July 31, 2014

University of Wisconsin to reprise controversial monkey studies

Researchers will isolate infant primates from mothers, then euthanize them, for insights into anxiety and depression

An infant monkey plays at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Infant monkeys in psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s study will be exposed to adversity to study its effect on young brains.

Wisconsin National Primate Research Center

An infant monkey plays at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Infant monkeys in psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s study will be exposed to adversity to study its effect on young brains.

For Isthmus and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

In his 21 years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s veterinary school, Eric Sandgren has seen a lot of controversies. But the UW’s most prominent defender of animal research has never seen anything like this.

Sandgren says a typical research project protocol receives around four person-hours of scrutiny from an oversight committee; he estimates this one got more than 170.

“It is the protocol that’s received the most attention since I’ve been here,” says Sandgren, director of the university’s Research Animal Resources Center. “The most intense I’ve been a part of.”


UW animal research oversight committees strive for consensus

On the radio

Noah Phillips discusses the monkey research controversy with Joy Cardin on Wisconsin Public Radio, Oct. 1, 2014.

Sandgren is referring to the first experiment at UW-Madison in more than 30 years that will intentionally deprive newborn monkeys of their mothers, a practice designed to impact a primate’s psychological well-being.

The research, submitted by UW-Madison Psychiatry Department chairman Dr. Ned Kalin, has drawn unusual scrutiny and dissent from within the university and intensified a debate about the extent to which benefits to humans justify the suffering of animals.

Kalin’s protocol, which outlines the methods and objectives of the research, was approved on April 24 by the graduate school’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). It supersedes an almost identical protocol which was approved two years ago but never begun — for logistical reasons and because of internal opposition.

That earlier protocol was passed by the College of Letters and Science’s IACUC over the objections of two committee members, including UW-Madison bioethicist Rob Streiffer. At the time, he was the committee chair; he remains a member.

But Streiffer was not given a second chance to vote against the protocol. When it was resubmitted, the protocol was shown to only two members of the Letters and Science committee. They relegated jurisdiction to a subset of the graduate school committee, which gave its unanimous consent. No rules were broken.

The experiments build on the controversial studies of UW primate researcher Harry Harlow, which peaked between 1965 and 1972, as well as Kalin’s own past work.

Following their last round of tests, both the nursery- and mother-reared monkeys will be brought to this room and given an overdose of sedatives.

Wisconsin National Primate Center

Following their last round of tests, both the nursery- and mother-reared monkeys will be brought to this room and given an overdose of sedatives.

For a year these 20 rhesus monkeys, as well as another 20 used as a control group, will be given tests intended to provoke and measure anxious behavior. After one year they will all be euthanized and their brain tissue collected for molecular analysis.

“We’re killing baby monkeys,” Streiffer says. “There are other things that have been done that are worse, but that’s not a justification for saying that this isn’t really really bad.”

The purpose of the experiment is to use state-of-the-art technology to examine the underlying neurobiology of anxiety and depression, which Kalin believes will lead to insights for treating struggling humans.

“My belief is that this work will provide an opportunity and a scientific rationale about early interventions and maybe even prevention of some of the problems that adults struggle with,” Kalin explains. “Our hope is that we’re going to come up with both new medication strategies as well as new psychotherapy strategies.”

The intensive discussions around this protocol’s approval ran counter to the usual culture of oversight committees, and have raised questions about the degree of suffering acceptable in an experimental design with uncertain outcomes.

Animal advocate Rick Bogle says the ethical ramifications of animal research are discussed very rarely, making the internal reaction to Kalin’s proposal remarkable. The discussions surrounding the ethics of this study spanned seven meetings; normally approvals are secured after one or two meetings.

“This is an anomaly. This doesn’t happen,” Bogle says. “These discussions that they had about this study don’t occur with any frequency at all. In fact, I don’t know of seeing them occur ever before.”

Surrogates mothers, then and now. Left: Harry Harlow, a controversial experimental psychologist who worked at University of Wisconsin-Madison for more than 40 years, studied the effects of isolation on baby monkeys. Right: When psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s research into the effects of early adversity on the brain begins, experimental animals will live in this incubator for the first several weeks of their lives.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives & Wisconsin National Primate Research Center

Surrogate mothers, then and now. Left: Harry Harlow, a controversial experimental psychologist who worked at University of Wisconsin-Madison for more than 40 years, studied the effects of isolation on baby monkeys. Right: When psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s research into the effects of early adversity on the brain begins, experimental animals will live in this incubator for the first several weeks of their lives.

A mixed legacy

The ethics of animal research are often contentious, but non-human primate research at UW-Madison is especially polarizing.

There are around 2,000 primates housed and studied in several locations around campus. About two-thirds of these are at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center; most of the remainder are at the Harlow Center for Biological Psychology. The buildings stand side by side.

The university’s first primate lab, founded by Harlow in 1930, produced what some consider to be groundbreaking research in the field of experimental psychology — and what others decry as needless cruelty.

Harlow’s work underlies much of both the science and unease surrounding Kalin’s current research.

“It’s not like Dr. Kalin invented this approach,” says Craig Berridge, chairman of the Letters and Science IACUC. “He’s piggybacking on decades of research, and that research has led to discoveries that have benefited people. The way we rear children these days stems from Harry Harlow’s work.”

Harlow spent decades studying the need for maternal affection and social interaction by denying it to monkeys, often with gruesome results.

Many of Harlow’s experimental monkeys were completely isolated at birth in a sensory deprivation device called the “vertical chamber,” or what Harlow called the “pit of despair,” according to the 2002 book, “Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection,” by UW-Madison journalism professor Deborah Blum.

Elsewhere, Blum has written that some female isolates were put in a restraint device Harlow called the “rape rack” and forced to bear offspring. Blum wrote in “Goon Park” that one of these mothers bit off her baby’s fingers and feet. Another crushed her baby’s head in her own mouth.

When introduced to peers as adults, these isolated monkeys showed signs of permanent psychological damage. After Harlow left the UW in the 1970s, maternal deprivation work in primates fell quickly out of favor here, although similar research continued at other primate centers including the University of California-Davis and the NIH Animal Center in Maryland.

Alexa McCormack is the executive director of the Alliance for Animals and the Environment, a Madison-based nonprofit. “We do not think that animals are ours to experiment on,” says McCormack during a May protest outside the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery building. “It’s easy for us to forget their place in our world.”

Lauren Fuhrmann / Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Alexa McCormack is the executive director of the Alliance for Animals and the Environment, a Madison-based nonprofit. “We do not think that animals are ours to experiment on,” says McCormack during a May protest outside the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery building. “It’s easy for us to forget their place in our world.”

“It went to an extreme,” Streiffer says. “People look back on that and think, ‘Oh, that was really awful.’ And for decades, people didn’t do it for research purposes. The nursery at (the) Harlow (Center) was shut down. We didn’t want to do that anymore.”

Kalin, who has studied primates since 1979, agrees that the experiments Harlow did at that time would not be done today. “The level of oversight and the regulations around animal welfare have changed.”

But while Kalin maintains that he is “asking different questions” and employing different methods than Harlow, his work has also come under intense criticism.

“Kalin has a really long history of subjecting baby monkeys to fear,” says Bogle, the animal rights activist. “That’s the meat and potatoes of his work. It’s very crude.”

In a Kalin study published in 2004, the amygdalae of 14 rhesus macaques were damaged with acid after their skulls were cut open. The amygdala is a region of the brain that regulates fear and anxiety. The monkeys were then exposed to snakes and unknown humans.

