June 26, 2008

Spain's Grant of Legal Rights to Apes Will Bar Research on Them

Spain will apparently become the first country to give legal rights to chimpanzees and other great apes, according to The Times of London. The action would make it illegal to conduct research on apes, but would still allow zoos to keep them in captivity.

A committee of the Spanish parliament passed a resolution calling on the country to abide by a declaration developed by the Great Ape Project, which demands that apes be given rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture. No word yet on whether the parliamentary committee would take similar action for bulls. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. So, may I ask, is it illegal in Spain to do research involving humans?

   Is there an implication here that ALL research equates to torture?

   — Joe Erwin    Jun 26, 09:03 PM    #

2. ALL research is certainly not torture; I would be willing to guess that ape volunteers could be sought out, and after suitable informed consent they could be paid to participate in research, just like humans. . . .

   — John Wager    Jun 26, 09:32 PM    #

3. Extend Kant’s Categorical Imperative to beings capable of suffering:

   Never to treat another oneself or another individual as soley as a means.

   No research involving animals capable of experiencing the feeling of terror should be undertaken.

   — jon    Jun 26, 11:02 PM    #

4. What about research in which there is no pain and no feeling of terror? What about research in which apes voluntarily participate? Consider, if you will, The Great Ape Trust of Iowa, in which bonobos and orangutans are involved in cognitive and communications studies. One point that needs to be made here is that not all research results in harm nor pain. So we should not be treating “research” as if it is one bad thing.

   Should we not be applying an ethic based on due consideration? And maybe the standards for apes should be pretty similar to those for humans. Remember, some human subjects are volunteered for research by their loved ones.

   — Joe Erwin    Jun 27, 04:35 AM    #

5. Furthermore, appropriate research can be designed to produce benefits for the great apes, quite apart from any applications to humans. An activity can be research without being harmful or exploitive. We need to be learning about and learning from apes in humane ways that benefit them. I think we should be on the side of knowledge and understanding, rather than advocating ignorance.

   — Joe Erwin    Jun 27, 07:09 AM    #

6. Spain would probably be better off with a bonobo or orangutan instead of its current prime minister!

   — Manolete    Jun 27, 08:02 AM    #

7. Too bad this wasn’t a right extended to humans in Spain seventy years ago. Or even more recently.

   — dan    Jun 27, 08:18 AM    #

8. I bet that the Madison, WI city council and UW faculty senate are upset that Spain beat them to the punch. But maybe we can regain the fruitcake lead by making sure that pigs are given legal rights.

   Steven Clark
   http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

   — Steven Clark, PhD    Jun 27, 08:58 AM    #

9. According to Times Of London (see link):

   “The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project internationally and ensure the protection of apes from “abuse, torture and death”.

   “Torture” generally includes “Mental Torture,” —- Definition/Determination nebulous at best.

   Ergo feel that “Bipartisanship Support” could be a rooted in “Economic Stimulus” generated by the possible flurry of “Legal Activity,” —- My Client Mr. Chimp Jr., is suffering from trauma owing to the mental abuse he received by the …

   “I Object, Your Honor, Counsel Is Badgering Mrs. Betty Gorilla III.”

   Additionally, the Times Of London also reports that:

   “It will also make keeping great apes for circuses, TV commercials or filming a criminal offence.”

   Help —- Am seeking clarification, what about watching the same —- Is that a misdemeanor, Or is that left open for the courts to decide?

   — zahid    Jun 27, 09:40 AM    #

10. Apes can’t give informed consent, so research is out. That makes sense to me.

    As to the point that their loved ones could volunteer them for research just as human beings do sometimes: If I give consent for my infant child to participate in research, I do so with my child’s best interests at heart. (In the ideal) I also have no vested interest in the research project.

    So who can serve to give consent on behalf of the apes? Who are their loved ones without any vested interest in their participation in research?

    Research on human beings doesn’t have to involve torture before informed consent and the participant’s self-interest must both be satisfied…

    As to circuses, etc., would you find it acceptable for me to take your children and put them in a circus (and treat them the way we treat animals in circuses) without your consent?

    — Ray    Jun 27, 09:50 AM    #

11. I oppose removing great apes from the wild. But that was done by someone else. Now apes exist in captivity. They cannot simply be released, but they can be kept in comfortable places, where they receive appropriate food and medical care. Those who are in charge of them are ethically obligated, in my opinion, to protect them and look after their best interests. If participation in some kind of scientific study is not harmful or painful or frightening to them and is in their best interest (or even that of their species), why shouldn’t their guardian provide consent?

    At The Great Ape Trust of Iowa the individuals involved in communication and cognition studies are only tested if they voluntarily go to the place where the testing occurs. If the ape decides the session is over, it’s over. This is probably more meanful than trying to train the orangutan to sign his name on a legal consent form.

    So, do we agree that research can be humanely conducted—humanely enough that people will volunteer? I have volunteered for behavioral and biomedical studies, and would gladly do so again. None of the research was ever torture nor anything near being. How about if the scientist allows anything to be done to himself that is to be done to a research subject?

