Deborah Blum: Thank you, I'm glad to be here.
KP: Often times we get the impression that the people involved in this dispute between animal rights and primate research are as heated and as polarized as the parties of some of our more widely covered debates, such as the search for Middle East peace, gun control, or abortion.
DB: Yes, I think like any of the issues that you just named, you find people at the extreme position. At one end you would find the scientists who say, "I can do anything I want to any animal because they're only animals." And at the other end, you would find people who say, "Animals are untouchable." And the debate over animal research has tended to be framed by those extremists because they've allowed it, as is true in an issue such as abortion.
KP: Do you find that perhaps the media, particularly television, are complacent in this tendency towards exposing or highlighting the extremes of either side?
DB: Absolutely. And I would not exclude the print media either. In fact, I was told once by an organizer for one of the more radical animal rights groups that they'd be damned throwing blood and wearing masks, because they felt they could not get the media interested if they were ordinary.
KP: As a science writer, did you feel as you began your research in your publications, that you were being lured in by either side?
DB: I think that I began with a pro-science bias, which is not surprising. I have been a science writer for a decade and I chose the profession because I am fascinated by science. I like it. But my own moral compass shifted somewhat as a result of my own research. That is, as I dug deeper into the process of animal research itself, I began to believe that you cannot generalize about what is good research or even a good researcher.
KP: Did you find it difficult to gain access to individuals on either side of the issue because of their mistrust of the press or media?
DB: Yes, I did find it difficult to gain access to scientists, but it was not so much a mistrust of the media per se, but a fear that exposure would bring the hounds of hell down upon them. Most scientists thought some time, quite definitely, to remain very low profile. I never ever had that problem with those on the other side of the debate.
KP: Why focus on this area of primate research and not on other areas of research which use laboratory animals?
DB: That was, in some ways, a calculated decision. I wanted to raise some serious issues in animal research in a very focused way. And I chose primates as my focus because they crystalized some of those issues, as in they are very smart. They are very social. They are genetically next of kin. They are endangered, many of them. All of those issues illustrate some of the very complex questions involved in choosing to use another species.
KP: Was there a single perception or myth that you had about either side in this discussion that may have changed or disappeared as you proceeded through your work?
DB: I think that my perceptions changed on both sides. I learned that animal activists, far from being emotional, can often be very good strategic battle planners as well. And I learned that scientists tend to cast all animal research as medical and always benefiting humans, when that is not always the case.
KP: Having completed your book, can you see where either side that you have talked to has become more aware or informed of the opposing viewpoints?
DB: I have been encouraged by the positive response to the book by representatives of both sides of this issue. In the same week, the book received a very good review from the Journals of the American Medical Association, and a very good review from the National Anti-Vivisection Society. In fact, I've been amazed at what a strong reception in general my message has received.
KP: Is your message one of tolerance, information, and education?
DB: Yes, I think I put a heavy stress on rational, civilized behavior, especially since we've certainly posed ourselves as rational and civilized beings. My message is in part that there are decent people and valid concerns on both sides of this enormous gulf, and that we will not solve the problem or bridge the gulf until we begin to listen to each other.
KP: Do you now think that the great percentage of primate research is carried on in a humane fashion?
DB: Yes, I do. I think that does to some extent depend on one definition of humane. So that if you consider clean cages, good medicine, and adequate food and water humane, then I think you would be perfectly satisfied with the overall status of primate research in the United States today. However, if you want more, if for instance you believe that primates are very social animals and should be housed according to their nature, then I think you would find some real shortcomings in the current system.
KP: Conversely, do you think that the concerns of animal rights activists are rightly targeted at that small percentage? Or do you think animal rights activists now get all primate research with a shotgun?
DB: I think that animal activists have been somewhat indiscriminate in their choice of targets. And I have personally known scientists who did fine research and cared a great deal for their animals, and yet in one particular case, ended up being hung in effigy in protest. Nevertheless, some of those targets have been legitimate and needed, and animal activists have raised real concerns that really needed correcting. Unfortunately, those legitimate issues have been submerged or lost in that shotgun approach, so that sometimes very real problems are not addressed.
KP: Tonight's guest on the Internet Roundtable Society is Deborah Blum. She is the author of "The Monkey Wars" which is published by the Oxford University Press. She is also a reporter and science writer for the Sacramento Bee. And the work that she undertook in a series of articles leading up to the publication of "The Monkey Wars" won her a Pulitzer Prize in 1992.
