May 18, 2000 — US House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Washington DC

 

Ms. Goodall. When I began my research in Tanzania’s Gombe Stream National Park 40 years ago, scientific attitudes and public perceptions toward chimpanzees were very different than those of today. Then I was criticizeed for giving them names. I should have given them numbers, talking about their personalities and ascribing to them intellectual abilities —

Mr. Bilirakis. Please pull that closer, if you would,  Doctor, so we can all hear you better.

Ms. Goodall. I was criticized for giving them names rather than numbers, describing their vivid personalities and ascribing to them intellectual abilities and emotional expressions that were then considered unique to human beings. Today, however, their biological and behaviorable similarities to humans, their closest living primate relatives, are widely accepted. Unfortunately, the biological similarities, the less than 2 percent difference in the structure of DNA and the striking similarities in the structure of immune systems, similarities in blood and anatomy of brain and central nervous system, mean that hundreds of our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom are imprisoned in medical research laboratories.

Mr. Bilirakis. Forgive me, Doctor. Can the audience hear the doctor well enough? Please pull that mike a little closer.

Ms. Goodall. I’m sorry. My voice isn’t good today.

Mr. Bilirakis. For better reason, I guess to have the mike a little closer, if you would.

Ms. Goodall. Can you hear? Perhaps it wasn’t on. Is that better? Yes. It wasn’t on, was it? Never mind. You didn’t miss too much.

Mr. Bilirakis. You are welcome to start all over if you would like.

Ms. Goodall. Basically what I was saying was that since I began my study in 1960 at the Gombe National Park, attitudes toward chimpanzees have changed rather dramatically, and that when I first began, I was criticized for giving the chimps names and talking about their minds and ascribing to them emotions like happiness, sadness and fear because those were supposed to be unique to humans, but today attitudes have changed quite considerably and unfortunately, some of the biological similarities between humans and chimps like the closeness of the structure of DNA where they differ from us by only just over 1 percent, and the anatomy of brain and central nervous system and the structure of blood and immune system means that they are widely used for medical research, so that there they are, our closest living relatives, imprisoned in very often small cages while we try to find out more about the nature and cures for human disease.

The plight of the chimps in medical research is of increasing concern to very large numbers of people throughout the world, as a matter of fact. Now for the first time, the medical research community has recognized that a cost effective and humane system is needed for the long-term care of chimpanzees. This is demonstrated by the growing list of scientists who have given their support to the permanent retirement system of Congressman Greenwood proposed in H.R. 3514.

Many supporters of this legislation currently work for or run facilities that use chimps in biomedical research that is funded by the National Institutes of Health. These researchers have begun to realize that it is fundamentally wrong to cage these amazing animals alone in tiny cramped cells for the remainder of their long lives, and they can live to be over 60 years. Yet as Thomas Insel, M.D., former director of Yerkes Regional Primate Center said in a New York Times interview, until there are those kind of resources such as would be provided by this bill, there are going to be chimpanzees in facilities like ours where chimpanzees are basically being warehoused. A humane responsible alternative is to place the chimps in a sanctuary, or sanctuaries. Sanctuary accommodations would be a much cheaper alternative to warehousing chimpanzees in the back of research facilities as well as being more humane.

The surplus problem began in the 1980’s and 1990’s when the NIH initiated a breeding program that was very productive, but the combination of an increase in chimpanzees and less extensive research use that had been anticipated created a surplus of chimps and a substantial management problem. To address the management problem, in 1994, NIH asked the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council to study alternatives for management of federally funded research chimpanzees.

In 1997, the National Research Council presented its report chimpanzees in research, strategies for their ethical care, management, and use to NIH and to the public. The NRC report, which I have submitted with my written testimony for the record, determines that there are surplus chimps who will, for specific scientific reasons, never be able to be used in research again. It concludes that these surplus chimpanzees could go to a sanctuary similar to the one proposed in the chimp pack. This would be the cheapest and most appropriate way to care for surplus chimpanzees. This legislation is the only humane hope for chimpanzees that will never be used in research again because of the procedures to which they have already been subjected.

Instead of expending research dollars to warehouse chimps sometimes for decades, retiring chimpanzees to a sanctuary will be a humane alternative and it will free financial resources that can be better used to find cures for human ailments.

