Monkey Drug Trials

Last updated

The Monkey Drug Trials of 1969 were a series of controversial animal testing experiments that were conducted on primates to study the effects of various psychoactive substances. The trials shed light on the profound effects of drug addiction and withdrawal in primates, pioneering critical insights into human substance abuse. [1]

Contents

Background

The Monkey Drug Trials experiment was influenced by preceding research discussing related topics. [2] Six notable research publications may be highlighted: “Factors regulating oral consumption of an opioid (etonitazene) by morphine-addicted rats”; [3] “Experimental morphine addiction: Method for automatic intravenous injections in unrestrained rats.”; [4] ”Morphine self-administration, food-reinforced, and avoidance behaviors in rhesus monkeys ''; [5] “Psychopharmacological elements of drug dependence”; [6] “Drug addiction. I. Addiction by escape training”; [7] “Morphine addiction in rats”. [8]

Experiments

The study “Self-Administration of Psychoactive Substances by the Monkey” was conducted by G. Deneau, T. Yanagita and M.H. Seever at the department of pharmacology at the University of Michigan. [1]

The monkey drug trials consisted of self-injection of intravenous drugs in monkeys, in which the primates were trained to operate the self-administration of cocaine, morphine, amphetamines, codeine, caffeine, mescaline, pentobarbital, ethanol, by  using a lever in their cage. Their responses to the drugs over time were carefully analyzed to assess whether monkeys, after initial exposure to it, will show a voluntary intake of it, indicating psychological dependencies. [1]

The results suggested that some drugs elicited signs of dependency while others did not. They were compared with human dependency problems aiming to find an explanation of physiological and psychological drug dependence in humans. Those trials had some drastic side effects like tremors, hallucinations, convulsions, sudden death and disorientation. [9] Several other experiments that were highly criticised because of moral issues led to the development of guidelines for guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals provided by the American Psychological Association. [10]

Procedure

Monkeys selected as experiment subjects were kept in specially-built cubicles. Inside the booths, monkeys were restrained by a harness attached to a restraining arm mounted on the wall. [1] Upon acclimation of the monkey to the new environment, the harness was adjusted to fit the size of the animal. A silicone catheter was inserted into the monkey’s jugular vein under anesthesia and fixed in place. The other end of the catheter was attached to a tube running through the harness to an injector. [1]

After the monkey recovered from the catheter installation, two switches were placed inside the cubicle. Pressing one of the switches activated the injector and saline was injected into the vein of the monkey. Upon pressing the other switch, saline was transported back from the injector to the container. After the monkey learned to operate the self-admiration mechanism, saline was switched to a drug solution. Drug injections could be administered by the monkey or a timer. [1]

If the drug had rewarding effects on the monkey, it increased the self-admiration rate as pressing the switch would be associated with a pleasant experience. If the experience was perceived negatively, the monkey avoided pressing the switch. [1]

In the event of the monkey not initiating drug injections, the solution was administered automatically at regular intervals to test if upon further exposure, the monkey would begin to press the switch on its own, signaling psychological dependence on the drug. [1]

Results

Morphine: Some monkeys expressed an initial reluctance to self-administer morphine at lower doses, but they eventually began and maintained a consistent intake of it, some even significantly increasing the dosage throughout the experiment. None of the monkeys voluntarily ceased their morphine intake during the study, and when this drug was taken away from them they expressed symptoms of severe dependence. Some of the side effects observed during the monkeys’ morphine consumption were drowsiness, apathy, reduced food intake, and temporary weight loss. [1]

Codeine: Four out of five monkeys initiated level-pressing for codeine, gradually increasing its intake until achieving a stable consumption between the fifth and sixth week of the experiment. One monkey experienced convulsions and died after reaching the highest observed daily dosage of 600 mg/kg, and the other four died between the sixth and eighth week of unrestricted codeine consumption. [1]

Nalorphine: Due to the monkey’s experience with the first drug trial, they refused to administer themselves drugs out of their own free will. So they were injected every four hours for the whole period of the trial. During the trial the monkeys were less active, somewhat apprehensive and salivated mildly for 10-15 minutes. Once the trial ended and the monkeys were taken off the drugs they yawned excessively and scratched for 2 days. [1]

Morphine-Nalorphine mixture: Four monkeys were tested with a mixture of both drugs, these monkeys had shown psychological dependence but had not been allowed to self-administer morphine. None of the monkey voluntarily self-administered the mixture. [1]

