Silver Spring monkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domitian, one of the Silver Spring monkeys, in a restraint chair. Images of the monkeys became iconic after PETA distributed them widely in the media with the caption, "This is vivisection. Don't let anyone tell you different." Nobel Laureate David Hubel wrote "...there is strong suspicion the Silver Spring monkey photograph was staged by animal-rights caretakers."
Domitian, one of the Silver Spring monkeys, in a restraint chair. Images of the monkeys became iconic after PETA distributed them widely in the media with the caption, "This is vivisection. Don't let anyone tell you different."[1] Nobel Laureate David Hubel wrote "...there is strong suspicion the Silver Spring monkey photograph was staged by animal-rights caretakers."[2]

The Silver Spring monkeys were seventeen macaque monkeys living inside the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, who became what one writer called "the most famous lab animals in history."[3] They came to public attention as a result of a bitter ten-year battle between scientists, animal advocates, politicians, and the courts over whether to use in the animals in research or release them to a sanctuary. Within the scientific community, the monkeys are known for their role in research that led to the discovery of neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to remap itself, regarded as one of the most exciting discoveries of the 20th century.[4]

The monkeys had been used as research subjects by Edward Taub, a psychologist, who had cut afferent ganglia that supplied sensation to their arms and legs, then used restraint, electric shock, and withholding of food to force them to use the limbs they could not feel.[5] In the summer of 1981, Alex Pacheco of the animal-rights group PETA, founded a year earlier, began working undercover in the lab, and he alerted police to what was widely deemed to be the monkeys' unacceptable living conditions.[6] Police raided the Institute and removed the monkeys, during the first such raid in the U.S. against an animal researcher. Taub was charged with 119 counts of animal cruelty, and convicted on six counts, sending a chill through the animal research community, though the convictions were overturned on appeal.[7] The National Institutes of Health judged that the laboratory was "grossly unsanitary," and suspended his funding.

The ensuing battle over the monkeys' custody saw celebrities and politicians campaign for the monkeys' release, the introduction of the 1985 Animal Welfare Act, the transformation of PETA from a group of friends into a national movement, the creation of the first North American Animal Liberation Front cell,[8] and the first animal research case to reach the Supreme Court.[9]

In July 1990, days after the Supreme Court rejected PETA's application for custody, dissection of the animals showed significant cortical remapping, suggesting that being forced to use limbs with no sensory input had triggered changes in their brains' organization.[10] This evidence of the brain's plasticity helped overturn the accepted view that the adult primate brain is hard-wired and cannot reorganize itself in response to its environment.[11] After five years of being stalked, receiving death threats, and being unable to find a research position, Taub was offered a grant by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where he developed a new form of therapy, based on the concept of neuroplasticity, for people disabled as a result of brain damage. Known as constraint-induced movement therapy, it has helped stroke survivors regain the use of limbs paralysed for many years, and has been hailed by the American Stroke Association as "at the forefront of a revolution."[12]

Contents

[edit] Taub's research

[edit] Deafferentation experiments

Norman Doidge writes that Taub first became involved in so-called "deafferentation" experiments with monkeys when he was a graduate student at Columbia University. A philosophy graduate, he was studying behaviorism under Fred Keller and Nat Schoenfeld, the experimental psychologists, and took a job as a research assistant in a neurology lab in order to gain more understanding of the nervous system,

An "afferent nerve" is a sensory nerve that conveys sensory impulses to the spine and the brain. "Deafferentation" is a surgical procedure in which the space adjacent to the spinal cord is dissected. There, the sensory nerve ganglia are found, with one on each side of the body between each vertebrae. The ganglia house the cell bodies of the nerve axons, which start in the periphery and enter the spinal cord after passing through the ganglia. Because the sensory ganglia can be identified and are completely segregated from the motor nerves, removing the sensory ganglia will remove all sensory input, without directly impacting motor output. Nerves serving any dermatome segment can be cut, or all the limbs can be deafferented by cutting the ganglia across multiple vertebrae. A monkey whose limbs have been deafferented will not feel them, or even be able to sense where they are in space. At his trial in 1981, Taub told the court that deafferented monkeys are notoriously difficult to look after, because they regard their deafferented limbs as foreign objects, mutilating them and trying to chew them off.[13]