How can we, as a supposedly enlightened and intelligent people, disregard all we know about chimps as our closest relatives and continue to subject them to cruel standards of research and inhumane lifetime confinement. If we choose to ignore their emotions, intelligence and culture, shouldn’t we at least give them a chance to live in peace after giving their lives in the quest for human life?

We are at a crossroads in our relationship with chimps. We have the opportunity to make a major difference in the lives of many chimpanzees to do something now when we realize there is a need and are presented with a solution. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I wish to remind you and other Members of Congress that this legislation and hearing are not about the future of biomedical research using chimpanzees or the animals used in any research. This legislation is about doing what is right, retiring chimpanzees that are being forced into servitude by us.

The bill does not arbitrarily pull chimpanzees out of research. Quite the contrary. It enables creation of a more appropriate place for them to live when the scientists have determined that they are no longer useful for research. The legislation allows for the creation of sanctuaries which will provide socially, mentally, and physically enriching environments in which chimpanzees can live out their lives. These chimpanzees can never return to the wild, but free from small cages, they can live in a way that will allow them to socialize to groom each other, to feel breeze in their face, to climb trees. That is surely the least we can do for them in return for their sacrifice.

You are going to hear from NIH about their concern about monitoring the chimps in the sanctuaries. This bill does permit that and I am confident that Congress and this administration will be able to sort out any problems of this sort.

I urge you to pass Congressman Greenwood’s bill, H.R. 3514, as quickly as possible. Every day counts for the imprisoned chimpanzees. This bill represents the ethically and fiscally right course of action. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Jane Goodall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jane Goodall, The Jane Goodall Institute, U.S.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak before you on this legislation. I have long hoped the U.S. government would take appropriate steps to provide long-term care for chimpanzees in biomedical research and ensure the well-being of these animals who have given so much to help humans. I urge you to pass H.R. 3514 without delay — every day counts and this bill represents the morally, ethically and fiscally right course of action. Congressman Greenwood has presented us with an extraordinary opportunity for the peaceful, permanent retirement from further experimentation of hundreds of these very special beings who are so close to my heart.

When I began my research in Tanzania’s Gombe Stream National Park, 40 years ago in 1960, scientific attitudes and public perceptions towards chimpanzees were very different than those of today. Then, I was criticized for giving them names (rather than numbers), describing their vivid personalities, and ascribing to them intellectual abilities and emotional expressions considered unique to human beings. Today, however, their biological and behavioral similarities to humans (their closest living primate relatives) are widely accepted. Unfortunately, the biological similarities — the less than 2% difference in the structure of DNA and the striking similarities in the structure of immune systems, similarities in blood and in anatomy of brain and central nervous system — mean that hundreds of our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom are imprisoned in medical research laboratories, used to investigate a variety of human diseases.

The plight of chimpanzees used in medical research is of great concern to countless numbers of people across the United States and around the world. Indeed, a number of scientists have expressed concern as to the validity of using chimpanzees living in highly stressful situations as models for investigating human diseases since stress is known to affect the immune system and this, in turn, may invalidate certain medical tests. Thus it is of great importance to search for and encourage alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in laboratory testing for scientific as well as humane reasons.

What of these chimpanzees that end up in medical research laboratories, some 2,000 chimps imprisoned in labs worldwide — about 1,500 of them in the United States alone? Visiting the labs and looking into the bewildered, or sad, or angry eyes of the prisoners in their cages, is the worst kind of nightmare. Animal researchers, to make it easier for them to do what they feel they must do, often ignore or even deny the psychological needs of their subjects — needs which are so like ours. The trouble is that many lab chimps have learned to distrust and even hate humans; they await the opportunity to spit, to throw feces, to bite. We cannot blame them. But it means that those who work in the labs cannot imagine the dignity, the magnificence, of free-living chimpanzees. So how do we open blinded eyes, bring feeling to frozen hearts? Perhaps with stories, stories about the chimpanzee in the wild, the fascination of their lives in the forest.

