Government Cuts Off Funding For New Chimp Research

Rest assured that the government is determined to prevent the events from Rise of the Planet of the Apes from unfolding. Kidding aside, the government aims to ensure humane treatment of chimpanzees. The National Institutes of Health announced that they won’t give out new grants for biomedical and behavioral research on chimps because they deserve “special consideration and respect.” The organization acted on a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine that concluded most chimp research is unnecessary.

The New York Times reports the Humane Society cheered the announcement.

Chimps haven’t quite been liberated from the test labs just yet. The NIH could potentially allow funding for chimps to be used for research when the ends are deemed key to ensuring human health and can’t be reached any other way. Chimps may possibly still be used, for instance, to research a vaccine that prevents hepatitis C.

It goes without saying that injecting chimps with serums that allow them to talk and form armies would be bad for ensuring human health.

U.S. Will Not Finance New Research on Chimps [The New York Times]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. clippy2.0 says:

    This article begs the question;

    Which is worse, monkey overlords or robot overlords? Either way, I welcome them

    • Pug says:

      What about robotic monkey overlords?

      • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

        Or how about regular, unenhanced monkeys wearing special devices built into hats that make them much smarter than, say, a delivery boy?

        • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

          The hats get a little smushed, and they become Fox Network Executives!

          And then made into Torgo’s Executive Powder!!!

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      Monkey overlords are worse.

      Robots could be brought to see reason, and generally, will accept logical, valid arguments. Monkeys are likely to be just as bad as humans when it comes to irrational asshattery.

      I mean, look at the Matrix. The robots took over the world, and rather than put together any number of sensible energy generation systems, they turned their former overlords into batteries. And then rather than keep them in an artificially induced coma, they gave people a nice little virtual world where they could have happy or unhappy virtual lives.

      But in Planet of the Apes, humans were reduced to savage slaves, capable of performing simple tasks, but clearly only useful for the simplest of them.

      • Costner says:

        Well if science fiction movies are the bar we are using to determine what might happen, keep in mind that “robots” in the Terminator movies were just trying to kill us all… and they are a bit more dangerous than a monkey tossing his crap at you.

        At least monkeys might still find a use for humans (slaves and labor) whereas robots would just build more robots and would have no use for us. Once robots become self aware they will quickly discover humans do them no good, so the logical course of action would be to eliminate us… not keep us around for sentimental reasons.

        Just sayin’

  2. SkokieGuy says:

    No money for new chimp research, however the funding is still flowing for refurbished monkey research.

    Refurbished monkeys carry a new monkey warranty, and are often the results of returns, overstock, or slight cosmetic blemishes that will not interfere with monkey performance.

    Refurbished monkeys represent the most value for your monkey research dollar.

  3. Wasp is like Requiem for a Dream without the cheery bits says:

    Oh God, where is [insert either coffee’s or otter’s name here] going to do for work now?!

    D:

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      Black Market Chimp Research… obviously. Their market share will go through the roof

      • Wasp is like Requiem for a Dream without the cheery bits says:

        Chimp whores, the streets will be filled with them. They’ll then drive down the need for regular whores. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PART OF THE RECESSION.

  4. eccsame says:

    ugh, nothing worse than obsolete monkeys.

    • econobiker says:

      Primates actually. And they do tend to get mean and ornery unless you retire them to nice places.

      Google: Chimp Sanctuary North West for a real story about ex-lab chimps. Both saddening and encouraging at the same time…

  5. Coupon says:

    Animal testing is so sad. Makes me think of the photos of beagles lined up to inhale cigarette smoke or the bunnies who Gillette tested razors on. #bloody :(

  6. chucklebuck says:

    Don’t worry, the Japanese government is picking up the slack on the Planet of the Apes scenario:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45686508/ns/technology_and_science-science/

  7. kc-guy says:

    So funding on animals (chimpanzees) is being rescinded, but funding for testing on humans (embrionic stem cell research) is restored? Someone has their priorities seriously screwed up.

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      Stem Cell research is going to be a lot more useful for humans; there are things that stem cells can do that no amount of monkey injections could even hope to achieve.

    • clippy2.0 says:

      Your forgot your /s tag….

      I hope

    • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

      You realize that gametes are living cells too, right?

      Sorry if I’m using big words here, let me try again: your jizz is alive, too. Do you create hundreds of thousands of babies every time you ejaculate? No? Then by your logic you’re a murderer, too. Those are potential human lives!!11!!

      • Pooterfish says:

        The issue is not “living cells.” Our bodies shed living cells all the time. Your sperm (or eggs, as the case may be) has your DNA. It’s a part of your body.

        An embryo has its own DNA. It’s not you. It’s the earliest form of a uniquely identifiable, human life. You are a fully-developed embryo, not a fully developed sperm or egg cell.

