• “Craig Berridge, a behavioral neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is comfortable with the scrutiny given animal research on campus.” I suspect that Berridge’s “comfort” with the use of animals on his campus may have something to do with the money he gets from it.

    5R01 MH081843 05: LOW-DOSE METHYLPHENIDATE AND THE PREFRONTAL CORTEX. BERRIDGE, CRAIG W. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. 2013 $430,094.

    R21 MH102211 01 CRF & FRONTOSTRIATAL NEURAL CODING. BERRIDGE, CRAIG W UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. 2013. $225,750.

    He uses rats in dead-end cruel experiments. His work is just another example of the completely worthless white coat welfare underway at the university and around the country. He also speaks about things he must know nothing about. Harlow’s work contributed nothing to child care. For readers with an interest reading a well-researched work on the history of child care, I recommend Thomas Maier’s biography of Benjamin Spock, “Dr. Spock: An American Life.”

    Berridge would do well to look a little more carefully at the oversight system as well. He seems less than well informed about that subject too. See:
    http://www.socialpsychology.org/articles/scipress.htm

  • Sara Andrews

    I’d be very interested in what we are using as definitions for “fairly and humanely”. Under what possible definitions does this new monkey research fit any of those definitions of those words?

    How do you minimize suffering when your research is designed to study the effect of suffering (aka, immediate removal from parental care and protection and subjection to anxiety causing events)?

    What is fair or humane (having or showing compassion or benevolence) about subjecting a baby animal to suffering for it’s whole life and then ending it’s life very prematurely to analyze it’s brain’s response to stress? In what way is this possibly fair to the research animals in question?

    I have an advanced degree from the UW (though admittedly not in a related topic) – but I took several psychology classes through the UW system and two philosophy classes as well. I am yet completely unable to understand why any of this is considered necessary or moral.

    Though I find the ethics questionable on other types of animal research, this study is not about addressing a communicable disease or developing a vaccines. This is about applying things we learn from the brains of animals very similar to us to mental health treatment – mental health issues that are caused by environmental conditions that we should be addressing as a society with education and services, not drugs.

    How in the world can we think that we could gain a benefit from drugs that would work on both of our brains in a similar way without acknowledging that the lives and emotions of these animals is similar to ours and therefore holds a high value? If we wouldn’t do this research on ourselves (and we never would), how is it okay to do it another species with very similar brains to ours?

    The benefits of this research are totally unknown, and you can’t preemptively justify the means to an end that is highly questionable.

    I find this research nauseating – and I am ashamed to have my degrees from a system that condones this type of research activity and deems it ethically acceptable in 2014.

  • Susan Peterson

    Are we not a civilized nation??? To do this type of “experiment” is very disturbing. It is quite obvious the type of outcome when removing a primate, human from their mother. I also wonder about the money aspect from this study. What appalled me most is that our tax money is paying for this. Shame on UW-Madison!!!