Question from Audience: Lab animal care managers often seem trapped between PETA and the researchers. Since the managers are charged with enforcing USDA care regulations at their sites, why don't most animal activists view them as allies instead of enemies?
DB: That's a good question. I think that in the current climate at research institutions, be you a scientist or a lab tech responsible for the daily care and well-being of the animals, that if you are a friend of an organization like PETA, you are considered an outsider and in some cases a traitor. And I have had both scientists and lab techs express to me opinions which they acknowledged were very like those expressed by members of PETA, and then asked me not to repeat them because of their fear of being labelled on the wrong side.
Question from Audience: Are there reasonable alternatives to animal research in all cases? Can you give us some examples?
DB: There are some limited and real alternatives to use of animals in very specific cases. There are times, for instance, when computer models can be used as a substitute for a live body to explain how the body functions. In toxicity testing, there are chemical assays and cell culture tests available now that in fact have already reduced the use of animals. There are many other programs now ongoing to further develop... The problem with alternatives at this point is that they cannot, there are not good alternatives to answer questions when we have no idea what the answer is. So that in AIDS for instance, what happens in the test tube quite often does not happen in a living system. And I believe that this kind of research into alternatives should continue, but in full awareness of its limitations.
Question from Audience: How can you be sure that researchers did not "clean up their act" before granting you access to their labs?
DB: Well, supporters don't make unannounced visits so there is always that risk. However, I spent enough time at a variety of facilities to see both good conditions on a continued basis, and surprisingly very bad conditions. In one case, I was given a tour through a basement housing facility where the animals were in old and rusting cages housed separately, and the lab manager told me that he did not like monkeys. Not everyone is media savvy enough to airbrush their picture.
Question from Audience: Can you tell us how people in other countries view using animals in research?
DB: It depends on what part of the world you are talking about. In Europe, the use of animals is more strictly regulated and more difficult than in this country, and in fact a large number of European pharmaceutical companies contract to do their animal research in the United States. In Asia, the attitude is almost the opposite, and I have talked to American researchers who say that their Chinese or Japanese colleagues laugh at the regulatory hoop that we jump through here in regard to animals.
KP: Is that to suggest that scientists in other countries have a great deal more latitude from both government and public opinion groups?
DB: Certainly I think in some of the Asian countries that is true. There has tended to be a more utilitarian view of animals in that culture. However, I say in Europe you would find it much more difficult from a regulatory and social point of view, to use animals in some of the experiments conducted here. Certainly chimpanzees in particular are extraordinarily difficult to use in research in Europe, while in this country the National Institute of Health maintains a large population of chimpanzees strictly for medical research.
Question from Audience: From your interactions with animal activists, what proportion would you say are truly interested in dialogue with researchers, and what proportion are simply interested in shutting down research?
DB: I think that the most visible voices in the animal advocacy movement are those who want to shut down laboratories. I also suspect that if you were able to survey the membership, which is purportedly at about 10 million combined, you would find a good number of people who distrust research and empathize greatly with the animals, particularly with dogs and cats and animals that tend to be pets, or I think the PC term is "companions". What proportion that is, I don't know. On the other hand, I have heard among the animal activists that I have talked to, an extraordinary amount of frustration at being blown off as nuts and crazy. And my suspicion is that a healthy chunk, a large, collective, rational group out there that would simply like to engage in some kind of a dialogue. And there are animal activist groups dedicated to specifically those kinds of things. The Animal Welfare Institute, for instance, seeks only to improve housing and care of animals.
KP: Once again, our guest this evening is Deborah Blum. She's a science writer for the Sacramento Bee. Tonight we are discussing the new book of hers, "The Monkey Wars", published by Oxford University Press. And we should certainly acknowledge Ms. Blum's standing early research on this issue which led to her winning the Pulitzer Prize in 1992.
Question from Audience: How do you feel as a parent when you see mother primates with baby primates and conversely, when your kid needs medicines or procedures that have come about from medical research on primates?
DB: The implicit question is in part, I think, do I believe that medical research on primates is necessary? And do I worry about taking advantage of research on primates to help my children? And the answer to both is first, a yes. I don't believe that we can answer the questions we need to at this point, without research on primates. There are limits I would set on using primates, but I certainly would not exclude them. Now I'm perfectly glad to take advantage of any medicine that would protect my children or anyone I care about and keep them healthy. And my specific example is not primates but chinchillas which are used in ear research. My oldest son, now 5, went through a series of severe and painful ear infections resulting in some misery, and during that time period, I remember thinking to myself that if I thought that going out in the woods and trapping chinchillas would save my son all of this suffering, I would do it. Nevertheless, when I see baby animals, baby monkeys, or [whatever], do I feel an emotional touch? Certainly I feel we should only use them when we have to, and we should be very choosy about when we do have to. And even given that, I don't love it. I don't like all the ramifications of it, but I think that we learn that we make decisions consciously, that we don't always like all aspects of the decisions that we have to make.
