|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
School halts baboon anthrax study
Posted by Jef Akst [Entry posted at 1st December 2009 09:32 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Re: Jumping to conclusions ?? by Rafaela Canete-Soler [Comment posted 2009-12-15 14:52:55] Hello anonymous, I am not sure that I understand your post. I assume that what you?re saying is that having appropriate/valid controls is not a matter of precedence (**control groups just because is has been done that way**). But a fundamental requirement in testing and validating a prediction. If, as you said, ?the preponderance of the scientific literature indicate that the members of the control groups will die and will suffer in dying?, I would agree with you that those control groups are not true controls. And neither scientifically nor ethically valid. Please, correct me if I misunderstood you. I might be missing something. jumping to conclusions? by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-15 13:49:26] If a single group of vaccinated animals are being progressive exposed to more virulent stains to test the vaccine, the use seems reasonable.
But if the experiments involve control groups and the preponderance of the scientific literature indicate that the members of the control groups will die and will suffer in dying, then their death is unnecessary, as what new knowledge will come from it? Should we always have control groups just because is has been done that way, or should we question that assumption? Hitler <3s Animal Rights movement by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-08 15:24:17] In the interest of incitation, I feel now is the time to mention that Nazi Germany forbade animal research, testing on prisoners instead. The notion that animal rights is an unequivocally progressive idea is simply false. This, of course, will not reach the trolls who have somehow appeared on here--they simply have the minds of children. Stupidity may be your default, but ignorance eventually becomes a choice. Most animals used in medical research are euthanized by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-04 16:59:18] As a member of a medical school IACUC for many years it is my experience that the overwhelming majority of animals used in medical research do not survive. The IACUC has the obligation to assure that animals are treated humanely and have as high a quality of life as possible,but the end is inevitable.
Apes and monkeys used in research provide real moral dilemmas. It seems to me entirely reasonable that a university choose not to participate in such research. Anthrax is a disease of wild apes by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2009-12-03 12:44:49] Anthrax is implicated in the mass die off of wild apes in Africa. See: LINK
Testing of anthrax vaccine can potentially save great ape populations in Africa. Anthrax is a widespread disease in most of the world. See: LINK One example, in 1998, in Chad there were 5400 cases of anthrax in a population of 5.3 million. The anthrax vaccine has been uniquely problematic, primarily because of being targeted by non-professionals as the cause of Gulf War Syndrome and such stuff. It has also been a vaccine that has efficacy in the 92%-95% range, which is good, but not as high as wanted. For an overview of anthrax vaccine see: LINK and LINK Re: Academic freedom is not a shield by Michael Holloway [Comment posted 2009-12-03 09:44:30] Sorry, but the "animal rights" philosophy is a house of cards, and not an inevitable consequence, and logically leads to absurd conclusions as evidenced by animal rights terrorists. Since "animal rights" is a separate concern from animal welfare, it is not needed in order to have humane treatment of animals. IACUC=ethical committee by Paul Browne [Comment posted 2009-12-03 03:11:37] Rick, every institution in the United States that conducts animal reseach has an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to oversee that work. Their examination of any project application includes (but is not limited to) the ethical implications of the proposed research. Pope declares Earth center of Universe, Galileo imprisoned by Patrick Crothers [Comment posted 2009-12-02 21:50:58] Question:
What are the chances we might need a vaccine for anthrax? Answer: When we send our troops in harms way. My daughter when sent to fight in Gulf War 1 was inoculated with experimental vaccines. Anthrax included. I have no love of animal testing; yet, I have worked in cancer research as a Histologist and have had blood thrown at me by protesters. It is no picnic working in these fields. The fact that this is a fully vetted program and is being stopped by one person with money and power. This is not a ethics overview. It is blackmail. There is no doubt the five great apes have Sentience. With exception of bonobos they all commit murder, rape, acts of war, manufacture crude weapons. Yes, they are very much like us. We have what is known as sapience. This sets us apart if you accept it. Sentience is now being discovered with work with dogs and I am of the opinion that we will find it a constant in all things, however that is based on my empiricism. I vote to protect my daughter. At least that is my opinion. Ethics committee? by Rick Bogle [Comment posted 2009-12-02 15:54:05] ProTest spokesman Paul Browne wrote: "When university administrators ... stop a project without consulting ... members of the relevant ethics ... committees something is clearly wrong."
