UCLA circles the wagons

Apparently and expectedly, the 20 recent visitors to this blog from UCLA must not think too much of my recommendations for ways to de-escalate the conflict between the university's vivisectionists and anti-cruelty activists. Go figure. (Maybe they were people without much say in university policy, but something tells me that at least a few of them weren't students.)

This shouldn't surprise anyone of course, given the fact that UCLA, like esentially every other university in the country, has absolutely refused to discuss its use of animals in public in detail. It's almost as if they are embarrassed by what they do, worry about the public's reaction, and don't want there to be any substantive public dialog about the matter. Or, maybe, that is precisely what keeps them hunkered down.

Instead of actually engaging the public and talking openly about what they do, they have filed a law suit against an idea. The absurdity and naivete demonstrated by this hints at causes underlying the abject failure of animal models of human disease and drug response.

UCLA to seek court protection for animal researchers

The university said it will ask a Superior Court judge in Santa Monica to limit the activities of animal rights groups and activists, including websites.

By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 21, 2008

Seeking to protect scientists who conduct experiments using animals, UCLA will go to court today to request a temporary restraining order against animal rights groups and activists accused of harassing university researchers.

The university said it would ask a Superior Court judge in Santa Monica to limit the activities of five individuals and three organizations that maintain websites, including one that identifies researchers and lists their home addresses.

"We are hoping to send an important message that violence and harassment of our faculty is absolutely outrageous and totally inappropriate," said UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block. "We really want to act before someone gets hurt."

UCLA researchers have been the target of several attacks in recent months. Two weeks ago, someone left an incendiary device at the home of professor Edythe London, who uses vervet monkeys in nicotine-addiction research funded by tobacco giant Philip Morris. The device charred her front door before going out.

Earlier, animal activists claimed credit for breaking a window in London's house and using a garden hose to flood the ground floor, causing more than $20,000 in damage.

Attacks on other researchers have included two incendiary devices that didn't go off, one beneath a researcher's car and another that was apparently placed by mistake at the home of a neighbor.

In statements on their websites, activists said the attacks are warranted because scientists who conduct such experiments are torturing the animals.

They oppose all use of animals in research.

The university said it would seek a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the websites of the Animal Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Brigade, which have allegedly claimed responsibility for unlawful activities against UCLA staff and their homes.

Also to be named in the court action is the UCLA Primate Freedom Project, which is not affiliated with the university and whose website displays the photographs, home addresses and phone numbers of researchers under the heading "Targets."

Christine Garcia, an attorney who has represented animal activists in the past, said UCLA's plan to obtain a court order appeared to be part of a continuing attempt by the university to curb legal protests, such as residential picketing, by opponents of animal research.

richard.paddock@latimes.com

The Nature of Rights

I recently had a conversation about the nature of rights. Are rights conferred or are they inherent? The person I was conversing with held that rights are mere constructs, given to us by human-made laws and that the idea that rights are inherent is absurd.

The most common way out of this conflict is the claim that rights are God-given.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But I’m an atheist, and I believe that rights are inherent. The reference to a Creator isn’t available to me.

But we each have many characteristics, and I don’t believe that these are God-given either. Many of our characteristics are the result of billions of years of accumulated mutations to our DNA. Darwinian evolution affected the statistical prevalence of certain traits encoded in our and our relatives’ DNA with the result that there between 2 and 100 million species in the world today.

Some of these species perceive the world around them. Many species perceive the world differently. They may see certain colors, hear certain frequencies, or smell various chemicals that members of other species cannot. Bats hear ultrasonic frequencies and perceive the physical world through echolocation. Platypuses and many other species perceive the electromagnetic fields generated by other animals. Birds migrate using the earth’s magnetic field, apparently.

Sometimes, even members of the same species perceive the same phenomena differently. One simple example is the fact that human eye witnesses sometimes describe witnessed events very differently.

These observations are germane to the question of the source of rights because they show that not perceiving something doesn’t mean that it isn’t there and that we can perceive real things but might not yet know how we are able to do so.