Rhesus macaques are commonly used in psychiatric studies because of their brains’ similarities to humans. About 1,500 of the UW’s 2,000 primates are rhesus macaques.

Kalin’s study, which found that the brain-damaged monkeys were less prone to fear and anxiety, has not yet led to any new treatments for humans. But, he argues, the research has nonetheless proven valuable.

“We have a lot of evidence now to suggest that (the amygdala is) not only a region that we should be thinking about and focusing on, but also we have some ideas about the specific molecules in that region that might be important,” Kalin says. “Science is a process, and it’s one step building on the next. The only way that we’re going to make progress to help people is to do these types of studies.”

Sandgren offers a similar argument.

“Maybe we’ll never really be able to find something that targets those specific pathways,” he says. “But if we don’t try we’re guaranteed not to find something that can affect those pathways, and I think that’s the critical thing.”

Dr. Ned Kalin is the chairman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Psychiatry Department and the principal investigator studying brain changes relating to fear and anxiety among infant monkeys reared apart from their mothers. Kalin, who has been working with primates since 1979, has been a target of opponents of animal research.

Lauren Fuhrmann / Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Dr. Ned Kalin is the chairman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Psychiatry Department and the principal investigator studying brain changes relating to fear and anxiety among infant monkeys reared apart from their mothers. Kalin, who has been working with primates since 1979, has been a target of opponents of animal research.

Brain science

According to Kalin, recent research in rodents and studies using brain imaging in rhesus macaques and humans has suggested new opportunities for studying the early development of emotional disorders as they involve the amygdala.

“Through our studies, we have identified specific altered function of genes in the brain region that is overactive in young individuals with extreme anxiety,” Kalin says. “And these are completely new leads — nobody’s ever thought of these molecules before.”

Kalin speculates that these alterations occur within the first few months of life. Ultimately, he hopes to discover the neural pathways and genetic expressions that link malfunctioning stress signals to early adversity, possibly leading to new treatments for children at risk of depression, substance abuse and other problems.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, about 6.7 percent of U.S. adults experience major depressive disorder each year, and as many as 18 percent experience anxiety disorders. Kalin is not satisfied with existing treatments.

“They are ineffective for many people and for some there are intolerable side effects,” he says.

“In the best hands, you only get about probably a third of our patients with anxiety and depression fully well, and we get another third of our patients somewhat well, and we’ve got another third of our patients that unfortunately struggle chronically with these problems. So there’s a huge need to have new ways of treating people.”

Kalin’s protocol is the largest project within a research initiative led by Richard Davidson. He is a UW-Madison professor of psychiatry and psychology widely celebrated for working with the Dalai Lama in connection with the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds. The parent grant, titled “Early Neurodevelopment Origins of Anxiety,” is bringing over $2 million to the UW from the National Institutes of Health. Kalin’s research will bring in $525,540.

Most of the $2 million grant, Davidson says, will go for research involving humans, including a subproject to non-invasively scan the brains of 180 human infants between the ages of one and 24 months. Their families will be monitored to provide behavioral data on adversity.

Davidson supports the Kalin protocol in particular and animal research in general, saying it has “undeniably made major contributions to the reduction of suffering” in humans. But he thinks the use of animals in research could be reduced and made more humane.

“You have to do a mental calculus to determine if it’s appropriate or not, and each scientist needs to make his or her own moral decision about that,” Davidson says. “And it’s the same thing with eating meat or wearing leather. You know, the Dalai Lama eats meat.”


The protocol

Here’s how Kalin’s experiment will work, according to the protocol: On the day they are born, 20 rhesus macaques will be taken away from their sedated or manually restrained mothers.

For the first three to five weeks of their lives, the monkeys will be singly housed in a large shoebox-sized incubator with a stuffed animal to cling to for contact comfort. This is standard laboratory practice for baby monkeys who have been abused, neglected or rejected by their mothers.

The infants will be fed formula at regular times by humans clad head to toe in plastic in order to prevent the transmission of disease. Eventually, their caretakers will move them to an adjacent cage with a peer. Instead of the stuffed animal, this cage is equipped with “an upright mobile surrogate covered with a soft material.”

Monkeys who are in the control group of psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s study on the effects of early adversity on the brain at the University of Wisconsin-Madison will remain with their mothers, except when they are removed for testing, until they are six months old.

Wisconsin National Primate Research Center

Monkeys who are in the control group of psychiatrist Dr. Ned Kalin’s study on the effects of early adversity on the brain at the University of Wisconsin-Madison will remain with their mothers, except when they are removed for testing, until they are six months old.

Besides regular brain scans and blood draws, the monkeys will be given several kinds of behavioral tests. These include being occasionally exposed to a series of environmental stressors, such as seeing a live snake, to gauge their levels of fear and anxiety.

“We’re most interested in finding out the earliest time points at which there may be alterations in brain function,” Kalin says, adding that “the earlier we can identify altered brain function, the more likely it is that early interventions will have a bigger impact.”

The study’s hypothesis, he says, is that “early adversity of this type will result in alterations in the circuit that underlies anxiety, and possibly depression.” Kalin says this would “allow us to understand how early adversity impacts brain function that results in early psychiatric symptoms.”

Previous studies have shown that some adult laboratory monkeys separated from their mothers as infants exhibit such behaviors as clinging, self-biting and habitual rocking. But the Primate Center maintains that its nursery-reared monkeys usually do not display these overt signs of distress.

Streiffer, the bioethicist, remains unsure that the study’s gains are worth the monkeys’ pain.

“Will we learn something useful?” he asks. “Well, probably. But (Kalin) was kind of hard-pressed to say much more than that, and I thought that given the cost to the animals and that we’re dealing with non-human primates, the bar should be really, really high. And I wasn’t convinced.”

Very young monkeys who are separated from their mothers are fed by animal caretakers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “They hold the animals, they give them comfort, they give them warmth,” says Saverio Capuano, head veterinarian at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.

Wisconsin National Primate Research Center

Very young monkeys who are separated from their mothers are fed by animal caretakers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “They hold the animals, they give them comfort, they give them warmth,” says Saverio Capuano, head veterinarian at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.

Sweet Corn and Stuart

Newborn rhesus macaques are about half as long as a human forearm, their heads about as large as a fist. They are wide-eyed and curious, blinking as they slowly grasp at their cages with their tiny, hairy hands.

During a recent visit to the Primate Center, a reporter was taken to the nursery that will be used in Kalin’s study. The two incubators were both occupied by a rhesus monkey born the day before. The infants were being housed in the nursery for monitoring.

Sweet Corn (r14030) was sleeping and Stuart (r14031) was awake. The monkeys’ names are bestowed by animal caretakers, but only their numbers are used in their records.

Earlier that week, only blocks from the primate lab, half a dozen members of the Alliance for Animals and the Environment stood outside of the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery holding signs featuring a young rhesus macaque behind bars. The group, which is devoted to “ending all forms of animal abuse,” was protesting a conference of animal researchers.

“I feel their time would be far better spent finding humane alternatives,” says protester Alexa McCormack, the group’s executive director. “I think globally people would get behind any researcher who delved into humane alternatives rather than these horrific tests.”
Sweet Corn and Stuart are in the nursery for clinical reasons, not experimental ones. In time, the caretakers will try to return them to their mothers. But when Kalin’s new imaging equipment arrives in the coming weeks, 20 other newborn monkeys will be on their own.

