem-solving strategies in the animal kingdom.

Check us out on EarthSnap , a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com .

Researcher raises ethics concerns over Chinese experiment to make monkeys more human

Chinese scientists successfully created human-like monkeys to observe their brains, however their experiments have been slammed as unethical.

You have never seen a snake do this

How to experience US solar eclipse fever

‘Confident’: Major update after magpie seized

A computer scientist who is credited as a researcher on a Chinese medical experiment that saw monkey brains implanted with human genes to make them more human, has slammed the project as ethically unacceptable.

Dr Martyn Styner, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, has distanced himself from the experiment after the group of Chinese scientists who led it became the target of a medical ethics debate.

Dr Styner argues the knowledge gained from messing with monkey brains in this way was not enough to go through with it.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

The research, funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and led by the country’s Kunming Institute of Zoology, saw the creation of 11 transgenic monkeys that carried human copies of the MCPH1 gene (Microcephalin 1).

The group wanted to observe how the gene affected monkey brain development.

It’s the latest series of mutant monkeys to be born in recent years as a result of Chinese medical research.

MCPH1 is considered important for brain development and evolution. It is also linked to brain size.

Of the 11 monkeys, six survived birth and five lived to the study’s publication date in China’s National science Review on March 27.

According to the research,brain imaging and tissue section analysis showed delayed maturation of the neural system similar to developmental delay experienced in humans.

Ape checks out Instagram on smartphone

In humans this can see juvenile features carry on into adulthood.

One difference between humans and monkeys is that humans take a lot longer to form their brain’s neural-network (from childhood to adulthood). Slowing down the brain maturing process can lead to improved intelligence during human evolution.

The study also found the gene altered monkeys displayed improved short-term memory and quicker reaction time compared to monkeys that did not carry the gene.

The Chinese researchers have argued that using monkeys to make this discovery provided an important insight into what makes humans unique in terms of brain development.

A mutated MCPH1 gene can lead to microcephaly in babies, which means they can be born with unusually small heads due to abnormal brain development.

SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THESE MONKEYS

However Dr Styner, who was tasked with developing software tools to measure brain MRI data for the research, said he felt there were ethical implications to this research.

“My lab generates software to help other labs with running their MRI studies, I am only loosely connected to the science of many studies. That certainly was the case here. One could even argue that I probably should not be a co-author given my lack of scientific involvement in this work. I had no input on the science in this project, except for how to best process their MRI data,” he told News Corp.

“The issue is not transgenic animals in general, or even transgenic monkeys. But rather it’s the combination of it all, ie a transgenic monkey whose brain is altered by adding a human brain development gene with the goal to make it more human like.

“There are ethically acceptable uses for transgenic animals (possibly even monkeys) that do not target the brain but with another goal, eg making it a potential organ donor for a human. “That’s a very different setting then what we have in this work and one with much less significant ethical implications.”

He said in this study by changing the brain and brain development, the researchers created a monkey that was more human like — neither human nor monkey.

“Quite possibly those transgenic monkeys would not fit with their family/colony anymore. Thus there is significant harm here to these monkeys, though I don’t think we actually learn a lot from this particular study or avenue of research.”

ONLY MONKEYS?

The researchers hope to continue using monkeys to conduct further research on degenerative and social disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, MS and autism as they argue their findings could provide important insight that leads to better understanding and treatment.

However critics have argued that implanting monkeys with human genes pushes the ethical boundaries of using animals for medical research.

But their initial research has been compared to sci-fi classic story Planet of the Apes , which sees gene edited apes go into battle with humans for control.

The researchers dismiss this claim saying apes are not used at all in their research and never will be.

They argue the rhesus monkeys used in the experiments are distant enough from humans genetically to quash this concern. Monkeys are closer related to humans genetically than rodents, but they’re not as close as apes.

Dr Styner told NBC News when criticism of the research first surfaced that: “My personal opinion is now that, from an ethical point of view, such research should actually not be done.”