Let’s do a thought experiment. If rights are assigned, if they are constructs created by law and not a characteristic that exists whether acknowledged or not, then, if the law did not cede a particular right, there could be no violation by treating someone in accord with the law.

But this would mean then, that we would feel no outrage at the Nazi’s treatment of those deemed by law to be subhuman and without rights. It would mean that we would be unbothered by any harm to another unless the law granted them some right that could be violated.

But this isn’t the case. Slavery was legal, but some of us have always been outraged by it. We apparently perceive something about it that is unsettling.

I’m not sure that “rights” is the best term to capture this notion that harming others can amount to the breach of some barrier or the crossing of some line that leads to outrage, but it’s all we seem to have at our disposal.

It is the outrage that we feel when we see or read about others being hurt in certain circumstances that motivates the rights movement. We seem to react intuitively and recognize that something has been violated. But it is only something inherent that could be violated since, in many situations, the law or legally conferred rights aren’t since there are no conferred rights to violate.

It is this visceral reaction to those things we respond to as injustices that makes be believe that rights are inherent and unalienable. If one is born and subject to the experience we call suffering, then it is likely that one is also born with the right not to be subjected to such an experience. I believe this because I am so outraged by certain images of suffering regardless of whether any legal right is being violated.

I am outraged because someone’s rights are being violated. These rights must be inherent.

Frankie L. Trull

Frankie [Francine] L. Trull is founder and president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), the nation’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to advancing human and animal health by promoting public understanding and respect for the humane and responsible use of animals in medical and scientific research. She is also president of FBR’s sister organization, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) , which advocates for sound public policy that recognizes the essential role of lab animals in biomedical research and discovery.

In 1995, Ms. Trull established Policy Directions Inc. and serves as president of the company whose goal is to serve private corporations and nonprofit organizations in addressing legislative and regulatory initiatives and influencing policy development.

A frequent guest speaker and media resource, Ms. Trull has written several articles about the importance of biomedical research and the threat posed to the American research community by animal activism. She has been honored by the Society for Neuroscience, and in 1990 received the Distinguished Leadership Award from the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Trull received her undergraduate degree from Boston University and her Master’s degree from Tufts University.

Trull’s name regularly appears on op-eds in newspapers around the country. Another one was published in the Feb. 9, 2008 Capital Times newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin. It was titled: “Rats, mice are keys players in cutting edge-research.” Maybe it was written in response to the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s recent announcement that it wants to build a new gargantuan rat and mouse warehouse.

Trull appeals to our natural concern for the welfare of children and makes wild and unfounded claims about the utility of using rats and mice, but doesn’t get to her main point until the end of her letter:

But one of the major obstacles to future medical advances is animal rights extremists, who are becoming the flat-worlders of the modern science movement. Because they oppose all animal research for all reasons, they are a serious roadblock to medical progress. If we are truly passionate about our children having a better future, are we willing to compromise the promise of improved treatments and cures achieved through humane and responsible animal research? Are we willing to sacrifice the prospect of eradicating disease in the name of animal rights extremism?

As the future horizon of science and medicine comes into focus, should we allow the myopic vision of a few flat-world extremists to force the planet to forgo medical discovery?

Actually, the major obstacle to future medical advances is the dismal progress being made by basic medical science – largely based on animal models:

The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science convened a Clinical Research Roundtable in 2000 to analyze the success of basic research. They reported in 2003 that there is a “disconnection between the promise of basic science and the delivery of better health.” And that unless new strategies are enacted, the “data and information produced by the basic science enterprise will not result in a tangible public benefit.” The Journal of the American Medical Association characterized the report as not worded strongly enough.

Simply, the massive increase in funding that has resulted in the likely large increase in the numbers of animals used has had little appreciable effect on human healthcare. The suffering of the millions of animals being used annually is not advancing medical care. See: An argument for ending the use of animals in biomedical research.

Actually, Frankie Trull isn’t concerned with medical research or children; she’s focused narrowly on criticism of anyone or any group that speaks out for animals or unregulated corporate greed. And she does this because she’s paid to do so. Policy Directions, Inc. reported nearly $7,000,000 in income between 1998-2004.