    — Joe Erwin    Jun 27, 10:44 AM    #

12. Oh yes. The other question. I’m not a fan of circuses, and I disapprove of apes being involved in them. And, no, I don’t want you to put my children or grandchildren in a circus, nor do I want any of them to join the circus voluntarily either.

    I have a project called the Great Ape Aging Project, which involves monitoring the health and behavior of great apes while they are living (mainly in zoos) and careful and respectful post-mortem studies of their brains to check for evidence of neuropathology indicative of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. This is research, but it is in no way harmful to the apes, and the methods used are the same as are used for evaluating the brains of human victims of neurodegenerative disorders. It is scientific research, but I don’t see why it should be banned.

    — Joe Erwin    Jun 27, 11:20 AM    #

13. Curious —- Why Only Apes? What about the “Inhumane” treatment of others?

    Even in circus, there are several other who are suffering —- Why don’t they merit the same protection?

    — zahid    Jun 27, 01:50 PM    #

14. and then…an industry of experts who understand and speak for apes, including lawyers who represent them in ape lawsuits against humans; ape unions in zoos with retirement plans; ape marriage, and of course, ape gay marriage; apes ‘mainstreamed’ in schools, the vote for adult apes- for a start

    — michael    Jun 29, 02:17 PM    #

15. Zahid asks why protection should be extended only to apes.

    That is not my position. I suggest that we have ethical positions based on “due consideration” of the real needs and interests of humans and nonhuman animals. There are ways, I think, that due consideration of best interests can lead to somewhat different treatment of humans, apes, elephants, aardvarks, mice, and zebras, and, differential treatment may be warranted on the basis of individual differences within species as well.

    Even if one disapproves, as I do, of bringing wild apes into captivity, once they are in captivity, we must consider whether or not any practical possibility exists of releasing them back into the wild or providing a semi-free-ranging situation for them.

    Sometimes we have to get pretty creative to develop financial support systems for apes and other animals (including people), if we are obligated to provide as good a situation as one can for them. If that involves allowing them to be unobtrusively observed by zoo visitors or behavioral scientists in order to provide good care for them, what is wrong with that? And, if we are responsible for their care, why would we not monitor their health in ways that can benefit them? And if we monitor their health and behavior, why should we not examine the data in ways intended to inform decisions about how best to provide good care? And why should we not, after they die, and without causing their deaths, why should we not do detailed post-mortem examinations of the kind that can and are sometimes done on humans?

    Sadly, many of the comments here are simply silly, and, I think, show indifference and disrespect to the interests of nonhumans. Are any of you aware that legislation has been introduced in Congress to address this issue? It isn’t just happening in Spain….

    — Joe Erwin    Jun 30, 08:09 AM    #

16. JONATHAN SWIFT LIVES!!

    — Savage Detective    Jun 30, 12:36 PM    #

17. To; Joe Erwin:

    Just revisiting the comments, and I would like to state that —- In most part I am in agreement with your positions.

    What I am in disagreement with is the Political Hypocrisy, —- which is inherent in such legislative actions. For instance, meaningful enforcement mechanisms are always lacking, deliberate loop-holes are built in, monetary funding is in general virtually non-existent, required practical applicability or associative actions per se leave a lot to be desired … I personally am opposed to legislation for the sake of legislation per se geared toward pandering, or worse still legislation enacted which is so undertaken (I feel deliberately), so as to be meaningless at best, or have the opposite effects (example: privacy laws, that make privacy meaningless, or the telemarketing do not call law with an “opt-out list,” provision, which in reality if it were to be meaningful should have had an “opt-in list.” Provision, —- i.e., no telemarketing unless the person joins by registering in an “opt-in list.”)

    Additionally, my reference to extending such rights to other creatures was intended to address the rightful issues pertinent to others who also suffer —- it did not mean “same rights,” in all instances per se. In fact I am in total favor of animal rights in general; provided such rights are extended with meaningful teeth (I know the same is not possible given the business interests in food, agriculture, trade, etc.)

    For instance, in the case of circuses, besides apes the same suffering extends to big cats, elephants, etc. Or take the cases pertinent to the horses used for pulling the carriages in NYC.

    Your remarks pertinent to some of comments is well taken; and I also see that my earlier remarks rooted in cynicisms, on reflection do sound somewhat flippant —- I apologize for causing any ill-will, with the clarification that they were supposedly aimed at “how it was being legislated,” not at “what was being legislated,” and above all it was not disputing the reality; that in general improper treatment of other species has been the rule —- and not the exception, and the same cannot dispensed by verbiage and self-justification.

    — zahid    Jul 1, 03:07 PM    #

Previous: Spending Bill for Student Aid and NIH Hits Partisan Roadblock in House
Next: Cuomo Hopes to Have Investigation of Colleges' Credit-Card Deals Finished by Fall