Posted on 12/30/2004 5:47:37 PM PST by Heartlander
By Mike Gene
This page is not completely in character for this site. Nevertheless, Prof. Richard Dawkins is such a Big Player[1] in this overall debate that some aspects of his extremism beg for comment. As such, I will use the page to comment on some of Dawkins’ extremism and update it accordingly (so you might want to check back periodically).
As of November 2003, Cambridge University had planned to build a primate research center. Professor Tony Minson, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, of Cambridge University, said
“We are pleased that this important research centre has been given the go-ahead by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. It is reassuring that the Government is sending this unequivocal message of support for neuroscience in the UK.“The University remains convinced of the national importance of this research to medical advancement. Neurological diseases have a huge worldwide impact and combating these devastating conditions is a major scientific priority.” [2]
"This is a decision which will save many human lives and support continuing developments in treating our biggest medical problem - severe mental illness" [3]
“We know that many people find the use of primates in medical research distressing but the Cambridge research facility is needed to enable scientists to find treatments for life threatening diseases.“Primates are very rarely used in medical research but because of their similarity to humans in terms of biological make-up and brain function, sometimes they are the only option to answer particular research questions. However, it is extremely important that every effort is made to find alternatives and to ensure that, where primates are used, any suffering is reduced to the minimum possible.” [2]
Plans to build a controversial centre for experiments on monkeys have been shelved by Cambridge University.It has decided the costs, including measures needed to protect the facility from animal rights militants, would make the laboratory uneconomic. [3]
Eighty miles away from Cambridge is Oxford University, home of Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Dawkins “interprets his role in the world as the banger of the drum for science.” [4] Yet the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, who is the UK’s leading drum banger for science, has not publicly condemned this recent attack on science. He’s been oddly silent. What gives?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins is too busy. He has, after all, lots of other things to tend to, such as trashing President George Bush and speaking out against Religion. With such important items on his agenda, I suppose he might not notice that science was under assault in his own country, only 80 miles from his office. But it gets more interesting.
It turns out Oxford University also has plans on building a new primate research center. The animal rights extremists then targeted that proposal, and through the use of harassment, intimated construction workers to stop working on the project. Things have gotten so serious that Oxford’s new Chancellor, Chris Patten, made these animal rights tactics the centerpiece of his first speech, entitled Save British Science.
Mr Patten used his first speech last night as Chancellor of Oxford University to warn that some anti-vivisectionists were threatening fundamental principles of liberal democracy.He said the right of university researchers to pursue open and independent inquiry without fear of intimidation was one of the bastions of free society, the Times reported. [5]
Might Dawkins actually be sympathetic with those who want to shut down these labs and put an end to such science? The thought might sound blasphemous to many of Dawkins’ fans, but that does indeed seem to be the most likely explanation for such silence.
Britain's No. 1 public intellectual has been a leading advocate of the “Great Apes Project,” a movement of intellectuals who are trying to confer human rights to chimpanzees and their close relatives. As European Vegetarian gleefully explains:
The main representatives of the project are chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall, biologist of evolution Richard Dawkins, and the Australian philosopher Peter Singer. They compare their fight against the injustice in the treatment of the great apes with the fight for the rights of women, homosexuals or mentally or physically disabled people. [6]
The Great Ape Project aims at taking just one step in this process of extending the community of equals. We shall provide ethical argument, based on scientific evidence about the capacities of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, for taking this step. Whether this step should also be the first of many others is not for The Great Ape Project to say. No doubt some of us, speaking individually, would want to extend the community of equals to many other animals as well; others may consider that extending the community to include all great apes is as far as we should go at present. We leave the consideration of that question for another occasion. [7]
While focusing specifically on the great apes, this book suggests that extending the moral community to include them could be the beginning of a larger break in the species barrier….. In any case, there should be no quibbles regarding the personhood, hence the rights, of birds, for as Rogers says, "it is now clear that birds have cognitive capacities equivalent to those of mammals, even primates" (p. 217). This recognition has cost birds dearly in terms of the enormous amount of pain and suffering which they have endured in the process of our "proving" avian intelligence scientifically. It is now time to put the knowledge that has been acquired to use on their behalf.[8]
But for now, let’s just stick with the current strain of Dawkins’ extremism. Since he wants to ban primate research, let’s consider just a sampling of the science that he opposes.
A critical role for the chimpanzee model in the study of hepatitis C.