According to the Center for Public Integrity’s online database LobbyWatch, Policy Directions Inc. lobbies for a number of companies and groups with clear financial interests in the marketing and consumption of animals for various reasons. These include:

1) Nestlé USA Inc. (The most boycotted brand in the UK because of its “unethical use and promotion of formula for babies in third world countries.” Nestlé won a global Internet poll for the world’s “least responsible company.” [So much for Trull's false appeal to a normal person's concern for children.]
2) Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) [See SourceWatch]
3) Baylor University
4) Merck & Co.
5) American Feed Industry Association
6) Altria Group Inc
7) National Association for Biomedical Research [Apparently hiring herself.]
8) State University of New York
9) Amgen Inc.
10) Genzyme Corp.
11) Baxter Healthcare Corp.
12) U.S. ONCOLOGY
13) Society for Neuroscience
14) Sanofi-Aventis
15) National Renderers Association
16) Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
17) Procter & Gamble Co.
18) American College of Neuropsychopharmachology
19) Grocery Manufacturers of America
20) Pharmavite LLC
21) Turner Strategies
22) Alpharma
23) Cellerant Therapeutics
24) Depression & Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA)
25) Genelabs Technologies, Inc
26) Eli Lilly and Co.
27) Visx Inc
28) Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
29) Orphan Medical, Inc.
30) Biotech Coalition
31) Covance Inc.
32) Bayer Corp.
33) Animal Health Institute
34) Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance Association
35) Ostex International
36) Biological Product Coalition
37) Adams Laboratories, Inc.
38) Alan Ritchey Inc
39) Aksys Ltd.
40) Anthra Pharmaceuticals
41) Autocyte 0
42) Bausch & Lomb
43) Britz - Heidbrink
44) Cephalon Inc.
45) Health Policy Strategies
46) Cp Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
47) Medical Foods
48) Oregon Poultry Farmers
49) Sensormatic Electronics
50) Schwarz Pharma
51) Quest Diagnostics Inc.
52) Society of the Plastics Industry
53) Visible Genetics Inc.
54) Transkaryotic Therapties, Inc
55) Sequus Pharmaceuticals
56) Privacomp. Inc.com
57) Pfizer Inc.
58) Intuitive Surgical
59) Instrumentation Metrics
62) Burger King Corp.
63) Biotechnology Industry Organization
64) Barr Laboratories Inc.
65) Athena Neurosciences
60) Image Guided Technologies, Inc.
61) Elan Corporation

Some people will say and do anything if the price is right.

Some advice for UCLA

UCLA professor Edythe London's home was vandalized again. So far, no one has taken responsibility for the latest event: the apparent use of an incendiary device that caused some charring of her front door.

See A smoldering controversy at UCLA. Los Angeles Times. February 9, 2008. [You might have to register to read the article.]

I wrote about London's research when her house got flooded.

UCLA's response to this has been all knee-jerk. They've done little to explain London's research. I doubt that the PR writers spinning out statements know with any specificity what she is doing.

I have some advice for UCLA and university vivisectors in general, though I realize that my recommendations are idealistic and based on a totally unwarranted presumption that they would want to act honorably, with integrity, and that they have the conviction that they are working in the public's best interests. OK, maybe the existence of such vivisectors is pure pie-in-the-sky hypothesis, easily debunked, and naive, but how should people with genuine integrity act when their publicly-funded activities are criticised as cruel and heinous?

The honorable and ethical course would be to suspend any animal use until the following steps have been taken.

1. Explain, in writing, in detail, in lay terms, what exactly is being proposed, why, and point to examples of any clear unambiguous related work that demonstrates why the studies in question might be helpful. This should be posted on the university website and should be linked from the homepage and from main pages of the related departments.

2. Invite written public comment on the above. These responses should be posted on the webpage referred to above.

3. Respond, in writing, in detail, in similarly lay or technical terms, to each submitted written comment. These responses should be on the website.

