Classic Evidence of Self-Awareness Not Sufficient to Deter UW-Madison Invasive Brain Experiments on Monkeys; Vivisectors Delighted by News

For first time, monkeys recognize themselves in the mirror, indicating self-awareness
Sept. 29, 2010
by David Tenenbaum

..... a study published today (Sept. 29) by Luis Populin, a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, shows that under specific conditions, a rhesus macaque monkey that normally would fail the mark test can still recognize itself in the mirror and perform actions that scientists would expect from animals that are self-aware.

..... Populin, who studies the neural basis of perception and behavior, had placed head implants on two rhesus macaque monkeys, while preparing to study attention deficit disorder. Then Abigail Rajala, an experienced animal technician who is in the university's Neuroscience Training Program, mentioned that one of the monkeys could recognize himself in a small mirror. "I told her the scientific literature says they can't do this," says Populin, "so we decided to do a simple study."

Much to his delight*, it turned out that the graduate student was right.

*Poplin thought to himself, "It's delightful that the monkeys I'm mutilating actually realize what's happening to them. My job's even more fun now!"


Vimeo is sometimes glitchy. You may have to click on the screen or even refresh to get the video to play. [Imagine spending your entire life in a cramped cell like this and completely alone. It's no wonder vivisectors and university administrators are averse to substantive discussions about the ethics of using primates.]

You can read the entire paper here: Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Do Recognize Themselves in the Mirror: Implications for the Evolution of Self-Recognition. be sure to look at the movies and the images.

Here's what Populin writes about one of the movies: "The view of the head implant has been blocked for discretion."

Discretion: circumspect; heedful of circumstances and potential consequences; prudent.

Here's one of the images -- also censored out of concern over the potential consequences of allowing the public to have a feeling for what these isolated monkeys undergo in a university lab:

You can glean a little of what Populin's lab does to monkeys (and cats) in this paper, in which he writes about his experiments on Shepard, Glenn, and Conrad: Monkey Sound Localization: Head-Restrained versus Head-Unrestrained Orienting. Luis C. Populin. The Journal of Neuroscience, September 20, 2006.

See too: "The Behaving Preparation." August 6, 2009.

And: Monkeys See Selves in Mirror, Open a Barrel of Questions

Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

From Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010, 5:14.

Review
Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Ray Greek and Jean Greek

Abstract

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities.

Res 35 opposition letters

I added links to the letters listed at Opposition to Res 35.

Christopher Coe on Res 35

The Dane County Board of Supervisors received emailed letters from twenty-three people and organizations opposed to Resolution 35. Two of these were from local private citizens. The two organizations were BioForward and the National Association for Biomedical Research, both adamant promoters of vivisection and the vivisection industry. The other nineteen were from people with a clear financial or professional interest in the continuation of publicly funded experiments on monkeys. I listed them here.

I thought it might be interesting to look at some of these letters and give some thought to the claims that were made. I'll start with Christopher Coe's. For comparison, you can read eleven letters written in support of the resolution here. (Which group contains the more cogent letters? This is good evidence that facts and reason may be insufficient to convince people to act reasonably or responsibly.)

You can read Dr. Coe’s original email here. I've rebutted his oral statements here.

Let’s look at his specific assertions:

1. “There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate domain and approach for the Dane County Board to take, including the obvious issue of whether the question and implicit conclusions aren’t based on inaccurate information.”

I don’t think Dr. Coe is someone who thinks very clearly. I’m of the opinion that employment in a field that awards mediocrity and provides lavish salaries in the absence of useful productive work breeds intellectual laziness and a grotesquely false impression of one’s opinions. Vivisection may be the penultimate example of this phenomenon.

Coe’s guess as to the resolution’s “implicit conclusions” looks as if he is projecting his belief that an unbiased close look at the use of monkeys at the university will necessarily be unfavorable to him and his colleagues.

But his assertion that the questions raised by the resolution are based on inaccurate information is either laughable or another instance of a UW-Madison professor’s abuse of authority. First and obviously, the university uses monkeys. Second, criticisms of the labs’ daily practices have come from well-informed experts, including two past veterinarians from the UW primate center and the USDA. And third, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that monkeys’ subjective experiences are much like ours.

2. “Many would argue that it is, in fact, unethical not to conduct research on incurable and debilitating illnesses when we have the means and tools to do so.”

