Customer Reviews

The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Have you ever read H. G. Wells' The Time Machine? Maybe you've seen the movie. The main setting is sometime in the very distant future when humankind has differentiated into two groups: the Eloi and the Morlocks.

Basically, the Morlocks gave the Eloi everything they needed - food, clothing, shelter - and every once in a while steal a few Eloi to eat.

As I read Well-Being I was reminded of this relationship many times. Throughout the text are recommendations and admonishments to encourage the animal care staff to develop a trusting and caring relationship with their wards.

"Where possible, staff should avoid barriers that hinder the development of individual relationships between nonhuman primates and the people that care for them. . . . The intense sociality of many primates is often expressed in forming social relationships with humans; these relationships not only might enhance the psychological well-being of the animals but will also facilitate many routine and even unusual procedures," (p 44).

"Callitrichids [marmosets and tamarins] can develop strong likes and dislikes of individual humans. The monkeys appear to have long memories and and respond with fearful behavior to hearing the voice or footsteps of someone who has captured them several months earlier, (p 77).

"The presence of a familiar [and trusted?] technician who does not participate in the capture itself might be helpful in calming animals . . . (p 78).

"Most cebids [new world monkeys] quickly learn to recognize familiar people and will respond to them in accord with the nature of their experiences. Technicians who deal with the daily care of these animals should interact with their charges primarily in ways that are pleasant for the animals, (p 88).

"If infant apes require removal from their mother, it is essential that they receive around-the-clock care from familiar care givers who are sensitive to their needs . . .
Past practices of placing a mother-separated infant in a cage and taking it out only for feeding and cleaning are to be discouraged because they contribute to social and cognitive developmental problems. . . Under those conditions, great apes do not develop normal emotional responses and are likely to become unpredictable and dangerous both to humans and to other apes," (p 109).

"Caregivers can serve as important points of social contact from which primates can garner positive interaction, instructions, and emotional security," (p 121).

If such recommendations are followed how will laboratories and primate centers be able to keep animal care staff employed? The animal care technicians I have known fall into three general categories: 1. People who form relationships with monkeys and apes - these individuals are the ones who do not last long. They see themselves as traitors to their friends. 2. People who remain detached - these individuals make it a point not to develop relationships because they know they would be forced to quit, like the first group. 3. People who are not very bright or sensitive in the first place.

It remains to be seen what the results of the committee's recommendation of positive emotional relationships will be.

Another surprising element in this text is the degree of anthropomorphism the committee uses to describe the mental states of monkeys and apes. Animal activists are used to hearing that their concern for nonhumans is based on unscientific and emotional anthropomorphic beliefs. What a surprise to find the committee describing monkeys and apes in human terms:

"Non-human primates are known to exhibit marked individual differences in 'personality'," (p 14).

"Unpeeled bananas, artichokes, potatoes, and coconuts increase animals' processing time of the food and can provide entertaining moments for the animals and care staff," (p 22).

"Young apes, and especially orangutans, enjoy crawling around inside cloth bags," (p 105).

"Ideally, housing permits the full range of locomotor expression, and socially housed chimpanzees enjoy space to play," (p 106).

"How can primates' intellect (i.e., cognition) be challenged in cost effective ways to help sustain their well-being . . .?" (p 120).

It would be possible to read this text and come away with the notion that those who breed and maintain primates are genuinely concerned about their well-being if you skimmed past the more troubling entries. There are brief comments concerning the psychological well-being of monkeys and apes used for infectious disease studies, atypical rearing environments, those undergoing physical restraint and ulcers caused from long-term restraint, surgical procedures, multiple survival surgical projects on a single animal (which the committee supports), conditions involving pain, substance abuse, and induced aggression.

Throughout the text, the authors make it clear that their recommendations are secondary to approved experimental protocols and that research needs supersede concerns about psychological (or physical) well-being.

They also make it clear that the animals' well-being is a matter of human benefit rather than a concern for the animals themselves:

"Nonhuman primates are commonly maintained in biomedical institutions to support high-priority research into issues of human well-being, and those institutions are obliged [by law] to address the welfare of the animals. However, the ability to generalize findings from our close primate relatives depends on maintaining the animals in a state that is representative of normal functioning," (p 113).

Which leads me to ask whether research on animals not maintained "in a state that is representative of normal functioning" as has been very common, means anything at all?

Finally, the last statement in Appendix A makes it abundantly clear what is allowed in the primate laboratories around the country:

"Nonhuman primates experiencing restraint for more than 12 hours are provided with the opportunity for unrestrained activity for at least 1 continuous hour during the period of restraint unless continuous restraint is required by an approved animal study protocol, (p 155).

I suppose the Morlocks had rules concerning their consumption of the Eloi as well.