If we succeed, if scientists start to see into the minds of the animals for whose plight they are to some extent responsible, they can no longer be at peace. For once we accept or even suspect that humans are not the only beings with personalities, not the only beings capable of rational thought and problem-solving, not the only beings to experience joy and sadness and despair, and above all not the only beings to know mental as well as physical suffering, we become less arrogant, a little less sure that we have the inalienable right to make use of other life forms in any way we please so long as there is a possible benefit for us. We humans are, of course, unique, but we are not so different from the rest of the animal kingdom as we used to suppose: the line between humans and other animals, once perceived as sharp, is blurred. And this leads to a new humility, a new respect.

JoJo was the first adult male I met when I visited the former chimp colony at LEMSIP (the laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates, located at New York University). “He’s gentle,” said the veterinarian, Jim Mahoney, “he won’t hurt you.” I knelt and reached through the thick, cold steel bars of his prison cell with my gloved hand. I thought of David Greybeard, the first wild chimpanzee to lose his fear and allow me into his world. JoJo had a similar face, and white hairs on his chin. As I looked into his eyes, I saw no anger, only puzzlement, and gratitude that I had stopped to speak to him, to break the terrible gray monotony of the day. And I felt deep shame, shame that we, with our more sophisticated intellect, with our greater capacity for understanding and compassion, had deprived JoJo of almost everything. Not for him the soft colors of the forest, the dim greens and browns entwined. Nor the peace of the afternoon when the sun filters through the canopy and small creatures rustle and flit and creep among the leaves. Not for him the freedom to choose, each day, how he would spend his time, and where and with whom. Instead of nature’s sounds of running water, of wind in the branches, of chimpanzee calls ringing through the forest, JoJo knew only the loud, horrible sounds of clanging bars and banging doors, and the deafening volume of chimpanzee calls in underground rooms. In the lab, the world was concrete and steel — no soft forest floor, no springy leafy branches for making beds at night. There were no windows, nothing to look at, nothing to play with. JoJo had been torn from his forest world as an infant, torn from his family and friends and, innocent of crime, locked into solitary confinement. No wonder I had a strong sense of guilt, the guilt of my species. Needing forgiveness, I looked into JoJo’s clear eyes. And he reached out a large gentle finger and touched the tear that trickled down into my mask.

How should we relate to beings who look into mirrors and see themselves as individuals, who mourn companions and may die of grief, who have consciousness of “self”? Don’t they deserve to be treated with the same sort of consideration we accord to other highly sensitive, conscious beings — ourselves? For ethical reasons, we no longer perform certain experiments on humans; I suggest that in good conscience the least we could do is afford the chimpanzees we have already used a peaceable life.

Now, for the first time, the medical research community has recognized that a cost-effective and humane system is needed for the long term care of chimpanzees confined in laboratory cages. This is demonstrated by the growing list of scientists who have given their support to the permanent retirement system proposed in H.R. 3514.

Many supporters of this legislation currently work for or run facilities that use chimpanzees in biomedical research funded by the National Institutes of Health. These researchers have begun to realize that it is fundamentally wrong to cage these amazing animals alone in tiny cramped cells for the remainder of their long lives (they can live to be 60 years old). Yet, as Thomas Insel, MD, former Director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Center said in a New York Times interview, “Until there are those kinds of resources [H.R. 3514], there are going to be chimpanzees in facilities like ours where chimpanzees are basically being warehoused.” A humane, responsible alternative is to place the chimps in a sanctuary. Sanctuary accommodations would be a much cheaper alternative than warehousing chimpanzees in the back of research facilities.

The surplus problem began in the 80’s and 90’s when the National Institutes of Health initiated, according to minutes on Dr. Ray O’Neill’s presentation to at January 2000 National Advisory Research Resources Council meeting, a “breeding program that was very productive, but the combination of an increase in chimpanzees and less extensive research use than expected, created a surplus of chimpanzees, and a substantial management problem.” To address the management problem, in 1994, NIH asked the National Academy of Science’s National Research Council to study alternatives for management of federally funded research chimpanzees. In 1997, the National Research Council presented its report Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for their Ethical Care, Management and Use to NIH and the public. The NRC Report, which I have submitted with my written testimony for the record, determines that there are “surplus chimpanzees” who will, for specific scientific reasons, never be able to be used in research again. It concludes that these surplus chimpanzees, already retirement ready, could go to a sanctuary, similar to the one proposed in the CHIMP Act. This would be the cheapest and most appropriate route to care for surplus chimpanzees.