Hello? There is no such "ethics committee" at OSU, apparently, and generally at no other US university or research facility. The nearly complete and uniform failure to address the ethics of animal experimentation, particularly experiments on nonhuman primates, is at the core of the controversy over animal research in academia. Academic freedom is not a shield by Kristie Sullivan [Comment posted 2009-12-02 14:45:55] Sorry, but academic freedom does not mean doing whatever you want, whenever you want, behind the badge of pure science, especially when using public money and when the lives of sentient beings are at stake. Ethical standards must be considered and must evolve. Its all happened before and will happen again. by Michael Holloway [Comment posted 2009-12-02 13:57:39] This would be less disturbing if it where something new, but it was also done by Cornell when they halted NIH funded research on drug abuse that used cats. Probably other examples not as well known. Moral Issue here by David Hill [Comment posted 2009-12-02 13:46:59] As a zoologist who studies arthropods, I have to say that baboons are old world monkeys closely related to our own species. Academic freedom is interesting, but all of the evidence that I have indicates that baboons are virtually identical to human beings, and that moral restrictions that apply to the treatment of one of these species should apply to the other. Perhaps the researchers do not 'believe' the notion that we are close relatives. I suspect that anyone who would perform certain acts on helpless, captive baboons would, if allowed to do so, perform the same acts on members of our own species. We have seen this kind of conduct in the past, where it was allowed. PR is Always Utmost by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-02 13:39:58] I believe such a study (highly virulent organisms and primates) scares the crap out of the public.
For example, our state public health lab had just completed construction of a small BSL3 lab on the edge of our campus. At a meeting with the university president, he expressed concern that the mere presence of the facility would have an adverse effect on enrollment. He did not want it to be publicized in any way. The implications of this are serious and cast doubt on any future funding for such facilities associated with (or in proximity to) public institutions. Glad this was stopped by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-02 13:36:50] As a researcher who must work with primates to understand HIV/AIDS I support the right of scientists to sacrifice lives for useful knowledge. However, killing Baboons to study Anthrax is ridiculous and I am thrilled to see the project has been stopped.
Seriously, the likelihood of a large scale terrorist Anthrax attack is so small and the intelligence of Baboons so high that this "research" should be de-funded immediately and the dollars spent somewhere that actually does good instead of wrong. Maybe it was the money by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:58:09] $200,000 in directs for a BSL-3 animal study seems rather low to me -- perhaps this decision wasn't strictly philosophical... Logical !!! by Al Sweeney [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:57:09] In a vaccine "test" the subjects either do not get sick or they recover, alternatively they get sick and usually die.
Killing some/all is needless "ammo" for the "animal rights extremists" and reinforces or gains sympathy for their agenda. It is fine to do an autopsy on any that die. {and STOP testing that vaccine] This ruling is just plain "common sense" until a more sensable testing protocol is submited. Administrative rot by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:34:01] Let the administration come forth and state their complete reasons for stopping this research.
Transparency in research demands at least as much from those who pretend to qualify to manage same. Aha! Mrs. Pickens is a PETA-phile! by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:18:52] Forgive me, but these well meaning fools need to see what happens to people and especially children. It's not like anthrax is a disease that doesn't kill people, many of them children.
www.vetmed.lsu.edu/whocc/mp_world.htm Administrators are spineless in the face of donors. Spineless planarian administrators by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:13:15] Since administrators today are almost entirely drawn from the ranks of toadies, doormats and the corrupt, this does not surprise me. Perhaps it is as simple as someone having a daughter rabid with PETA-isms. Perhaps someone is trying to save their marriage, or maybe giving in to adolescent/post-adolescent emotional blackmail, but I think that is unlikely.
The most likely reason for this is obvious. The planaria in administration are afraid of publicity and protests. They are afraid of someone deciding to firebomb them as happened in Santa Cruz and other UC campuses. But mostly they don't want to deal with another movie by an agent of PETA edited to make the facility look bad. The feckless administrators don't want the extra work of refusing to answer questions from the media about it, slaving into the night over blindingly non-committal statements for the press, etcetera. Forgive me for speaking so bluntly. Money trumps academic freedom every time. by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-12-02 12:05:37] What this story did not say is that Madeleine Pickens, wife of the largest donor to Oklahoma State University, earlier this year became upset at learning of some of the animal studies ongoing at OSU. The Pickens family, in the form of alumnus T. Boone Pickens, has donated millions to OSU, particularly to the football program, but also to other university programs. One speculates that pressure from the Pickens family was behind this assault on academic freedom. What is most disturbing is that other institutions within the state did not build BSL3 animal facilities because they trusted that the OSU facility would be available. A lot of money has been wasted. Stand up for academic freedom! by Paul Browne [Comment posted 2009-12-02 04:32:43] This decision by OSU administrators is very worrying. Anyone who is wondering why OSU would invest millions of state, NIH and charity dollars in new primate and biodefence laboratories and then halt the very research these labs were intended to work on should read what Speaking of Research have to say about this.
LINK To state that it is unclear what OSU's policy on primate use is is putting it mildly, at the moment they appear to be making it up as they go along. When university administrators go over the heads of university review boards and stop a project without consulting the investigators involved or members of the relevant ethics and safety committees something is clearly wrong, and when it looks as if the administration is acting under pressure from a wealthy donor it is time for us to stand up for academic freedom. Today the issue is anthrax research in baboons, but what might it be tomorrow? Can any funder trust the OSU administration any more? Comment on this blog |