Have you ever read H. G. Wells' The Time Machine? Maybe you've seen the movie. The main setting is sometime in the very distant future when humankind has differentiated into two groups: the Eloi and the Morlocks.

Basically, the Morlocks give the Eloi everything they need - food, clothing, shelter - and every once in a while steal a few Eloi to eat.

As I read Well-Being I was reminded of this relationship many times. Throughout the text are recommendations and admonishments to encourage the animal care staff to develop a trusting and caring relationship with their wards.

"Where possible, staff should avoid barriers that hinder the development of individual relationships between nonhuman primates and the people that care for them. . . . The intense sociality of many primates is often expressed in forming social relationships with humans; these relationships not only might enhance the psychological well-being of the animals but will also facilitate many routine and even unusual procedures," (p 44).

"Callitrichids [marmosets and tamarins] can develop strong likes and dislikes of individual humans. The monkeys appear to have long memories and and respond with fearful behavior to hearing the voice or footsteps of someone who has captured them several months earlier, (p 77).

"The presence of a familiar [and trusted?] technician who does not participate in the capture itself might be helpful in calming animals . . . (p 78).

"Most cebids [new world monkeys] quickly learn to recognize familiar people and will respond to them in accord with the nature of their experiences. Technicians who deal with the daily care of these animals should interact with their charges primarily in ways that are pleasant for the animals, (p 88).

"If infant apes require removal from their mother, it is essential that they receive around-the-clock care from familiar care givers who are sensitive to their needs . . .
Past practices of placing a mother-separated infant in a cage and taking it out only for feeding and cleaning are to be discouraged because they contribute to social and cognitive developmental problems. . . Under those conditions, great apes do not develop normal emotional responses and are likely to become unpredictable and dangerous both to humans and to other apes," (p 109).

"Caregivers can serve as important points of social contact from which primates can garner positive interaction, instructions, and emotional security," (p 121).

If such recommendations are followed how will laboratories and primate centers be able to keep animal care staff employed? The animal care technicians I have known fall into three general categories: 1. People who form relationships with monkeys and apes - these individuals are the ones who do not last long. They see themselves as traitors to their friends. 2. People who remain detached - these individuals make it a point not to develop relationships because they know they would be forced to quit, like the first group. 3. People who are not very bright or sensitive in the first place.

It remains to be seen what the results of the committee's recommendation of positive emotional relationships will be.

Another surprising element in this text is the degree of anthropomorphism the committee uses to describe the mental states of monkeys and apes. Animal activists are used to hearing that their concern for nonhumans is based on unscientific and emotional anthropomorphic beliefs. What a surprise to find the committee describing monkeys and apes in human terms:

"Non-human primates are known to exhibit marked individual differences in 'personality'," (p 14).

"Unpeeled bananas, artichokes, potatoes, and coconuts increase animals' processing time of the food and can provide entertaining moments for the animals and care staff," (p 22).

"Young apes, and especially orangutans, enjoy crawling around inside cloth bags," (p 105).

"Ideally, housing permits the full range of locomotor expression, and socially housed chimpanzees enjoy space to play," (p 106).

"How can primates' intellect (i.e., cognition) be challenged in cost effective ways to help sustain their well-being . . .?" (p 120).

It would be possible to read this text and come away with the notion that those who breed and maintain primates are genuinely concerned about their well-being if you skimmed past the more troubling entries. There are brief comments concerning the psychological well-being of monkeys and apes used for infectious disease studies, atypical rearing environments, those undergoing physical restraint and ulcers caused from long-term restraint, surgical procedures, multiple survival surgical projects on a single animal (which the committee supports), conditions involving pain, substance abuse, and induced aggression.

Throughout the text, the authors make it clear that their recommendations are secondary to approved experimental protocols and that research needs supersede concerns about psychological (or physical) well-being.

They also make it clear that the animals' well-being is a matter of human benefit rather than a concern for the animals themselves:

"Nonhuman primates are commonly maintained in biomedical institutions to support high-priority research into issues of human well-being, and those institutions are obliged [by law] to address the welfare of the animals. However, the ability to generalize findings from our close primate relatives depends on maintaining the animals in a state that is representative of normal functioning," (p 113).

Which leads me to ask whether research on animals not maintained "in a state that is representative of normal functioning" as has been very common, means anything at all?

Finally, the last statement in Appendix A makes it abundantly clear what is allowed in the primate laboratories around the country:

"Nonhuman primates experiencing restraint for more than 12 hours are provided with the opportunity for unrestrained activity for at least 1 continuous hour during the period of restraint unless continuous restraint is required by an approved animal study protocol, (p 155).

I suppose the Morlocks had rules concerning their consumption of the Eloi as well.

