[HN Gopher] Federal judge overrules NIH veterinarians about lab ...
___________________________________________________________________
Federal judge overrules NIH veterinarians about lab chimp
retirement
Author : pseudolus
Score : 189 points
Date : 2022-12-19 13:04 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| yazzku wrote:
| They should really ask the chimps what they think about Chimp
| "Haven" for a fully unbiased report.
|
| "Yeah, it's pretty rad," said Joseph, 22, male, originally from
| San Francisco. "I was paying $4000/mo in rent and when a friend
| of mine told me about Chimp Haven, I was like 'Yo, def gotta
| check out that place.'"
| _HMCB_ wrote:
| This is a perfect example of where thorough reading (not the
| first few paragraphs only) sheds light on the matter. Two ears
| and one mouth.
| harpiaharpyja wrote:
| Yes, the headline is particularly misleading.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| It's true. I saw the headline and thought "wow, what a
| thoroughly evil thing to be on the side of not sending chimps
| to a sanctuary," but the NIH's stance seemed extremely
| reasonable.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've attempted to give the article a more neutral title.
| If anyone can suggest a better title (i.e. more accurate and
| neutral, preferably using representative language from the
| article), we can change it again.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Thorough reading presents both arguments, but I certainly
| didn't finish the article with any idea what course of action
| would actually be better for the chimps.
| kelnos wrote:
| Because it's just not clear. It depends on if you trust the
| veterinarians in the lab to provide an objective assessment,
| and also just believe that they are correct. And I do wonder
| if they might be correct for some of the animals, but not
| all, so maybe some should be kept to retire in place, and
| some should be sent to the shelter.
|
| Regardless, on a more personal note, I wouldn't want to
| subject my cat to the kind of transportation and relocation
| they're talking about, regardless of health or age. And I
| believe chimps are much more self-aware and intelligent than
| cats; I expect they'd find it much more stressful.
|
| I think this is a case where the law was well-intentioned,
| but didn't provide any escape hatches for situations not
| considered by the law.
| abruzzi wrote:
| the photo of the top is chimp haven, which doens't look like that
| nice a place--but I suspect that the other options are
| picturaesque either. And that chimp in the photo--has a cigarette
| in his mouth. Obviously I don't think its lit up and he's
| smoking, but is he copying humans?
| jefftk wrote:
| Chimps sometimes hang out with sticks in their mouths in a way
| that looks like smoking, but they do this in the wild too. Sort
| of like the traditional caricature of a farmer or cowboy with a
| stalk of wheat or other grass in their teeth.
| smugma wrote:
| It's by a fake termite mound. My guess was that it's a stick
| used to prod the mound.
| hammock wrote:
| JadeNB wrote:
| That seems like idle speculation with a question mark. Of
| course there's a possibility, in the sense that it's not
| impossible. But how would any of us here know if it's anything
| more than that?
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > thus posing a risk to public health by not being put down
|
| Nothing in the article is about putting the chimps down (for
| whatever reason). The options mentioned are 1) leave them in
| place vs 2) rehome them at a dedicated retirement facility.
| [deleted]
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| But what if they are infected with rage?
|
| /28 days later
| Georgelemental wrote:
| It's called "rabies" in English
| theptip wrote:
| An interesting book is "Chimpanzee politics", which details the
| raucous power struggles and intricate social interactions within
| a troop of chimps. Eye opening in its complexity.
|
| I do wonder about the social ramifications of moving them; this
| part in particular is key:
|
| > Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social
| groupings--intensely stressful to old chimps with established
| conspecific and human families
|
| I think on balance it's probably misguided to move chimps like
| this. Better to regulate the quality of care in situ and only
| move them if it's deemed to be sub-par.
|
| If you start a chimp colony you should be on the hook for
| ensuring they have a good life in perpetuity, in my book. The
| great apes have moral value closest to humans of all the animals.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I had to have my 16-year-old cat put down a couple weeks ago.
| He had cancer.
|
| The vet was about as kind and compassionate as I could possibly
| wish: she even hydrated him so his last moments would be more
| comfortable. So I don't think it's an easy call for a judge to
| overrule the vets, who most likely love these animals.
|
| Chimps are vicious to each other, and especially to older
| chimps, as far as I know.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| >Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social
| groupings--intensely stressful to old chimps with established
| conspecific and human families.
|
| It seems like we do this to humans all the time and don't batt
| an eye. I'm not saying we should not extend this courtesy to
| chimps but it seems like there's more care taken here for these
| chimps than we give to humans.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The moral difference is that the chimps have no say in their
| movement.
|
| So it's more like forcibly relocating humans.
|
| Which we've historically done, but generally try to not do
| now, Russia aside.
