Welcome to the resurrection of BLOG LaFleur!
This special post is in response to a blog entry published
on September 2, 2016 by the website Speaking of Research. The post was authored
by Dr. Amanda Dettmer and entitled “Opinions, evidence, and anti-research agendas: A recap of a session at the American Society of Primatologists/International Primatological Society Meeting 2016”.
I was a co-organizer and panelist in this International Primatological Society (IPS)/American Society of Primatologists (ASP) roundtable
session, and I will respond to Dr. Dettmer’s main criticisms and her question
of ‘who should evaluate primate research’ here (Speaking of Research declined
to post a blog response).
By way of overview, in her lengthy and scornful review of
the roundtable session, Dr. Dettmer attempts to: 1) discredit the authenticity of
the roundtable participants, 2) question the legitimacy of the information
presented, and 3) deny that any part of the ensuing discussion was productive.
While I will comment on each of these points in turn, I must
note that Dr. Dettmer’s extensive criticisms merely act to deflect attention
from the tasks at hand, namely reevaluating ethical considerations of
controversial non-human primate research, such as maternal deprivation studies,
and bridging the existing divides between groups of primatologists, where
welfare based dialogue has become largely too contentious to openly
discuss.
Additionally it is worth noting that, at no leading up to,
during, or following the IPS/ASP roundtable session has Dr. Dettmer or any
other ASP board member expressed an interest in gaining feedback from members
on the research it endorses, such as controversial studies using maternal
deprivation in non-human primates.
Dettmer criticism 1. “Despite its inclusion in the
scientific program of scientific societies, the session presented little
evidence and little balance.”
One of the strengths of primatology as a discipline is that
it brings together researchers with vastly different interests and expertise.
As such, IPS/ASP members may include evolutionists, geneticists, behaviorists,
conservationists, and educators, to name a few. Given the breadth of
primatological studies, differing methodologies may be employed, depending on
the context and desired goals. Scientific or hypothesis-driven methods are
integral to primatology; however, other methodologies or ways of knowing are
used and equally valid, given appropriate circumstances. Philosophy, for
example, is not a scientific discipline, yet the foundations for ethics and
morality are found here.
My presentation, entitled Stewardship of non-human primates:
can members drive progressive ethics (abstract 2392, available at https://www.asp.org/IPS/meetings/conferenceschedule.cfm), was not scientific in
nature and did not present the results of hypothesis-driven research. My talk,
provided background information on my involvement and interest in ethical
considerations with reference to non-human primates, and also relayed some of
my experiences while planning the roundtable discussion. These were both
important as they set the stage for later discussion, but also addressed the
divisive and even hostile climate within professional primatologists when
openly discussing (or largely not discussing, given the hostility) the welfare
and care of laboratory non-human primates. This hostility and divisiveness
appears to largely stem colligate dialogue which could result in appreciably
increased welfare for the primates in our care.
Other talks within the session did present scientifically
derived information (abstracts 7454, 6852, 6909, and 6934, also available at https://www.asp.org/IPS/meetings/conferenceschedule.cfm). For these, please
do not confuse brevity of presentation (five-minute presentation format was
chosen to maximize discussion time), or information collected via primary
literature, with lack of evidence.
Note. From Dettmer criticism 1, it is not clear what
“little balance” is referring to. I would happily comment on this if Dr. Dettmer cares to
elaborate.
Dettmer criticism 2. The panelists were tied to
organizations and/or campaigns opposed to laboratory research with nonhuman
primates, yet did not disclose these ties upfront and failed to provide their
basic starting assumptions or to acknowledge their positions.
First, I have no affiliations with organizations or
campaigns opposed to laboratory research with non-human primates. However, if I
did, I would hope that my word would be weighted with that of any other member,
outside affiliations aside. As someone who is knowledgeable about non-human
primates, I expect my authority to be based on my qualifications (doctoral and
postdoctoral) and experience, not the affiliations that I hold.
Second, I fail to see why it is necessary for individuals to
disclose institutional or organizational affiliations to which they are tied
which may be apposed to laboratory research with non-human primates. Certainly,
members who have ties to laboratories that conduct experimental research on
non-human primates are not required to disclose affiliations or ‘acknowledge
their positions’ during presentations. Moreover, disclosing any and all affiliative
relationships is simply not standard procedure during IPS/ASP congresses.
Third, essentializing personal views on complex issues (i.e.
being “for” or “against” laboratory experiments involving non-human primates)
would at best be a false dichotomy, with respect to most peoples’ feelings on
ethical research. Even if members could choose a simple ‘pro’ or ‘con’ stance,
this would only likely act to further divide individuals. Furthermore, one
could imagine a scenario wherein audience members, who would be otherwise open
to logical arguments presented, become quickly biased upon hearing the
“starting assumptions” or “positions”.
Rather than creating more divisions based on generalized
bottom-lines (which are unlikely to exist in the same way for many people), we
would be better served to acknowledge our commonalities and employ our primate
empathetic and perspective-taking abilities, which are far more conducive to a
creating a progressive dialogue on the ethical care of non-human laboratory
primates.