        • Coffee says:

          What has more awareness, an embryo or a cow? I eat cows, so I sure as hell don’t mind utilizing barely formed embryos to further scientific research.

          • Wasp is like Requiem for a Dream without the cheery bits says:

            Yeah but embryos look better in top hats.

          • Pooterfish says:

            That’s a different issue than the one raised.

            However, there are mammals that have higher awareness of their surroundings than incapacitated or disabled humans. I’m not comfortable making decisions on who or what we eat based on awareness of surroundings. By that logic, it’s morally preferable to eat Down Syndrome babies or your comatose grandmother rather than cows or pigs.

            • Coffee says:

              I like how you imply that people with Down Syndrome have less awareness than a cow or pig. This is my favorite part of your comment.

              • Pooterfish says:

                I said babies. Let’s deal with the point I made and what I said instead of withdrawing from the discussion based on false offenses.

                • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

                  Eating Down Syndrome babies sounds worse. You’re not making your argument sound any better.

                  DING! FRIES ARE DONE!

                  • Pooterfish says:

                    How am I making my argument worse? I’m arguing that the right to life is alienable, and not dependent on whether people with power and ability decide a member of the human species “deserves” to live. Yes, eating Down Syndrome babies should sound horrible — just as intentionally destroying any innocent human life is. What’s the logical reason for denying the humanity of the unborn and asserting they’re fit subjects for medical experimentation?

                    • Coffee says:

                      It’s simply an irreconcilable argument because you define an embryo as a human and you do not. If we can’t agree on that, any foundation for rational debate is completely thrown out the window. Do I believe that people have certain unalienable rights? Yes. Is an embryo a person? Not to me it isn’t. If we can’t define our terms, we’re just speaking a different language at this point.

                    • Coffee says:

                      Well that’s impossible to understand…I meant to say “you define it as human and I do not”…pronouns are hard.

                    • Pooterfish says:

                      Sure, I get that. So help me understand:

                      1. How you define “person.”
                      2. How embryos lack that quality or ability.
                      3. On what basis you defend the personhood of adults who also lack those qualities or abilities.

                    • Kate says:

                      Just what do you think would happen if the cels aren’t used? The embryo is going to die either way. At least one way, a relative of it may have a better life?

                      Either you can throw it away, or you can help the world. Which would you prefer your body to do after you die?

                    • Coffee says:

                      I hope this is meant to be directed at Pooterfish, because I agree with what you just wrote.

                    • Pooterfish says:

                      Sure, that’s a reasonable argument, and I absolutely understand and share concern for those suffering with potentially treatable diseases.

                      But you can’t answer any of these questions of what is the appropriate or moral thing to do with embryos until you first answer the question, “What is the embryo?”

                      If it’s a member of the human species, then would you apply the same logic to other humans who are going to die anyway? If not, what’s the logic or reason for treating embryos differently?

                • Coffee says:

                  The point you made is a ridiculous leap in logic. Just because I happen to eat cows, which are more aware than an embryo, doesn’t mean that I eat everything that is less aware than a cow. I don’t eat cats and dogs because I consider them to be pets. I don’t eat octopus because it looks gross. I don’t eat people because cannibalism is taboo and it’s not really appealing to me…and you’re more likely to contract a disease from a dead person than a dead animal.

                  • Pooterfish says:

                    So what is your point? It’s okay to eat cows which have more awareness than any embryo, so it’s okay to kill embryos. But your argument isn’t about level of awareness?

                    I’m pointing out that level of awareness is not a basis on which to make a judgment about what we eat or whom we kill.

                  • Pooterfish says:

                    Why is it “taboo” to eat humans? Does a human’s right to not be eaten depend on your feeling icky about it, or on something more substantial? Perhaps an inalienable right?

        • Costner says:

          I just love it how it is perfectly acceptable to create a half dozen human embryos in a lab in order to help some lovely (but medically challenged) couple have a baby, and it is ok to flush three of them down the toilet if they aren’t needed…. but go ahead and try to harvest some cells from them for the betterment of mankind and BAM – it is suddenly a bad thing.

          I won’t claim to know when “life begins” but I’m guessing it is somewhere farther along the line than the first dozen or so cells. If a fertilized egg is really a human life, then we need to build about 170,000 funeral homes tomorrow because very year there are millions upon millions of fertilized embryos that never make it to the fetus stage and thus we obviously need to hold funeral services for each and every one of them – even if the woman never knew about it.

          • Pooterfish says:

            I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but I don’t think it’s okay to create embryos and “flush them down the toilet.”

            The creation of multiple embryos and the whole host of related dangers to women and the unborn are a consequence of fertility clinics operating on profit motives, as opposed to what’s in the best medical interests of their patients.

    • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

      Stem-cell research is the next best frontier for medical research, and only political bitching and moaning has been holding it back. There are ways to obtain stem-cells without killing babies, but the angry and unintelligent don’t want to hear that.