| theptip wrote:
| The big difference I see with the case you're considering is
| that humans have agency, and can choose for themselves
| whether to move or stay. (Even though harsh circumstances
| might strongly influence their decision - still, it's their
| choice by their evaluation of the trade-offs.)
|
| With chimps, we are not asking them what they want; we're
| making the decision for them. Therefore we carry all of the
| burden of responsibility that would usually rest with the
| individual making the decision for themselves.
|
| Indeed the only reason they are in this captive environment
| is because we kidnapped/bred them and put them there. So
| that's another layer of responsibility that we have for their
| situation that doesn't apply to normal human decisions.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| That makes complete sense
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Do humans get to choose whether they move or stay? I think
| there's plenty of seniors in the worst kinds of old people
| homes that would rather not be there.
| theptip wrote:
| Indeed, by the same argument I made above, in any
| situation where a human doesn't have agency in a major
| decision that dramatically affects their quality of life,
| then the decision-maker has increased moral
| responsibility/culpability for the outcome.
| bluGill wrote:
| In the worst cases they don't have enough mind left to
| care. (The worst kind of places they drug them that much,
| otherwise the residents may or may not have enough mind
| to care). Above that though there is a large range. Many
| elderly realize they are running out of ability to care
| for themselves and move to some form of assisted living
| where help is on staff, and there are lots of people to
| talk to - these are generally nice places to live as they
| need to attract people. However as the body declines
| those places don't have the ability to care for you and
| you have to move on, and most are not willing to admit
| they need that level of care (and such places often are
| not as nice: you are forced into them instead of invited
| in)
| kortilla wrote:
| > Even though harsh circumstances might strongly influence
| their decision - still, it's their choice by their
| evaluation of the trade-offs.
|
| Not for children, members of the military, incarcerated
| people, people served evictions, etc.
| gibolt wrote:
| The rule in question for the chimps applies to the whole
| population, not the exceptions that mostly make sense.
| mannykannot wrote:
| There's a hypothesis that becoming _relatively_ easy-going
| and respectful of others ' needs and desires was an important
| step in our evolution. In that regard, I have seen this said:
| you can take a couple of hundred strangers and cram them into
| an airplane for twelve hours with no problem (mostly, I now
| have to add), but if you did this with chimpanzees it would
| soon become a bloodbath.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah and it's because we have a whole world of context
| about the place we're packed into. We know what planes are,
| generally how they work, generally how air travel itself
| works.
| mannykannot wrote:
| This was only offered as an illustration of the
| hypothesis, and it's really up to the reader to decide,
| from their own knowledge and intuition about human
| nature, whether your explanation is the whole story.
| Would you argue that the cases of 'air rage' that we see
| are due to people _not_ knowing what planes are, or _not_
| having a general understanding of how airplanes or air
| travel work?
|
| It is also the case that people involuntarily placed in
| close confinement for long periods quite often do not
| start fighting among themselves even when they have no
| clear understanding of what is going on or what the
| future holds.
| kodah wrote:
| I very much dislike that we callously move people around and
| have systems that reinforce it. Some people, namely the ones
| having to do it, adapt to it but it's still not great or even
| _good_.
| sigzero wrote:
| HSUS seems like they are just being unreasonable in the article
| and don't really have the animals best interest in mind.
| mfer wrote:
| There's a lot we don't know here. For example:
|
| 1. What's the difference in care between where they are at and
| the sanctuary? That doesn't appear to be stated so we can only
| make assumptions.
|
| 2. The facilities that want to keep them are the ones that
| experimented on them. They may also be the ones employing the
| vets. Is there something they don't want others to see? As a
| place that experimented on animals you have to wonder if they
| did things they don't want people to generally know about.
|
| These questions aren't answered. How we fill in the blanks
| depends on our own assumptions or outside info we may be aware
| of.
|
| As a reader I'm left wondering and don't really have enough
| information to make an informed assessment.
| sigzero wrote:
| Yeah, I was actually coming back to edit my remark to say
| "That might not be the case" since it's a perception I get
| from the article.
| iav wrote:
| Sort of related - the price of chimps has gone up 10x during
| COVID from $2k to $20k. Multiple factors, there was a corruption
| scandal in Cambodia (see ticker NOTV that is being investigated)
| that caused those exports to stop and China has stopped exporting
| chimps because their own pharma industry is booming
| weberer wrote:
| Wow, I never expected to see chimp inflation at this scale. I
| laughed off my friend who kept a stack of chimps under his
| mattress, but look who's laughing now.
| jefftk wrote:
| Summary: the NIH veterinarians responsible for these chimps claim
| they are old and sick, and would be better off "retired in
| place". The ruling says that doesn't matter, and they're required
| to be moved to the federal sanctuary because the law explicitly
| requires that.