[edit] Learned non-use

Taub continued working with deafferented monkeys at New York University where he obtained his Ph.D. in 1970. He regarded his work as pure research. He deafferented monkeys' entire bodies, so that they could feel no part of themselves. He deafferented them at birth. He removed monkey fetuses from the uterus, deafferented them, then returned them to be born with no sense of their own bodies.[14]

When Taub began his research in the neurology lab, the prevalent view was that monkeys would not be able to use limbs they could not feel. Doidge writes that Taub wondered whether the reason the monkeys abandoned use of the deafferented limbs was simply because they were still able to use their good ones. He tested his idea by deafferenting one arm of a monkey and restraining the good arm in a sling. The monkey subsequently used its deafferented arm to feed and move itself around.[15]

He reasoned that, if a monkey refused to use a deafferented arm because it could rely on its good arm instead, then deafferenting both arms would force the monkey to use them, a finding that seemed paradoxical but which his experiments confirmed. He even deafferented the entire spinal cord, so that the monkey received no sensory input from any of its limbs, but it still used them if forced to by electric shocks and starvation. Doidge writes that Taub had an epiphany, guessing that the reason the monkeys would not use their deafferented limbs if they could avoid it was simply because they had learned not to, an idea that he called "learned non-use."[16]

[edit] The monkeys

Two of the Silver Spring monkeys, photographed inside the Institute for Behavioral Research by Alex Pacheco.
Two of the Silver Spring monkeys, photographed inside the Institute for Behavioral Research by Alex Pacheco.

In the Institute of Behavioral Research, Taub was conducting deafferentation experiments on 16 male crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis), and one female rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), each about 14 inches tall, all born wild in the Philippines. The researchers had named them Chester — who was the leader of the group — Paul, Billy, Hard Times, Domitian, Nero, Titus, Big Boy, Augustus, Allen, Montaigne, Sisyphus, Charlie, Brooks, Hayden, and Adidas. The lone female was called Sarah.[14]

Sarah was a control subject, which meant she had been left intact. She had been purchased from a dealer, Litton Laboratories, when she was one day old, and had lived since then, for eight years, in a 18 x 18 inch wire cage — cage #15 — with the other 16 monkeys in a windowless room measuring 15 ft square. Pacheco writes that 12 of the seventeen had had one or both arms deafferented, while the Laboratory Primate Newsletter reports that 10 had undergone deafferentation, the seven others acting as the control group.[17]

Paul was the eldest. He had one arm deafferented, and had chewed off all the fingers on that hand and pulled the skin and flesh off the palm, exposing the bone. Billy had undergone surgery to deafferent both arms, and used his feet to pick up food pellets. Each monkey lived alone in its cage, with no bedding or environmental enrichment, no food bowls, no veterinary assistance, and no natural light.[18]

[edit] Pacheco's description of the laboratory

Alex Pacheco arranged for scientists and veterinarians to inspect Taub's laboratory, then contacted the police.
Alex Pacheco arranged for scientists and veterinarians to inspect Taub's laboratory, then contacted the police.

Alex Pacheco was a graduate student at George Washington University when he volunteered in May 1981 to work as a research assistant in the Institute of Behavioral Research. He had already formed the fledgling animal rights group PETA with Ingrid Newkirk in March 1980, but at the time it amounted to what Newkirk called "five people in a basement."[19] The point of taking the research position was to gain firsthand experience of what happens in laboratories, so he looked through a list of government-funded laboratories and chose the one nearest to his home in Takoma Park, which happened to be Taub's.[14] Taub offered him a position and put him to work with a student, Georgette Yakalis.[6]

[edit] Living conditions

Pacheco writes that he found the monkeys living in very poor conditions:

“ The smell was incredible ... I saw filth caked on the wires of the cages, faeces piled in the bottom of the cages, urine and rust encrusting every surface. There, amid this rotting stench, sat sixteen crab-eating macaques and one rhesus monkey, their lives limited to metal boxes just 17¾ inches wide. In their desperation to assuage their hunger, they were picking forlornly at scraps and fragments of broken biscuits that had fallen through the wire into the sodden accumulations in the waste collection trays below. The cages had clearly not been cleaned properly for months. There were no dishes to keep the food away from the faeces, nothing for the animals to sit on but the jagged wires of the old cages, nothing for them to see but the filthy, faeces-splattered walls of that windowless room, only 15ft square.[6] ”

He writes that, in the surgery room, human and monkey records were scattered everywhere, including under the operating table, while soiled clothes, old shoes, rat droppings, and urine covered the floor, with cockroaches in the drawers, on the floor, and around the scrub sink.[6]