This is an example of the shallow thinking nurtured by white coat welfare. Following Coe’s logic, it would have been unethical for J. Marion Sims not to have experimented on slave women.

3. “While most members of the animal rights movements are well intentioned, many of their views are misguided and based on insufficient and biased information.”

Animal rights movements? Maybe we should look these up on the Internets.

This is another example of Coe’s false self-image. The arrogance in this claim is clear. I strongly doubt that Coe is very well informed. How many USDA inspection reports has he read? How conversant is he with the evidence regarding monkeys’ emotions and cognition? Is he even aware of the growing recognition that modern basic biomedical research is largely an embarrassing failure?

The confusion and illogic of his claim are made even clearer when he states later that the majority of Americans support animal research. He must believe that the average person sampled in the typical opinion poll is well informed about the use of animals in research, but that people with an interest in this matter are not. He argues on the one hand that critics are uninformed and thus their opinions should be discounted, but then defends his industry by pointing to the opinions of likely uninformed people. Such muddle-headedness is unlikely to lead to answers to difficult medical questions. He should be fired.

4. “It seems that the Board is overreaching and stepping onto a very slippery slope by considering a resolution that even hints at censorship and the imposition of constraints on intellectual and academic freedom.”

But Coe will also (mistakenly) say if asked, that his industry operates under tight regulation and is subjected to oversight from a number of bodies. Arguably, every germane regulation imposes some constraint on intellectual and/or academic freedom.

Moreover, as was pointed out by nearly everyone, the county has no power to regulate the university. It can only state an opinion. Coe’s claim is way out in left field completely adrift from reality.

5. “What would come next? Would one be prohibited from teaching about the knowledge gained from prior studies with primates?

6. “Would the Board consider going so far as to propose that we not use vaccines and other medical treatments that were derived from research on primates?

Is Coe suggesting here that women should forgo repair of a vesicovaginal fistula, the procedure developed on slave women by J. Marion Sims? I wonder whether he was frothing at the mouth when he wrote that.

These two claims are not only silly, but also wildly misleading. There are few clear examples of primates as irreplaceable elements in the development of vaccines, medicines, or treatments. Coe’s claims are nothing other than his expression of faith, like a belief in the Holy Ghost or a hollow Earth.

7. “Recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans still favor the use of animals in biomedical research providing that it is done humanely.”

Aside from the twisted logic that compelled him to make this contradictory claim, he seems to have made it up. What recent polls is he referring to? His claim is misleading or uninformed.

Here’s a recent summary of the results of opinion polls on this topic

Concerns about poll methodologies are also voiced in the academic literature. For example, Hagelin and colleagues published an overall analysis of 56 surveys on animal research [from around the world]. They discovered that between 27% and 100% support animal research, and a range of 0–68% people are opposed. Part of the explanation for this dramatic variation is due to design issues, for example how questions are phrased. Hobson-West P. The role of 'public opinion' in the UK animal research debate. 2010 36: 46-49 J Med Ethics.

The most recent poll on this question I know of was a 2009 poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. See my post regarding this poll here. I don’t think Coe knows what he is talking about.

9. “There are many other compelling reasons...”.

Which must be even less compelling than the top “reasons” he cited above.

Who killed Res 35?

The simple answer is the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

In spite of repeated claims that any discussion about the ethics of experiments on monkeys would be pointless and redundant and not worth anyone’s time, this “trivial” matter motivated letters to the Dane County Board from UW-Chancellor Biddy Martin, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Paul DeLuca Jr., as well as public testimony from Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Martin Cadwallader.

Working behind the scenes with university on this matter that deserved no consideration, was apparently, Dane County Supervisor Chair Scott Mcdonell.

It seems reasonable, given the university’s reticence and decades-long history of lies, cover-ups, and spin that Res 35 sponsor Supervisor Al Matano was correct when he said that the proposed forums are “a cynical, manipulative ploy” intended to stop Res 35.

The proof is in the vegan pudding, of course, so we’ll just have to wait and see what the university actually comes up with. In the meantime, we can at least speculate and look at the make-up of the committee they have formed, the questions they say will be addressed, and those questions not mentioned, to get some idea of the possible results.

So here’s the committee make-up announced by the university:

Eric Sandgren, animal researcher, Director of the Research Animal Resource Center, and main UW spokesperson when local or national media covers embarrassing problems with the university’s animal use. He will lead the forum-planning group.

