the many uses for "purpose bred animals"

I recently read this article in the Willamette Week about the controversy surrounding OHSU's primate research facility. After discussing the article with a friend, we came to the conclusion that while certain scientific research on animals (such as hair products or cosmetics) is absolutely unacceptable, other research has played a heavy role in our current understanding and treatment of many illnesses. I don't like any of it, personally, but I can't deny that people dying of cancer should have access to the most effective scientific scientific research possible. When my grandmother had cancer her most effective treatment at M.D. Anderson was a study that injected tumors into rats and then used different methods of chemotherapy and radiation to see what would decrease the size of the tumor. Even now, how could I side with a rat over my grandmother, the kindest, most wonderful person I have ever known? over anyone's grandmother?

One of the problems I had with the WWeek article, which was essentially an interview with the Animal Scientists, was that they referred to the animals not as macaques or even monkeys, but as 'purpose bred animals'. Yes, it is probably easier to perform operations on unnamed generic animals, but to me this term implies a lack of respect for the creature that is essentially donating its life to science. It is also a pathetic way to avoid inciting the public, who would probably flinch at the thought of performing operations on monkeys. If you believe in what you are doing, then stand behind it.

I also didn't like one of the scientists' avoidance of the subject of pain. When the interviewer asks her if by minimizing costs, she means the animals pain or discomfort, she replies that pain is tricky because there are very few studies actually studying pain. So we need to study the effects of pain on animals in order to recognize that it is there? She does add that the animals undergo the same process of anesthesia as a human would before surgery is performed. At least they aren't awake.

Anyway, I understand the need to use monkeys (primates), specifically, for some areas of scientific research (although I do not agree with using animals for fertility studies, as they do currently at OHSU). However, are there not times when anything substituted for a human being is going to lead to incredibly flawed results? I came across this article in the New York Times / Science Blog, describing a study that was recently done with the macaque population at OHSU:

PORTLAND, Ore -- Newly-published research by scientists at Oregon Health & Science University demonstrates that simply reducing caloric intake is not enough to promote significant weight loss. This appears to be due to a natural compensatory mechanism that reduces a person's physical activity in response to a reduction in calories. The research is published in the April edition of the American Journal of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.

Beyond the question of whether any of these findings are relevant (and if so, how much so), considering they are being performed on monkeys and applied to humans - yes, it is a closer connection that snakes, but still - is the question of whether it is truly ethical to use captive monkeys for this type of study, which could easily be performed on a human being. Yes, it is more difficult to keep a person in a completely controlled environment where their food intake, exercise, sleep, bodily functions, etc... could all be monitored, but this study is not really giving us any information that can save humanity. We already know that the healthiest lifestyle involves both a nutritious diet as well as exercise. We don't need a study on monkeys to tell us that.

Finally, this brings me to the real subject of this post, which is if course a book I'm reading, In Defense of Food - An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. It's the one where he says "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.," which I was hesitant to pick up because I thought it might be a continuation or a summary of the already incredibly long Omnivore's Dilemma. In fact, it is a quick and easy read that gives a brief history of the development of the processed food as a staple in our diet and the rise of "Nutritionism" and Americans' unhealthy obsession with being healthy. More on this later when i finish the book!

Have a lovely day!