Talk:Silver Spring monkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silver Spring monkeys article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] More one-sided editing

AR, I see you once again left out anything that didn't suit your agenda. Please stop this kind of editing, or the dispute resolution process may be initiated against you.

Can you please say exactly what the source says, regarding this edit?

"Scientists were allowed to conduct brain mapping studies on the remaining monkeys, under anesthesia, prior to euthanasia, and the studies led to new discoveries about the roles of the dorsal root ganglia, dorsal columns, and thalamus in denervated tissue. (Science. 1998 Nov 6;282(5391):1121-5)

SlimVirgin (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The source provides physiological and anatomical evidence on the contributions of the thalamus to the re-organizational process. The news and views in the same issue points out these changes depends on whether or not the dorsal root ganglia have been severed (as they were in the Silver Spring monkeys). Apparently long-term cuts in dorsal root ganglia lead to progressive atrophy of neuronal circuits through the dorsal columns and to the thalamus, a discovery made possible by the Silver Spring monkeys, with specific application to many limb amputees. --Animalresearcher 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that shows the Silver Spring monkeys case "led to new discoveries." See WP:ATT. At the moment, this is just your own interpretation of the primary source that you're citing. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Nonetheless, there is a commentary on the Silver Spring Monkeys article in the same issue of Science that raises the same issue. --Animalresearcher 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections?

Is this correct?: "Dr. Edward Taub, who was researching regeneration of severed nerves...." Was he looking for regeneration of nerves, or for recovery of motor function (voluntary movements of the deafferented limb)? That is, was he at that time studying behavior, or neurophysiology?

Is this correct?: "Taub had cut sensory nerves in the monkeys' fingers, hands, arms, and legs...." This gives the impression that in each monkey, all of these limbs were affected. Shouldn't "and" be "or"? 4granite 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


No, Taub cut dorsal root ganglia adjacent to the spinal chord. Saying he cut nerves in the fingers and hands is not correct. He cut sensory ganglia that supply the nerves to the fingers and hands, etc.--Animalresearcher 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to turn this article into an unbiased article? It is far from neutral in its current state.

[edit] New References

I have gone through and edited this article to make it less POV, including adding new references both from Pacheco and Kathy Guillermo, who wrote a book about the Silver Spings Monkeys. Agreed, that Guillermo and Pacheco are both on PETA's side, but as it stood this article preented mostly Taub's side. I've also added references about the therapy Taub was working on - CIMT - as well as early discussions of this therapy dating back to 1949. The therapy is not currently an accepted medical procedure, so it's hard to claim that Taub's work with the Silver Springs Monkeys led to a major discovery. Bob98133 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, we can certainly keep some of your material, such as Pacheco's complaints, but we'll need good sources, and they'll have to be written up properly. We also can't pack it all into the lead. As for Taub's therapy, it definitely did lead to accepted medical practice -- for the rehabilitation of stroke victims, for example. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'll wait for others who are editing this article to weigh in, then incorporate suggestions, improve references and reoganize so that the lead isn't so top heavy.Bob98133 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This article is currently undergoing a rewrite and expansion, and may look a little unbalanced during it e.g. with a lead that's too long for the article. The plan is to fill the article out with more details over the next few days and weeks. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me, nice work. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That means a lot to me coming from you, it really does. Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with NIH suspension of funding?

What is the issue with including that NIH suspended Taub's funding? It was referenced in the NY Times. From the perspective of a researcher, whether there were actual violations of relevant animal welfare statutes is a very relevant detail. In this case, and in the Unnecessary Fuss case, there were substantial actions taken by NIH against the researcher(s) and/or institutions. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind...I saw it lower on the page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 in a trillion?