  • Adrian Bryan

    Is the Dalai Lama doing animal research? I doubt it. Who cares if he eats meat? That statement was, simply, irrelevant and anti intellectual and lame! I am not against animal research (I eat meat, too) but I couldn’t see a convincing argument for this particular type of experimentation. I’m glad there’s some oversight and applaud those who question the experimentation. It doesn’t make either side “right” or “wrong,” but it’s good to know this work is being reviewed.

    • p.

      I’d argue that it is pretty interesting that a leading world figure advocating for a non-violent lifestyle chooses to live in a way that, by definition, inflicts violence on unconsenting animals. With the amount of resources at his disposal, in an age when scientific and technological advances mean that eating meat is a choice we make, not a necessity.

      Pretty far from irrelevant and anti intellectual actually.

      • Skye Grimm

        If the point of this article were to expound upon the hypocrisies of world leaders, the argument might hold water. However, comparing severe mistreatment and psychological abuse of baby animals to the consumption of something that has been part of the human diet for millenia is deflecting the direction of the discussion. Frankly, it was a cowardly move on Davidson’s part, and it makes me wonder whom he is trying to convince.

    • K

      We don’t need proof . Dr. Kalin’s brain may be the one that needs to be studied. Behind his own time and unable to find his greedy grant money for a better solution.

  • Vivisectors generally try to justify animal experimentation by telling us that animals are similar enough to us physically to make the results useful (which often isn’t true) yet emotionally different enough to make harming them ethical. Yet here we are being told that these primates are so emotionally similar to us that the results can be extrapolated to humans. So how can we possibly justify the abuse? Baby monkeys. This is stomach turning stuff. Kalin is a bully, and bullies should be stopped not encouraged. The funding of this by NIH is an outrage.

    • Mistrest

      Would you prefer that they use humans instead? Research is needed for advanced treatment, and unless all these people crying about it want actual human babies tested they should STOP interfering in the testing.

      • Loop

        Or, they could not do the testing AT ALL, or perhaps those who feel so strongly about doing it, could volunteer for it themselves?

        As humans, we evolve, why is that a given, yet whenever anyone wants a change in research, the common strike back is…well, would you rather we do it on humans?
        Of course not, and you know that, so why bother trying to use that as your ONLY argument? Are you not smarter than that?

        If the testing done on monkeys is so valuable because they are SO much like humans, why is it ok to create, torture and kill a being that is SO much like humans?

        Have we not grown enough to not realize this is wrong?

      • Mark

        The monkeys are a more advanced life form compared to you.

      • Jonathan Swift

        Yes! The children of the research staff at the University of Wisconsin should be used as test subjects.

      • Anne

        If the testing could yield actual useful results then sure, do it, but their argument is flawed because their study is flawed in that it will not yield any useful results. Even the cited 2004 study Kalin did really just re-invented the wheel – I was taught the results as fact in an advanced psychology course in 2001 at JHU before the study was conducted. He tortured 14 monkeys just to show what we already knew so well as to teach to undergraduates years earlier. Shame on him and the journal that published his article. The amygdala is involved in fear and anxiety? There are middle schoolers that know this. Come on. I have no issue with VALID animal testing, but I do have an issue with this researcher who seems to me more like someone that enjoys torture hiding behind the mask of a scientist than someone trying to make actual advances. I mean, they can’t even say what they are looking for this time around. The scientific method requires hypotheses PRIOR to study development and then a carefully planned study to test those theories. This is bumbling around in the dark reproducing old experiments and hoping some low hanging fruit that wasn’t found before smacks them on the head. It’s bad science and an offense to real researchers that carefully and ethically plan animal experiments in order to minimize suffering and maximize useful findings.

    • Jennifer

      As humans, we already know that emotional deprivation scars children. We DO NOT need any more proof. Medication is the answer? I think not. Mothers who are better educated and more emotionally and financially ready to provide this care is what is needed. Hence, improved education about poverty, life, abuse and contraception and more readily available contraception would go much further to improve human suffering. The worse thing we can do as humans is to hinder access to family planning by taking this control away from mothers or mothers-to-be and putting it in the hands of religious zealots and barbaric scientists who think medication is the answer to depression. How about love?

      • Tristan

        This is a barbaric, monstrous and needless practice. Focus on psychotherapy and CBT. If a depressed person knew what was behind his medication, he’d probably be more depressed.

  • ann sturdevant

    Sick sick sick! UWM! You are to be a forerunner in veteranary care..Shame on you! In no way is this remotely humane! Practices of any sort are uneccesary and cruel! i will be spreading the word and will implore friends with college age students to explore other schools..maybe if you get hut in the wallet you will listen

    • Meghan Horan

      Yes. Thank you for that. We do not need research dollars to be given to the likes of Ned who just doesn’t get it. This research is sadistic. It was sadistic in the time of Harlow, and it is sadistic now. Why are people depressed? Well just look at the society we live in! What is his motivation in the first place? Is it ego and research money and making a name? It is certainly not compassion. If it was compassion, he would be pursuing another path altogether. This is wrong, and somewhere in his conscience, he knows this.

  • Leigh Segel

    “The only thing I care about is whether a monkey will turn out a property I can publish. I don’t have any love for them. Never have. I don’t really like animals. I despise cats. I hate dogs. How could you like monkeys?” – Harry Harlow

    It’s all about the 2m in funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and not about helping people. They are destroying 20 baby rhesus monkeys mentally (and physically) for no other reason, in the name of science. This is animal cruelty and I disapprove of this study. It’s dreadful to even think about it. This is the awful legacy of UW Madison, and the National Institutes of Health organization as a whole.

    Thanks for this article and bringing this matter to public attention.

  • Adrian Bryan

    I retread the article and still a bit stunned at some of the rhetoric from the scientists. The reason there is oversight is so individual scientists do not only rely solely on their “moral judgement.” The decision to wear leather or eat meat is not on the par with putting animals through cruel experimentation for reasons that are far from clear. Again, I am not opposed to animal research, if done as humanely as possibly and for reasons that “make sense,” but this seems a bit dubious. I also understand why some are totally opposed to animal research; I am just not in that camp. Still, the concept that decisions like this should be up to individual scientists alone is wrong. There is a reason we have bioethicists and I’m glad we do. Scientists should welcome oversight. I’m rather astounded at the sheer arrogance of some of those quoted. Oh well, I’ve probably said enough.

  • Patricia Panitz

    It’s appalling this type of work is being done again. It’s been done so many times before; why can’t the data from earlier experiments be used? The justifications are (and must be) vague since Kalin has been experimenting upon these poor creatures since 1979 and nothing has come of any of it. Vivisectors claim otherwise but they never cite specific examples to support their claims. As someone said, this is all about bringing money – our tax dollars – to the university.

  • Debra Stenner

    It is shocking that we are still using such archic methods in reearch and then claiming it is for the betterment of mankind. How can the intentional torture and suffering of one species be good for another? There is plenty of evidence on the long-term effects of separation from mothers; what exactly will this study prove? It certainly won’t stop children from being separataed from thier mothers – disease, war, poverty, drug addiciton, etc., would all need to be resolved before families can flourish together. Please don’t do this.

  • Eric Mills

    Homo sapiens: Latin for “morally and ethically bankrupt.”

