Talk:Countries banning non-human ape experimentation

September 2005

"approximately 1300 individuals currently in US labs" Source? --JWSchmidt 02:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a source here [1] saying 3,100 Great Apes are living in captivity in the U.S., which includes laboratories, so 1,300 sounds about right though we should find a source (which shouldn't be hard to find), assuming it's great apes that's meant. If it's primates, it's many more: there are 15,000 macaques in the U.S. alone in laboratories. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Thoughts on the Future of Great Ape Research" by Edwin H. McConkey and Ajit Varki in Science, Vol 309, Issue 5740, 1499-1501 , 2 September 2005.
"there should be substantially increased funding for studies on great ape anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, neurobiology, cognitive functions, behavior, and ecology. All such research should be done following ethical principles like those currently used in human studies. Much can also be learned in the course of providing outstanding medical care, as has been the case for humans. Increased knowledge about ape phenomes will likely be helpful for understanding some human diseases"

There is a great ape research ban in germany since 1991 (source: http://www.eceae.org ). That`s why I added Germany to that list.

Great Apes vs NHPs?

It sounds like the term "Great Apes" in this article (and a large fraction of related articles) could be replaced with the term "near-human Primates", which is more precise in definition, less emotive, and more commonly used in scientific circles. Any thoughts on this?--inks 01:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's more commonly used by scientists, we should definitely be using it too. Do you have any sources on that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in a Google search for "near-human primates research" vs "great apes research", the latter term is superior in terms of hits (1+ million vs 500). However, most of the articles using the term "great apes" are popular media, whereas the term "near-human primate" is almost exclusively used in academic debate. To put it another way, if a University was publishing Animal Ethics guidelines, they would tend to use the term "near-human primates" as opposed to "great apes".--inks 02:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I get very different search results. Near-human primate: 5, and the plural: 12. Great ape: 289,000, and the plural: 871,000. Near-human primates research: 0. Great ape research: 108. Do you have any sources showing near-human primate is used by scientists? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Surely. Animal Ethics guidelines here refer to them as "near-human primates", not great apes, which is more open to interpretation.--inks 08:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to see it changed, but you'll have to produce some sources. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Biomedical Research Literature

A search of the Entrez Pubmed database of published journal articles suggests that "near-human Primates" is not a commonly used term in the scientific literature. A search for {"near-human" Primates} returns 31 articles, many of which include phrases such as "near human habitations" and "DNA near human telomeres". There have been a few published articles about the use of apes in research (such as PMID 12085928) that probably have used the phrase "near-human Primates".

A search of the Entrez Pubmed database for {non-human apes} returns 2021 articles. Studies on reproductive endocrinology in non-human primates: application of non-invasive methods is a recent example that has "non-human primates" in the title PMID 15750292. This later article also talks about "captive great apes" in the abstract. In the body of the article, "great ape" is used 11 times and "non-human" is used twice PMID 15750292. Searches for {"non-human" apes ethical} and {"non-human" apes ethics} each return about 28 articles.

A search of the Entrez Pubmed database for {"great apes" research} finds 390 articles including PMID 16136111. Most of the articles are about results from research using apes such as Successful treatment of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy in an adult chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) PMID 15766214.

{near-human} 41 articles
{"non-human" ape} 2006 articles
{great apes} 565 articles {lesser apes} 26 articles

Most biologists know that humans are apes and they simply distinguish between humans and non-human apes. Near-human is ambiguous. How near? Biologists usually make a distinction between "lesser apes" and "great apes". There is much more research on great apes than on lesser apes and "non-human ape" almost always means "non-human great apes". My guess is that many biologists would accept use the term "near-human apes" to mean "non-human great apes", but "non-human ape" is the phrase that is traditionally used and everyone knows that they are "near-human"- it is a point that scientists probably feel need not be explicitly made. For people who are trying to educate the public about how similar non-human great apes are to humans, it is probably useful to use the phrase "near-human apes". My review of the biomedical literature suggests that for articles about the ethics of using non-human great apes in research, it is probably not unusual to find the term "near-human apes". However, most of these articles are not available online and many of them are editorials and commentaries rather than peer-reviewed articles. Is the conduct of medical research on chimpanzees compatible with their rights as a near-human species? PMID 12085928 is an example of an article in the database, but I have never heard of the journal Between Species.--JWSchmidt 13:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wow - I'm very impressed by the effort you've gone through, and you've convinced me. I withdraw my previous statements regarding G.A vs N.H.P. *tips hat to JWSchmidt*--inks 08:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethics Guidelines and Legislation

The U.S.A. National Institutes of Health seems to use "nonhuman primate" for its ethical guidelines. There are some animal rights groups that use "near-human primate", for example: Americans for Medical Progress, but I could not find an actual set of ethical guidelines that uses the term "near-human primate". Others animal advocacy groups use "nonhuman" in their suggested guidelines, example: The Humane Society of the United States. Note: the Humane Society "guidelines" are basically a call for "an official ban on the use of nonhuman apes in biomedical research and testing in the United States". This Humane Society webpage has some figures for the number of chimps used in U.S.A. research, and cites a A 2001 report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress. It also points to:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001). Public Law 106-551 Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act: Report to Congress regarding number of chimpanzees and funding for care of chimpanzees.

I tried to find this "Report to Congress" (above) online, but failed. I did find these webpages:

• A 1997 study on chimp research.
• A year 2000 Senate report
• 2002 NIH chimp sanctuary
• Chimp legislation

{"near-human" apes ethical guidelines} gets about 90 Google hits.
{"nonhuman" apes ethical guidelines} gets about 900 Google hits.

--JWSchmidt 15:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Picture

The picture should be changed, as it does not depict a great ape!

Template + terminology

Following my previous comment - I can see now that the picture is a part of the whole template. I'd hate to remove the template, but I feel that something should be changed. An article on great apes can't be illustrated by a picture of a non-ape, as it only adds to the confusion that is already rife (most native English speakers don't distinguish between monkeys and apes, let alone non-native speakers). As to the terminology, "near-human" is rarely used. It may be apposite in the ethical contexts, but otherwise does not seem quite right. It seems to suggest that humans are a reference point or some evolutionary target for other apes, which may be a widespread conception, but is bad evolutionary thinking - i.e. it promotes a teleological (goal-oriented) image of how evolution works that is entirely false. Ariosto 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What about non-invasive research?

One question that I'd like to have answered: how does this ban effect the sorts of NON invasive research (cognition studies, language instruction attempts, etc) that are more about understanding apes (and secondarily, the ape origins of human activity) than they are about medivcal testing, etc. Is that still allowed in those countries or has it been banned too or is it a non-issue as non-US ape research hasn't tended to be of this sort anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.175.208 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Spain restricts primate exploitation

I heard last year on the radio that Spain adopted laws granting great apeas rights. Can't give you more info but check out this website: http://www.releasechimps.org/mission/end-chimpanzee-research/country-bans/#axzz1qDpMajAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.210.255.207 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving article

Since lesser apes have also been banned from experimentation by Austria, humans are also great apes, and because only ape experimentation is banned, not total ape research, (research on wild apes is still allowed) it would be more accurate to title this article "Non-human ape experimentation bans" instead (or maybe "Countries banning experimentation on non-human apes"). Unless anyone has any objections, I'll move this article. RockingGeo (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)