David Abbott, a UW-Madison professor and scientist at the Wisconsin National Primate Center.

Simon Peek, a veterinarian at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. Eric Sandgren is also a veterinarian, but veterinarian is not equivalent to a concern for animals. For instance, in a 2008 paper Peek explains that he used nineteen Holstein bull calves between 24 and 48 hours old and infused E. coli directly into their jugular veins over a three-hour period. The authors wrote: “During the 3-h period of endotoxin infusion, experimental calves demonstrated characteristic clinical signs consistent with endotoxemia; specifically mild tachypnea [rapid breathing], mild pyrexia [fever], and depression (increased tendency to lie down, loss of suckle reflex).” The big discovery? “This is the first time that biochemical evidence of cardiac injury has been documented in calves with endotoxemia.” The calves were sold commercially following the conclusion of the study. (Cardiac isoenzymes in healthy Holstein calves and calves with experimentally induced endotoxemia. Peek SF, Apple FS, Murakami MA, Crump PM, Semrad SD. Can J Vet Res. 2008.)

Robert Streiffer is a bioethicist at UW-Madison and chair of the Letters and Sciences Animal Care and Use Committee which approves all the experiments at the Harlow lab, among others. Streiffer argues that compliance with state and federal law is ethical use.

Patricia McConnell is an animal behaviorist, author and adjunct professor of zoology at UW-Madison. She has argued that we must eat sheep in order to stop them from going extinct. (Really.) She has often misled her students about the value of Harry Harlow’s horrific career at the university.

Lisa Kane is an attorney and author with an interest in captive elephant welfare, but only limited (if any) knowledge of animal research at the university.

And Paula Rinelli, who the university pointed out is a member of the Alliance for Animals. Ms Rinelli recommended Ms Kane in order to have someone else on the committee who shared her concern for animals. Ms Rinelli is not a representative of the Alliance for Animals and may even be a member of other animal rights organizations. Ms Rinelli has attended multiple university animal care and use committee meetings and is well-known to Sandgren. Ms Rinelli may have been asked to participate simply because she is an Alliance member, and having an Alliance member on the committee might make it seem more inclusive to the public and may have helped create a handy smokescreen for Supervisors trying to find a way to avoid a fair response to concerned citizens regarding Res 35.

So that’s the planning committee. Does it seem balanced to you?

Now let’s look at the questions Cadwallader and DeLuca have said will be addressed in the forums, and the questions they haven’t asked.

1. How are animals viewed in our and other societies?

A better question would be: How has the view of animals by our and other societies changed over the past 100 years?

2. What is the value of research with animals?

We can answer that question in two ways. Regarding the economic value: experiments on monkeys at the university brought in more than $46 million in research grants in 2008-09.

Regarding the value to patients: “judging by the only criterion that matters to patients and taxpayers—not how many interesting discoveries about cells or genes or synapses have been made, but how many treatments for diseases the money has bought—the return on investment to the American taxpayer has been approximately as satisfying as the AIG bailout.”

3. Are experiments involving animals necessary?

Yes, if the goal is to keep the research labs open and generating income for the university. No, if the goal is improvement in patient care.

4. Are there alternatives to animal use in research and teaching?

Yes.

5. Is animal research ethical?

Yes, when the animals are not confined or manipulated, as in observational studies. Yes, in clinical research intended to help the subject, or do them no likely harm.

No, when animals are confined for long periods or harmed.

6. How are experiments designed to answer a question?

If harming animals is unethical, then this question is unimportant.

7. Who funds animal research and how does the funding process work?

The National Institutes of Health funds the overwhelming majority of research at the universities. The funding process in incestuous. Researchers control who gets funded.

8. Who looks out for the animals?

No one. All claims to the contrary are either intended to mislead the public or else are claims made by a the tiny few caring insiders with essentially no power to protect any of them. The proof is in the pudding. Essentially every one of the untold thousands of animals used in the UW-Madison labs either dies as a result of the experiments or is killed.

9. What are the levels of oversight?

Given the repeated violations [USDA_2007][USDA 2009] of the minimal and weak laws slightly regulating the university’s use of animals, and the plain fact that essentially all of them die or are killed, the “levels of oversight” is an arcane matter with little consequence. The question in and of itself is propaganda.