This legislation is the only humane hope for chimpanzees that will never be used in research again because of the procedures to which they have already been subjected. Instead of expending research dollars to warehouse chimpanzees, sometimes for decades, retiring chimpanzees to a sanctuary will be a humane alternative that also frees financial resources that can better be used to find cures for human ailments.

How can we, as a supposedly enlightened, intelligent people, disregard all we know about chimpanzees and continue to subject them to the cruel standards of research and inhumane lifetime confinement? If we choose to ignore their emotions, intelligence, culture and relation to humans, shouldn’t we at least give them a chance to live in peace after giving their lives in the quest for human advancement? We are at a crossroads in our relationship with chimpanzees. We have the opportunity to make a major difference in many chimpanzee lives; to do something now when we realize there is a need, and are presented with a solution.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee I wish to remind you and other members Congress that this legislation and hearing are NOT about the future of biomedical research or the animals used in any research. This legislation is about doing what is right: retiring chimpanzees that have been forced into servitude to us. The bill does not arbitrarily pull chimps out of research. Quite the contrary, it enables creation of a more appropriate place for them to live when the scientists have determined that they are no longer useful for research. The legislation allows for the creation of sanctuaries which will provide socially, mentally, and physically enriching environments in which chimpanzees can live out their lives.

These chimps can never return to the wild, but free from cages they can live in a way that will allow them to socialize, feel the breeze in their faces, climb trees, and groom with their friends. That is, surely, the least we can do for them, in return for their sacrifice.

Thank you.

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much, Doctor.

Obviously, your written statement is a part of the record.

I guess I will start off the questioning very briefly, very quickly. I understand you are going to have to leave. We will try to expedite this.

Dr. Goodall, you made a comment in your statement that these chimpanzees cannot be returned to the wild. Why is that? Is that because of the domestication of them over this period of time — can you explain that to me?

Ms. Goodall. It is a whole variety of reasons, but basically, it is almost impossible to return chimpanzees to the wild, even in Africa we are struggling with caring for orphan chimps whose mothers have been shot. There isn’t in most places enough wild forest for the wild chimpanzees, let alone trying to introduce more, and wild chimpanzees are very aggressively territorial. They would probably attack and maybe kill any chimpanzees that we might try to introduce into the wild. Also these chimps are familiar with people and they’d wander into a village and either hurt someone or be hurt themselves. There is also the disease factor. If they are infected, then it would be entirely inappropriate to even try.

Mr. Bilirakis. How long do they typically live in captivity?

Ms. Goodall. There are a number that have lived to be 60 and more.

Mr. Bilirakis. You referred, of course, to the sanctuaries which are part of the Greenwood legislation. How, in your opinion, should they be structured?

Ms. Goodall. They should be structured probably slightly different for slightly different chimpanzees because some have been in captivity for so long it is very hard to resocialize them in a large group. They might always have to be just in pairs or threes. Others, especially the younger ones, can be introduced into much larger groups so they would have places to sleep at night. It would be rather like a big zoo, really, a safari park zoo. They would have places to go, things to climb, a very enriched environment.

Mr. Bilirakis. Doctor, I am not sure if you can respond to this, so if not, don’t worry about it. Mr. Greenwood knows, though he and I have talked, and there are a number of what I will refer to as “sanctuaries,” for lack of a proper word. I am not saying that they are all adequate sanctuaries around the country. I know there is one, in my district in Florida, which has been rendered by the Agriculture Department, to be not quite up to standard.

I guess my question is while considering expenses is it better to have 1 or 2, however many might be required, sanctuaries, located in Louisiana, which I believe is the location being considered right now, if I remember correctly, as opposed to possibly affording the dollars to the current sanctuaries, which are maybe not fit adequately today? In other words, would we do as good a job or a better job concentrating on the sanctuaries that now exist and need to be retrofitted, if you will, against the one large sanctuary? I don’t know if you get my point.