[edit] Condition of the monkeys

Pacheco writes that, when he first saw them, twelve of the monkeys had deafferented limbs, with 39 of their fingers deformed or missing.[6] He describes them as neurotic, attacking their deafferented limbs as though they were foreign objects:

“ No one bothered to bandage the monkeys' injuries properly (on the few occasions when bandages were used at all), and antibiotics were administered only once; no lacerations or self-amputation injuries were ever cleaned. Whenever a bandage was applied, it was never changed, no matter how filthy or soiled it became. They were left on until they deteriorated to the point where they fell off the injured limb. Old, rotted fragments of bandage were stuck to the cage floors where they collected urine and faeces. The monkeys also suffered from a variety of wounds that were self-inflicted or inflicted by monkeys grabbing at them from adjoining cages. I saw discoloured, exposed muscle tissue on their arms. Two monkeys had bones protruding through their flesh. Several had bitten off their own fingers and had festering stubs, which they extended towards me as I discreetly took fruit from my pockets. With these pitiful limbs they searched through the foul mess of their waste pans for something to eat.[6] ”

Pacheco testified at Taub's trial that five of the deafferented monkeys had mutilated themselves, and that open sores ran the length of their arms. Taub responded that the monkeys were otherwise healthy, that deafferented monkeys are notoriously hard to look after, that no one had seen the monkeys in that condition other than Pacheco, that at least two of the photographs Pacheco took were staged, in his view, and that the presence of faeces and other dirt was normal.[13] The scientific community appeared split over whether to defend Taub's version of events. Several contributed financially to his legal costs, but Drs. William Raub and Joe Held, officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had financed Taub's research, wrote in the Neuroscience Newsletter in April 1983 that deafferented monkeys "subjected to the same surgical procedure and maintained at [NIH] since May, 1981 have not developed lesions comparable to those in five of the nine deafferented monkeys from IBR ... Based on these observations it would appear that fractures, dislocations, lacerations, punctures, contusions, and abrasions with accompanying infection, acute and chronic inflammation, and necrosis are not the inevitable consequences of deafferentation."[20]

[edit] Gathering evidence

Pacheco visited the institute at night and took photographs that showed the monkeys' living conditions.[21] Taub blamed those conditions on Pacheco who, he said, had failed to clean the cages.

Pacheco arranged for scientists and veterinarians to visit the laboratory secretly, and finally he reported the situation to the state police, who raided the laboratory under Maryland's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals law. Taub was convicted of six counts of animal cruelty, later set aside by an appellate court.[21]

Taub responded to the allegations by saying he had been set up by PETA, and that his laboratory had been clean when he left on vacation, but Pacheco had failed to clean the cages, had neglected the animals, and had then subjected the laboratory to false reports of cruelty. During Taub's 2.5 week vacation that August, on seven different days in which the animals were supposed to have been fed and the cage area cleaned, no one showed up to attend to the animals. Taub estimated the probability of seven absences in that 2.5 week period at seven in a trillion based on the prior 14 months of attendance records from the workers. On three of those absentee days, Pacheco brought people in to look at the monkeys. [22]

The National Institutes of Health initiated its own investigation, and sent the Office for the Protection from Research Risks to assess the labs at IBR. OPRR found that the lab animal care "failed in significant ways" and concluded that the laboratory was "grossly unsanitary."[22] Based on the OPRR investigation, NIH suspended the remaining funding for the experiments, over $200,000, due to violations of animal care guidelines.[23]

[edit] Fight for custody

In 1987, the custodians of 14 of the remaining animals recommended that eight of them be euthanized, as they were judged to be beyond hope of rehabilitation and resocialization. "It's the humane thing to do," said Dr. Peter J. Gerone, director of the Delta Regional Primate Research Center. The animals had been moved to the center in June 1986, from NIH, because the primate center had bigger and better facilities. Animal rights activists, who had been able to visit and groom the animals at NIH, were furious because they were denied visitation of the animals at the Delta Primate Center. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA, said, "They have not been able to touch human beings. We used to be able to visit, take fruit, at least groom them. Now they just sit in metal boxes."[24] Attempts to move the animals to private sanctuaries were strongly resisted by dozens of major scientific organizations fearful of setting a precedent that would hamper the future use of animals in biomedical research.

