April 17, 2003
Dear Dr. Audie Leventhal,
My name is Jeremy Beckham. I am a freshman at the University of Utah and president
of a rapidly growing student group known as the Utah Primate Freedom Project.
We are a group of U of U students concerned with the well being of nonhuman primates.
Over the past couple years I have examined and analyzed a growing body of evidence
that indicates to me that there is a significant need to be very cautious about
any decision to use primates in experiments. The data indicates to me that primate
experimentation is an irresponsible use of public funds. Every year, millions
of dollars are allocated from the budget of the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) for experimental procedures involving primates and other animals. Experimental
use of animals is increasing across the nation and there appears little sign that
this trend will change in the near future. However, this increase in funds for
animal experiments has not spawned any increase in clinically applicable treatments
for people. Indeed, the large allocation for what is known as "basic research"
is evidence that experiments involving animals do not need to be justified by
a likely application to human health in order for the research to be funded.
I have enclosed two articles that discuss this wasteful use of public funds. One
appeared in the British Medical Journal and was co-authored by five English professors
or Research Fellows. The authors call into question the relevance of animal experiments
for human use and propose a systematic review of all animal research before new
animal experiments are conducted. I would like to see a systematic review of this
nature at the University of Utah.
The second article appeared in The Washington Post on Christmas Eve of last year.
This news item discusses a report criticizing funding priorities for the NIH agency,
the National Institute of Mental Health. The report called for a "cutback
in governmental funding for basic neuroscience [and] animal studies." This
seems particularly pertinent to your research area involving brain mapping of
macaque monkeys.
As evolutionary biology would predict, investigations into the minds and behavior
of nonhuman primates has shown striking parallels to that of humans. Many are
familiar with the works of Jane Goodall who showed that chimpanzees are capable
of culture, or Koko, the gorilla who has the ability to communicate to humans
using American Sign Language (ASL). But the signs of emotional life and intelligence
are rich in all primate species. I have attached an article by Masserman, et al.
In this study, macaque monkeys were trained to pull on one of two chains, depending
on the color of a flashing light, in order to receive food. After training, another
monkey, held in restraints, was displayed through a one-way mirror. By pulling
the chains in the correct fashion, the first monkey would receive the food reward,
but one of the chains now delivered a powerful and painful electric shock to the
restrained monkey. It was discovered that most of the monkeys would not shock
another monkey even if it meant not being able to eat. One of the animals went
without food for twelve days rather than hurting his or her companion. Monkeys
who had been shocked in previous experiments themselves were even less willing
to pull the chain and subject others to such torment.
After reading about this study and many that were similar to it, I asked myself
the question: How Like Us Need They Be? At what point do we acknowledge that their
behavior is so similar to our own that we must conclude that experimentation on
these animals immoral?
I hope you have an answer to this question and other concerns that many of us
have relating to primate experimentation. Perhaps you have not heard my previous
calls for a public debate, but I urge you to consider explaining yours and the
U of U's position in this matter in a public debate. I am willing and able to
make all the accommodations for the debate. Also, if you would prefer to not waste
your time with a freshman like myself, I can arrange for you to debate doctors
who have specific knowledge in your research field.
Many students on campus have expressed a sincere interest in watching a debate
to help them form their opinions on the issue. As the recipient of over $3 million
dollars in federal tax dollars for your research since 1992, I believe you have
a responsibility to ensure the public that their money is being used in a responsible
way.
I have enclosed one final article from the well-respected journal Nature. It was
titled "Distasteful but necessary." The article states that the public
has a growing concern over the treatment of primates, and specifically says "...electrophysiological
recordings from monkeys' brains attract more public resistance." The article
is speaking of studies such as yours.
The Nature article states, "When rational people abandon public debate, the
outlook is bleak."
We agree, and hope that you will work with us to bring this important discussion
to the U of U community by agreeing to participate in one or a series of public
debates on this issue. We look forward to your response and to working with you
in the future.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Beckham
Enclosures
"Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?" BMJ (2004)
328: 514-517.
"In Mental Health Research, a Clash Over Funding Priorities" Washington
Post. December 24, 2003 P. A13.
"'Altruistic' behavior in rhesus monkeys." American Journal of Psychiatry
(1964) 121: 584-5.
Money amounts for your grants obtained through the National Institutes of Health
Office of Extramural Research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm.
"Distasteful but necessary." Nature (2002) 417:673.