CHINA TRIALS PUSH BOUNDARIES

The Chinese Institute of Neuroscience defended its experiments, saying cloned and gene-altered monkeys will lead to a reduction in the amount of monkeys used in medical testing in the future.

They say their experiments are important if we want to shed light on human gene-related disorders like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

In January Chinese research saw five macaque monkeys cloned from a single animal that was gene manipulated to have a sleep disorder.

The study, for the purpose of observing mental illness, led to all five monkeys developing signs of depression, anxiety and behaviours associated with schizophrenia.

A year earlier China announced it was successful in creating the world’s first cloned monkeys Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua .

In 2016 China’s Institute of Neuroscience used transgenic monkeys to observe the MECP2 gene, which is related to autism.

The monkeys with artificial human MECP2 gene were subject to behavioural tests. Compared to monkeys that did not have the gene, the gene-altered monkeys had autism-like behaviours, metabolism issues, increased stress responses and lower social skills.

China’s institute of neuroscience said they followed strict international guidelines for animal research.

“The research will help to reduce the amount of macaque monkeys currently used in biomedical research around the world. Without the interference of genetic background, a much smaller number of cloned monkeys carrying disease phenotypes may be sufficient for preclinical tests of the efficacy of therapeutics,” said neuroscientist Dr Poo Mu-ming, who helped supervise both of these studies.

“Researchers used to use more animals for drug test for accuracy, but now we could change the situation with cloning technology,” he said.

Late last year another a Chinese researcher drew condemnation from science peers for successfully gene-altering twin girls to prevent them from contracting HIV.

Chinese authorities launched an investigation into the ‘world first’ result and put a stop to the research.

China is currently considering new laws which would see stricter requirements and greater scrutiny overseeing medical trials in the country.

It would also require all future medical trials to be approved by an administrative body and ethical panel.

In Australia there are strict guidelines for medical research, which is governed by the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research.

People are losing their minds over a “gross” detail in this unbelievable photo of a monster carpet python. WARNING: Graphic

Australia won’t directly experience the awe-inspiring sight of a solar eclipse this year but Aussies can still witness the momentous event. Here’s how.

A Queensland family fighting to have a beloved magpie returned home have shared a major update on social media.

Questionable Monkey Research Reignites Animal Testing Arguments

Over 100 million species, including mice, rodents, amphibians, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, primates, fish, as well as birds, are slaughtered in U.S. laboratories each year for biology education, medical training, curiosity-driven experiments, and pharmaceutical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing.

Prior to actually their deaths, a few are made to breathe deadly gasses, some are restrained in restraining devices for hours, others have holes bored into their heads, and some have their skin burnt off or entire spinal cords smashed. Similar to the anguish of the tests, animals in labs are denied everything natural and valuable to them and should be imprisoned in small cages, physically isolated, and mentally scarred, as stated by a report  from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA .

In present times, mother monkeys who are removed from their young occasionally seek consolation in soft toys: this latest result from Harvard trials has sparked considerable disagreement among scientists and renewed the ongoing controversy over animal research. "Triggers for mother love," penned by Margaret Livingstone a neuroscientist, and was disseminated in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in Sept. with no fanfare or media coverage.

"Triggers For Mother Love"

However, as word of the paper circulated on social media, it sparked a firestorm of criticism, culminating in a petition to PNAS  signed by over 250 experts demanding a retraction. Likewise, animal rights activists recalled Livingstone's previous work, which included briefly suturing young monkeys' eyelids shut to determine the effect on cognition.

Hobaiter told AFP  that she was waiting for a response from the magazine before speaking more, but that she anticipated news shortly. Harvard, as well as Livingstone, have each firmly supported the study. However, according to Harvard Medical School, Livingstone's findings may assist researchers to comprehend mother attachment in humans and potentially influence consoling measures to help people deal with grief in the early aftermath of having a miscarriage or witnessing a still delivery. PETA opposes all types of testing on animals and regularly objects to such activities.