Dettmer criticism 3. The fact-less rhetoric did not provide a
basis for productive discussion about captive primate care or changes to
existing regulations, as would have been provided with evidence-based
presentations.
I disagree that the discussion was either fact-less or
non-productive.
First, as outlined above, information needn’t be directly
quantitative in order to be valid, or factual.
Second, several very important points emerged from the
discussion, which will be integral to future discussions of captive non-human
primate welfare and changes in existing regulations. To illustrate, a number of
attendees noted feeling marginalized by the primatology community and suggested
that the general atmosphere is hostile for discussing primate welfare.
Interestingly, this sentiment likely applies to both to primatologists in
support of and opposed to certain types of biomedical research with non-human
primates (recognizing that this is a complex issue where few are likely
completely in support of or against). Simply knowing this is powerful and could
act as a starting point for bringing together primatologists, the vast majority
of who wish to improve laboratory primate welfare.
Finally, I will comment specifically on the portion of Dr.
Dettmer’s post regarding ‘who should evaluate primate research’? For ease of
reading, I have included Dr. Dettmer’s text (in red italics) here, along with
my responses.
The first speaker, LaFleur, wrote in the abstract of her
presentation: “Ethical standards and cost-benefit analyses of non-human
primates in research must continually be evaluated and reevaluated, by a
diverse range of experts (including those without vested interests).” By
“vested interests,” LaFleur presumably meant those working in primate research.
What wasn’t clear is whether the panelists believe that they themselves and
organizations such as PETA and HSUS also have clearly vested interests. For
example, PETA has an extremely vested interests in this issue, yet nowhere
during the session was it disclosed that panelist King has worked actively on
campaigns organized by PETA (for other panelists’ ties to PETA; see below).
In this context, a “vested interest” refers to having a
personal stake in maintaining the status quo of the current ethical standards
that apply to laboratory use and care of non-human primates. Most obviously,
anyone who is employed by a specific research project or laboratory has a
vested interest in the research. Groups or individuals outside of those employed by
non-human primate laboratories could also hold vested interests through their
own employment, or by less obvious means, such as professional reputation. Despite
these potential biases, those with vested interests may also be expertly
qualified to contribute to progressing ethical standards. For these reasons, it
is extremely important that ethical review panels have diversity and include at
least some members who will not personally benefit from maintaining existing
ethical norms.
Most important though, from the perspective of beginning
with fact: The analyses of non-human
primates in research to which LaFleur refers already routinely occurs by
experts in the field: the trained scientists, veterinarians, and colony
managers, including many members of ASP, who work with primates in captive
settings on a daily basis and dedicate much of their research programs toward
understanding and improving their welfare (see, for one recent example, this
special issue of the American Journal of Primatology, dedicated solely to the
well-being of laboratory nonhuman primates).
Continual analyses of research programs, from a variety of experts occurs now must continue in future. My contribution to this is
noting that experts without vested interests are also needed, and that ethical
standards should be progressive rather than conservative.
LaFleur also wrote in her abstract, “I argue that
experimental procedures which cause permanent and irreversible harm on
individual non-human primates should not be deemed ethically permissible.” Yet,
LaFleur failed to make a clear case for exactly why her position is justified
in a way that is more appropriate than the position held by others who were
part of the multi-level review that weighs scientific objectives and animal
welfare and grants approval for research projects.
My position is no more or less valid than any of the
individuals that were part of the multilevel review. However, what is important
about my position is that I have little vested interest interest in maintaining the status quo
of this research, as I do not personally gain via employment, publications, or social
status, per se. Qualified persons outside of the institution, regulating board, and
funding agency (who each have vested interests) provide a perspective that is
currently lacking in the review process.
In sum, although Dr. Dettmer declined to participate as a
panelist in the roundtable discussion*, her vast experience with captive
primate research (including the maternal deprivation studies in question) could
have provided valuable knowledge and insight into the ethical considerations
that affect laboratory non-human primates. Rather than contribute to this
important dialogue, Dr. Dettmer wrote an extensive blog post that aims to
discredit my authenticity and legitimacy, along with that of my colleagues.
Surely, this is not the most productive way to a progressive ethics, one that
benefits the primates within our collective care as IPS/ASP members. I
sincerely hope that Dr. Dettmer and many other non-human primate researchers,
including the remainder of the board members of ASP, embrace a cooperative stance in future. A
stance that is conducive to discussing and implementing progressive ethical
standards, and one that truly puts first the welfare of non-human primates in
laboratories. At present, this is simply not the case.
Marni LaFleur, Ph.D. is the founder and co-director of Lemur
Love, Inc. a US-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, an adjunct professor
at the University of California San Diego, and a member of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission Primate Specialist Group. Responses here are mine alone and
do not represent those of my co-organizer or fellow panelists, funders, or
academic institutions.
* It is also worth noting that several laboratory-based
primate researchers who were in attendance at IPS/ASP 2016 were invited to
speak on the panel; all either refused to participate or failed to respond to
invitations.