  • Maternal deprivation experiments are just heartbreaking. It’s hard to imagine how human beings can devise, let alone execute, such deliberately cruel treatment of infants. And what can one possibly learn in this area that hasn’t already been studied and learned? That infants of any species need their mothers and suffer terribly without them? I hope the people of Madison will not allow these awful experiments to happen.

    • Meghan Horan

      We already know that human children deprived of love, suffer. It is so obvious. To subject baby animals to these kinds of studies is needless. Why? Why? It is clear to me that such a design is a heartless experiment on what has already clearly been found out. And even in Harlow’s studies. which have now been deemed unethical, there was clearly an element of sadism …. which could then, as now, be deemed as pure ignorance as even Harlow and even Bowlby, could have investigated cultures where children were embraced and loved to show the difference between children of war. Ohhhhh …. the research dollars and the entire business of “psychological science” shows its colors in ego and fame as “I was the scientist who ….. ” do they not realize that they will soon be dead and all they had to show for themselves was the pain they created for others?

  • Dot Jones

    It is beyond sickening that this kind of “work” is still being done in the name of science. It is demented, it is torture and it is beyond the pale of what human beings will do to inflict pain/suffering on animals. It brings to mind the culture of the Nazis, and I use that very carefully. This MUST stop. Most of the results, by this stage of the game in terms of what we know about the brain, are already common knowledge.

  • Deborah Elliott

    As Karen Dawn comments, the rationalizing of this gratuitous torture is twisted like a pretzel,
    and utterly self-serving, totally without merit. Lazy, territorial scientists and institutions continue to obtain grant money and justify their practices in the face of good new scientific evidence on the sentience and sapience of animals, and all the new technological pathways to understanding human health and dysfunction (Has anyone thought of a computer generated model that could explain Kalin’s failure to thrive as a moral animal – or evolve as a scientist?)
    Shame on this university. We’ll definitely write to the NIH.

  • sandra

    Mad scientists at work. Animal abuse beyond belief. I remember being appalled many years ago when newborn primates were removed from their mothers to learn…what? A duh experiment. The infants suffered and were deeply affected. Big surprise. And the perps are evidently still at their sinister work. To sacrifice animals of any sort to achieve some mysterious goal is torture – and for those who have no respect for animals, remember your relationship to primates. They suffer as do we. Since these experimenters have no conscience, nor, apparently, does NIH, it is up to the public to stop this, to protest their taxes going to such abhorrent ends.

  • Sid Shapiro

    This supposed research will show us NOTHING. Its another display of government spending gone crazy. This “research” is just big business for the universities who vie for government grants that they can then use to build up the fiefdom of the particular academic specialty. We as taxpayers have to tell the NIH that we don’t want our money wasted on projects like this one.

  • Pat Miller

    Not only is it unacceptable to kill these monkeys after a year, as the article states – even more reprehensible is the act of subjecting them to a year of suffering before they are killed. We should be better than this by now.

  • Phyllis Jacobson

    This proposal is satanic. “Needless cruelty”? is there any type of cruelty or torture that is needed? I oppose this evil study. I’m sure that the only benefits will be that some really twisted people have jobs. Shame on every one of you that are involved in any way in this act of “needless cruelty”.

  • Mary Finelli

    There is no valid justification for this egregious animal abuse. It’s torture and killing in the guise of scientific research. It is regressive and an ugly mar on the the university. Everyone associated with the university should be ashamed of this. Taxpayers and all compassionate people should be outraged by it. It’s truly monstrous and has no place in the civilized world.

  • Amy

    What an unbelievable waste of both taxpayer money and lives of primate “subjects.” It’s hard to believe these kinds of studies are still going on. Thank you very much for bringing this to a wider publuc’s attention.

  • Maureen McGill

    To be doing this type of experiment on baby monkeys in this day and age is totally unacceptable and nothing justifies it. This money could be used on something worthwhile where no sentient being is put through unspeakable cruelty, for absolutely nothing. These scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Melanie from Canada

    How can we stop this? This type of research is completely inappropriate in this day and age. I feel like we’ve gone backwards 40 years as a society, if we let this experiment take place. If we want to help people with anxiety and depression – which are real problems – we have to look at their environments (urban, greenspace, noise pollution, light pollution, nutrition) and other pscyho-social factors. Treating infant monkeys this way and then killing them (let’s be honest, it isn’t euthanasia) is so off the mark. Shame on U. Wisconsin.

  • Cynthia

    This research has been done over and over. Can’t scientists find something better to do with grant money? You want to learn more about “struggling humans”? Then how about study some struggling humans? I’m sure there are enough of them walking the Earth to supply with you endless research subjects – and they will likely volunteer themselves.

    I can only hope ALL scientists involved in this horrendous project experience the kind of fear, loneliness, sadness and anxiety they are inflicting upon these poor animals. Shame on you UW-Madison for allowing this to happen. Hopefully the Animal Liberation Front will visit Madison…

  • Samira Yvette

    As someone who suffers from anxiety and depression, I’m horrified that this kind of thing is being done in my name. (Also, I have wonderful parents and had a pretty great childhood aside from the anxiety issues so this manufactured anxiety wouldn’t be the same thing at all.)

  • Patricia Briggs

    So Harry Harlow lives again–If Ned Kalin wants to know what causes depression, he need look only to himself-monsters amongst us who define what is bad about the human race–and in the final analysis, the results will say, “We can’t be sure as we can’t extrapolate to humans”. All the “hi-fallutin” talk they talk trying to make themselves sound legitimate, makes them just the opposite. You’d think that with all the negativity surrounding Harry Harlow, the U of W would want to move forward, not go back into the dark ages. The proper study of mankind is man and as the National Anti-Vivesection Society said so well, “You cannot do evil that good may result.” I would personally like to ask Kalin if he could instead do his research on one mentally indigent human being who couldn’t defend himself, knowing that the results could benefit untold numbers of humans, would he? Of course, in his case, I wouldn’t be surprised if he justified this and said, “yes”. I hope the day comes soon when, if people get sick, and , whether it is physical or mental illness, scientists are sued for testing on animals–for example, if someone uses a cosmetic or new drug that was tested safe on animals, they would sue because animals have different metabolisms than us, they can’t vocalize side effects, and when we get sick we don’t go to the veterinarian any more than when our beloved companion animals get sick, we take them to the human doctor. Kalin MUST be stopped before he starts. He should be doing epidemiological studies-he’s got 7 billion people in the world to work with-follow populations of individuals that develop depression and then look backwards at all aspects of their lives; then, take individuals that have depression now, and go forwards.
    Depression is a disease like any physical disease and all the animal studies in the world will only satisfy the morbid curiosities of all the Harlows and Kalins in the world–give it up!

  • Fleur

    Nothing can justify these extremely cruel tests. Primates suffer immensely through being taken from their mothers, but their brains differ from ours so significantly that it is impossible to directly use data from these experiments for treating humans. There are a myriad other ways of investigating anxiety and depression in humans. UW needs to set its animal research review process in order – these experiments should never go ahead.

  • Angela Wagner

    stop this cruel experiments with monkeys! They are creatures like we!

  • Kathy

    How many times does this same thing have to be done??? How many more monkeys do I have to pay for to learn the same thing over and over again?? This has to stop…. If you are thinking about sending your kids here for their education… you need to find a better school that is not doing the same thing over and over… using outdated, cruel, and expensive experiments… to find the same answers over and over again…. I am sad to see yet another educational facility to ignore the lessons from the past and push for moving forward at the expense of precious life…. those animals belong in the rain forests and jungles… not the cold barren cages of a university campus….

