|
Home Page
About SAEN
Articles and Reports
Contact Us
Events and Campaigns
Fact Sheets
Financial Information
How You Can Help
Make a Donation, Please!
Media Coverage
Newsletters
Petitions
Picture Archive
Press Releases
Resources and Links
Grass Roots Org. List



|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
S. A. E. N.
"Exposing the truth to wipe
out animal experimentation"

Government Grants Promoting Cruelty to Animals
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
GAIL D. WINGER - Primate Testing - 2006

Grant Number: 5R01DA015449-04
Project Title: Behavioral Economic Analysis of Polydrug Abuse
PI Information: RESEARCH PROFESSOR GAIL D. WINGER,
gwinger@umich.edu
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Behavioral
economic analysis of normalized demand functions is proving to be a
useful way to quantify and compare drugs as reinforcers. Demand and
response output functions generate two numbers, Pmax and Omax, both of
which incorporate scheduled dose and response requirement variables, and
likely reflect important aspects of the reinforcing effects of the drug.
Because the reinforcing effects of drugs are probably related to their
abuse liability in humans, these metrics may allow us to evaluate this
aspect of the relative abuse liability of drugs more completely than we
can do with most other procedures. The current proposal has as one of
its aims the further use and development of the behavioral economic
analysis of drugs as reinforcers in rhesus monkey models of i.v.
drug-reinforced responding. In particular, the analyses will evaluate
the relative reinforcing effects of a number of drugs of abuse using
own-price elasticity of demand, will determine how the reinforcing
effects of some drugs are modified when these drugs are combined with a
second drug of abuse, and will measure demand functions when the animals
can choose between two drug options using cross-price elasticity of
demand. These latter two studies will provide information about types of
polydrug use that are likely to occur commonly in human drug abusers,
yet about which we have little data and few ways to study. The results
should provide information about some of the behavioral and
pharmacological mechanisms that lead people to take drugs
simultaneously, or that direct their choice when more than one drug is
available. We anticipate that these studies will help to identify and
quantify important aspects of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior and
will put us in a better position to understand how these aspects control
this behavior and what they might signify for intervention and
treatment.
Thesaurus Terms:
choice, craving, preference, reinforcer, substance abuse related
behavior, substance abuse related disorder
3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine, cocaine, disease /disorder model,
ethanol, methamphetamine, midazolam, nicotine, piperidine, visual
stimulus
Macaca mulatta, behavioral /social science research tag
Institution: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR
3003 SOUTH STATE STREET, Room 1040
ANN ARBOR, MI 481091274
Fiscal Year: 2006
Department: PHARMACOLOGY
Project Start: 10-APR-2003
Project End: 31-MAR-2007
ICD: NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
IRG: BBBP
J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 September; 86(2): 181–195.
doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.108.05.
PMCID: PMC1592359
Copyright Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc.
Assessing Unit-Price Related Remifentanil Choice in
Rhesus Monkeys
Chad M Galuska, Gail Winger, and James H Woods
The subjects were 3 adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), 2 male
(Monkeys 3572 and 3603) and 1 female (Monkey 3600), with a history of
drug self-administration including remifentanil. Monkeys lived in the
experimental chambers and were fed 10 to 15 Purina monkey chow biscuits
twice daily (at least 1.5 hr before experimental sessions) to maintain
their body weights. Daily fresh fruit and other treats supplemented this
diet. Water was continuously available. In accordance with institutional
animal care and use requirements, environmental enrichment toys also
were provided on a regular rotating basis.
Apparatus
Monkeys were permanently housed in stainless steel cages (83.3-cm long
by 76.2-cm wide by 91.4-cm deep). The front, top, and bottom of the cage
were made of barred stainless steel, and a pan was located below the
floor to collect waste. Located on the wall to the left of the barred
front door was an intelligence panel 20 cm in length and 15.4 cm in
height, approximately 10 cm from the front and 19 cm from the bottom of
the cage. Across the top of the stimulus panel, 1.5 cm apart, were three
circular openings, 2.5 cm in diameter, covered with translucent plastic
and capable of being illuminated from behind with 5-W colored bulbs. The
two side lights could be illuminated red and the center light green.
Centered below the right and left stimulus lights were response levers
(Model 121-07, BRS-LVE) capable of being operated by 10 to 15 g
(0.10–0.15 N) of force. A 0.3-cm thick stainless steel divider, centered
between the response levers and below the stimulus lights, extended 8 cm
into the chamber. Experimental control was provided by an IBM PS/2
computer located in an adjoining room and programmed with Med-PC
(Med-Associates, Georgia, VT) software.
Each monkey wore a Teflon mesh jacket (Lomir, Quebec, Canada) connected
to a flexible stainless-steel spring tether attached to the rear of the
cage. Monkeys had been implanted previously with indwelling intravenous
catheters in an internal or external jugular, or femoral vein, under
ketamine (10 mg/kg, IM) and xylazine (2 mg/kg, IM) anesthesia. Catheters
were run subcutaneously from the site of implantation to an exit site in
the middle of the back. Tubing was then fed through the steel spring
tether and passed to the outside rear of the cage where it was connected
to a stock solution of remifentanil (either 0.4 µg/kg/ml or 1.2
µg/kg/ml) and additional infusion lines that passed through the rollers
of two infusion pumps. Different doses were arranged by manipulating the
speed of the two pumps. Operation of one pump delivered 0.15 ml solution
per s. Operation of the other delivered 0.05 ml solution per s.
Injections were always 5 s in duration. When the stock solution was 0.4
µg/kg/ml remifentanil, operation of the faster pump resulted in a
delivery of 0.3 µg/kg/inj (0.4 µg/kg/ml × 0.15 ml/s × 5 s) and operation
of the slower pump delivered 0.1 µg/kg/inj. When the stock solution was
prepared at 1.2 µg/kg/ml, doses of 0.9 and 0.3 µg/kg/inj were arranged. |
Please email: GAIL D. WINGER,
gwinger@umich.edu
to protest the inhumane use of animals in this
experiment. We would also love to know about your efforts with this
cause:
saen@saenonline.org
Return to Grants
Return to University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Return to Facility Reports and Information
Return to Resources and Links
Rats, mice, birds, amphibians and other animals have
been excluded from coverage by the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore research
facility reports do not include these animals. As a result of this
situation, a blank report, or one with few animals listed, does not mean
that a facility has not performed experiments on non-reportable animals. A
blank form does mean that the facility in question has not used covered
animals (primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, pigs,
sheep, goats, etc.). Rats and mice alone are believed to comprise over 90%
of the animals used in experimentation. Therefore the majority of animals
used at research facilities are not even counted.
|