Animalresearcher - I see you have referenced this, but I wonder how relevant Taub's estimate of the odds of something happening might be? The odds of one person winning the lottery twice are probably similar, yet it has happened, so I don't see that small odds are a valid explanation or excuse for the conditions that were found in the lab. While it's possible that Taub had a deceitful employee, he was still responsible for leaving his lab in the care of that person, so the odds against something happening do not relieve him from his responsibility for oversight.Bob98133 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The calculation odds are in the reference, and is stated similarly to the inclusion in the Wiki page. The source reference is a science news article in Science magazine (mainstream press Science magazine, not a peer review section of the magazine). The additional details that OPRR did the investigation of Taub's lab were in the same article. I had not seen this "defense" offered by Taub in different references. Taub is either saying the covert investigations occurred at a time when there was unprecedented circumstances preventing animal care from coming to work, or that their absences from work were not simply chance. But either of those represent OR on my part - the reference article did not state either. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude, did you even read the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.246.69 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Staged photo

Please note. Nobel Laureate David Hubel, in his 1991 Annual Review of Neuroscience, states that there is "strong suspicion" the "crucifiction" photo of the Silver Spring monkeys was staged by animal-rights activists (presumably he meant Pacheco). This would appear to be the lead photo of this page. On a more logical note, it does not make much sense to tie up ALL the limbs of an animal if you are trying to induce it to use de-afferented limbs. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note. David Hubel refers specifically to the lead, crucifiction, photo. --Animalresearcher (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They were tied up like that to have pain administered to them. I'm going to add a section about those tests. This photo was on the front page of the Washington Post, which is why it's here, because it's notable. Can you quote what Hubel says about it, please? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the ref with me at present, but he refers specifically to "strong suspicions" that the "crucifiction" photo was staged by "animal-rights activists". Pacheco also threatened to sue the American Physiology Society over this article which claims non-specifically that he staged photos http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/legacy/1991/issue6/303.pdf - The American Physiology Society had its lawyers go over the article (the Charles Nicoll speech) and they concluded based on the court transcripts that it would stand. Pacheco never sued them. In any case, I assure you the current text is quite specifically and correctly referenced to David Hubel (Nobel Laureate) - completely verifiable in any med school library - unless you want to argue that this photo is not the "crucifiction" photo - which is how he refers to it. Also, although I was not there, I find it hard to believe anyone would ever lash an animal to a chair like that to deliver pain meds. It is far too much trouble for that. Do you have a reliable source for that? I mean, typically we give pain meds to animals in the cage, and did even then, in a 1-2 minute procedure. It would take 5-10 times as long to get an animal into a lashed position like that, and no self-respecting animal-tester would use tape over the fur of animals in any regular procedure because it would damage the skin at removal if done repeatedly. Even then - velcro handcuffs are far easier and faster. If that pose was for delivering pain meds, then the person delivering the pain meds was going out of his/her way to perform the procedure in a painful troublesome way. It is very easy for every scientist to harbor suspicions about that picture even without knowing the context. It really looks to a physiologist like the photo was staged for these reasons. I agree it is a notable picture, but it is just as notable that many scientists believe it was likely staged. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not for delivering pain meds, but for causing pain. Taub would allegedly get his assistants to do things to the monkeys to cause pain in them, and the assistants were supposed to record how the monkeys responded. For example, the testicles would be placed in a vice-like instrument, according to Pacheco. I'll find a description from him for you.
If you want to say that "many scientists" believe it was staged, you'd need a source for that. To the best of my knowledge, Taub did not dispute the authenticity of any of these images during the trials, though he did deny that the lab was as dirty as the expert witnesses testified they had found it. None of the secondary sources who reproduced the image, including in books written by animal researchers, said anything about it appearing staged. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That link you gave above is not referring to this image. The "staged" photographs that were mentioned during the trials were images of the monkeys' cages. Pacheco had pulled back a drawer or shelf that covered all or part of the floors of the cages to reveal the faeces piling up underneath. He was asked by defense lawyers whether he had touched the cages before photographing them. He said yes, he had pulled back these drawer or shelf parts (I forget exactly how they were described), and had then photographed underneath them. Ha ha, said the lawyers, the images were staged.
That was the only example given of allegedly staged images that I'm aware of. The rest of Taub's defence was simply that he believed Pacheco had allowed the lab to get dirty in Taub's absence, and had then taken photographs of it as its dirtiest. But the images of monkeys in the restraint chair were never challenged. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
When you refer to what Taub said at his trial, is your source Alex Pacheco or his writings, or a third party? I'll dig out a full Hubel sub-quote a little later today. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Pacheco and several third parties on both sides, and neutral. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD) The context of this quote is that David Hubel is writing his essay as a senior scientist (Nobel Prize winner 10 years earlier) and community leader (former head of the Society for Neuroscience). In this particular section he is lecturing on appropriate responses to give to people uncommitted on the animal rights literature.