Cocaine: Two out of four monkeys started self-administration with a dose of 0.25 mg/kg, and the other three started with a dose of 1.0 mg/kg that they maintained throughout the experiment. Once self-administration began, the cocaine consumption rapidly increased, leading to convulsions and death within 30 days. To extend the experiment, the self-administration dose was restricted to one dose per hour, and the consequent pattern was monkeys self-administering until exhaustion, after which they voluntarily ceased their cocaine intake for a period ranging from 12 hours to 5 days. During this period of voluntary restriction, monkeys slept intermittently and ate frequently. Cocaine consumption resulted in secondary effects such as hallucinations, muscle mass loss, and frequent grand mal convulsions. [1]

Morphine-cocaine: Four monkeys had 2 tubes implanted, where one supplied morphine and one supplied cocaine, with corresponding lever switches which could be pressed as pleased. Quite shortly after, the monkeys developed dependency, primarily using cocaine during the day and morphine during the evening/night. Combined toxic effects of these drugs created disorientation, delirium, anorexia, motor impairment, emaciation and eventually death after 2-4 weeks. [1]

The Amphetamines: Five monkeys voluntarily self-administered a maximum dose of methamphetamine. The intake was infrequent with periods of voluntary withdrawal and periods of high intake daily and nightly. D-amphetamine had similar but milder effects than cocaine, lacking especially grand convulsions, chewing of forearms and digits. Hair was plucked from one monkey’s body by themselves leading to believe the hallucinations might have been present. Just as in cocaine the monkeys became confused and a catabolic effect was observed in both cocaine and amphetamines. [1]

Caffeine: Four monkeys were placed in a caffeine trial, where two failed self-administration of 1.0mg/kg, one failed self-administration at 2.5mg/kg and one did initiate self administration at this level, and one monkey initiated self-administration at 5.0mg/kg. One monkey self-administered voluntarily and two did with priming. The pattern following self-administration was sporadic and with irregular intervals of administration and abstinence. No tendency to heighten the dose or to take the drug at night was shown, and once the drug was withdrawn no signs of withdrawal were visible with the monkeys. [1]

Mescaline: The monkeys either did not self-administer mescaline or started doing so after one month of programmed administration. Effects observed were salivation indicating nausea although no monkeys vomited, mydriasis and piloerection. The monkeys were also very apprehensive of sounds. No abstinence signs were observed during programmed administration. [1]

Pentobarbital: Five monkeys initiated and maintained self-administration of 3 mg/kg doses of pentobarbital. They constantly self-administered as soon as the last dose enabled them to re-administer, reaching a tolerance plateau of 420mg/kg per week. All monkey’s abstained during meals, which were larger than average. The monkeys maintained good physical condition, gaining weight throughout the experiment. They never voluntarily abstained and when abstinence was forced, abstinence syndrome was observed with symptoms of extreme restlessness, tremors, grand mal convulsions and apparent hallucinations.

Ethanol: Four out if five monkeys administered ethanol voluntarily, where one of four completely stopped self-administering after one month. Despite severe abstinence syndrome, the monkeys voluntarily abstained for 2-4 days during the first 4 months. Afterwards these periods were usually no more than a day. Effects observed included severe motor incoordination and stupor, sometimes to the point of light anesthesia. Withdrawal periods also induced symptoms of tremor, vomiting, hallucinatory behavior and convulsions within 6 hours after the last dose. Food intake was also severely deprived, showing marked weight loss and cachexia. Two monkeys died because of respiratory obstruction during anesthesia. [1]

Chlorpromazine: None of six monkeys willingly self-administered chlorpromazine, and received programmed injections. After withdrawal though, two monkeys willingly self-administered 2-5 times a day and then abstained completely after several weeks. Effects during administration included typical phenothiazine effects of reduced spontaneous activity and responsiveness, narrowed palpebral fissures and slight miosis, but no major dyskinesias were observed. No withdrawal signs were observed either. [1]

Saline: No attempt during the study to establish saline as a reinforcing agent was successful. [1]

Limitations

Limitations the experimenters Deneau et al. mentioned in their paper about Self-Administration of Psychoactive Drugs by the Monkey include that the study was not able to test drugs that are not water soluble. This limited research of substances like the active ingredients of marijuana. In the paper it was also noted, that the individual variability in drug abuse of the individual monkeys, may affect the reliability of the results. [1]

When discussing the concept of self-administration for inferring abuse potential it is essential to consider the toxicity of the drug when it is administered as well as the withdrawal-effects once usage is stopped. The experiment mainly focused on the self-administration and not on the withdrawal-period or detailed effects that the drugs had on the body. Abuse potential as well as a drugs potential danger is not only determined by self-administration but by several factors that were not taken into account when the study was conducted. [1]