  • Carol Herard

    As I began to read this absurd plan I wondered why on earth anyone would agree to such a redundant, archaic, cruel experiment. Then I saw the 2Million dollar grant. This isn’t about “education”, this is about money. It’s simply another waste of taxpayer money and unnecessary animal suffering. Shame on you.

  • K. Jaissle

    I absolutely cannot believe in this day and age that this type of research is necessary! This totally unethical!!! I hope that PETA causes a major uproar and shuts this study down! It doesn’t matter if you don’t like animals, this so morally wrong! I believe there is a special place in Hell for people who abuse animals, and this is undoubtedly abuse! How do these people live with themselves?????

  • Hope Cruser

    I am so deeply saddened about this, there are no words. I thought studies such as this were a thing of misguided past. I have suffered from both anxiety and depression in the past, and feel nothing of any use can be gained from these experiments, except perhaps causing anxiety and depression for those of us with compassionate hearts empathizing with these poor baby monkeys. Please find something more useful to do with your time and research dollars University of Wisconsin.

  • Becky Browning

    Inexcusable and unforgivable. Any “scientist” who participates in this kind of abuse should be ashamed. The University of Wisconsin should be ashamed. There are just no words to express my disgust and horror.

    People who do this sort of thing will get their payback – in this life or the next.

  • Rajshree Boyragee

    Stop such heartless barbarism! Enough with this cruelty. Animal rights has to become mainstream. Enough with causing these creatures such distress and suffering.

  • Susan Endlich

    Thank you for the thoughtful article. There are many scientists who now oppose animal testing as a invalid research tool on the grounds that it is of questionable benefit let alone inhumane. I would like to see an article that explains this position and the alternative and superior methods that are now available. Additionally, I would like an expose on the unholy alliance between NIH government funding (paid for by unwitting taxpayers), the schools and research cultures that depend on this funding, and the big corporations that provide test animals and test animal products. It disgusts me that so many people make their living off this institutionalized torture of animals and I have to wonder at the psychology of all those involved. In fact, it chills me to consider the lack of empathy and downright sadism it would take to come up with these gruesome experiments and torture paraphernalia. I look forward to the day when reason with a humane approach wins over reason without empathy. Until then, perhaps the scientists can research their own amygdalae to examine lack of empathy and sadism and then the pharmaceutical companies can develop medication to cure our society of these ills.

  • Janna Silverstein

    Rage, rage against the injustice–but is that all we can do? I can think of more ways to respond. The press coverage is important. We need to write letters, start petitions, let the school and Dr. Ned Kalin know that this research is wrong-headed and objectionable. The legacy left by Harry Harlow is a nightmare of torture and execreable judgment. Readers, don’t just respond to the press. Write directly to the school and Dr. Kalin.

    Remember: be businesslike and direct; DON’T be aggressive, threatening or profane. It loses you credibility with the recipient.

  • beth

    This is a pointless and horrific experiment.

  • Carrie Corboy

    There are plenty of human babies in orphanages around the world to study this concept. We don’t need to torture other species to get data that is questionable associable to human experience and consequence.

    • Katherine Jaconello

      Yes….just the ones in Quebec in the 40s, 50s and 60s, tortured by Heinz Lehmann, Josef Mengele, Ewan Cameron and other sadistic psychiatrists. Read “Petition to the Vatican by the Duplessis Orphans”. The Duplessis Orphans brought you insulin shock, electroconvulsive shock, depatterning, chemical lobotomy, surgical lobotomy and other destructive psychiatric treatments – now being promoted as “brain correction”. What will Ned Kalin and his experiments on baby monkeys bring your child or grandchild?

  • Lynn

    It is always dangerous to ignore the suffering of any living being, of whatever species, even if we think it necessary to sacrifice an animal for the benefit of the majority. To deny the suffering involved, or to avoid thinking about it, is a convenient solution, but such an attitude opens the door to all kinds of excesses as we witness in wartime. It also destroys our own happiness. As I often say, sympathy and compassion always end up proving beneficial.

    -Dalai Lama

    Kourtney Linebaugh provides interesting context for the fact of His Holiness’s meat eating:

    “Many leap to the conclusion that the Dalai Lama is hypocritical in his actions of eating meat, but looking a bit deeper you will find that is not the case. Living in Tibet is quite different from many other places in the world where meat alternatives, fruits, and vegetables are wildly available. The Tibetan high altitude environment is also not conducive for sustaining fresh crops, and as it is now, the Tibetans include meat in their diet as a means of survival. Many monasteries that opt for the vegetarian lifestyle take measures to import their foods to sustain their eating habits.

    The evidence shows again and again that eating a vegetarian or vegan diet is healthy and an optimal way to eat, but some cultures may not be as up to date on this information or able to eat in this fashion. It may also be that the knowledge of Tibetan doctors is outdated when it comes to eating a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, “Turns out the Dalai Lama tried strict vegetarianism for a year and a half in the 1960s and developed hepatitis, at which point his doctors advised him to go back to his omnivorous ways. (He’s been criticized by some in the vegetarian community for having been an unhealthy vegetarian, possibly damaging his liver that way—he subsisted on a high-fat diet of mostly nuts and milk—and thus the medical necessity of his meat-eating has been questioned.)”

    The Dalai Lama still eats meat but limits his intake, in other words he does the best he can. At the same time he plays a critical role in advocating for animal rights and welfare. He has worked with the Exile Tibetan Government to create “non-violent and environment-friendly farming practices” for a small scale farming industry. He has given speeches about ending animal experiments, has openly criticized factory farms, written letters opposing businesses that use harmful slaughtering practices, and talks freely about how vegetarianism is a positive way for people to live.”

  • Helene

    Testing on animal that can feel pain, anxiety, depression is extremely violent. Will you be able to face GOD? They are being used as servant for human, the cost of their freedom and life is way too high. We are not the center of the world we are animal and part of nature. They are paying for scientific and staff , Financial & career interest. Shame on each person using their hands to violate and arms any living being. I am joining everyone petition around the world to stop this.

  • Elaine

    I can not believe that using any animals , let alone to use animals , like these monkeys , that are so close to how we raise our own young . These -animals feel pain, love , loss and care for their young . This is profoundly unacceptable in 2014 to TORTUE and use animals for dissection

  • Steve Oka

    Humans are so arrogant. What makes us think that we can justify inflicting pain and suffering on other species so that we might in some way benefit humans?

  • Suzanne

    I am disgusted by the experiments going on at uw madison. Evil for whatever cause you think is justified is still evil.

  • Tess Goodman

    You have to be a psychopath to carry out these kinds of experiments on intelligent, helpless creatures. Period.

  • Dena

    Dr. Kalin historically has run these types of experiments over and over with little to no results but yet continues to receive funding. This must stop. You will meet your maker one day but in the interim I hope you come face to face with karma. Shame on you and the sad little universe you believe you are god in…

  • Mara Guccione

    Please continue to update us on this horrific “research” otherwise known as animal torture at the University of Wisconsin. Shining a light on such abuse is the only way to bring it to an end.

    • Gina Powell

      But just updating us on what is happening will not stop it..it is happening so what else is there to update? You want to be informed when it is over and they kill them and get the results…is that what you mean? We need to, in a civilized way, use our “words” and make sure it is known how we feel about this..and I do not mean like some of the people commenting by threatening harm and such…but also not just sit around and ask to be updated…there is not going to be and eleventh hour call for the baby monkeys if that is what you meant…and of course I just noticed how old this post is so actually they are probably already all done!