A lawsuit, filed by PETA and others, sought to block euthanasia and transfer the animals to a facility under their control, on the grounds that the monkeys could live "safely, humanely, and comfortably if transferred to a suitable facility." The New England Anti-Vivisection Society and PETA ran ads in The New York Times on December 26, 1989, The Washington Post on December 27, and in The Washington Times on January 3, 1990, asking President Reagan to save the monkeys and concerned citizens to petition the White House.[25]

The director of the Tulane Regional Primate Center, where the monkeys were housed after police raided the Maryland facility, told The Washington Post: "They are going to fight very hard for every monkey because the more publicity they get, the more money they bring in."[26]

Two sanctuaries, Moorpark College in California and Primarily Primates in Texas, offered the monkeys a home, but the NIH refused to release them.[27] Pressured by Congressmen Smith and Robert Dornan, NIH permitted a Moorpark team to visit Delta in 1988 and examine the monkeys. Moorpark's Gary Wilson concluded that "these animals are not in as poor condition as previous evaluations have indicated," and he volunteered to take all but one.[28]

[edit] Final experiments and euthanasia

The homunculii showing which parts of the body are controlled by the sensory cortex and motor cortex. Taub's research on the Silver Spring monkeys challenged the paradigm that brain functions are fixed in certain locations.
The homunculii showing which parts of the body are controlled by the sensory cortex and motor cortex. Taub's research on the Silver Spring monkeys challenged the paradigm that brain functions are fixed in certain locations.

The NIH had said in 1987 that no further invasive research would be conducted on the monkeys, but in fact further experiments were performed on them in 1990. NIH presented the experiments in the lawsuit for custody of the animals in 1989. It proposed to perform deep surgical anesthesia during all procedures followed by euthanasia. After euthanasia, tissue examination would continue. [27]

The court allowed a group of researchers from the NIH to conduct a terminal experiment on January 14, 1990 on one of the monkeys who had become ill. Under anesthesia, electrodes were placed in his brain and hundreds of recordings taken, revealing what the Laboratory Primate Newsletter called an "unprecedented degree of reorganization of the sensory cortex. An 8-10-millimeter wide area that would normally receive input from the hand was found to have completely filled in with input from the face."[29] Animal rights activists said the results were predictable and of no significance. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said: "Science has become secondary to public relations and politics."[29]

Brainmapping studies were conducted on the remaining monkeys on July 6, 1990, three days after PETA's application for custody was rejected. The monkeys were subsequently euthanized.[29] During these experiments, scientists discovered an unpredicted change in thalamus structure apparently caused by progressive nerve degeneration through the dorsal root ganglia (which were severed) and the dorsal columns all the way to the thalamus (a second order synaptic target).[30][31]

[edit] Constraint-induced movement therapy

Main article: Constraint-induced movement therapy

Based in part on his work with the Silver Spring monkeys, Taub went on to develop novel physical therapy techniques to help stroke victims, and those with other forms of brain injury, regain the use of affected limbs. The American Stroke Association regards Taub's therapy, known as constraint-induced movement therapy (CI or CIMT), as "at the forefront of a revolution" in the treatment of stroke survivors.[32]

With CI therapy, the patient is forced to use the affected limb, to whatever minimal extent he can, by having the unaffected one restrained. The affected limb is then used intensively for either three to six hours a day for at least two weeks. As a result of engaging in repetitive movements with the affected limb, the brain grows new neural pathways that control the limb's use, as a result of which stroke victims who were seriously disabled for many years have reportedly regained the use of limbs that were almost completely paralysed.[32]

[edit] Timeline

Source:[33]