An additional point of criticism raised by primatologists is the limitation of generalizing results from data obtained on non-human primates onto humans. There are possible biases that can emerge through, for example, the environment the monkeys are being placed in or connected traumas resulting from the replacement of their previous environment to the laboratory. [11]

Ethics

Experiments using Non-Human Primates (NHPs) are viewed more critically in years following 1969, when the study of Self-Administration of Psychoactive Substances by the Monkey was conducted. [12]

The bioethicist Peter Singer, for example, argues that there should be no use of any animal in biomedical research as this would indicate speciesism. It is often argued that animals lack sentience, autonomy and self-consciousness, which is utilized to justify the use of animals in scientific experiments. Singer draws the comparison of humans that lack these traits and argues that if one is morally able to deprive an animal of their rights based on this argument, one would also be entitled to depriving said humans of the same rights and privileges. [13]

More specific to the experiment of Self-Administration of Psychoactive Substances by the Monkey which utilized rhesus monkeys, there is the factor of a substantial phylogenetic proximity between non-human primates and humans which indicates that the suffering endured by NHPs in these experiments is similar to what a human would experience under the same circumstances. [14]

Some argue that this phylogenetic proximity between NHPs and humans is exactly what benefits comparative psychology, in which it is thus easier to infer from the animal to humans. [15] The drug self-administration procedures that occur in animals have been found to present valid and reliable results for assessing the potential drug abuse in humans. The reliability of these studies is particularly high because of the phylogenetic similarity. [16]

Carl Cohen, a bioethicist, suggests that as long as animals are killed by humans daily, simply for consumption, even though this is unnecessary due to modern scientific developments, there would be no reason not to utilize animals in scientific experiments. [17]

A utilitarian argument to justify this further would be that there are relatively few NHPs used in research, compared to the relatively large number of people benefitting. [18]

The Institution of Harvard Medical School, when talking about a different ethically-questioned experiment using NHPs, stated:

As long as non-human primates are used in scientific experiments, we are morally obligated to provide them with sufficient social conditions that ensure their emotional well-being. [19]

Legacy and aftermath

The monkey drug trials were not the first nor the last experiment of its kind. Using animals to assess the effects of addiction and withdrawal was a relatively common practice during Deneau’s [1] time, with monkeys and rats being the most prevalent subjects. [20] [21] Notably, Charles Schuster’s studies on drug self-administration were critical in demonstrating the highly addictive nature of stimulant substances. [22] The cruelty and disregard for the animals displayed by the experimenters during the 1969 drug trials were the key contributor in the controversy that followed. [12]

The experiment had a profound impact on the field of neuroscience and addiction research, leading to lasting changes in research practices, ethical considerations, and public perception. [12]

In spite of the criticism that accompanied the publication of the study, subsequent research did provide valuable insights into addiction-driven behaviors. In the following decades, articles focusing on the biological processes underlying drug-addiction grew in popularity. Respected scientists, such as George Koob and Nora Volkov, were at the forefront of new discoveries in addiction neuroscience and the pharmacology of behavior. [23] Research also explored the clinical aspects of addiction-related behaviors, with experiments aimed at reducing the likelihood of relapse in patients. [24]

While self-administered drug trials were not a novelty in the last century, the validity and efficiency of such procedures have since become a subject of debate in the scientific community. [25] The use of animals in studies exploring the effects of various substances was still prevalent by the end of the 20th century. [26] [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychopharmacology</span> Study of the effects of psychoactive drugs

Psychopharmacology is the scientific study of the effects drugs have on mood, sensation, thinking, behavior, judgment and evaluation, and memory. It is distinguished from neuropsychopharmacology, which emphasizes the correlation between drug-induced changes in the functioning of cells in the nervous system and changes in consciousness and behavior.

Rat Park was a series of studies into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s and published between 1978 and 1981 by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander and his colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dizocilpine</span> Chemical compound

Dizocilpine (INN), also known as MK-801, is a pore blocker of the NMDA receptor, a glutamate receptor, discovered by a team at Merck in 1982. Glutamate is the brain's primary excitatory neurotransmitter. The channel is normally blocked with a magnesium ion and requires depolarization of the neuron to remove the magnesium and allow the glutamate to open the channel, causing an influx of calcium, which then leads to subsequent depolarization. Dizocilpine binds inside the ion channel of the receptor at several of PCP's binding sites thus preventing the flow of ions, including calcium (Ca2+), through the channel. Dizocilpine blocks NMDA receptors in a use- and voltage-dependent manner, since the channel must open for the drug to bind inside it. The drug acts as a potent anti-convulsant and probably has dissociative anesthetic properties, but it is not used clinically for this purpose because of the discovery of brain lesions, called Olney's lesions (see below), in laboratory rats. Dizocilpine is also associated with a number of negative side effects, including cognitive disruption and psychotic-spectrum reactions. It inhibits the induction of long term potentiation and has been found to impair the acquisition of difficult, but not easy, learning tasks in rats and primates. Because of these effects of dizocilpine, the NMDA receptor pore blocker ketamine is used instead as a dissociative anesthetic in human medical procedures. While ketamine may also trigger temporary psychosis in certain individuals, its short half-life and lower potency make it a much safer clinical option. However, dizocilpine is the most frequently used uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist in animal models to mimic psychosis for experimental purposes.