Many such people have seen the photographs of the Silver Spring monkey being crucified...They need to be told there is strong suspicion the Silver Spring monkey photograph was staged by animal-rights caretakers.

There is also further citation on this. In February 1990 the Washingtonian printed an article by Katie McCabe claiming that Pacheco staged the photo. Pacheco sued McCabe. Her source was that the crucifixion pose was not used by Taub or to his knowledge in his research program. Under oath in the mediation hearings, it was stated that Pacheco and/or the lab assistant improperly fastened the monkey to the restraint, and that Pacheco took the photograph when the assistant left the room. Taub has told many people (probably including David Hubel) that the crucifixion photograph did not represent any part of his research program, and was never used to his knowledge in normal conduct of his lab. That photo was not used in trial - no part of the trial focussed on things necessary for the conduct of Taub's research - only things related to welfare (according to Constance Holden's article in Science Magazine 11 Dec 1981). --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That Hubel quote is not good enough for the claim that that particular photograph was staged. "There is strong suspicion" doesn't tell us anything. You keep telling us he's a Nobel prize winner, as though that makes him necessarily someone who's familiar with this case, but it doesn't. It's just more of your "scientists-are-omniscient-angels; animal-rights-advocates-are-lying-scum" meme. :-)
The Washingtonian article sounds more promising. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please stop the POV editing? [1] Nobel Laureate (why not just say God, also known as?) David Hubel says ... followed by him saying "there is a suspicion" without saying who suspects, and referring to AR caretakers. What is an AR caretaker? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are challenging the reference. I am clarifying the reference by deferring to a quotation from the original material. I would have been happy with it in its prior revision, but felt that since the attribution to the reference was being challenged, I would let the reference speak instead. With respect to whether it is "good enough", it is reliable, verifiable, third party source. The picture caption says "This is vivisection." Knowledgable parties think that is probably a lie, and that this pose was never a part of Taub's research program. With respect to Hubel calling them animal-rights caretakers, that is material in the reference - I did not write it. In researching this photo, however, it did come to light that even Pacheco and the lab assistant admitted this pose was not part of the intended research program. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did they admit that, and what did they say exactly? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In the mediation hearings for the lawsuit Pacheco vs. McCabe. There is a transcript available in some libraries. The question was whether it was staged. Pacheco and the lab assistant stated that the lab assistant improperly fastened the animal to the restraint device, and that Pacheco took the picture while the lab assistant was out of the room. McCabe had stated the photo was staged because Taub told her (and everyone else) that he never restrained monkeys like that, nor was he aware that anyone ever did that in his research program. Now, if it was an accident that the monkey was fastened like that, and the photo was taken without the lab assistant's knowledge, it is not a staged photograph. There are strong suspicions as to whether that is the case or not. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The lab assistants were not cooperating with Pacheco. You have to bear in mind that Taub was denying things right, left, and center, even things that were clearly true. The place was full of cockroaches and rats, with ancient faeces clinging to the walls and floors, and long-dead monkeys in vats near the fridge. Yet he claimed this had somehow all happened during the three weeks he was on vacation. I'm going to be adding more about what the police found when they raided it, which should put things in some perspective. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider carefully WP:BLP. Pacheco is a known to misrepresent and falsify information about animal testing. This has been claimed in multiple different events by the people conducting testing, including this case, and was shown factually to be an appropriate characterization in the Unnecessary Fuss case by a third party investigator. Even claiming "This is vivisection" in the photo caption is a misrepresentation because the animal should not even be fastened to the restraint device like that according to both sides. Taub has a substantially different reputation, and poorly sourced material will be subject to WP:BLP (ie: I think above you just accused him of perjury). --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't coming from Pacecho, and it isn't true that he's known to falsify material. It's coming from the police who raided the lab, the independent scientists who saw the lab for themselves, and the prosecutors who reviewed their testimony. Bear in mind that Taub was convicted. The conviction was overturned on appeal on a jurisdictional issue. Perhaps you could read some more about the case, then you can judge the evidence for yourself. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I just mean that this isn't the place to argue the facts. We can argue how to present them, but we can't go back and retry the case. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't Pacheco co-produce the film "Unnecessary Fuss"? Hasn't an independent, legally bound, third party found that film made intentional errors in presentation, and errors of fact, in order to misrepresent the testing shown on the film? Doesn't that mean that Pacheco IS known to falsify material? Has anyone ever shown Taub to be a liar? Bear in mind that Taub was initially convicted, and later exonerated of all legal charges - charges principally related to the cleanliness of his lab and attentiveness to the injuries of his animals. And he was never accused of perjury by anyone. His defense on the cruelty charges was that his lab was well within the norm at that time, and that the state of his lab depicted by Pacheco was not representative of the state of his lab when he left on vacation. And that he was attending to the injuries of his animals. And also bear in mind, the OPRR did find his lab was too unsanitary to continue funding - they also found that Taub's lab was not sanitary enough, and he was not attentive enough to the injuries of his animals - and that only veterinarians are qualified for some types of health evaluations. When scientists lie about important matters to science, they typically have substantially negative repercussions for a long long time. When PETA lies about animal testing (ie: Unnecessary Fuss and "This is vivisection"), they make more money. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you've got it only partly correct. The film was criticized for repeating the same footage over and over, and Newkirk was criticized for repeating what the researchers said at one point, when they said they had spilled acid on a baboon, when it was in fact water (note: the researchers said it; you can hear them). Why don't you want the footage for yourself? Links are in the article.
Taub was not exonerated. The court of appeal ruled only that state law did not apply to his work because it was federally funded research. That's not quite what it means to be exonerated.
As a matter of interest, as you've said the apparatus in the image was not part of the research, and that it made no sense to you, what would it be used for, in your opinion? Here is another photograph of it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD) I did not say the apparatus was not used in Taub's research - it was.