These three steps seem to be the very minimum needed before any course of study that could be deleterious to the research subjects should be allowed to commence; if public opinion matters.

Further steps that would reduce the liklihood of the sort of reactions London's studies have evoked include:

1. Open the protocol review process to the public and invite comment.

2. Increase public membership on oversight committees to at least parity with the vested members.

The only way to overcome the distrust of the public would be to:

1. Open the labs to unannounced public inspections.

2. Install webcams in every lab and animal holding room.

Hunkering down won't make the issue go away. Refusing to provide details implies that there is much to hide.

Those caring vivisectors

According to CoverTheUninsured.org a project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, there are 87,554 uninsured children living in Wisconsin. According the US Census Bureau 10.9% of the state’s population was living below the poverty line in 2004 (about 605,659 people.)

It isn’t unreasonable to imagine that many people in Wisconsin are receiving sub-optimal heath care or even no health care whatsoever, or nutritional meals or even have a warm safe place to sleep at night..

In 2007, Governor Jim Doyle announced $7,270,027 in grants and awards to 136 organizations across Wisconsin for emergency shelter and transitional housing programs to help homeless persons in the state. In 2004 he had noted that the number of shelter providers in Wisconsin had increased by 33% since 1995 to meet the 70% increase in numbers of persons receiving emergency shelter for homelessness with at least 24,000 people being turned away due to lack of resources throughout the state during the same time.

But on January 22, 2008, UW-Madison stem cell researcher James Thomson said that Wisconsin should invest $50 million a year in stem cell research… not to find the cure for some hideous disease, but in order to compete with California's $3 billion investment. Thomson went on to admit that treatments based on stem cells were probably at least ten years away. Thomson thinks that we should spend taxpayer money to further his research and that we should be spending our money to pay people to experiment on monkeys.

$50 million a year for 10 years. Half a billion dollars. And, we might have treatments based on stem cells in ten years. But at least we’d be competing with California as we chased the pie in the sky.

Meanwhile, children will go without health care, will live in a car or sleep in a shelter.

We have much better – more humane, more compassionate, more productive – ways to spend taxpayer money. The citizens of Wisconsin have no responsibility to compete with California or to further Thomson’s career goals.

New Book Sweeping the Nation

Go to www.ThankingTheMonkey.com for video and reviews!

Barack Obama

It has not always been the pragmatist, the voice of reason, or the force of compromise, that has created the conditions for liberty," he writes about the antislavery movement of the 19th century. "Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of similar certainty today--the antiabortion activist ... the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory--no matter how deeply I disagree with their views. I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty--for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.

The Audacity of Hope, in "The Fresh Face," Time, Oct. 15, 2006.

ONPRC: flops of the past five years

The Oregon National Primate Research Center has a list of its purported medical accomplishments on its website. I thought it might be instructive to look at these claims in order to understand what is passed off as science to an unsuspecting largely uncritical public.

40 years of health discoveries:

Top contributions of past five years
ONPRC scientists conduct basic research. They have built a record of accomplishment, most often in the form of contributions to the groundwork for pharmaceutical and clinical studies. Click below to learn how, just in recent years, they have:

Discovered early indicator of maternal infection that may serve as method for preventing premature birth

This claim is linked to an undated news release-like document citing unspecified research published, apparently, by Michael Gravett, MD. Why didn't they link to the actual paper? ONPRC says:

Center team discovers early indicator of infection, possible method for preventing premature birth.

It is a perfect example of the value of translational research (bringing together data from both animal and human studies), of new biotechnologies and of scientific collaboration in solving human health problems.

But, this isn't translational research. Translational research is the idea of taking experimental results (usually from experiments on animals) and applying them in clinical settings with benefit to the human patients. No human patients were helped in this study, and further, the banked human serum was used only as a benchmark to evaluate the monkey data. The paper is primarily a discussion of how they went about evaluating the human data; the monkey component is actually little more than a very cruel sideshow.