Question from Audience: Would you give us some examples of important benefits garnered from animal research?
DB: In the past there are some very obvious examples. In primates, the polio vaccine, both the measles vaccines, the vaccine for hepatitis B were all developed in primates. In other animals, help for people with diabetes. Dogs were the model for the heart surgery that saved many lives today. More recently, we do not necessarily see the dramatic breaks, but there's no doubt that there are incremental understandings of the immune system. Monkeys, which I am most immediately familiar with, have been used to treat severe eye problems. And many of the drugs used to treat mental illness in humans, began with work in animals.
KP: Would that necessarily suggest that primate research is absolutely inevitable, but it can be handled in a humane way if scientists so desired?
DB: I think that's pretty close to my take at this point, that there are still certain questions and problems and diseases that can only be resolved in primates, and that if we don't do that work, we genuinely shut down certain aspects of medical progress. However, saying that does not preclude demanding that the animals be cared for well, and used carefully and conservatively. And there is a growing body of research which suggests that if you house monkeys thoughtlessly as in alone, without companionship or mental stimulation, that the animal can become so stressed that they are only a good model for stress and not for disease at all.
Question from Audience: Do you think that primate research needs more controls for "bad" research projects?
DB: I think that all animal research needs controls against "bad" research, in that I think we need to acknowledge that we are using living beings that feel pain and are conscious, and that there is a large responsibility in doing that. The question is who gets to decide what is bad research? Some of it is obvious. But some of it may not be so obvious, and it depends largely on the values of the person making these decisions. So that one of the truly interesting issues in this debate is who gets the power. Who gets to decide? Should the scientists who have the greatest knowledge be allowed to make those decisions, or should the rest of us, and by that I mean all of us not just the animal activists, have a part in deciding the future of animal research?
Question from Audience: What is the pace of change in the public's perception of this issue?
DB: In other words, do you see any prospects in the near term for major changes in the public's view? I think that public perception of animal research is part of a kind of evolving consciousness concerning our role, that is the role of humans in making decisions about the future of the planet. That sounds very grandioso, but what I mean is that the choices we make about how we use products, have enormous implications for our and their futures. For example, a number of the species used for research are in danger in their natural habitat, and some are in real trouble. Now how do we balance the interest and perhaps the life and death situations of those animals against our own needs? And what I think is that the public is becoming aware of how complicated and important an issue this is. And I think that that general public awareness is reflected in the science community itself, so that you get a slow change from within the science community. Scientists coming into the field are far more conscious and concerned about some of these issues than previous generations of scientists who were able to work without being questioned by the public. And in one sense, I think that's where the change will come from: the effect of public awareness on the science community itself.
KP: I recently read an excerpt of an interview with you and paraphrasing, something to the effect that the federal government has gotten involved in setting standards dealing with the psychological well-being of primates. In the last 60+ days, we have seen headline after headline about the new Republican majority, the Congress, and its desire to roll back federal regulations in many areas. Do you have any sense how this could affect the area of primate research?
DB: Interesting question. My instincts are that the new Republican majority could not care less about spending money to preserve and protect the psychological well-being of primates. And if it was possible to repeal, roll back, or alter the 1985 Animal Welfare Act in which that standard is embedded, I would imagine they might try to do so. Now by this point, laboratories have invested a fair amount of money in meeting those standards and in addition, during the time period involving passage of that Act and the implementation, there has grown within the scientific community, an interesting and outspoken group of laboratory [managers], many of whom manage the colony, and many hold their colony beyond the federal requirements. So that my guess is that if the standards are rolled back, many labs will continue as they are. There will be always those who will fall back to the absolute minimum, but we will never, I think, retreat to the previous standard. And finally from my own somewhat biased perspective, I think legitimately all of that is going backwards. It is not moving forward, and I personally would be sorry to see it happen -- Not preserving but the opening of the door for those who wanted to dismantle some of the protection to do so. I would regret it.
KP: Again, reminding everyone that the name of the book is "The Monkey Wars", published by the Oxford University Press, and the author is Deborah Blum. And thank you very much Deborah, for being with us this evening.