10. What happens when animals are no longer needed for research purposes?

See above.

What questions or topics aren’t on this list?

1. Why did the university really shred 628 videos of their experiments on monkeys after denying repeated public records requests for just one of them?

2. What is actually done to the monkeys in Michele Basso’s, Ei Terasawa’s, or Maria Emborg’s experiments? Will there be videos shown at the forums or pictures projected?

3. Why is the university afraid of a non-aligned group of citizens asking questions about the ethics of experiments on monkeys?

4. How do they explain the repeated serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act?

5. Why weren’t UW-Madison animal researchers knowledgeable about Wisconsin’s Crimes Against Animals statutes?

6. Why does the university feel it should be exempt from the laws that govern everyone else?

7. Why did the university abandon the Vilas stump-tailed macaques?

8. Why did past primate center director Joe Kemnitz lie to a student reporter when asked about the university’s agreement not to use the monkeys at the Vilas Zoo? Why wasn't he disciplined?

[According to Bogle, Primate Center directors and members signed three different letters in 1989, 1990 and 1995, stating the center would not perform harmful experiments on the monkeys unless a monkey had unique genetic traits.

UW Primate Center director Joe Kemnitz said UW never entered into an agreement like that because it would not make sense.]

9. Why isn’t the university honest with the public?

10. Why is ethical to experiment on monkeys but not ethical to raise humans, lock them in cages for their entire lives, and perform painful experiments on them?

Res 35 probably dead

Campus Connection: County Board says no more monkey business
By Todd Finkelmeyer | Capital Times | September 17, 2010.

Efforts to convince the Dane County Board to form a citizens advisory panel to examine whether or not experimenting on monkeys at UW-Madison is humane and ethical are dead following a vote Thursday night at the City County Building.

The push to pass a resolution which would create this panel was originally co-sponsored by 13 county supervisors and gained momentum earlier this summer thanks to a persistent and passionate group of local activists.

The resolution was initially backed by the Health and Human Needs Committee on June 29 but later stalled in the Executive Committee on July 8.

So on Sept. 2, Board member Al Matano -- who was lead sponsor of the resolution -- moved to withdraw it from committee so the entire Board could vote on the issue. But Thursday night at the City County Building, his motion to withdraw was voted down 22-13. If a simple majority of board members had given this motion the thumbs up, the discussion about whether or not to back Resolution 35 (see pages 5-8 of this document) would have been taken up at the County Board's Oct. 7 meeting.

Instead, the debate comes to an abrupt halt.

"This was a vote against the democratic process," says Rick Marolt, an area consultant and part-time business lecturer who has spent the better part of the past five years trying to get someone -- anyone -- to push the university for more public self-examination on this hot-button topic of whether experimenting on monkeys is ethical. "It was a vote against having a public discussion about an issue a lot of people care about and for which there is no other meaningful forum."

County Board member Mike Willett, however, argued passionately Thursday night against bringing this issue out of committee and before the full Board because he didn't feel the Dane County Board was the proper body to hear this debate.

"Some citizens have come to expect we have some sort of authority to do something about this issue, but we don't," said Willett. "We don't have any authority, none at all. ... It's wonderful to have citizen input and I really appreciate the citizens being interested in this (topic). But we aren't the place. We don't have the authority to make any changes in this issue whatsoever."

Backers of the resolution -- which asks the chair of the Board to appoint five to nine county residents to gather information and interview experts on monkeys, laboratory conditions and the ethics of experimenting on non-human primates -- were hoping the Dane County Board was going to become the first elected body in the United States to mandate this controversial topic be examined closer.

"I have some constituents who feel very strongly about Resolution 35," Board member Kyle Richmond said while speaking in favor of putting the resolution in front of the full Board. "And I know some people feel very strongly on the other side of this debate. So that's precisely why we should bring this to the floor and the whole Board should be able to debate this."

Added Board member Patrick Downing: "The university is supposed to be a place dedicated to the sifting and winnowing of facts to arrive at truth. I can't understand why they would not want to entertain further discussion about this."

more...

And this:

Dane County Board strikes down monkey motion
Some members of body see ethics forums to be held by UW are cheap ploys to stop legislation

Jennifer Zettel | Badger Herald | September 16, 2010.

Members of the Dane County Board of Supervisors voted down a resolution to create an advisory panel specifically focused on animal research conducted at the University of Wisconsin Thursday night.