Ms. Goodall. I do. I don’t personally — I think you will find differences of opinion on this among the people who work with sanctuary chimps, but I personally don’t think one huge sanctuary would be a very useful thing. For one thing, the fear of disease spreading through and for another — I don’t know — so many chimps all together might not be good. We are talking in terms of a couple hundred here. So my feeling would be that maybe, in some cases, existing sanctuaries can be slightly enlarged, but that has already been done with all the chimps that came out of the LEMSIP lab. And in other cases, building new sanctuaries particularly for those chimpanzees who are infected, and that’s the one you are talking about in Louisiana.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Mr. Greenwood?

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for holding this hearing. I really deeply appreciate it and for the chairman and other members here who have asked me why I have introduced this CHIMP bill, you now know all of the good reasons, but your also having had the opportunity to meet Dr. Goodall know how impossible it would be to say no to her after such a request.

There are two points, Dr. Goodall, that I think we need to have your testimony on. The biggest stumbling block I think right now between the National Institutes of Health and our efforts here are this line that we have drawn about permanency. What we’ve said in the bill that once, and it is for the researchers to determine this, but once a researcher says that this particular chimpanzee is no longer needed for research, that it would go to the sanctuary and be done, and it would retire there, and the NIH feels that they need the ability to pull them back out, I think and we will query them soon, but I think their focus is if there was some dread disease that suddenly was newly discovered and we needed to do massive amounts of research, that we might suddenly wish we could pull hundreds of these chimpanzees out for research. I would like your comments about that. Why you think it is important that the retirement be a one-way street, if you will?

Ms. Goodall. I think it is important for ethical reasons and once you admit that the similarities in brain and central nervous system have created a being who is like us in so many ways, in particular, the expression of emotions and the intellect, then to take such a being out of some kind of close, and for them, probably extremely unpleasant confinement, to give them a slight taste of what it is like to be more like a real chimp, to have some freedom, to have some control over his or her life, and then suddenly to take them out again would be very ethically wrong, in my opinion.

On the other hand, if you had to choose, you know, thinking from the point of view of the chimp, if you are a chimpanzee now in a 5-foot-by-5-foot cage, and you have a chance of getting out, even if meant being pulled back in in 15 years, probably you would choose to go out for 15 years, but that is down the road. On principal, I don’t think they should be pulled back in.

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. If I have the time, the second issue which is very related to that one goes to the nature of a chimpanzee. I think, as you began your statement, that some time ago people didn’t ascribe emotions to these animals and now that has changed. It has probably changed for many people, maybe most people but not necessarily for everyone. This is the thing that I think you know the most about, what these animals are like in terms of their emotions and their feelings and their ability to suffer or to feel joy. Could you share your thoughts on this?

Ms. Goodall. As you know, we have worked for 40 years in the Gombe National Park as well as some other places. And I think the thing that really strikes you is how much like us their behavior is. You have got this long childhood, 5 years of suckling and 5 years during which the child is quite dependent on the mother and is, during all this time, learning, learning by observing the actions of others around and the long-term bonds that therefore can develop between mother and child as the child gets older and then between the siblings as the next child is born when the eldest is 5 or 6.

So you have got these long-term, friendly, supportive bonds developing between them lasting throughout life and we see the non-verbal expressions of communication: Kissing, embracing, holding hands, patting on the back, grinning and anger, and these are postures and gestures that we use ourselves in our own nonverbal communication, and they are pretty similar in different cultures around the world, and the chimps are triggered by the same kind of things that cause them in us, so they clearly mean the same kind of thing.

We have seen examples at Gombe of chimpanzee mothers dying and their offspring, even though they are able to care for themselves nutritionally, they die of grief, apparent grief because they show symptoms like clinical depression in small human children and they give up, they don’t want to eat, don’t want to interact with others.

We see amazing examples of altruism. If the mother dies, the elder sister or brother will adopt the baby. Providing it can survive without milk, then that will be a successful adoption. The child may live. The most fascinating one of all, there was a little infant of 3\1/4\ who had no brother and sister when his mother died, and he was adopted and cared for by a 12-year-old adolescent male who waited for him, let him ride on his back. If little Mel whimpered begging for food, then Spindle would share his food. When Mel crept up to his nest at night and sat attentively on the edge because they make these beautiful, soft leafy beds every night, then Spindle would reach out and draw him in. Spindle would even risk rousing the ruff of the adult males by running in to collect Mel if he got to near to the big males and they were about to start one of their magnificent charging displays when they may actually, along with picking up and hurling rocks and branches, if an infant gets in the way, they may pick the infant up and throw it, and the mother’s job is to take the infant away, and Spindle did that, even though he was of that age when he is really hero worshipping the big male. So you see the whole gamut.