What did he use it for then, in your view? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He likely used it to restrain the animal, and one or more limbs would additionally be restrained, allowing one or more de-afferented limbs free to make behavioral responses. Given

the aims of his research, it makes no sense to restrain all four limbs, and as I mentioned, tape is a crude restraint that was uncommon even then because easier options that are also nicer to the animal exist, particularly if the restraint will be applied on a regular basis. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Animals must be restrained by the neck and waist, minimally. However, animals were not taped spread-eagle in a mock crucifixion to the restraint chair as part of Taub's research. Restraining all four limbs and delivering negative reinforcement was not part of Taub's research. The key was that the de-afferented limb(s) were left free, and appropriate responses using that limb allowed the animal to AVOID negative reinforcement after learning. Also, tape is a very crude form of restraint, far easier and better options existed even then, although I do not know what Taub used when he required restraint of an arm or leg. I really think Pacheco could have made his entire case honestly with the same impact on Taub. However, I have "strong suspicions" that his data were sound, and these were mirrored by the OPRR investigation and the fact that the Maryland prosecutor took a paid job with PETA shortly after the trial. But when all is said and done, largely positive changes to animal welfare emerged principally from this case and the U Penn case, and most scientists (including me) think that is a good thing. There is staunch disagreement, however, about the methods used - when they involve undercover third-party operatives instead of unannounced official investigations (we have both), and when the undercover operatives lie and falsify material to the maximal extent they think they can get away with. The climate they create in a research lab is that you fail to assume good faith, and instead wonder about which of your lab assistants is preparing to stab you in the back, even if you adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare. Then again, most researchers today assume that is by intent by PETA and HSUS and IDA and others.--Animalresearcher (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the things Pacheco says the chair was used for was a "noxious stimuli" test:
“ Yakalis [an assistant of Taub's] instructed Pacheco to pinch parts of the monkeys' bodies with surgical pliers to see where they experienced pain and where they had no feeling. To demonstrate, she had Kunz [another assistant] remove Domitian [one of the monkeys] from his cage and place him in a restraint chair. The monkey was taped spread-eagled into the upright device. To keep his head immobilized, a plexiglass sheet with a wedge cut from it was placed at the back of his neck, and a pipe was placed at his throat ... Yakalis clamped the surgical pliers tightly on the monkey's testicles to demonstrate a "positive reaction" to the pain test ... The same procedure was repeated three times in less than an hour before Domitian was returned to his cage (Snow Guillermo 1993, p. 26). ”
Are you saying this doesn't sound plausible? It was not denied in court to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As already pointed out, Pacheco is an unreliable source. With respect to whether and how that chair was used, the arguments need to proceed from reliable third party sources, and not start with a known unreliable source and demand someone contest it. On a completely informal level, Taub would be interested in the limits of different modes of sensation, and evaluating where pain responses could be felt would be an important scientific issue. However, he has denied that animals were restrained/taped in the pose depicted in the Pacheco photograph, and Pacheco and the lab assistant confirmed under