Resolution 35 sought to analyze the ethics of experimentation on non-human primates within Dane County, the conditions the animals are under during the experimentation process, and whether or not the animals have a right to retire, said Supervisor Al Matano, Dist. 11.

The Board voted not to move forward with the resolution by a 22-13 margin.

Had the vote passed, the Dane County Board would have voted on whether or not to establish the committee at the October meeting, Matano said.

Even if a committee had been created and found UW’s practices unethical, Matano said nothing would change — the panel would be for the public’s knowledge only.

Supervisor Mike Willett, District 32, said he opposed the resolution’s progress because the Board does not have the authority to influence UW policy.

Specifically, if the Board passed the motion, Willett said he wanted to know where the Board would draw the line on interfering with UW policy.

“If we start talking about this, what are we going to start talking about next?” Willett asked. “Maybe we should ban some books while we’re at it.”

Mantano said he supported the resolution because the thought of such intelligent animals being kept in cages disturbed him.

“I feel essentially that experimentation on animals is an industry driven for profit and the prestige of the research institution,” he added.

UW announced the planning of public forums on animal research Sept. 10, in an effort to increase transparency with the community.

Matano said UW proposed the forums to stop Resolution 35’s passage, calling it “a cynical, manipulative ploy.”

more ...

Opposition to Res 35

We were recently able to review the comments emailed to the Dane County Board of Supervisors regarding Resolution 35. For more on the resolution visit MonkeysInDane.info.

Of particular interest is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people who don’t want the county to establish a Citizens' Advisory Panel to look into the use of monkeys at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are either directly involved in animal experimentation at the university, or else, are involved in the industry in some other way.

Here is a complete list of the people and organizations that took the time to email the Dane County Board of Supervisors to voice their opposition to Resolution 35.

The two marked (undisclosed) failed to identify themselves as employees of the university.

Biddy Martin, Chancellor, UW-Madison
Christopher Coe, Director, Harlow Primate Lab, UW-Madison
Andrew-Parker, Applicant for UW-Madison Primate Center Directorship
Lawrence Jacobsen, Librarian (Retired), UW-Madison Primate Center
Ted Golos (1) (2), Scientist, UW-Madison Primate Center
Saverio “Buddy” Capuano (1) (2), Veterinarian and Scientist, UW-Madison Primate Center
Thomas Friedrich, Scientist, UW-Madison Primate Center
Cynthia G. Fowler, Affiliate Scientist, UW-Madison Primate Center
Brian Kenealy (1) (2), Research Assistant, UW-Madison Primate Center (undisclosed)
David Abbott, Scientist, UW-Madison Primate Center
Nancy Spilker, Colony Records, UW-Madison Primate Center
Gretta Borchardt, Senior Research Specialist in David Watkins’s primate lab, UW-Madison
Matt Reynolds, Assistant in David Watkins’s primate lab, UW-Madison
Holly McEntee, staff, Research Animal Resource Center, UW-Madison
Lynn Rusch, staff, Research Animal Resource Center, UW-Madison (undisclosed)
Mark Cook, Scientist, Department of Animal Sciences, UW-Madison
Richard Atkinson, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Nutritional Sciences, UW-Madison
Marge Sutinen, Director, MATEC-WI, UW-Madison
William R. Morton, Paris NHP (current) and Director (retired), University of Washington Primate Center
BioForward, “the member-driven state association that is the voice of Wisconsin’s biotechnology industry” representing, among others, the largest importer and consumer of monkeys in the world: Covance
National Association for Biomedical Research, animal research industry front group
And two apparently local citizens.

Desperately Seeking Cures...

... or, "How the road from promising scientific breakthrough to real-world remedy has become all but a dead end."

Next time you hear a scientist who uses animals in basic research make claims about how important their work is, remember this observation from the May 15, 2010 issue of Newsweek:

From 1998 to 2003, the budget of the NIH—which supports such research at universities and medical centers as well as within its own labs in Bethesda, Md.—doubled, to $27 billion, and is now $31 billion. There is very little downside, for a president or Congress, in appeasing patient-advocacy groups as well as voters by supporting biomedical research. But judging by the only criterion that matters to patients and taxpayers—not how many interesting discoveries about cells or genes or synapses have been made, but how many treatments for diseases the money has bought—the return on investment to the American taxpayer has been approximately as satisfying as the AIG bailout. “Basic research is healthy in America,” says John Adler, a Stanford University professor who invented the CyberKnife, a robotic device that treats cancer with precise, high doses of radiation. “But patients aren’t benefiting. Our understanding of diseases is greater than ever. But academics think, ‘We had three papers in Science or Nature, so that must have been [NIH] money well spent.’?” [my emphasis] Mary Carmichael and Sharon Begley, Newsweek. May 15, 2010

Read the entire article here.