  • Juli Kring

    Please consider that once one has justified cruelty against non-human creatures, to do so against people, all that is necessary is to dehumanize them. (an example; Dr. Josef Mengele, a German (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz, or here in the US, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments ) If you don’t support cruelty towards *any* living creature, then other people are probably better off, as well.
    Let’s look at the reasoning brought up by this issue;
    Experimentation is acceptable on primates because they are inferior (different) than people. But that difference would make the results and comparisons useless.
    The results are helpful and relevant because primates are so much like us (but still inferior) But that would mean that testing is cruel and unethical.
    My final point is this; Whatever small amount of knowledge we think we might have gained is not worth the loss of our humanity.
    “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”
    ~St. Francis of Assisi

    • Gina Powell

      Well said my dear.

  • Teresa Greenwood

    What reason is there for this torture. Could it be they’re planning on killing humans who fall victim to things that leave them in a mess. Could it be our Soldiers they plan to kill after a war. Are we being run by a bunch of psychopaths.

    • Gina Powell

      What?? What do you mean do they plan on killing humans who fall victim to things? What things? What do you mean? I seriously do not understand what you mean and am interested…but the University does not run the country my dear…and they have been doing these types of tests for over 50 years..actually more…and actually this exact same type of test…

  • liana verney

    I write every day to Wisconsin University and to the USA Embassy (I live in Brazil) and to some paper. Please, don’t quite, continue urging the end of the experiment.

  • Kate

    This is all about and only about this department raising money, in their vile attempt to look relevant. Period. There is nothing to be gained. Nothing.

    I am an alum pf the UW system and am appalled at the utter lack of ethics and morality of this farce. We need to get this stopped.

  • Alene Feltus

    This is demented cruelty with no proven statistic that it would be beneficial to humans.

  • nick

    It doesn’t take a PhD to understand that taking a child from their mother, whether they are human or primate, will result in anxiety and depression. It seems as though “Dr” Kalin is grasping for ways to keep getting funding for his research. What other results could you possibly expect from this type of research? What are you possibly hoping to learn that you do not already know? It is completely obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense that babies taken from their mother will exhibit symptoms of anxiety and depression. Let us use our brains people!

  • Don de Boisblanc

    I agree with those who decry the inhumanity of these vile experiments. I truly think that part of the ethical inquiry for a proposed animal study should be a survey of those it is purporting to help. As a person who has suffered both severe anxiety and depression I want to make it clear that I completely repudiate any suggestion that this “experiment” is being perpetrated for my benefit.

    Having said that, I think we need to understand that people such as Kalin are immersed for the entirety of their careers in a culture that condones this kind of abuse and they come to develop what psychologists would call “habituation of evil” were it to occur anywhere other than within the community of academic psychologists. It would be refreshing to see an in-depth study to investigate this phenomenon, but it is doubtful any of them will turn their analytically gaze upon themselves in order to bring it to fruition. They are well aware of this sort of phenomenon among the laity and they should not consider themselves immune to such effects.

  • JEMC

    How can it be ethical to deliberately torture animals just to see what happens? I don’t see how this research will even be relevant, because they are going to deny these newborns of ALL affection. Humans are never that deprived, at least not when they are that young. Human babies are 100% dependant on at least one other person in order to survive. I can’t imagine that a lone teddy bear could ever replace a real live animal. It may provide some comfort, but it cannot replace the touch of a warm body. I agree with the GOAL of the research, but the proposed method is both inhumane AND unreliable. There just has to be a better way.

  • jeanne grant

    This is barbaric, horrifying and deeply disturbing. It is not helpful to humans to do this. If they want to help humans with psychological issues, they need to study real people, and come up with real life interventions. Our species needs to be better than this. By the way, what kind of person would do this?

  • Tom

    I didn’t read half of this article because nothing will justify what this”research” is doing. Nothing, not even curing whatever they say they are trying to cure. To treat depression, anxiety with this type of method, I would rather remain depressed then to know what has happened in order for me to be treated. Its more depressing reading that in order for science to progress, many lives are sacrificed. I don’t want your science.

  • Katherine Jaconello

    Psychiatry is medical in name only. These experiments on the baby monkeys are needless – it is pure, unadulterated sadism being perpetrated to dose the public with propaganda about “childhood anxiety”. Dr. Ned Kalin will find nothing in the brain and Dr. Ned Kalin will advance research in no way at all. The mind is not the brain. The mind is mental image pictures with perceptions. Mental image pictures with pain and unconsciousness can easily be recalled and all upset removed with simple, inexpensive techniques. These mental images cannot be dissected by the likes of Ned Kalin and his sadistic students. This is social engineering as exported by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Read “The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of the United States of America”. by Dr. John Coleman. This is not only brutality to animals. It is brutality to the public – just reading about it is brutal. However, it will not work this time. In my opinion, Dr. Kalin has no conscience and should be relieved of his post.

  • David Rivers

    Here are some research findings already: Torturing baby monkeys can cause the average person, who is only reading about this research, to feel embarrassed to be part of the human race. It’s a fact, because it’s how I am feeling at this very moment.

  • kelly

    Anxiety and depression are a part of life. I feel it’s only common sense that love and nurturing is Necessary in a young beings life human or not. A simple look into the lives of different people will show you that the children neglected and abused have higher chances of being troubled in one way or another. I believe having supportive loving parents who know what their kids are up to and keep them out of trouble would be the best medicine for almost everything from drug abusing teens to depression. The money spent studying these animals would be better spent helping to make sure new parents can give their children love and affection and quality time together.

    • Gina Powell

      Very well said..

  • Sandra Faulkner

    Sickening! This experiment is horrifying, cruel, and inhuman. The 2 million dollar, funding is a waste of money to hardworking taxpayers.

  • Marnie Hickman

    This unnecessary cruelty MUST be stopped – barbaric and uncivilized – shame on you !!

  • Marnie Hickman

    Cruel and unnecessary – barbaric, uncivilised – shame on you

  • R. Woestijn

    Please STOP this horror on animals!!

  • Wendy

    This is brutal animal abuse masquerading as science. I agree that we should do more than comment here. Contact Dr. Kalin and President Cross with your concerns. The “research” may have already begun.

  • madeleine puga

    do not experement on these monkeys you have no right to take them away from there mothers and after a year kill them you are lieing your not trying to help them if you killing them hopefuly you will get sewd or go to jail

  • wayne

    this is wrong?

  • INHUMANE and ANIMAL CRUELTY!! What can I do to help prevent this? Gary

  • Rose boyadjian

    I saw on the news last night how you experiment on baby monkeys and it made me sick to my stomach. I have never in my life seen such a devastating and horrifying thing in my life. It NEEDS to be stopped! They are innocent and deserve to be treated kindly. Help Stop these terrible testings

  • Justyna

    Watching the news last night I was horrified to see these animal testings. They are Innocent and don’t deserve to be treated this way. Help Stop this!!

  • Justyna soltys

    Help Stop these horrifying tests on these innocent baby monkeys!! It’s hard to believe these kind of tests are going on. This NEEDS to stop!!

  • Tanya

    This is horrible. Stop this

  • Tanya

    This is horrible. Stop this!!!

  • Tara

    This is dispicable! A disgrace! Stop this now!!!

  • Ciara King

    I was horrified to see monkey testing on the news last night. This NEEDS to stop ASAP!! Leave the poor, innocent animals out of the testing!

