Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 27 October 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/4551159a
News
German authority halts primate work
Licence for macaque experiments will not be renewed.
Germany's constitution guarantees its citizens the freedom to conduct research — but local authorities in the northern city of Bremen are forcing a leading neuroscientist to halt his primate experiments. A court will probably now have to decide whether the controversial ruling violates federal law.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
"... and have no short-term therapeutic use" Animal rights and ethical issues notwithstanding, the point of having no short-term use as support for withdrawing licenses/ support to perform anything is just plain illogical. If we apply this ruling to other aspects of science, we might as well shut down 90+% of all research labs. And no wonder we have so many licensed companies cutting down forests all over the world, since there is so much "short-term profits" at stake.
How can two opposing sides have a dialog if they don't address each others claims? This article says that the Animal Welfare Association claims that the experiments are "intolerably painful" to the animals. Are they?
I feel that animal welfare must be considered as there are too many humans in this world and we are not exactly going to become extinct before any other species. Animal experiments must be stopped.
Sue, You are ill-informed. If you truly believe animal research only helps humans. It is true, most human medical breakthroughs are dependent on animal research. But, many cutting edge treatments for human diseases/ conditions that were first discovered in animals have now been turned around and are being used commonly in veterinary practices. Anyone hear of hip-replacement surgery for pets? Also, many animals are now undergoing stem cell therapies, which can not only give insight to human medicine, but is also beneficial to animals. Animal welfare activists, please do your homework before you lash out at animal research, you just might learn something in the process!
Cecily - perhaps you should heed your own advice and read up on the inefficacy of animal models for human diseases. Animals' and humans' physiology are far too different to use one as a model for the other. Consider also, how many treatments were delayed because they didn't work in animals (polio vaccine, penicillin), and how many drugs tested safe in animals but not in humans (Minoxodil, TNG1412).
Jamie - that there are many differences between animals and humans is, of course, true. This fact, however, cannot be taken seriously as an indictment of animal research because it totally ignores the many similarities that do exist. For example, visual, auditory and attentive behaviors and their underlying physiology have been shown repeatedly to be quite similar among primates and humans. While Jamie may remain unconvinced, I would argue that the publics view of nonhuman primate research will be more favorable if researchers strive to document these homologies, rather than just assert them.
Kreiter's research has nothing to do with either medicines or hip replacement, folks. The article clearly states that this is cognitive research which cannot be done on animals with simply brains. It also cannot be done ethically on humans as it requires insertion of electrodes into the brain. It is not painful after initial insertion. Researchers become fond of the monkeys, actually -- look at the expression on Kreiter's face as he feeds the macaque. No one is particularly well informed here. But long term research in science is vital to short term goals!
This argument by Diana posses a dilema to me: If for a particular experiment we need animals very close to human regarding a particular feature (for instance, brain in cognitive research), why what cannot be ethically done on humans can ethically be done on these animals?
I don't understand why this sort of work cannot be done on human volunteers. Count me in! As for Cecily's proposal that animal research ultimately benefits animals, I would suggest that the math doesn't work. Divide the number of beagles used just for toxicological testing (i.e. poisoned to death) by the number of all dogs getting hip replacements.