Well, guess what: if the funding agencys or the regulatory agencys or the IRB says no, you can’t do that, people are incredibly resourceful and inventive, and they find new ways of doing things [phage display - all you do is torture E coli bacteria]
You say, NO, you can’t do these awful things to monkeys, people will find new ways of doing the experiments.
(to get this, you have to understand the drivers in NIH or NSF funded research; the driver is publications for the next grant; almost no one gets any gain from helping other people with new techniques (I know, a little hyperbole there,but basically right) so you have to change the drivers: pigouish so to speak.
Right ow, if you have an NIH or NSF grant, you will be dinged if you don’t use the right animal model. However, if the NIH said, starting tomorrow, no more monkeys, then people are incredibly resourceful and they would find new models; it is just like everytime the EPA says, no you can’t use that chemical anymore, at first industry howls, then they adapt)
although the vegan guy does have a point about pigs; perhaps a 2nd cousin to feeling strongly about gun massacres while not doning anything about things that caue way more death

Yes, and it seems rather obvious that it isn’t. I’m sorry that human beings, along with other creatures, become anxious and depressed. I don’t see the need to torture other less sophisticated animals to find the remedy, merely because we are cleverer than they are and can thus exert enormous power over them. We do not do ugly and vicious things like this experiment because it is necessary and beneficial. We do it because we can.

While numerous studies have been performed examining the effects of surrogate/peer in nonhuman primates, no studies have been performed examining the effects of this rearing modification on brain development using state of the art imaging and molecular methods. [emph. added---js.]

I’m not against animal testing in general, but the above is unconvincing at best. You can call me anti-science if you want, but the almost ritual invocation of “state of the art” techniques leaves me pretty damn cold.

Tony Lynch @23
In fact, studying human victims of abuse and neglect is not necessarily going to tell us everything about these mood disorders. I mean, you can tell that people treated in that way will often end up with those disorders. But what’s the mechanism? Why do some people suffer the ill effects, and some not? Why are some people with abusive pasts not depressed, while some people with no significant traumatic events in their histories are depressed to the point of suicide? Are there better treatments than we have now? Animal studies might help answer these questions.

And yes, if someone could invent a pill that would make all the pain go away, I’d be all for it. I’m also be for eliminating abuse and neglect of children. I’m cynical enough about our society that I expect profit-driven drug companies to come up with their solution first.

“The brain imaging and later euthanization and brain analysis is designed to gather information about the neurology and chemistry of the anxiety response which might be especially relevant to human children who have been neglected, physically or sexually abused, or otherwise traumatized in their childhoods.”

And “I’m … in favor of scientific studies that could help us understand mood disorders.”

Isn’t neglect, physical or sexual abuse, and trauma the way to understand the resulting “mood disorders”? Or do you want a pill or something that such an abused, neglected and traumatized person can take and Hey Presto! All that history stuff is washed away?

The question is not *whether* it’s harmful, but *how*. Understanding the mechanism of the harm might be a first step to reversing it — and potentially not just in monkeys.

Of course, it could be abused. You can use electricity to build electric chairs, too. That doesn’t mean our species would have been better off never discovering it.

If you look at the protocol, they are going to raise infant monkeys with a surrogate mother (cloth and wire), but otherwise have it in a normal lab environment, complete with visual, auditory and tactile stimulation, and contact with both humans and other monkeys. At six months the monkeys will be paired with another monkey for stimulation and socialization.

They’re doing this because they know it results in a monkey that is able to function, make social bonds, etc., but that also suffers from higher anxiety than a mother-reared monkey. The researchers reject alternatives such as prolonged isolation as too cruel.

The brain imaging and later euthanization and brain analysis is designed to gather information about the neurology and chemistry of the anxiety response which might be especially relevant to human children who have been neglected, physically or sexually abused, or otherwise traumatized in their childhoods.

Is this research intended to demonize poor mothers, or enrich drug companies? I doubt it. Could it be used for those purposes? Probably. So can a lot of otherwise useful research.

I guess the objection on humane grounds is that depriving a baby monkey of its mother, and providing a surrogate that provides less (but still some) comfort, is too cruel. Compared to our treatment of other animals, that isn’t obvious to me.

The scientific objections seem even less obvious. There are, it’s true, a lot of overblown claims made about neurology and brain chemistry, most of them in the popular press. (I’d be happy if I never saw another multi-colored brain image showing blood flow to some region and claiming it’s the key to understanding happiness, or anger, or enjoyment of music, or whatever.) But that doesn’t justify dismissing real brain research as somehow ridiculous.

I’m a lifelong sufferer of anxiety and depression (I’m medicated, although I can hate Big Pharma with the best of them.). I have children who also have anxiety disorders (they’re not medicated, and doing well with a lot of parental and some professional support). So maybe I’m especially biased in favor of scientific studies that could help us understand mood disorders.

This particular study isn’t going to cure anybody of anything. But research like it could eventually ameliorate a lot of human misery.

Whether animal research is ever morally justifiable is, as I said, a legitimate question. I think it generally is. But this study does not seem especially inhumane. And I don’t understand why anyone is questioning the scientific legitimacy of the work.