Mr. Greenwood. By contrast, what do you observe when you see these chimpanzees in captivity in small wire cages?

Ms. Goodall. They have no ability to express their feelings, their emotions, except rattling the cages or reaching out a sad little hand and begging you to stop and interact with them for a moment. I think the worst thing for me in a small cage, and this includes some zoos as well, is that they have no ability to control their day-to-day lives. In the wild you get up in the morning and you choose, do I want to go off with a big group of other individuals, patrol the boundary, perhaps go on a hunt or do I want to wander off with one or two females and be peaceful, or maybe I want to go by myself or perhaps with a little group of the boys.

So there is this constant choice, and this magnificent freedom in which they can express themselves as they will and in a small cage, none of that is possible. You know, they love that comfort. So when they make these nests at night, sometimes they will lie down and then they will sit up and reach out and pick a handful of soft leafy twigs and put it under their head.

So often in these lab cages they have nothing, maybe one motorcar tire and in some of the cages they can’t even stretch out to their full length.

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Green, are you prepared to inquire or would you defer?

Mr. Green. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bryant.

Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Doctor, it is good to have you here. We really appreciate your very qualified testimony. I apologize to you for being late, and I understand you may have to leave also, but to other members of the panel that may have to leave. Much like you have just described chimpanzees, Members of Congress also have to make a lot of choices throughout our day.

Sometimes we have to go out and hunt. Sometimes we have to go out and play with the boys and hopefully we are not chasing too many of the females. But we are having to make those decisions today with our schedule and every day, but I do thank you for providing such insight into this issue.

As I said, I think we are both going to have to leave probably before the testimony from the NIH is given in the second panel, but I did want to follow up and I know you referenced some of that, some of your responses, but I want to follow up and give you more opportunity to address that issue, a couple of issues that are raised actually in the NIH testimony.

Of course, I think they testify similar to you that chimpanzees have unique health care requirements and pose hazards to caretakers and to other unexposed animals in the colonies and to the public, so therefore, their care must be done by people with knowledge and expertise specific to their histories.

One of their concerns is that under this bill, and I am going to support this bill, but under the bill, the NIH is going to look to private — not NIH actually, the bill would require some matching funds from private organizations in NIH’s concern about the well-being of the chimpanzees and if the funding stream over a long period of time might dry up or be affected where you are dependent, or a portion of that, at least, on private entities, is that a concern?

Ms. Goodall. I suppose it could be a concern, but I think so often in this life we embark on something and are prepared as best we can be, and the fact that something might go wrong way down the line I don’t think for me is an excuse for not doing it at all, and I think we have to be very determined that once we get this going, then the funding will be found. People become quite emotional about chimpanzees. They have enormous supporters and even those chimps that are infected with HIV, they are actually not sick and it is extremely — I am not the one qualified to talk about this. I think Dr. Prince is, but you can touch them and play with them and it would be extremely unlikely that they would infect you unless they savagely bit you.

So the fact that some money might dry up way down the road, I would not think is a good reason for not starting.

Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I like that concept in the bill too where we do bring the private sector in in addition to the government. That is a principle I like to see in as much legislation as possible. The second issue, and my final issue, has to do with NIH’s concern about their ability to access the chimpanzees and for subsequent follow up, I guess research or after the retirement there might be other unforeseen reasons or purposes for them to have access.

They mentioned potentially minimally invasive procedures such as blood draws and urine collection, and even perhaps conducting postmortem examinations of those who die. I know you mentioned that under the bill they would have access, but do you see any conflict in what you are reading in the bill and what you are testifying to and what the NIH would need from a medical standpoint in subsequent research.

Ms. Goodall. Again, I am not really qualified on this, but I do know we used to have chimpanzees at the Stanford outdoor primate facility, some of whom were adults, and we managed to train every single one of them to put their arm out to donate blood, and I was just with the bonobo colony in Milwaukee where I think about half the colony, they put their arm through a little tube and blood is taken. Urine is pretty easy to collect. It is quite simple. We even do that in Gombe National Park in the wild.

