X-Message-Number: 8917 Subject: Re: Experimental subjects (CryoNet #8912) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 20:08:49 -0600 From: Will Dye <> Steve Jackson <> writes: > If a great ape is a similar enough subject to be useful (which I won't get > into because I have no competence on the matter) It would be very useful. The similarities in brain structure are such that many of the primatologists I've met consider killing a non-human great ape to be just as immoral as killing a person. > then, if the cooperation > of a zoo could be arranged, a cryonics company could do a standby on a > dying gorilla or chimp, run through the whole procedure, and then thaw, > autopsy and evaluate. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask, but keep in mind that zoos are very, very sensitive to public relations matters. Even if the procedure was done after the animal was dead, they run a risk that the story would be re-told (by dissenters?) inaccurately, and the last thing that any zoo wants is to have to deny an accusation of being anything less than an unqualified advocate of animals. Many of the folk in zoos are advocates of animal rights, and the idea of using animals, even ones that died of natural causes, for medical research would meet some opposition, since any kind of experimentation might be seen as a "slippery slope". They would surely raise a ruckus if the zoo was paid in any way for allowing the animal to be used, since it creates a conflict of interest. Of course, there are good counter-arguments to that, but most zoos don't want to spend their political capital arguing that "certain types" of animal testing is OK. They might concede it, but they don't want to be the ones to push it. In other words, they see a downside (possible PR problems), and they can't get an upside (no money in it). A busy zoo director would probably turn it away, IMO. > One might also be able to acquire live apes that were (for whatever reason) > scheduled for euthanasia anyway. But there are probably all kinds of > permits involved; there are certainly dangers in handling large primates, > especially sick or injured ones; YES. Trans-species infections (I believe the term is zoonoses or something like that) can be very nasty. Also, large primates are STRONG. Even a young chimp can literally rip your arm off if it's scared or angry. On top of that, large primates are so endangered, and so expensive, that they are usually given top-notch care when their health is bad. Putting them down (the zoo term for killing them) is rare. > and if an animal is in a condition in > which euthanasia is required, it might very well be cruelly stressful to > move it to the cryonics lab. Yup. And even if things are OK in one particular case, some will oppose it becuase it sets a precedent that could lead to more such testing. The only selling point I could see for this is to start with animals that 1) freeze well anyway (so it looks more plausible), and 2) are going extinct fast (so you can argue that you are desparate). That way, you are doing a research project for the benefit of endangered animals - something the zoos don't mind defending. Once the precedent is established, you ramp up to other animals. You don't necessarily have to keep every test subject in suspension forever, you just need to make sure it's all good research, directed towards helping seriously endangered species. Even then, you'll hit opposition from those who say the resources would be better spent on their own pet approach (kind of like the letters Mike Darwin got from AIDS activists when he put an Alcor ad in a gay-oriented magazine). It wouldn't hurt to quietly ask, but be prepared for the word "no". I reccomend the "last desparate hope for the animal" approach, as opposed to the "mind if we use that carcass for testing controversial human medical treatments" approach. --Will ________________________________________________________ William L. Dye \ My Terror Legions invaded \ Earth and all I got was \ this lousy .sig quote. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8917