roberts@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Paul Roberts) (04/22/88)
_____________________________________________________________________ The following excerpt has been received with interest on the Stanford electronic bboard and may strike a resonant chord in the hearts and minds of many caring people around the world. If it appeals to you, please take the initiative to forward it to friends/colleagues who might be interested, and please post it to as many bulletin boards as seem appropriate to you. Let's get the word out! _____________________________________________________________________ J. Findley, W. Robinson, and W. Gilliam of the Johns Hopkins University Medical School have reported on a restraining chair they have developed for long-term studies on baboons. Noting that ``the difficulties of restraint increase markedly with the use of electric shock'' they ``anchor'' the baboons' arms so as not to allow the animal to straighten them. At the same time they allow room for ``considerable growth'' to be expected in a long-term study. For the delivery of electric shock the baboon is fitted with an electrode around the waist, and other metal parts, including the seat itself, serve as a second electrode for the delivery of electric current. The report states that twenty-two baboons and rhesus monkeys have been restrained in this manner for ``lengthy periods,'' - ``several'' of them for one-and-a-half years of ``continuous experimentation''. The same experimenters, joined by J. Brady, then carried out an experiment in which two baboons were placed in the restraining chairs and subjected to ``continuously programmed behavioural events'' twenty-four hours a day for over a year. The events included pressing levers to obtain food and to avoid electric shock, as well as rest and sleep periods. The baboons, in their chairs, lived in a soundproof box, four feet by four feet by three feet, which served as an ``experimental chamber.'' For two periods of six hours each in every twenty-four hours, a red light signalled the onset of electric shocks every two and one half minutes. If a baboon learned to press a lever 150 times the red light and electric shock would be turned off for a period of variable duration, averaging five minutes. Sometimes the shocks would occur before the baboon could complete the lever pressing, but eventually they learned to avoid ``all but a few shocks'' every day. The experimenters concluded that the study showed ``the adequacy of the animal restraint ... system for continuous long-term observation.'' They also measured increases in blood pressure and heart rate which they said related to the fact that the baboons had had to perform tasks involving ``aversive contingencies.'' (That is, electric shocks.) They noted that previous studies had been done on the blood pressure and heartbeat of monkeys under stress. [Citations: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 15 (1) p. 69 (Jan 1971) Communications in Behavioral Biology, 6, p. 49 (1971) ] - from the book `Animal Liberation' by Peter Singer, pp 64-65. Peter Singer has been a faculty member at the Philosophy Departments of New York University and Oxford University.
dunc%moria@Sun.COM (duncs home) (04/22/88)
In article <2663@polya.STANFORD.EDU> roberts@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Paul Roberts) writes: >_____________________________________________________________________ > >The following excerpt has been received with interest on the Stanford >electronic bboard and may strike a resonant chord in the hearts and >minds of many caring people around the world. If it appeals to you, >please take the initiative to forward it to friends/colleagues who >might be interested, and please post it to as many bulletin boards as >seem appropriate to you. Let's get the word out! >_____________________________________________________________________ > > ... [emotion-laden description of babboon torture chamber deleted] ... > >[Citations: > Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 15 (1) p. 69 (Jan 1971) > Communications in Behavioral Biology, 6, p. 49 (1971) ] > >- from the book `Animal Liberation' by Peter Singer, pp 64-65. Even if true, 1971 was SEVENTEEN years ago! Exactly what word is it you hope to get out?
scott@homxc.UUCP (Scott Berry) (04/23/88)
Thanks for making us aware, Paul. That kind of experimentation, which not only has no useful result, but is cruel as well, is really sick. Scott Berry Life Member, AAVS ========================================= "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi Scott J. Berry ihnp4!homxc!scott
dbk@lzfme.UUCP (D.KAFLOWITZ) (04/26/88)
In article <2663@polya.STANFORD.EDU>, roberts@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Paul Roberts) writes: > > > J. Findley, W. Robinson, and W. Gilliam of the Johns Hopkins > University Medical School have reported on a restraining chair they > have developed for long-term studies on baboons. Noting that ``the > difficulties of restraint increase markedly with the use of electric > shock'' they ``anchor'' the baboons' arms so as not to allow the > animal to straighten them. At the same time they allow room for > ``considerable growth'' to be expected in a long-term study. For the > delivery of electric shock the baboon is fitted with an electrode > around the waist, and other metal parts, including the seat itself, > serve as a second electrode for the delivery of electric current. The > report states that twenty-two baboons and rhesus monkeys have been > restrained in this manner for ``lengthy periods,'' - ``several'' of > them for one-and-a-half years of ``continuous experimentation''. > I am not one of these wild-eyed animal rights activists and am quite aware that at some point it becomes necessary to use a model for scientific research. Additionally, animals are sometimes the only appropriate model for experiments which rival the Inquisition in the horror one feels at hearing them described. Nevertheless, as a (I hope) sensitive thinking man who is aware that the earth and its creatures are not the mere toys of humans I cannot help but be outraged at the above story. And now for the philosophical part... How could the results of such experimentation retain any credibility? I think I can find some agreement that changes in the circumstances in which a creature exists can produce changes in that creatures physiology and its normal responses to various stimuli. To put a creature in restraints for lengthy periods of time must produce changes in its physiology and therefore skew the results. Bad show, Mssrs. Robinson and Gilliam, and a porr display of humanity.
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/26/88)
In article <565@lzfme.UUCP> dbk@lzfme.UUCP (D.KAFLOWITZ) writes: }I am not one of these wild-eyed animal rights activists ... I've met a few animal-rights activists and seen several on television, and I've never seen one with wild eyes. Where do you find them, and can I get one of my own? }And now for the philosophical part... } }How could the results of such experimentation retain any credibility? Obviously the experimenters are not much interested in credibility. Some little boys like to cut up caterpillars or worms. Some of them find that when they grow up they can cut up rats and cats and monkeys if they first put on a white coat. Credibility indeed! Where's your sense of humor?