| strangattractor wrote:
| Thought they were talking about grad students at first:)
| fredgrott wrote:
| I have stupid question
|
| Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well
| being of those chimps and claim such elevation meets law
| requirements?
| jherskovic wrote:
| The 'caregivers' in this case are professional veterinarians
| who think the cure can be worse than the disease. The
| caregivers allege that the chimps are being cared for at a
| standard that is as high as the one they'd get at the Federal
| facility, without needing to move them, which causes stress and
| jeopardizes their well-being as well.
|
| Part of the problem here is that the law seems to say "they
| will be moved to the Federal sanctuary," not "they will be
| cared in [list of appropriate ways]". To fully comply with the
| law, you need to move them even if they're sick, have social
| bonds in their current place, or are perfectly happy.
|
| Disclaimer: I've visited one of the non-federal facilities and
| I've seen retired chimps that looked content. I have zero
| experience in animal welfare.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well
| being of those chimps?_
|
| Where are you reading this? The current caregivers are
| professional veterinarians and believe the chimps are too
| sick/elderly to be moved. The law requires the chimps to be
| moved regardless of their well-being. The judge has followed
| the letter of the law, but not the intent (because the intent
| wasn't codified in a way that was clear). Congress wrote a
| shitty law; the judge is following it.
| kortilla wrote:
| Why do you presume to know the intent? The law may have been
| written to ensure the chimps are out of their experimenters'
| confines, regardless of how good said experimenters claim the
| chimps had it.
| kelnos wrote:
| If that's the intent, then that's a stupid, vindictive
| intent. The law _should_ be written to protect the well
| being of the animals, and ensure the best outcome for them.
| Anything else is not something I 'd care to support,
| anyway.
|
| > _regardless of how good said experimenters claim the
| chimps had it._
|
| _Had_ is not the operative word here: _have_ is. The
| veterinarians at the lab claim that they currently receive
| as good or better care than they 'd receive at the
| sanctuary. Certainly that claim should be evaluated by an
| independent third-party, but, frankly, the chimp's quality
| of life in the past (such as when they were experimental
| subjects) isn't particularly relevant now. All that matters
| (ethically) is the level of care they get now, and the
| likely negatives to their well being that moving them would
| cause.
|
| Sure, one can reasonably disagree with the lab vets'
| assessment. But I don't think any of us here are in the
| position to have an informed opinion on that.
|
| All of it is pretty moot, though, as the law doesn't seem
| to provide any exceptions. If that is indeed the case (and
| the NIH either chooses not to appeal, or does and fails),
| they'll be forced to relocate... assuming they live that
| long, anyway.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| animals are property - this property was contracted to move
| into facility X. Failure to do so is a contract breach.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| This is true but not really relevant, in a "you're in an
| airplane" sort of way.[1] The chimps in question have no
| remaining value as property; both parties involved are acting
| out of their perception of what's best for the animals.
|
| [1] https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/101554813469
| 405...
| joxel wrote:
| I guess the fact that treating the animals like property
| leads to unwanted effects begs the question on whether we
| should be treating animals as property. Clearly there is a
| difference between an animal and an inanimate object. We have
| animal welfare and cruelty laws, etc.
|
| While this may be legal, whether it is ethical is a more
| important question. Seems to me it's time to update the laws
| that describe living beings the same way as pencils.
| kelnos wrote:
| No, this has nothing to do with contracts or property. A
| federal law enacted with the intention of protecting post-
| experimental chimps requires labs (regardless of their other
| contractual obligations) to relocate chimps to a government
| sanctuary upon retirement.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I wonder how NIH requirements compare to farmers' requirements
| for animal welfare? My uneducated guess is that NIH is less
| compliant, and have lower consequences.
| dirtybirdnj wrote:
| Because the people who've been doing the work caring for the
| chimps before this ruling probably have a good idea of what
| will / won't work with the individual animals.
|
| Some people decided to make laws with hard and specific rules
| without considering the downstream ramifications.
|
| It's a social failure to adapt to the situation. We must ignore
| the experts because the rules say so. We must kill the chimps
| from stress by moving them because what the caretakers have to
| say has no standing in the legal world.
|
| If "the law" is on your side there is no slope too slippery
| that can't overcome pesky constraints of morality or reality.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| I misread NIH as NIF for a second there and was very confused as
| to why chimps were researching nuclear fusion.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Chimps have immense strength, they could be used to compress
| hydrogen until it fuses.
| GCA10 wrote:
| And then you're just one more letter glitch away from reading
| it as NFTs. Which would be marvelous, because then bored apes
| would be researching Bored Apes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-19 23:01 UTC)