  • Mar 1980: Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk set up PETA.
  • May 1981: Edward Taub offers Pacheco a volunteer research position at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR).
  • Sep 1981: Montgomery County police raid Taub's laboratory and seize the monkeys.
  • Oct 1981: The monkeys are returned to IBR for Taub's trial. One of them, Charlie, dies after a fight with another monkey. The remaining 16 are moved to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) animal center in Poolesville, Maryland.
  • Nov 1981: Taub is convicted on six counts of animal cruelty. Representative Tom Lantos and 20 members of Congress ask NIH not to return the monkeys to him.
  • Dec 1981: PETA files suit against the Institute for Behavioral Research, asking to be made the monkeys' guardians.
  • Feb 1982: One of the monkeys, Hard Times, becomes paralyzed from the neck down and is euthanized.
  • Jul 1982: At Taub's appeal, all but one of the convictions is overturned.
  • Aug 1983: The Maryland Court of Appeals overturns Taub's remaining conviction, ruling that federally funded research is not subject to state law.
  • Apr 1985: PETA's application for guardianship is dismissed by the U.S. District Court. PETA appeals.
  • May 1986: PETA's appeal is heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; 256 members of Congress and 58 Senators ask NIH to release the remaining 15 monkeys to a sanctuary.
  • Jun 1986: Representative Robert Smith and 229 other members of Congress call for the monkeys' release to Primarily Primates, an animal sanctuary.[24] The NIH moves the monkeys to Delta Regional Primate Research Center in Covington, Louisiana.
  • Sep 1986: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses PETA's application for custody.
  • Nov 1986: One of the monkeys, Brooks, is found dead in his cage.
  • Mar 1987: PETA receives a leaked document showing that the American Psychological Society plans to buy the monkeys and complete Taub's research.
  • Apr 1987: The Supreme Court rules that PETA has no legal standing.[24]
  • May 1987: The Delta Regional Primate Center recommends euthanasia for eight of the 14 surviving monkeys because of "progressive and continuous deterioration."[24]
  • May 1987: William Raub, deputy director of the NIH, which still own the monkeys, says that he "reaffirms" that the monkeys will be "excepted from further invasive research procedures and be resocialized to the extent possible."[24]
  • Jul 1987: Representative Robert Smith introduces a bill mandating the release of the monkeys. Senator Steve Symms introduces the same bill in the Senate.
  • Sep 1987: Five of the monkeys are transferred to the San Diego Zoo.
  • Jul 1988: The NIH recommends further research on the monkeys, then euthanasia.
  • Dec 1988: The NIH announces it will conduct research on three of the monkeys. PETA obtains a restraining order.
  • Jan 1989: PETA files an application for custody against NIH and Tulane University, which oversees the Delta primate center.
  • Aug 1989: Another monkey, Paul, dies.
  • Jan 1990: Billy undergoes a four-hour experiment, then is euthanized.
  • Mar 1990: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses PETA's application for custody.
  • Jul 1990: Research is conducted on Domitian (pictured above), Big Boy, and Augustus, then they are euthanized.
  • Mar 1991: The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in the case.
  • Apr 1991: Research is conducted on Titus and Allen, then they are euthanized.[34]
  • May 1991: The Supreme Court rules in PETA's favor. The case is remanded to State Court for trial.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Carbone, Larry. '"What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 76, see figure 4.2.
  2. ^ "Are we willing to fight for our research?"
    Author: David H. Hubel
    Source: Annual Review of Neuroscience 1991 14:1-8
  3. ^ Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking Penguin 2007, p. 136.
  4. ^ Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking Penguin 2007, p. 136; Blum, Deborah. The Monkey Wars. Oxford University Press, paperback edition 1995, p. 106.
  5. ^ Johnson, David. Review of The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, curledup.com; see also Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. Viking Penguin 2007, p. 141.
  6. ^ a b c d e f Pacheco, Alex and Francione, Anna. "The Silver Spring Monkeys" in Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985, pp. 135-147; also see Boffey, Philip M. "Animals in the lab: Protests accelerate, but use is dropping", The New York Times, October 27, 1981.
  7. ^ Taub v. State, 296, Md 439 (1983).
  8. ^ Newkirk, Ingrid. Free the Animals. Lantern Books, 2000, p. xv.
  9. ^ Schwartz, Jeffrey and Begley, Sharon. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. HarperCollins, 2002 p. 161.
  10. ^ Leary, Warren E. "Renewal of Brain Is Found In Disputed Monkey Tests", The New York Times, June 28, 1991.
  11. ^ Schwartz and Begley, 2002 pp. 160, 162.
  12. ^ Schwartz and Begley 2002, p. 160; "Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy", excerpted from "A Rehab Revolution," Stroke Connection Magazine, September/October 2004. Also see Doidge 2007, p. 134.
  13. ^ a b Schwartz and Begley 2002, p. 149.
  14. ^ a b c Carlson, Peter. "The Strange Case of the Silver Spring Monkeys," The Washington Post magazine, February 24, 1991.
  15. ^ Doidge 2007, p. 139.
  16. ^ Doidge 2007, p. 141.
  17. ^ Clarke, A.S. 'Silver Spring' Monkeys at the San Diego Zoo, Research Department and Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, Zoological Society of San Diego, Laboratory Primate Newsletter, Volume 27, No. 3, July 1988.
  18. ^ Guillermo, Kathy Snow. Monkey Business. National Press Books, 1993, pp. 13, 14, 20; also see Pacheco, Alex and Francione, Anna. "The Silver Spring Monkeys" in Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985, pp. 135-147.
  19. ^ Schwartz and Begley 2002 p. 161.
  20. ^ Raub, William and Held, Joe. Neuroscience Newsletter, April 1983, cited in Schwartz and Begley 2002, p. 149.
  21. ^ a b Lisa Sideris, Charles McCarthy, and David H. Smith. "Bioethics of Laboratory Animal Research. Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics", ILAR Journal V40(1) 1999.
  22. ^ a b "Scientist convicted for monkey neglect"
    Author: Constance Holder
    Science Magazine 11 Dec 1981 214:1218-20
  23. ^ Boffey, Philip M. "Animals in the lab: Protests accelerate, but use is dropping", The New York Times, October 27, 1981.
  24. ^ a b c d e Reinhold, Robert. "Fate of monkeys, deformed for science, causes human hurt after six years", The New York Times, May 23, 1987.
  25. ^ Laboratory Primate Newsletter, Volume 28, Number 2, April 1989
  26. ^ The Washington Post, January, 5 1989, page 7.
  27. ^ a b Barnard, Neal D.; Selby, Roy; Robinson, Daniel N.; Schreckenberg, Gervasia M.; Van Petten, Carol. "NIH Research Protocol for Silver Spring Monkeys: A Case of Scientific Misconduct (Part I)", Americans For Medical Advancement. Part II
  28. ^ The Washington Post, February 24, 1991.
  29. ^ a b c Laboratory Primate Newsletter, Volume 29, Number 2, October 1990.
  30. ^ Jones, E.G. and Pons, T.P. "Thalamic and brainstem contributions to large-scale plasticity of primate somatosensory cortex," Science, volume 282, issue 5391, 1998, pp. 1121-25. pmid 9804550
  31. ^ Merzenich, M. "Long-term change of mind," Science, volume 282, issue 5391, 1998, pp. 1062-63. pmid 9841454
  32. ^ a b "Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy", excerpted from "A Rehab Revolution," Stroke Connection Magazine, September/October 2004.
  33. ^ Guillermo, Kathy Snow. Monkey Business. National Press Books, 1993, Chronology, no page numbers.
  34. ^ "After Justices Act, Lab Monkeys Are Killed", Associated Press, April 13, 1991.