Further, though not mentioned by ONPRC, the research design and results were criticised by a group of six scientists from Yale University, Ciphergen Biosystems (Fremont, California), and the University of Maryland. Gravett et al responded that their results would have to be proved prospectively on a larger group of pregnant humans.

Advanced the possibility of ovarian tissue transplants as a means of preserving fertility for cancer patients

This links to news release that claims:

OHSU SCIENTISTS ADVANCE FERTILITY PRESERVATION PROCEDURE

Birth of a healthy monkey following ovarian tissue transplant may lead to new methods for preserving fertility in cancer survivors...

Here's a link to the abstract of the paper they are referring to. The date of the paper is 2004. It isn't at all clear that this is a breakthrough or even a halting advance. For instance, in 2001, it was reported that transplanted ovarian tissue in women could function and even produce oocytes. The birth of a monkey from the transplantation of oocytes produced from transplanted tissue seems more of a Ripley's sort of demonstration that a meaningful advance in human medical treatments.

Discovered that the hormone leptin, which is involved in fetal development, may influence later life obesity risk

In mice. And, moreover, the connection between obesity in certain mutant mice and leptin has been under almost constant study since at least 1995.

Found that the smallpox vaccine provides long-term protection

I'm laughing out loud. The linked article says:

But Mark Slifka and his team at the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute of the Oregon Health and Science University decided to test this assumption. Slifka and his team studied people who were vaccinated anywhere from one month ago to 75 years ago, and found that more than 90 percent are still protected.

So, the Oregon Primate Center implies this is a result of experiments on monkeys?

Confirmed that physical exercise is beneficial to brain health

No, this is an example of pseudoscience. Animal sudies cannot confirm a hypothesis about human biology. Testing a hypothesis and disproving or validating it is achieved through rigorous evaluation of a body of pertinent data. In regard to meaningful claims about the relationship between exercise and mental health, meaningful multiple meta-analyses of human-based research have been published, making Judy Cameron's cruel demonstrations particularly disgusting. See for instance: Landers, D.M. (1999). The Influence of Exercise on Mental Health. In: C.B. Corbin & R.P. Pangrazi (Eds.), Toward a Better Understanding of Physical Fitness & Activity, Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

Uncovered new information to help menopausal women suffering from depression

The linked reference is an abstract to an article reviewing Cynthia Bethia's lab's years of work "on the actions of estrogens and progestins in the serotonin neural system of nonhuman primates." Does any of that body of work purport to having uncovered new information that has helped menopausal women suffering from depression? Apparently not. Bethea's work is uniformily descriptive physiology. Maybe that's why the ONPRC claim is so non-specific.

Identified a virus that serves as a model for understanding and preventing HIV infection in humans

Just to clarify, I'm not too sure when this page was created, but giving ONPRC the benefit of the doubt, let's assume it was 2005; this would mean then that none of this research occurred before 2000 since these are the "top accomplishments of the past five years." But the linked reference for this wild claim is to an abstract of a 1985 paper. Maybe they think that this "discovery" is so important that it must be included in any list of accomplishments, no matter the parameters. So, is their claim accurate? The paper is "Isolation of a new serotype of simian acquired immune deficiency syndrome type D retrovirus from Celebes black macaques (Macaca nigra) with immune deficiency and retroperitoneal fibromatosis." The virus discovered by ORPRC is SRV-2 (SAIDS retrovirus-2, or more commonly today, simian retrovirus-2, or SRV-D.) One way to evaluate the purported importance of this virus in research today is to consult the CRISP database.

For instance, searches for SIVmac251 or SIVmac239 for FY 2007 return 6 and 15 hits respectively, all using the viruses as models of HIV. On the other hand, a search for SRV-2 or SRV-D returns 4 hits, and all of them are grants for the establishment of breeding colonies of macaques that are free from various visuses including SRV-D. There aren't any grants listed using monkeys infected with SRV-D. The primate vivisection community seems to have turned its back on this virus as a model for anything, which makes ONPRC's claim appear particularly hollow. And this, a "discovery" made in 1985, is listed as one of their top discoveries in the past 5 years. Whoo-hoo!