Bukh J. Hepatology. 2004 Jun;39(6):1469-75
Chimpanzees remain the only recognized animal model for the study of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Studies performed in chimpanzees played a critical role in the discovery of HCV and are continuing to play an essential role in defining the natural history of this important human pathogen. In the absence of a reproducible cell culture system, the infectivity titer of HCV challenge pools can be determined only in chimpanzees. Recent studies in chimpanzees have provided new insight into the nature of host immune responses-particularly the intrahepatic responses-following primary and secondary experimental HCV infections. The immunogenicity and efficacy of vaccine candidates against HCV can be tested only in chimpanzees. Finally, it would not have been possible to demonstrate the infectivity of infectious clones of HCV without chimpanzees. Chimpanzees became infected when RNA transcripts from molecular clones were inoculated directly into the liver. The infection generated by such transfection did not differ significantly from that observed in animals infected intravenously with wild-type HCV. The RNA inoculated into chimpanzees originated from a single sequence, and the animals therefore had a monoclonal HCV infection. Monoclonal infection simplifies studies of HCV, because virus interaction with the host is not confounded by the quasispecies invariably present in a natural infection. It furthermore permits true homologous challenge in studies of protective immunity and in testing the efficacy of vaccine candidates. Finally, this in vivo transfection system has made it possible to test for the first time the importance of genetic elements for HCV infectivity.
Interlaminar astroglial processes in the cerebral cortex of great apes.
Colombo JA, Sherwood CC, Hof PR. Anat Embryol (Berl). 2004 Jun;208(3):215-8.
The present study was designed to document the architecture of neocortical astroglia in great apes, following glial fibrillary acidic protein immunohistochemistry. These anthropoid species were missing from previous phylogenetic descriptions of astroglia with interlaminar processes, a characteristic event of the cerebral cortex within the Primate Order. Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan), Gorilla gorilla (gorilla) and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) brain samples showed the typical "palisade" of interlaminar processes. Yet, those from Pan troglodytes were less uniform, showing extended cortical segments with astrocytic ("syncytial-type") appearance, intermingled with segments expressing the interlaminar "palisade". Present observations contribute to fill in missing data on the phylogenetic emergence of the cerebral cortex astroglial interlaminar processes. Considering the extreme consistency of the expression of astroglial interlaminar "palisades" among anthropoid species, this apparent variability among Pan individuals could be due to various possibilities, which are considered in this report.
Brain structure variation in great apes, with attention to the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei).
Sherwood CC, Cranfield MR, Mehlman PT, Lilly AA, Garbe JA, Whittier CA, Nutter FB, Rein TR, Bruner HJ, Holloway RL, Tang CY, Naidich TP, Delman BN, Steklis HD, Erwin JM, Hof PR. Am J Primatol. 2004 Jul;63(3):149-64.
This report presents data regarding the brain structure of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) in comparison with other great apes. Magnetic resonance (MR) images of three mountain gorilla brains were obtained with a 3T scanner, and the volume of major neuroanatomical structures (neocortical gray matter, hippocampus, thalamus, striatum, and cerebellum) was measured. These data were included with our existing database that includes 23 chimpanzees, three western lowland gorillas, and six orang-utans. We defined a multidimensional space by calculating the principal components (PCs) from the correlation matrix of brain structure fractions in the well-represented sample of chimpanzees. We then plotted data from all of the taxa in this space to examine phyletic variation in neural organization. Most of the variance in mountain gorillas, as well as other great apes, was contained within the chimpanzee range along the first two PCs, which accounted for 61.73% of the total variance. Thus, the majority of interspecific variation in brain structure observed among these ape taxa was no greater than the within-species variation seen in chimpanzees. The loadings on PCs indicated that the brain structure of great apes differs among taxa mostly in the relative sizes of the striatum, cerebellum, and hippocampus. These findings suggest possible functional differences among taxa in terms of neural adaptations for ecological and locomotor capacities. Importantly, these results fill a critical gap in current knowledge regarding great ape neuroanatomical diversity. Am. J. Primatol. 63:149-164, 2004. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
The chimpanzee (pan troglodytes) as a pharmacokinetic model for selection of drug candidates: model characterization and application.
