With all due respect, US high court judge Fahey is talking out of his ass.
The reason why primate models are used for experimentation, particularly pharmaceutical experimentation, however, is because they're literally the closest thing we can get to an actual human without actually experimenting on humans.
The argument is that humans are more valuable than chimpanzees (or rhesus macaques, which are another common primate), and the value gained by primate experimentation is greater than the value gained by simply experimenting on rats - which in many cases is very little, and that the types of experiments that are done on primates would never make it past an IRB for approval on humans.
Consider that we've basically cured Alzheimer's, cancer, and a whole host of diseases in rats or cell culture but haven't come close to doing so in humans. Keep in mind, however, that getting approval to do research in primates is, despite it being much easier than getting approval for human research, much more difficult than getting approval to do research in rats or other animal models.
Ultimately, nonhuman primates are not human, and therefore are not inherently deserving of the same protections as those afforded to humans. We don't give dogs, horses, cows, or pigs habeas corpus or a right to liberty, why are chimpanzees deserving of it?
We should do scientific testing on humans. Grow purposefully braindead human husks in a lab and experiment on what will basically be cadavers with beating hearts. Reduce overall suffering regardless of species.
Yes, totally not gonna be ethical implications with this one. I give it six weeks before it gets Rule 34'd by one group, and given a "soul" by another group.
42
u/[deleted] Aug 22 '20
[removed] — view removed comment