  • I would be ashamed to say that I attend the university of Wisconsin with such barbaric acts of cruelty are taking place. I think isis would be fearful of these so called (scientists)!!!!!

    • Gina Powell

      You do realize that this is not the only place that does this here in the US right?

  • Shawn Miller

    This is horrible. Everyone should contact the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin Madison and let her know that you don’t approve.

  • L Hesl

    This experimentation is appalling and, as I read it, unnecessary as it duplicates previous research. It appears that Kalin not only knows how to mistreat animals, he is also very good at university politics to be able to get this torture through a committee to be funded. We can only hope that Kalin is near retirement age so he’ll soon stop. It would be a testament to human character if his graduate students refuse to participate in this revolting experimentation.

  • Tammy M

    in forensic criminology it is known that abuse to animals is the first step to psychopathy. is Dr. Kalin actually showing HIS true colors, there is no more need for this kind of testing.

  • M Ziemer

    There is absolutely no need to carry out further experiments of this nature. There is more important research to be carried without the abuse of innocent animals. Be creative and come up with non-abusive research. Never hurt an animal as it too feels pain like we do !

    • Magdamae

      Emotional and physical pain, this is inexcusable.

  • Rob Whitman

    There is no logical scientific reasoning to do this. For someone to say there are worse things than killing 40 baby monkeys, they have no heart. To purposely do this to create anxiety in these monkeys is completely pointless and stupid!

    • darlingsapphire

      And to know that Dr. Kalin has taken our hard earned money to painfully punish innocent lovely
      animal and set up a good and healthy retirement of his own. We must keep our money and help

    • Gina Powell

      Well, there is something is worse my dear, ask the chimps and monkeys that have been living this hell from the day they were born, some for as many as 40 YEARS!! (see my reply above) In death i guess there is no more suffering for them.but it would be worse if they were destined to be a lab animal and had to experience the things they do, day in and day out, for year after year after year….but yes I understand what you are saying…

    • Todd Gillette

      As a human being I am not in favor of this type of experimentation, but as I scientist I do recognize that there is legitimate knowledge that can be gained. The question then becomes a value judgement. We have to evaluate our expectations of the likelihood of results of some utility against our valuation of the pain caused. Certain belief systems would give zero value to the suffering caused, other systems would rate that suffering as infinitely greater in (negative) value compared to the knowledge gained, and others would produce some arbitrary and probably very fuzzy value on either. We need to recognize how people come to their conclusions if we hope to have an impact and change minds.

      I have seen and heard animals rights activists at conferences before, and they are thoroughly ignored because they are almost always ignorant of the science and worse they come with a chip on their shoulders and care nothing for the perspectives of the scientists. I don’t have any reason to think that’s the case with you, but unjustified strong statements like “There is no logical scientific reasoning to do this” are of the sort that lead to scientists ignoring activists’ voices.

      There are two general types of arguments that can be effective. The first is to argue that while there may be some benefit, the suffering caused is not worth the knowledge gained, or not worth it given the low level of certainty of gaining sufficiently value able knowledge. The second is to argue for alternative experiments that are more worthwhile on balance. Most people won’t be knowledgeable enough to make the second argument effectively, though it is the more likely to be successful when aimed at the primary researchers. The first argument, however, is one that anyone can make reasonably effectively, and it is the argument that the bioethicist was making. Let’s focus on we can do effectively.

      • Magdamae

        Can we experiment on you?

  • Marlene Zientara

    This is unconscionable! There is no legitimate need for this or any other
    experiment requiring the abuse and torturing of animals – except for grant

    • darlingsapphire

      Yes and we all must stop these horrible scientists from making big money thru animal suffering.
      What a way to make a living…it’s like the DEVIL’s WORK. Too stupid to get a meaningful job, like

      • Gina Powell

        But when you believe in something and you shout out and say ridiculous things then you look as crazy as the person you are calling crazy and then no one cares what you have to say…lets make a legit, reasonable argument and maybe one day things will change…

        • Peter Rabbitt

          Gina- I understand your argument but I don’t think this issue is a purely ‘rational’ conflict, but highly emotionally charged. In fact, if emotions were not involved, meaning the monkeys had no feelings, this would be a non-issue. Emotions ground our experience in meaning (see Daniel Siegel for more details) and we are talking about abject cruelty imposed to create feelings of trauma and despair in helpless primates. Some expression of human emotion in response to this is more than appropriate.

          I am hurt, sad and angry about this myself!!

      • Peter Rabbitt

        I feel your outrage Marlene, and I agree!!

  • Marlene Zientara

    Stomaching turning!

    I would like to share my own personal experience with my cairn terrier,
    who was treated for two kinds of cancer – lymphoma and bonemarrow –
    at the University of Wisconsin. After extensive treatment, being told she
    would last just a very short time, I decided she would “go out in style”,
    went to the organic store and bought her the best steak they had.
    Missy perked up and from that day forward was fed a meal of organic
    meat, brown rice and a veggie. She lived for two more years, expiring
    at the age of 16-1/2.

    It takes just plain old common sense to determine you need nutrients
    in the food you consume to have a healthy mind and body.

    Please keep working to stop the horrible experiments!!!!!

    • darlingsapphire

      I did the same with my cats. The vet told me she needs this medicine thru needle. I read on inernet
      that too many needles of this medicine to stop urinary infection will cause problems with kidnies and
      liver. I decided to give her plenty water mixed in with her canned food and she survived without
      medicine until she reached old age. Also I use all brand or natural bran flakes mixed with their food
      to aid in constipation instead of medicine and everything has been fine. Seems what is good for me
      is good for animals in some cases, and some foods Some foods are toxic to animals so you must
      be sure….do the reasearch and plenty research.

  • Violet Roots

    I don’t see why all the fuss off using monkeys for testing, what I have seen they don’t seem to be bother by it at all. I sure would not want the testing be done on people. You people who go on about this probably don’t care if they abort babies, I do. You think peta don’t kill animals look it up they do. Monkeys to not have the same feeling as we do, they are animals why can’t you get that though your brian. Look up how monkeys have hurt or killed human babies.

    • Sarah Alexandra

      Humans hurt and kill human babies as well. They do have the same feelings we do and this similarity is the reason they are used for this research. You don’t see them as bothered? Are you there conducting the studies? If they are studying trauma response, does that not mean the monkey has processed the experience as a trauma? Research shows they are horrified by snakes, and this researcher plans to separate them from their mothers and put them in a tiny box with a live snake to study stress responses. Why don’t you do your research and wake up. It isn’t that if it isn’t done on animals it will be done on humans, but some of it is not necessary at all.

    • Gina Powell

      I would love for you to please educate me….how many cases of monkeys killing human babies are there? Do you know? Because I do..regardless that is not the argument..if you would be willing I would love for you to see video of what happens to these baby monkeys…and not videos by PETA or some other group that goes to extremes..these are just the actual videos from the National Institute of Health..the national organization that funds much of the lab testing on primates..I am not a supporter of PETA or any other of those type organizations that go to extremes…I also do not support abortion except in very extreme, life threatening situations..but I also do not push my beliefs on anyone else regarding that because that is something each person has to live with themselves..