This dispute has elicited significant reactions in the scientific community, particularly among animal behavior researchers and primatologists, according to Alan McElligot of the City University of Hong Kong's Centre for Animal Health, a co-signer of the PNAS letter.

McElligot told the media that Livingstone seems to have repeated studies from the mid-twentieth century by Harry Harlow, a well-known American psychologist. Harlow's investigations on maternal depression in rhesus macaques were deemed pioneering, but they may also have aided in the preclinical animal liberation movement. McElligot says that the instance is symbolic of a greater issue in animal experimentation, in which problematic experiments and articles continue to go through institutional review and get published in high-impact journals.

ALSO READ: Elon Musk's Neuralink Test Monkeys for Brain Implants Die in Lab, Denies Foul Play Allegations

More Monkey Testings

According to a report from Phys , McElligot cited a widely panned 2020 report that extolled the effectiveness of foot snares in capturing jaguars as well as cougars for scientific research in Brazil. Recently, controversial marmoset trials involving invasive operations have sparked debate. The nonpartisan FDA Modernization Act, enacted by the US Senate in September, would repeal a mandate that experimental medications be tested on animals before being tested on humans.

The great majority of medications that pass animal studies fail in human trials, and emerging technologies like tissue cultures, micro organs, and AI models are lowering the need for real animals. Critics also claim that the large quantities of money flowing through government subsidies to academics and other organizations - $15 billion yearly, according to the advocacy organization White Coat Waste  - reinforce a system wherein animals are seen as lab resources.

Most scientists disagree with PETA's absolutist attitude and instead conform to the "three Rs" concept of refining, replacing, and reducing animal usage.

In Livingstone's study, Holly Root-Gutteridge an animal behaviorist at the University of Lincoln in the United Kingdom said that the fundamental questions could have been investigated on wild macaques that regularly lost their young, and she urged neuroscientists to collaborate with animal behaviorists to develop ways to reduce injury.

RELATED ARTICLE: Animals' Impact On Science Progress: History And Nowadays

Check out more news and information on Animal Testing  in Science Times.

Most Popular

Prehistoric Humans Spent 20,000 Years Living on 'Persian Plateau' After Leaving Africa, New Study Suggests

Is Sitting Really the New Smoking? How Many Hours of Sitting Is Considered Unhealthy?

Rat Bite Hospitalizes Man: Rare Toilet Encounter Triggers Severe Bacterial Infection in Canadian Patient

Archaeological Remains Are Getting Contaminated With Microplastics, Study Reveals

World's Most Powerful MRI: First Images of Human Brains Revealed With Incredible Precision

Latest stories.

Virtual Reality Intervention Effective in Easing Pain Among Cancer Patients [Study]

Earth’s Violent Ending: Expanding Sun Will Swallow Our Planet in 6 Billion Years, Other Celestial Bodies Could Be Ground Into Dust

Doctors, NASA Experts Warn Damage From Solar Eclipse Can Be Permanent Amid Complaints About Boiling Eyes, More

Secrets of the Blue Zones: Lessons From the Healthiest and Longest Living People

JWST Detects Hints of Exomoons Forming in Young Star System, Captures Creation of ‘Third World’ 400 Light-Years Away

Subscribe to the science times.

Sign up for our free newsletter for the Latest coverage!

Recommended Stories

Mysterious ‘Glory’ Spotted for the First Time Outside Our Solar System in the Alien World WASP-76b76b

DESI Survey Creates Largest 3D Map of Universe, Generates High-Precision Measurement of Cosmic Expansion Rate

Safe Solar Eclipse Viewing: Can You Use Your Phone to Capture the Spectacle?

Mother of Dragons Comet Now Visible in the Northern Hemisphere in Rare Celestial Phenomenon, Marking First Appearance Since 1954

GMAT Test Prep: SC-49132832 GMAT Sentence Correction

• Log in or register to post comments