oath in the McCabe lawsuit mediation that this picture does not represent what Taub instructed, and used, in his research program. Pacheco maintained that the photos were, however, not staged, but that comes very close to being a merely semantic argument. He presented the picture as though it represented an example of vivisection, and he chose a picture that did not represent the experiments in that lab or elsewhere. As one further point, limb withdrawal is a standard procedure for evaluating potential responses to pain. It does require, however, that the limb be able to be withdrawn. This is used, for example, to evaluate anesthesia depth, even in human surgery. A small pinch, and observe whether there is a limb withdrawal reflex. Taping every limb would largely invalidate the test. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If they were pinching the monkey's testicles, that has nothing to do with withdrawing a limb. And if they were testing for pain in the lab, that is an example of animal testing/vivisection. I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. But regardless, I have two questions:
1. You wrote: "[Taub] has denied that animals were restrained/taped in the pose depicted in the Pacheco photograph ..." Where has he denied this?
2. You wrote: "Pacheco and the lab assistant confirmed under oath in the McCabe lawsuit mediation that this picture does not represent what Taub instructed, and used, in his research program." What is your source for this, and what does the source say exactly? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You really need to stop relying on information Alex Pacheco wrote as a primary source. He seeks to lie and mislead people sympathetic to animals intentionally. Rely instead on reliable sources. Go read the articles written by journalists who were at the trial, or if you are really interested, read the trial transcript. Or, read articles written from all POVs. You will get a very different picture once you weigh reliability and source and stop believing things because you WANT to believe them, and believe them because the bulk of the reliable evidence supports them. As a scientist, I have no problem accepting that OPRR judged that Taub was too unsanitary, and that he did not attend to the animals' wounds using standards OPRR found acceptable, and that this was grounds for denying the rest of his research funding. I recognize that animal welfare standards changed due to the actions of Pacheco and PETA, and that some of this change was good for all parties. I also accept that Pacheco cannot be trusted to tell the truth unless he is quite certain he would get caught (and even then sometimes he will lie). I do not see how you can defend the movie Unnecessary Fuss that he co-produced when it shows the same monkey testing over and over again with a voiceover describing it as a series of different monkeys. Intentional falsification of data doesn't get much more obvious. As I have already stated MULTIPLE times, Alex Pacheco sued the Katie McCabe, author of the Washingtonian article, for claiming he had staged the photos (including the crucifixion pose). Her source was Taub, who told her that pose depicted in the crucifixion photo was never part of his research procedures. She assumed that placing the animal in that pose was intentional and for effect in the photo (an assumption that is not difficult to have strong suspicion of). Pacheco claimed in reply that the lab assistant MADE A MISTAKE in putting the monkey in that pose, and that Pacheco took a picture of the monkey while the lab assistant was out of the room. It is all in the lawsuit mediation settlement transcript.

Draft of "Correction and Clarification," reached by the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the District of Columbia Superior Court, David R. Anderson, Esquire, mediator, in the case Alex Pacheco v. Katie McCabe, Civil Action 90-0A01627, February 15, 1990.

--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)