Been responsible for major nutritional improvements in infant formula used around the world

And what sort of cad would be against improvements in infant formula?

But Martha Neuringer wasn't trying to improve infant formula. Obviously, the best infant formula for normal babies would be the formula that most closely approximates mother's milk, obviously. Much of Neuringer's work focused on the neurological effects on infant monkeys when acknowledged key amino acids were eliminated from their diets. And she showed convincingly and repetitively, that these nutritional depriviations resulted in deficits in normal brain development in infants raised without their mothers and without social interactions with other monkeys. She's an evil bitch, and any claim that her research helped human children is a grotesque mutation of her actual research history.

Coincidentally, Martha Neuringer is the first primate vivisector whose research I learned about ... a lifetime ago. I heard about her research in 1997 from a veterinarian name Sheri Speede who had done a significant amount of digging to find out just what Neuringer was up to.

From a pamphlet written by Dr. Speede:

Dr. Neuringer adamantly denies that she treats her monkeys in a “cruel or cavalier” manner. However, she herself has described the infants in her experiments as suffering from severe emotional and psychological stress, as well as prolonged diarrhea, before she eventually kills them to examine their eyes and brains.

Neuringer forcibly removes the infant monkeys from their mothers on the day they are born to house them alone in steel cages. Because rhesus monkeys are among the most social of all primates, the price in terror to these babies and mothers is impossible to overstate.

The mothers grieve for the loss of their babies for days. The infants’ stress, terror, and depression are manifested in constant rocking and swaying; continued clutching at themselves; and self-mutilation.

To compound the abuse, Dr. Neuringer drills holes into the skulls of some of the babies to remove pieces of their brains. They endure painful recovery from these brain surgeries as many as four times before they are killed at or before 3 years of age.

Neuringer attempts to justify her cruel experiments by proposing to answer what she describes as a “remaining critical question”: Do human babies really need the preformed long-chain fatty acids present in human breast milk?

But this question has already been answered. Based on existing knowledge and scientific evidence, the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition and the British Nutrition Foundation have already recommended that human infant formula be supplemented with these fatty acids in amounts similar to those in human breast milk.

Based on these recommendations, European and Japanese companies have already started adding these long-chain fatty acids to their infant formulas.

In 1991 - three years before proposing to abuse more monkeys at taxpayer expense - Neuringer herself wrote, “Ideally, the fat content and fatty acid composition of infant formula should resemble human milk. This seems reasonable and technologically feasible.”

Dr. Neuringer’s fatty acid experiments are consistent with her long history of isolating and killing infant monkeys to confirm already-known nutritional effects. This can clearly be seen in her earlier taurine deprivation “research.”

In 1984, formula manufactures began adding taurine to their products. In 1987, Neuringer herself confirmed, “Taurine supplementation of most commercial infant formulas was instituted in 1984 or 1985.” Yet, even after making this statement, Neuringer proceeded to torment and kill at least 60 baby monkeys to “further strengthen the case” for feeding infants taurine -- a case that had already been made.

In 1993 — nine years after companies began adding taurine to their infant formulas — Neuringer, after describing an experiment in which she killed 25 baby monkeys, actually wrote that, “[I]t remains prudent to supplement human infant formula with taurine levels matching those of human milk.”

I really don't like these people.

Identified an unrecognized risk for heart disease and tested diets to help reduce that risk

You've gotta love the target of this link, which at the time of this post is a blank page... ah, the careful attention to detail by the primate vivisectors... what dick heads.

Mapped brain pathways that regulate hunger, furthering our understanding of eating disorders and obesity

That's M. Susan Smith, the director of the primate center, wonder why they didn't say so, maybe they had to include her lame research.