Have you ever read H. G. Wells' The Time Machine? Maybe you've seen the movie. The main setting is sometime in the very distant future when humankind has differentiated into two groups: the Eloi and the Morlocks.

Basically, the Morlocks give the Eloi everything they needed - food, clothing, shelter - and every once in a while steal a few Eloi to eat.

As I read Well-Being I was reminded of this relationship many times. Throughout the text are recommendations and admonishments to encourage the animal care staff to develop a trusting and caring relationship with their wards.

"Where possible, staff should avoid barriers that hinder the development of individual relationships between nonhuman primates and the people that care for them. . . . The intense sociality of many primates is often expressed in forming social relationships with humans; these relationships not only might enhance the psychological well-being of the animals but will also facilitate many routine and even unusual procedures," (p 44).

"Callitrichids [marmosets and tamarins] can develop strong likes and dislikes of individual humans. The monkeys appear to have long memories and and respond with fearful behavior to hearing the voice or footsteps of someone who has captured them several months earlier, (p 77).

"The presence of a familiar [and trusted?] technician who does not participate in the capture itself might be helpful in calming animals . . . (p 78).

"Most cebids [new world monkeys] quickly learn to recognize familiar people and will respond to them in accord with the nature of their experiences. Technicians who deal with the daily care of these animals should interact with their charges primarily in ways that are pleasant for the animals, (p 88).

"If infant apes require removal from their mother, it is essential that they receive around-the-clock care from familiar care givers who are sensitive to their needs . . .
Past practices of placing a mother-separated infant in a cage and taking it out only for feeding and cleaning are to be discouraged because they contribute to social and cognitive developmental problems. . . Under those conditions, great apes do not develop normal emotional responses and are likely to become unpredictable and dangerous both to humans and to other apes," (p 109).

"Caregivers can serve as important points of social contact from which primates can garner positive interaction, instructions, and emotional security," (p 121).

If such recommendations are followed how will laboratories and primate centers be able to keep animal care staff employed? The animal care technicians I have known fall into three general categories: 1. People who form relationships with monkeys and apes - these individuals are the ones who do not last long. They see themselves as traitors to their friends. 2. People who remain detached - these individuals make it a point not to develop relationships because they know they would be forced to quit, like the first group. 3. People who are not very bright or sensitive in the first place.

It remains to be seen what the results of the committee's recommendation of positive emotional relationships will be.

Another surprising element in this text is the degree of anthropomorphism the committee uses to describe the mental states of monkeys and apes. Animal activists are used to hearing that their concern for nonhumans is based on unscientific and emotional anthropomorphic beliefs. What a surprise to find the committee describing monkeys and apes in human terms:

"Non-human primates are known to exhibit marked individual differences in 'personality'," (p 14).

"Unpeeled bananas, artichokes, potatoes, and coconuts increase animals' processing time of the food and can provide entertaining moments for the animals and care staff," (p 22).

"Young apes, and especially orangutans, enjoy crawling around inside cloth bags," (p 105).

"Ideally, housing permits the full range of locomotor expression, and socially housed chimpanzees enjoy space to play," (p 106).

"How can primates' intellect (i.e., cognition) be challenged in cost effective ways to help sustain their well-being . . .?" (p 120).

It would be possible to read this text and come away with the notion that those who breed and maintain primates are genuinely concerned about their well-being if you skimmed past the more troubling entries. There are brief comments concerning the psychological well-being of monkeys and apes used for infectious disease studies, atypical rearing environments, those undergoing physical restraint and ulcers caused from long-term restraint, surgical procedures, multiple survival surgical projects on a single animal (which the committee supports), conditions involving pain, substance abuse, and induced aggression.

Throughout the text, the authors make it clear that their recommendations are secondary to approved experimental protocols and that research needs supersede concerns about psychological (or physical) well-being.

They also make it clear that the animals' well-being is a matter of human benefit rather than a concern for the animals themselves:

"Nonhuman primates are commonly maintained in biomedical institutions to support high-priority research into issues of human well-being, and those institutions are obliged [by law] to address the welfare of the animals. However, the ability to generalize findings from our close primate relatives depends on maintaining the animals in a state that is representative of normal functioning," (p 113).

Which leads me to ask whether research on animals not maintained "in a state that is representative of normal functioning" as has been very common, means anything at all?

Finally, the last statement in Appendix A makes it abundantly clear what is allowed in the primate laboratories around the country:

"Nonhuman primates experiencing restraint for more than 12 hours are provided with the opportunity for unrestrained activity for at least 1 continuous hour during the period of restraint unless continuous restraint is required by an approved animal study protocol, (p 155).

I suppose the Morlocks had rules concerning their consumption of the Eloi as well.