      You do not think that monkeys have the same feelings as us? They do not experience emotion exactly the same way we do but they do experience many feelings just like we do…Would you mind looking at some examples? Primates are very close to humans in genetic makeup..physically they are very much the same..that is why all of the researchers say they want to use them because they are just like us or very very close…and why do you think that they are using them in psych studies like this one in the article, studies about sadness (from being seperated from their mothers, from being lonely, from being bored because they have nothing to do, from scaring them with things that they are terrified of..and these are little babies remember), and depression and anxiety? Because they feel all of these feelings just like we do..if they did not then why would all of the researchers say that it is so important to use them over any other animal? Have you ever been depressed or experienced extreme anxiety? If not, have you ever had someone close to you experience it? Have you seen how they suffer? Have you ever felt like things would never get better, that you could never laugh again or be happy? Have you ever been so worried over things that you were sick over it and it felt like it would never end?
      Can you imagine going to jail (or if you have ever been there) and being locked in solitary confinement where you had no TV, nothing to read, no playing cards, no game, nobody to talk to or even look at? NO place to walk around and do normal everyday things..you have to eat, sleep, and poop and pee all within that tiny box that you are confined to 24 hours a day..do you know that some of those monkeys, the ones that can feel the same pain, anxiety, boredom, depression, loneliness, sadness have been locked in solitary confinement with no other animals, no affection from people, has never EVER seen the sky, grass, smelled fresh air, heard a cricket, never touched or seen another monkey, has never loved nor been cared about, has never PLAYED because the cage is only big enough to move around slightly…for OVER 20 YEARS (a few of them for 40 years)??? Could you imagine?
      Do you know that these monkeys that you think dont seem to mind become so bored, so restless, so scared because they know that they are going to be experiencing some serious pain when they see that person coming to get them out of that cage and put them into another one that they go insane just like people would and do in the same circumstances..and of course they remember all of the things they experience because they are very smart..not as smart as you but as smart as a young child..would you want a child to experience all of this? Could you imagine waking up every single day to this, knowing that until you reach death that this is all there is…a human would kill themselves…monkeys try to..they chew off their own arms and legs..if that is not a monkeys idea of trying to commit suicide while in a cage and no access to any other thing that he could hurt himself with then I dont what would be..

      Have you ever experienced serious pain? Pain that you dont ever want to experience again? Do you know that they do not give these guys pain meds and that they are often awake and aware of what is happening (and experiencing pain from it) while being subjected to some seriously invasive and painful procedures? Did you know that they are so much like us that people have received a baboon’s heart in a transplant? That we can use a chimpanzee’s blood as our own (we can get it as a blood transfusion)?

      So I do not know what the right answer is..and yes, you are right, they are animals (OF course, so are we and very similar animals) but I understand what you are saying..The problem I had here was this statement you made….”I don’t see why all the fuss off using monkeys for testing, what I have seen they don’t seem to be bother by it at all.” Are you kidding me? They suffer unbelievably…so if it is absolutely necessary then maybe it is what has to be done…but this test that he is doing in this article has been done so many times before and he has no clear answer on what the great big benefit will be by doing it….so I have a problem with that. -I will post some links to some of those things i mentioned…I am not some extremist advocate..I am a normal regular person that has empathy….and I once never really thought about it and didnt really care one way or the other..until I saw for myself how much suffering there was in this, how much they do think and feel…and the links..I would not link anyone to propaganda crap..I just want those who do not know to be able to at least see what they experience..and how smart they are….(and I would be happy to answer any questions)

      • Yeb empty

        I would be interested in seeing these non PETA videos. It would be interesting to see it from a non sensationalist point of view. Do you somehow have access to this?

    • Sherri Morningstar

      You must work there! You are so wrong on so many levels.

    • Burkl44

      Um…if they didn’t experience emotion like us, why would they use them in experiments in place of humans?

  • darlingsapphire

    Yes Peta euthanizes animals when they cannot find a good home with caring humans. Humans are the only species that destroy the planet we live in, destroy everything in sight, especially what is beautiful; thus
    we should experiement on humans, but this partifular experiment is so unnecessary because we all know
    what happens to a baby, or a very young infant alone and frightened without the warmth and protection of it’s Mother. This Dr. Kalin is insane, crazy, nuts, and more importantly very stupid.Who ever made the
    comment that animals don’t have the same feelings as humans is insane as well. I have observed animals
    for years and I can verify that animals have more on the ball than practically all humans on this earth, and
    probably this is the reason why labs use animals BUT IT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, SIMPLY

  • Targa

    Disgusting and unethical. Who would want to attend a university with no morals and a high end arrogance? Stop it now.

  • catherine

    That man is a freak. Self-important and getting his grant money. This is plain wrong,wrong,wrong. Those babies should be protected and cared for. They should be with their mothers. What if some huge creature took our human babies and tortured, then killed them?

  • Niki Olle

    Doctors, take YOUR OWN children and test on them !!!!! Who give YOU rights to torture and terrorize animals. They have rights to leave free and safe ON TIS EARTH !be born, have mother and normal peaceful life.. Why, why we even aloud to do this !!!!!!!!! How they can sleep at night !!!!!! Make me sick just to think. They are also asking to donate money for their research !!!! Hell NO !!!!!!!

  • Ben Johnson

    This is an emotional issue, that is clear from the posts but to make any sense of this requires calmer heads. It is clearly cruel to perform these tests on these vulnerable creatures. Let’s ask some questions. Could there be some benefit to humankind? Possibly. Will there be a value we can attribute to the results of inflicting this emotional pain on these helpless creatures? Maybe yes, maybe no. Having said that, perhaps we should study ineffective, inept or worse, abusive parenting and the effects on infants and young children instead. These tests require mental abuse of youngsters who would normally not be subjected to such horrors. Psychiatry is at best a field of unknowns. Even that which the field has uncovered as effective “treatments” leaves much to be desired in the way of drug treatment for mental ailments. We may learn something about how the brain suffers when subjected to abuse. Perhaps the real research which would be most effective would be to look at how to stop abuse of infants and children in the first place. If we can effect changes at that level, studies like this would be superfluous. Really, the bottom line is that human nature seems to be at the root of the problem. Until we find a way to change the basic nature of humankind, issues of the effect of abuse will always be with us and people will always suffer. I don’t think these Doctors relish in the idea of finding better and more cruel ways of torturing animals, although that may be the outcome of their work. The real question becomes how do we put a stop to man’s inhumanity to man? Will these test really prevent that? I’m not convinced either way. I do believe that they think what they are doing is for the benefit of humankind. Whether the end result will prove to benefit anyone is also unknown. I do know that there is always a cost to pay for knowledge. Sometimes it’s worth it and sometimes it’s not.

    • Peter Rabbitt

      Ben- I do agree w/ what you say. Human nature is the root of the problem, and those that support this type of research are projecting our worst characteristics into these creatures, which we call ‘lower’ life forms, and therefore feel justified in doing with them as we please for our own benefit (or sadistic pleasure). Just like was done against humans held captive in slavery, or experimented on horrifically in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany (even babies and young children), and the prolific use of torture and brutality against groups of people all around the world today. When we can stop projecting this cruelty onto others, human or not, is the big question for me. How can this ever be stopped?

      I would love to see more studies on kindness, compassion, and empathy. I would like to see LOVE held as our highest human standard, and the principle we construct our lives around to determine the course of action that we will take in every area of life. Seems obvious to me, but how does this awareness awaken in those who ridicule this idea, whose eyes have yet to open and see this possibility?

  • Magdamae

    I think I’d rather stay psychologically unbalanced than have animals killed to help me.

  • Marcia Mueller

    It says something ugly about human nature when people are so fearful of suffering themselves but are willing to inflict on animals to benefit themselves.