Oddly, most of her research, if it can be called that, doesn't use monkeys; no kidding. In the two papers that ONPRC calls her "Key publications," [Xiao, Q.X., K.L. Grove, S.Y. Lau, S. McWeeney, and M.S. Smith. 2005. Deoxyribonucleic acid microarray analysis of gene expression pattern in the arcuate nucleus/ventromedial nucleus of hypothalamus during lactation. Endocrinology 146:4391-4398. and Chen P, Williams SM, Grove KL, Smith MS. Melanocortin 4 receptor-mediated hyperphagia and activation of neuropeptide Y expression in the dorsomedial hypothalamus during lactation. J Neurosci. 2004 Jun 2;24(22):5091-100.] she uses rats. Wouldn't you think that the dirctor of a primate center might use monkeys? And why whould a primate research center point to studies in rats as key research conducted at a primate center. Why? Because they think you are an idiot. That's why.

Developed therapeutic strategies and surgical techniques to prevent premature births

Consider that "theraputic strategy" claim. The link is to the 2003 paper "Dexamethasone or interleukin-10 blocks interleukin-1beta-induced uterine contractions in pregnant rhesus monkeys." Apparently, either dexamethasone or interleukin-10 had not previously been used to block contractions associated with pregnancy, and went on to be a regular clinical therapy, right? In one 1998 paper, under the heading "Managing Preterm Labor,: we find the pullout quote:

Corticosteroid therapy, when given to a woman in preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation, is currently the only therapy shown to improve fetal survival. This treatment includes betamethasone, in a dosage of 12 mg, given intramuscularly every 24 hours for two days, or dexamethasone, in a dosage of 6 mg, given intramuscularly every 12 hours for four days.

So, by at least 1998, dexamethasone was already a recognized treatment for preterm labor, primarily to quicken the baby's lung development. There does not seem to be any use of dexamethasone as a treatment to stop contractions.

Interleukin-10 is being used experimentally to treat rheumatoid arthritis and a few other maladies. There seems to be no theraputic use of interleukin-10 related to pregnancy other than the experiments at ONPRC.

But how about the "surgical techniques to prevent premature births"? Given that their previous claims have turned out to be distortions of reality, why should this claim be any different? Frankly, I don't care whether this claim is accurate because it has absolutely nothing to do with monkeys or even rats. The paper used to "prove" this claim is: "Cervical cerclage in the second trimester of pregnancy: a historical cohort study." And the authors explain their methods: "The purpose of this study was to compare second-trimester transvaginal cervical cerclage with conservative management on duration of pregnancy and perinatal outcome in patients with early or advanced cervical changes." Patients. Get it? People, human beings. This is one of the top contributions of the past five years of the Oregon Primate Center. Go figure. [But for the record, did scientists at ONPRC develop cervical cerclage as a treatment?]

Developed new, effective methods of contraception that don't suppress the normal menstrual cycle

No they didn't. What they did do was to demonstrate that daily low doses of the antiprogestin ZK 137 316, a drug like RU-486, was contraceptive, and that when its administration was stopped, monkeys could become pregnant. No antiprogestin is currently being used as a contraceptive -- except in emergency cases with RU-486. Claims that scientists at ONPRC have "Developed new, effective methods of contraception" are very premature.

Established models for assisted reproductive technologies that facilitate studies on egg and sperm biology, stem cells and early embryonic development and, at the same time, provide techniques for producing genetically identical monkeys and nonhuman primate models for health research

Well, finally, a more or less truthful statement. More, because they are inventing new ways of making animals sick -- a so-called model -- and less, because such models have such a poor record of leading to improvements in human healthcare. The page linked to by this claim is a pretty fair indication of the sort of things the vivisectors at the primate centers busy themselves with. We read:

Children and adolescents may suffer from neurodevelopmental conditions such as ataxia telangiectasia or Lesch-Nyhan's, Kallman's and Krabbe's diseases, which lead to mental retardation. Adults may be afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or Lou Gehrig's condition, amyotropic lateral sclerosis.

In many of these cases, there are no animal models that exhibit the same physiological and clinical symptoms of the disease. Because of similarities in nervous system structure and function, rhesus monkeys may become valuable as disease models for some or all of these conditions, just as they are increasingly important in efforts to develop an HIV vaccine.

Don Wolf and his colleagues are taking initial steps toward providing neurodegenerative disease models.