UW Abandoned Threatened Monkeys Nearly Two-Thirds Dead

Alliance for Animals

P.O. Box 1632, Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Phone: 608-257-6333
E-mail: alliance@allanimals.org
www.allanimals.org

September 8, 2010

UW Abandoned Threatened Monkeys
Nearly Two-Thirds Dead

Madison, Wisc.... The United States Department of Agriculture is scrambling to find homes for approximately 204 primates and an additional 114 other large animals after years of serious violations of the US Animal Welfare Act including inadequate and improper food. Twenty-two of those monkeys are the survivors of the large colony sent there by the University of Wisconsin, Madison in 1998.

In 1998, the UW-Madison acknowledged that it had violated multiple written agreements with Dane County not to use monkeys from the Henry Vilas Zoo in harmful experiments. They violated the agreements one final time by sending 143 of the monkeys into terminal research at Tulane University.

The university sent 55 additional monkeys from the zoo – unwanted by any lab because they were members of the threatened species Macaca arctoides, also called the stump-tailed or bear macaque – to the Wild Animal Orphanage in San Antonio along with $40,000.

In a May 6, 1998 news release, the Director Kemnitz stated that the sanctuary met university expectations for housing the stumptails. Then Grad School Dean Virginia Hinshaw said: “The Wild Animal Orphanage is well-equipped to deal with small primate colonies of this nature. The sanctuary is a particularly appropriate choice because stumptailed macaques are a threatened species.”

Senior staff at the university-hosted Wisconsin National Primate Research Center – Director Joseph Kemnitz, head veterinarian Christine O'Rourke, and colony manager, Kirk Boehm – became members of the Wild Animal Orphanage’s Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

But by 2006, the university had quietly severed its relationship with the sanctuary.

Now, because of the chronic severe problems at the Wild Animals Orphanage, a USDA-created census of the remaining Vilas Zoo monkeys has become available.

“In light of the nature of the repeated problems found at the sanctuary, it is likely that many of the missing 33 Vilas monkeys died of malnutrition, lack of medical care, exposure, or some combination of those problems,” said Rick Bogle, Co-Director of the Madison-based Alliance for Animals, the organization responsible for originally exposing the university’s violations in 1997.

“The university made a big deal about caring for the monkeys after if couldn’t find a lab that wanted them. They seem to have turned their back on them. The monkeys deserve to be cared for; it is the university’s responsibility to make sure that funds are available to comfortably house and adequately feed the remaining animals. They owe it to the citizens who were told that the monkeys would be well cared for, and they owe it to the monkeys,” said Bogle.

Background files and info available at:
http://www.allanimals.org/vilas-stumps-info.html

---end---

New UW Madison Primate Center Director

Read the UW news release about the new director, Jon E. Levine, here.

Here's an example of the scientific breakthroughs that put him head and shoulders above the rest of the applicants for the position:

Considerable variability exists in the behavior of males towards infants. Approximately 50% of naïve male mice did not attack young, but exhibited parental behavior on their initial exposure. Further investigations are necessary to determine what distinguishes the naïve males that express parental behaviors from those that do not. For example, it is possible that these spontaneously parental mice represent animals that were exposed to a different in utero environment than mice that ignored or attacked young. For the other 50% of naïve males, prior exposure to P[progesterone] in adulthood increases the proportion of males that attack pups rather than ignore them. It will also be informative to follow males for longer after the prolonged P exposure to see if these behaviors persist. If so, then it is possible that P exerts prolonged organizational effects on infant-directed aggression. Additional studies are necessary to determine the mechanism by which P exerts prolonged effects resulting in the increased expression of infant-directed aggression. Effects of progesterone on male-mediated infant-directed aggression. Schneider JS, Burgess C, Horton TH, Levine JE. Behav Brain Res. 2009

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

What a cruel waste.