|
back
to the story After that exchange, on March 15 WW emailed her a second set of questions; to date, Smith has not answer WW's questions. WW: How do you keep a balance between academic integrity, funding pressures, institutional pressures and research that will eventually enter the commercial sphere? Smith: The integrity of the research is guaranteed by a NIH peer-review system. Especially in times of keen competition for funding (15-20 percent of scientifically meritorious grant applications eventually receive funding), there is no opportunity for research institutions to promote commercially profitable projects. Besides that, the center is guided by a Scientific Advisory Board, composed of nationally prominent researchers. Center scientists must publish in peer-reviewed journals, and scientists submit to the standards of their various professional societies. WW: Does the center ever feel pressured by commercial or governmental interests to pursue certain research? Smith: The center can operate only within the research goals of NCRR (the National Center for Research Resources, the division of NIH that supports the national primate centers program) and of NIH. Our scientists are funded only because various institutes of the NIH deem their research to be significant in achieving those goals. WW: How do you keep ORPRC pure? Smith: See above. WW: What is the biggest challenge which the center currently faces? Smith: Securing increased NIH funding to allow even better implementation of new regulations being mandated by the USDA regarding the social housing of the monkeys. WW: How do you strike a balance between the center's research needs, society's demands for medical cures and maintaining the psychological well-being of research monkeys? Smith: By continuing efforts that have brought the Center $2.3 million worth of grants for new group housing for monkeys and pair cages. The same aggressive efforts have allowed the Center to launch a $4 million construction project, to be completed in 2001, of 20 outdoor, sheltered group units to house 30-40 animals each. WW: Do rhesus monkeys have free will? Smith: Are they held responsible for their actions? No. WW: How closely related are humans and rhesus monkeys? Smith: Humans and monkeys are separated by over 5 million years of evolutionary history. Functional genomics will help us identify the genetic differences between humans and monkeys. If earthworms share 67 percent of the human genome, and rhesus monkeys 90 percent, it is clear that the majority of shared genes code for similar "housekeeping" functions (e.g., metabolizing sugar), but that some genes or gene complexes are crucial for the tremendous differences between various species. WW: Are rhesus monkeys intelligent? Smith: All living mammals are intelligent in that they are not extinct and relate successfully to their environment. WW: By what standard can we measure their intelligence? Smith: There are no set standards. Tests designed by humans tend to use humans as standards. How do you devise a test that measures cats by cat standards? WW: How do they perform against that standard? Smith: There is no set standard. WW: Do you think monkeys living in single-cages are lonely? Smith: Monkeys are social animals and that is why the Center is putting so much effort into social housing and why we see to it that singly caged monkeys can touch and groom others, or at least have olfactory and visual contact. This allows the singly caged monkeys to establish a normal social structure among the group of animals housed in a room. WW: How does it make you feel that ORPRC research monkeys are biting themselves? Smith: In 2000, 50 of ORPRC's 2800 monkeys were treated for this condition, a condition that also manifests itself in a surprising number of humans. Nevertheless, we took this condition so seriously that we consulted a national expert (Dr. Melinda Novak) and initiated both strategies and medications to reduce the incidence. With few exceptions, the monkeys treated have responded well and have been returned to good health. Dr. Novak responded to us that "Little is known about the causes and treatments for severe self-directed biting in monkeys or for self-injurious behavior in humans, [but] the Center is now using the most current research on this disorder in humans and in nonhuman primates to treat monkeys with this condition." WW: Does the excitement of scientific discovery ever inadvertently reduce researchers' sensitivity to their treatment of fellow-primates? Smith: The scientists and animal caretakers at the Center are very conscientious and sensitive. WW: What do you think of Carol Shively? Smith: As you know, veterinarians, as well as scientists, have a variety of views on how animals should be involved in health research. We chose Dr. Shively so that our panel of consulting experts would include the broadest spectrum of views. WW: Did her findings surprise you? Smith: Dr. Shively relied on her experience with cynomolgus monkeys to evaluate a program of caring for rhesus monkeys, a species that is known to be much more aggressive. Due to time constraints, she wasn't always able to weigh her observations against Center veterinary expertise. WW: Do you agree with her conclusion that ORPRC isn't up-to-date? Smith: Dr. Hall has put it well: "As the USDA reviews its new federal guidelines for the nation's primate facilities, OHSU will be considered a leader in the field." Following are the questions which Smith has not yet answered. Why has it taken the primate center so long to shift to social housing of its 1,000 indoor research primates? How do you respond to (USDA official) Bob Gibbens' comment to me that the center hasn't been doing a good job on social housing? How do you respond to her (Shively's) assertion that your center has produced behaviorally-aberrant NHPs (non-human primates)? How do you respond to her (Shively's) comment to me that it resulted in self-injurious behavior? Why were behaviorally-aberrant monkeys allowed to remain in that condition for long periods of time? Why were monkeys allowed to live in environmental deprivation? How do you respond to her (Shively's) assertion that center monkeys clearly experience distress in their daily existence? How do you respond to Shively's assertion that the center's electro-ejaculation practices are inhumane? Why does the center continue to use a method of sperm collection which Shively calls outdated and the USDA clearly has concerns about? Why will you continue to use a method that Leslie Bevan (an OHSU official) identifies as causing pain and distress in the animal? Why does the center continue to use a method of sperm collection that other primate facilities (Wisconsin, for one) eschew in favor of less-invasive methods, ones they say result in quality sperm samples? Have center officials ever consulted with other centers about how they do electro-ejaculation? Has the center ever taught its sperm donors to masturbate, as Shively suggests? Will the other 3 Neuringer (a primate center researcher) monkeys that are currently maintained on anti-depressants be released to a sanctuary instead of being euthanized, as Dr. Neuringer told me may well occur? Have you, during a period of rapid growth for the center, paid appropriate attention to advances in animal care and housing? Why did it take a whistleblower to pressure the center into a self-examination process? If it didn't, what documentary evidence can you offer that the center was examining itself beforehand? |