Get that? They aren't working on a cure or even a treatment for these hideous diseases, they are trying to create similar symptoms in monkeys.

Discovered a monkey version of the newly identified human herpes virus 8 (HHV8) --a discovery that provides scientists a model for investigating how the human virus causes Kaposi's sarcoma in AIDS patients

HHV8 had been identified and associated with Kaposi sarcoma by at least 1996, but maybe 22 years is considered "recent" by ONPRC. In 1997, primate vivisectors at the Washington Primate Center reported that they had identified "two homologs of the Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (human herpesvirus 8) in retroperitoneal fibromatosis of different macaque species." In 2000, researchers reported on their search for a chimpanzee homolog of the Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. They reported that:

Like man and two other Old World primate species, chimpanzees harbour a virus closely related to KSHV/HHV8, termed Pan troglodytes rhadinovirus-1 (PtRV-1)....Despite the close phylogenetic relationship and biological similarities between KSHV and PtRV-1, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) has not been reported in HIV-1-infected chimpanzees....

SIV in macaques has been claimed to be a model for the study of HIV, and the results of decades of study using this model have been nill. The "invention" of an animal model is a very long way from a demonstration of progress, benefit, or even a contribution to medical progress against human disease.

Contributed valuable data to the development of GnRH analogs - drugs for such problems as endometriosis and breast cancer - and helped find the cause and cure of a form of male infertility

Once again, ONPRC used a non-animal study as an example of one of the accomplishments of its researchers. Conn's work can be read about in more detail here. One point should be made, his test bed was COS-7 cells. COS-7 cells are "Transformed African Green Monkey Kidney Fibroblast Cells." Why not study human diseases and ailments using human cells?

1st in Biomed Expenditures, Last in Healthcare

Close the labs, spend the money on sick people.

US Ranks Last Among Other Industrialized Nations On Preventable Deaths, Report Shows

ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research. While other nations dramatically improved these rates between 1997--98 and 2002--03, the U.S. improved only slightly.

Lead Poisoning

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

No safe blood lead level has been identified. For infants and young children, lead levels of 10 micrograms or more in a deciliter of blood can damage ability to learn. (A microgram is one millionth of a gram. A deciliter is about half a cup of liquid.)

Of all people, young children face the most danger from exposure to lead because their growing bodies absorb lead more easily than do adults' bodies. Pregnant women and women of childbearing age should avoid exposure to lead because lead ingested by a mother can affect the unborn child.

At higher blood lead levels (that is levels equal to or greater than 25 micrograms per deciliter), lead can damage people's kidneys, blood, and nervous system. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause mental retardation, coma, convulsions, or death. (Spotlight on Lead. CDC’s Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.)

The toxicity of lead has been recognized since at least the late 1700s.

Today, there are efficacious evidence-based treatments for accidental exposure to lead and strong regulation of the element’s use. People concerned with the effects of lead exposure should be working to further reduce lead use in manufacturing and consumer products. Further experimental demonstration of the deleterious effects of lead is unwarranted and wantonly cruel.

In spite of these simple facts and obvious conclusions, primate vivisectors continue to demonstrate that lead exposure is harmful to monkeys, and especially so when the exposure occurs at a young age. See:

Wu J, Basha MR, Brock B, Cox DP, Cardozo-Pelaez F, McPherson CA, Harry J, Rice DC, Maloney B, Chen D, Lahiri DK, Zawia NH. Alzheimer's disease (AD)-like pathology in aged monkeys after infantile exposure to environmental metal lead (Pb): evidence for a developmental origin and environmental link for AD. J Neurosci. 2008.

Schneider ML, Moore CF, Gajewski LL, Laughlin NK, Larson JA, Gay CL, Roberts AD, Converse AK, DeJesus OT. Sensory processing disorders in a nonhuman primate model: evidence for occupational therapy practice. Am J Occup Ther. 2007.

Lasky RE, Luck ML, Parikh NA, Laughlin NK. The effects of early lead exposure on the brains of adult rhesus monkeys: a volumetric MRI study. Toxicol Sci. 2005.