University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

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
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,  [email protected] 

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

3003 SOUTH STATE STREET, Room 1040
ANN ARBOR, MI 481091274
Fiscal Year: 2006
Project Start: 10-APR-2003
Project End: 31-MAR-2007

J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 September; 86(2): 181195.
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.


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 (0.100.15 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 g/kg/ml or 1.2 g/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 g/kg/ml remifentanil, operation of the faster pump resulted in a delivery of 0.3 g/kg/inj (0.4 g/kg/ml 0.15 ml/s 5 s) and operation of the slower pump delivered 0.1 g/kg/inj. When the stock solution was prepared at 1.2 g/kg/ml, doses of 0.9 and 0.3 g/kg/inj were arranged.

Please email:  GAIL D. WINGER, [email protected] to protest the inhumane use of animals in this experiment. We would also love to know about your efforts with this cause: [email protected]

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.

We welcome your comments and questions

This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting
Since date.gif (991 bytes)