    • Coffee says:

      Someone has their priorities seriously screwed up.

      I love posts that are ironically self-referential.

    • pop top says:

      Do you have any logical, factual and/or scientific (i.e. not emotional, religious or prejudiced) arguments against embryonic stem cell research?

      • Pooterfish says:

        Biologically, an embryo is a unique, individual member of the species homo sapiens. They differ from fully-grown humans only in size, location, degree of dependence, and level of development. None of those qualities are a basis for denying the personhood or rights of other members of the species homo sapiens.

        On what basis do you defend the right to destroy members of the human species for medical research?

        • clippy2.0 says:

          I feel this is just trolling. No body is talking about dicing up fetus’s. Especially since most of these embryos are either artificially created or donated. Huge difference between a pile of cells that may or may not develop into a person, and an actual person. I think most people would agree curing humanity of disease is far more important than adding more diseased humanities. Especially at the cost of artificial creation of embryos. You might as well argue that robots have souls, as they are created in the exact same function

          • Pooterfish says:

            So what is the difference between a fetus and an embryo, if not size, level of development and degree of dependence? Why are you apparently okay with destroying embryos for medical research but not doing the same with fetuses?

            And, robots? Really?

            • clippy2.0 says:

              maybe you don’t understand what the term “artificially created” means. I mean, do you care about animal embryos? It’s the same thing, just piles of DNA.

              • Pooterfish says:

                Yes, I do understand what “artificially created” means. Do you understand the difference between human and animal? Because that’s what at issue here, not the process.

                My concern is not the process of embryo creation, but what happens to human embryos after they’re created. A human embryo, whether created in a petri dish or a uterus, is identifiably human by the simple fact that it possesses human DNA.

                • RayanneGraff says:

                  There *is* no difference between human and animal. We ARE animals. We’re just the only animals who think we’re above other animals. Take your sanctimonious pro-life hair-splitting elsewhere.

              • Pooterfish says:

                Are you suggesting that the process by which an embryo is created determines whether the embryo is fully human and deserving of rights and protection? If so, on what basis?

        • RayanneGraff says:

          On what basis do you defend the “right” to destroy innocent animals for the benefit of *human* medical research? The research is done on products intended for humans, it should be performed on HUMANS.

          I’m guessing that your superiority complex stems from the effects of religion combined with a less than stellar education. ALL creatures on this planet are biologically related, and humans are NOT special or any different from other animals. Your view that animals exist for our “use” is just ignorant and frankly disgusting, and I really hope you don’t have any pets.

  8. Bsamm09 says:

    Wait….is my funding for Monkey knife Fighting gonna be cut? I’ve been working on it for a while so it isn’t really new.

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      Well, if your grant is coming up for renewal soon, you’ll be in trouble, but if your funding is already secured, you’re good as gravy. Just hope that you can wrap everything up and make your venture profitable on its own without government support before you need to go back and beg ‘em for money.

      I’m pretty sure that if you manage things properly, that the betting will more than make up for your income one Uncle Sam cuts you off. :D

      • Bsamm09 says:

        That right there is the rub and I don’t see it mentioned anywhere. With gov’t grants, we have been a monkey knife fighting (MKF) company for the pure love of MKF. The grants allowed us to not care about profits to operate and thus not involve gambling.

        Now that has all changed. Due to higher tariffs and more stringent rules (NO SWITCH BLADES or SWORDS), we are moving over seas. It may hurt our legitimacy.

    • Wasp is like Requiem for a Dream without the cheery bits says:

      I WILL CUT A MONKEY BITCH! RAWRRRRRR

    • Coffee says:

      At least now you can move forward with your Embryo Caged Death Match plans.

      When God closes a door, he opens a womb

      • Wasp is like Requiem for a Dream without the cheery bits says:

        When God closes a door, he opens a womb

        You spelled otter wrong.

  9. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Most of you probably don’t know this, but there is actually a retirement home for chimps used in medical research and the entertainment industry. It was on the very last piece of legislation President Clinton signed into law during his presidency.

  10. Quake 'n' Shake says:

    The Nazis and Japanese were clearly ahead of their time by experimenting on humans.

  11. dush says:

    Liberate Apes Before Imprisoning Apes

  12. MaytagRepairman says:

    Great, that just makes more chimps available to run for president.

  13. mister_roboto says:

    Stay on topic with Consumerism Consumerist, you’re not in the Gawker network any longer (no matter how bad your editing is).

  14. DragonThermo says:

    I have the solution to the laboratory monkey dilemma:

    Set the lab monkeys loose in Occutard encampments. They’ll clean up the place by picking out the lice from their body hair.

    Get the PETA membership database. Abduct or entice PETA members into an isolated area. Bam! Instant laboratory primate without the stigma of hurting animals.