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Selected papers by Edward Taub

  • Taub, Edward; Perrella, Philip; Barro, Gilbert. "Behavioral Development after Forelimb Deafferentation on Day of Birth in Monkeys with and without Blinding", Science, Vol. 181. no. 4103, September 7, 1973, pp. 959-960.
  • Taub, E. (1977). Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exercise and sports science reviews, Vol. 4 (pp. 335-374). Santa Barbara: Journal Publishing Affiliates.
  • Taub, E. (1980). Somatosensory deafferentation research with monkeys: Implications for rehabilitation medicine. In L. P. Ince (Ed.), Behavioral Psychology in Rehabilitation Medicine: Clinical Applications (pp. 371-401). New York: Williams & Wilkins.
  • Taub, E. (1994). Overcoming learned nonuse: A new behavioral medicine approach to physical medicine. In J. G. Carlson, S. R. Seifert, & N. Birbaumer. (eds.) Clinical applied psychophysiology (pp. 185-220). New York: Plenum.
  • Taub, E., Burgio, L., Miller, N. E., Cook, E.W. III, Groomes, T., DeLuca, S., & Crago, J. (1994). An operant approach to overcoming learned nonuse after CNS damage in monkeys and man: The role of shaping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 281-293.
  • Taub, E., & Crago, J. E. (1995). Behavioral plasticity following central nervous system damage in monkeys and man. In B.Julesz & I. Kovacs (Eds.), Maturational windows and adult cortical plasticity. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 23 (pp. 201-215). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Taub, E., Pidikiti, R. D., DeLuca, S. C., & Crago, J. E. (1996). Effects of motor restriction of an unimpaired upper extremity and training on improving functional tasks and altering brain/behaviors. In J. Toole (Ed.), Imaging and Neurologic Rehabilitation (pp. 133-154). New York: Demos Publications.
  • Taub, E., & Wolf, S.L. (1997). Constraint-Induced (CI) Movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 3, 38-61.