February 08, 2005

• Stop animal testing I think is the message that should come out of this. Or at least try to limit it.
• Sad, but not all surprising. (Jonathan Swift?)
• Sometimes I hate my own species. There's no reason or excuse for this.
• and they are`nt the only ones, hell even plants show some type of fear.
• One of my older brothers lives in New Zealand, and was good friends with a couple doing comparative research about 15 years back, now. One was a zoologist and the other a psychologist. They went around to various zoos all over NZ/Aus, I believe, and looked at primate behaviour in captivity and in the wild -- but they didn't make assumptions about what they were supposed to see. Instead, they compared it to various kinds of human behaviour. In the end, they discovered that the vast majority of monkeys in captivity were at various stages of going insane. Now, when I think of my zoo experiences as a child (I refuse to visit them as an adult), and I recall the monkey house, I remember a lot of shrieking and action, random acts of violence, a few antisocial monkeys off on their own cradling themselves, and I figured: this is what monkeys do. All a byproduct, apparently, of treating what appears to be an aware creature like one that wasn't -- forced into unnatural groupings, jeered at by other creatures (no big deal for animals that are not self-aware, perhaps, but for monkeys...), etc. This article, and what it stands for, is just another example of how we treat anyone -- human or otherwise, who cannot stand up for themselves. Some aquatic creature might be the most intelligent thing on earth, but if all it's got is flippers, then all we've got for it are harpoons. On a different note (180 degrees), I had a sort of sick revelation this morning when my puppy licked the right side of my face. I realized that I still had shaving cream all over it, and was apalled at my relief at thinking that they must have ensured that it was made of animal-safe stuff. Eeah. Hmm.
• The oldest male chimp at San Francisco Zoo would qualify as the human equivalent of a sociopath. I had to spend some time observing him (and the other chimps) and watched him catch a bird out of the air and bash it repeatedly against a post until it died, then drag it around by the wing for an hour before abandoning it. Depressing, almost as much as the uneducated schoolkids that gathered in front of him and shouted to get his attention until he threw a sack at them. (He may be dead by now; he was around 40 and this was four years ago.) Oh, and the male orangutan at SF Zoo is clinically depressed and has an eating disorder, according to my primatology lecturer at UC Santa Cruz.
• retank: What exactly do you mean? Plants are incapable of showing fear - they do not have brains. Any injuries a plant sustains means less to the plant than injuries do to an insect. Plants do have mechanisms in place to respond to damage - including alterations in levels of tannins etc. But this does not correspond to "feeling pain". As to the excerpts about the monkey testing - I have to say it is almost certainly bad science, and probably doesn't correspond to the procedures that were granted ethical approval before commencement of the experiment. A minor disclaimer - I have used animals in experiments (sacrificing rats to obtain cellular samples), and at all times we have to put forward an experimental plan before we begin. This is then examined by the Ethical Approval Committee, to ensure it complies with national standards on animal experimentation. Generally, this procedure works well, and helps to limit the number of animals that must be used in research, as well as limiting the suffering the animals undergo (in my case, the rats were euthanised and would have suffered less than the cows and pigs most of us eat). I personally would be much more hesitant about experiments on higher animals, and I think the Cambridge people were failing in their duties in the case outlined above - I would like to think that this wouldn't happen in most reputable labs. It certainly wouldn't happen at my University. BTW - the reason I say it is bad science is for two reasons: 1) The needless suffering of the animals - this is reason enough to make sure an example is made. 2) The variations in animal treatment and suffering compromise the results of the research - Unfortunately, this will probably be a better line to take with most established researchers. To show that the research is unpublishable due to bad methodology will do more to make sure this doesn't occur again.
• BTW, Rorschach - it is generally acknowledged that most captive animals without sufficient stimulation (and socialisation) will begin to exhibit stereotypies - that is, repetitive movements such as swaying or pacing. This can be the start of what we would call a mental illness in humans. It is fortunately beginning to change with modern zoos showing much more care in ensuring the well-being of captive animals. It's important to realise before criticising them too much, that zoos are a big part of species conservation and captive breeding programs. The funds provided by the public is what helps them function in that capacity. When we have so many species close to extinction, we need zoos to help sustain them, and to help educate the public. They do good work! (Sorry for the super long rant).