Postmortems when they are dead, I don’t think anybody would argue or worry about that. Caring for them when they are sick and the facilities that take on the chimps that are being infected, they are going to be staffed by people who are aware of the condition of the chimps and understand how they should safely be treated.

Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still have some time left and would yield it back.

Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Green, to inquire.

Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Goodall, again, I will follow up my colleague from Tennessee and apologize for all the schedules we have between votes and constituents and other meetings. First of all, I believe, as Members of Congress and as humans, we have a responsibility, and that is why I think this bill is a good piece of legislation. I have a couple of questions. One, should the chimpanzees that are not used in research, such as zoo animals, be eligible to apply for retirement to a sanctuary, and is there an estimate on the numbers that we may have and comment on other non-research sources for these animals so we can see, because again, I think we have an obligation, not only as Members of Congress, but also the zoos in the country and the other facilities that are non-government.

Ms. Goodall. Well, the zoos are trying to get better and better, and I have seen some facilities in some of the zoos. That would be the kind of situation that we are envisioning as a sanctuary, so there is a merging there between a good zoo and a sanctuary. There are some places that are described as sanctuaries which are actually not sanctuaries at all. They are very little better than a bad zoo. You have to go through each one of these one by one and assess them. There are certain wayside zoos. There are all the chimpanzees in entertainment. That is another big problem, but we can’t, I suppose, deal with that here. They should be eligible for retirement in sanctuaries. Instead, traditionally and typically, the excircus chimps, the ex-pets have ended up in medical research.

Mr. Green. Do you have any kind of idea about the numbers? It seems like it would be — consider the size of our country, would it be double what we expect —

Ms. Goodall. There is about 1,500 in medical research and the figure which used to be bandied around is between 4- and 500 in zoos, but there are so many pets, so many chimps. We are trying to make a list of them all, but it is very hard, because it is still legal to buy and sell these closest relatives of ours. That, in itself, would make a big difference if there was a bill in the future to make it illegal to buy and sell our closest relatives. At the moment you can go and buy a chimp without being asked at all if you know what they are like and what you are letting yourselves in for. People think they will never grow bigger than this.

Mr. Green. We have that problem, though, with lots of other species. Particularly in my home State of Texas, we have people who keep tigers and lions and they don’t realize the responsibility they have with it. In fact, in the State, we have actually had to pass laws especially on their liability that they have, and oftentimes people didn’t realize it. They may not want that liability question just to be able to keep their pet tiger. Some of us in Congress think we already have a tiger. One, I appreciate your work for many years, and not only as a Member of Congress, even before I was a Member of Congress, I followed your work and I appreciate it and your suggestions and your statement here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentleman.

Dr. Goodall, if I may, the gentleman maybe will yield back.

Mr. Green. I yield back my time.

Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Strandberg, from the NIH, is going to testify that the NIH can’t support this legislation because it would make the animals permanently unavailable for study or monitoring. Expand upon that. What is your feeling there? How strongly do you feel about their not being available for invasive research procedures?

Ms. Goodall. Well, I think the most important thing here is can they be left in the sanctuary and there are certain procedures, even over and above taking blood which could be carried out — this isn’t my field at all, but I imagine there are some — we even treat —

Mr. Bilirakis. But in your opinion.

Ms. Goodall. My opinion, yes, and there are some things you can do without taking them away from their sanctuary. They might require a small operation. You might have to keep them in a holding facility which would be there, a veterinarian facility built into all these sanctuaries.

I think the really cruel thing from the point of view of the chimpanzee, as I know him, would be to take him away from a place where he has now become resocialized, he has learned to understand the concept of freedom again, or relative freedom, and to put him back in the small square lab cage or the slightly bigger square lab cage, this, in my mind, would be very cruel.

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Any further questions from any members of the subcommittee?

Doctor, it has been an honor to have you here today. You obviously have been an awful lot of help and you have given us a viewpoint that only you can really provide, and you are now excused, and again, with great thanks on our part.

Ms. Goodall. Thank you. As an ambassador for the chimps, I am really happy that there is a group of people here who care the way I do.

 

Source: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, US House of Representatives, 106thCong., 2nd Sess., on H.R. 3514 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office), 2000.