TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am a primatologist with my academic training in biological anthropology. In 1973, I began an ongoing field study of the ecological adaptations of sympatric species of macaque monkeys (Macaca spp.) in western Thailand. For 14 years I taught courses and seminars on, or including, primate behavior on both the college and university level before focusing my professional activities on the conservation of primates in Asia.

All macaque monkeys, rhesus monkeys included, are social and gregarious primates and highly intelligent. All of their activities including foraging for food (and water) and feeding, which may occupy a good percentage of the day, and social behavior such as grooming and play and sexual behavior, are carried out as members of complex social groups. Having been born and/or raised in captivity would not diminish the biological potential for these behaviors. To isolate and subject monkeys to restraint, such as restraint chair confinement, for any period of time or to deprive them of water (or food) for extended periods of time, such as 22 hours, would be extremely stressful and unethical in my opinion and might well invalidate the results of tests conducted with or on them. In a wild (natural) population of macaques, members of the social group would attempt to help a monkey remove any foreign object, be it animate or inanimate, from its head. To limit or further limit the motion of a monkey by surgically implanting restraining bars in its skull I would think would subject the monkey to extreme stress and discomfort.

Considering our current knowledge of primate intelligence and behavior, one wonders why research institutions would have recourse to the procedures of deprivation mentioned above in experiments involving primates and other animals.

Ardith A. Eudey, Ph.D.
164 Dayton Street
Upland, CA 91786-3120
30 June 2008

See also: Government Grants Promoting Cruelty to Animals
              University of California System