Wong H, Grossman SJ, Bai SA, Diamond S, Wright MR, Grace JE Jr, Qian M, He K, Yeleswaram K, Christ DD. Drug Metab Dispos. 2004 Dec;32(12):1359-69
The chimpanzee (CHP) was evaluated as a pharmacokinetic model for humans (HUMs) using propranolol, verapamil, theophylline, and 12 proprietary compounds. Species differences were observed in the systemic clearance of theophylline ( approximately 5-fold higher in CHPs), a low clearance compound, and the bioavailability of propranolol and verapamil (lower in CHPs), both high clearance compounds. The systemic clearance of propranolol ( approximately 1.53 l/h/kg) suggested that the hepatic blood flow in CHPs is comparable to that in humans. No substantial differences were observed in the in vitro protein binding. A preliminary attempt was made to characterize cytochrome P450 (P450) activities in CHP and HUM liver microsomes. Testosterone 6beta-hydroxylation and tolbutamide methylhydroxylation activities were comparable in CHP and HUM liver microsomes. In contrast, dextromethorphan O-demethylation and phenacetin O-deethylation activities were approximately 10-fold higher (per mg protein) in CHP liver microsomes. Intrinsic clearance estimates in CHP liver microsomes were higher for propranolol ( approximately 10-fold) and theophylline ( approximately 5-fold) and similar for verapamil. Of the 12 proprietary compounds, 3 had oral clearances that differed in the two species by more than 3-fold, an acceptable range for biological variability. Most of the observed differences are consistent with species differences in P450 enzyme activity. Oral clearances of proprietary compounds in HUMs were significantly correlated to those from CHPs (r = 0.68; p = 0.015), but not to estimates from rat, dog, and monkey. In summary, the chimpanzee serves as a valuable surrogate model for human pharmacokinetics, especially when species differences in P450 enzyme activity are considered.
Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis.
Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Bryan VE, Carlson CS. Spine. 2003 Oct 15;28(20):S186-94.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro wear testing of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis was performed in a cervical spine simulator. The biologic response was assessed in chimpanzee and goat animal models. OBJECTIVE: Determine the wear characteristics of the Bryan disc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Large joint arthroplasties fail most commonly by wear and consequent formation of particulate material, which induces an inflammatory response. Therefore, measuring the wear characteristics of the new spinal disc replacements is important. METHODS: Six prosthetic assembles were tested to 10 or 40 million cycles by load and motion and 3 additional assemblies were tested by load only in a cervical spine simulator. Any debris was examined using ASTM standards. The local biologic response to the prosthesis was examined in two chimpanzees. Nine goats were used to assess the biologic response in both local and distant tissues. Arthrodesis was performed on three additional control goats that received an allograft and an anterior cervical plate. RESULTS: Wear results: cervical spine simulators that applied the loads and motions associated with activities of daily living produced wear particulate at a rate of 1.2 mg per million cycles. Device height decreased 0.02 mm per million cycles with approximately 77% of this decrease due to gradual creep of the nucleus under the constant compressive load. Particles generated were granular in shape with a mean feret diameter of 3.9 microm. All animals tolerated placement of the Bryan disc. Wear debris was present in the periprosthetic and epidural spaces in some animals. However, no significant inflammatory response was observed. No wear material was found distant from the implant in draining lymph tissue, the liver, or the spleen. CONCLUSIONS: The Bryan disc has satisfactory wear characteristics and does not produce a significant inflammatory response.
One of the anti-vivisection web pages claims, “It is time the public knew that using nonhuman primates is outdated and dangerous to human health.”
It is time the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science tell the public whether this is a correct statement about science.
Next up: Richard Dawkins thinks there are social behaviors worse that pedophilia.
YEC INTREP - Dawkins
Survey says…
That's 'im alright.
Scary, huh?
Is being Professor of the Public Understanding of Science a real job???
It's "pseudo" science with an agenda
Apparently his hypocrisy only goes so far… He champions arguments against a fundamentalism that does far less damage than his own fundamentalist beliefs.
What's wrong with using democrats for biological experiments??
I agree with you in regard to Dawkins but I am curious… what is 'anti-science' in your opinion?
If it is true that he is against animal testing then he is anti-science. While I don't have any numbers right in front of me, I suspect quite a few discoveries have been made because of animal testing. To be against animal testing is to be against science.
Though I would suspect a person like Dawkins isn't totally against animal testing. He always struck me as the type who would enjoy it.
Whoa… I don’t think anyone would or should enjoy animal testing. It might be necessary in limited cases (a total absence based on natural philosophy leads us down a slippery slope) but why would you think Dawkins would enjoy animal testing?
Just joking with you, I am sure Dawkins wouldn't enjoy it.
That would be a matter of opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.