In internal medicine, relapse or recidivism is a recurrence of a past condition. For example, multiple sclerosis and malaria often exhibit peaks of activity and sometimes very long periods of dormancy, followed by relapse or recrudescence.

Substance dependence, also known as drug dependence, is a biopsychological situation whereby an individual's functionality is dependent on the necessitated re-consumption of a psychoactive substance because of an adaptive state that has developed within the individual from psychoactive substance consumption that results in the experience of withdrawal and that necessitates the re-consumption of the drug. A drug addiction, a distinct concept from substance dependence, is defined as compulsive, out-of-control drug use, despite negative consequences. An addictive drug is a drug which is both rewarding and reinforcing. ΔFosB, a gene transcription factor, is now known to be a critical component and common factor in the development of virtually all forms of behavioral and drug addictions, but not dependence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caffeine dependence</span> Medical condition

Caffeine dependence is a condition characterized by a set of criteria, including tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to control use, and continued use despite knowledge of adverse consequences attributed to caffeine. It can appear in physical dependence or psychological dependence, or both. Caffeine is one of the most common additives in many consumer products, including pills and beverages such as caffeinated alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, pain reliever medications, and colas. Caffeine is found naturally in various plants such as coffee and tea. Studies have found that 89 percent of adults in the U.S. consume on average 200 mg of caffeine daily. One area of concern that has been presented is the relationship between pregnancy and caffeine consumption. Repeated caffeine doses of 100 mg appeared to result in smaller size at birth in newborns. When looking at birth weight however, caffeine consumption did not appear to make an impact.

Brain stimulation reward (BSR) is a pleasurable phenomenon elicited via direct stimulation of specific brain regions, originally discovered by James Olds and Peter Milner. BSR can serve as a robust operant reinforcer. Targeted stimulation activates the reward system circuitry and establishes response habits similar to those established by natural rewards, such as food and sex. Experiments on BSR soon demonstrated that stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus, along with other regions of the brain associated with natural reward, was both rewarding as well as motivation-inducing. Electrical brain stimulation and intracranial drug injections produce robust reward sensation due to a relatively direct activation of the reward circuitry. This activation is considered to be more direct than rewards produced by natural stimuli, as those signals generally travel through the more indirect peripheral nerves. BSR has been found in all vertebrates tested, including humans, and it has provided a useful tool for understanding how natural rewards are processed by specific brain regions and circuits, as well the neurotransmission associated with the reward system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phenyltropane</span> Class of chemical compounds

Phenyltropanes (PTs) were originally developed to reduce cocaine addiction and dependency. In general these compounds act as inhibitors of the plasmalemmal monoamine reuptake transporters. This research has spanned beyond the last couple decades, and has picked up its pace in recent times, creating numerous phenyltropanes as research into cocaine analogues garners interest to treat addiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naphthylaminopropane</span> Chemical compound

Naphthylaminopropane (PAL-287) is an experimental drug under investigation as of 2007 for the treatment of alcohol and stimulant addiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">University of Minnesota primate research</span>

The University of Minnesota runs a number of studies involving non-human primates, most notably research into drug addiction. The studies have attracted the attention of local and national animal rights groups, most especially the drug addiction studies of Marilyn Carroll, which she performs on primates, rats, and mice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cyprenorphine</span> Chemical compound

Cyprenorphine (M285), N-cyclo-propylmethyl-6,14-endoetheno-7α-(1-hydroxy-1-methylethyl)-6,7,8,14-tetrahydronororipavine, is an opioid drug. It is related to more well-known opioids such as buprenorphine, which is used as an analgesic and for the treatment of opioid addiction, and diprenorphine, which is used as an antidote to reverse the effects of other opioids. It is roughly 35 times as strong as nalorphine.

Psychological dependence is a cognitive disorder and a form of dependence that is characterized by emotional–motivational withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of prolonged drug use or certain repetitive behaviors. Consistent and frequent exposure to particular substances or behaviors is responsible for inducing psychological dependence, requiring ongoing engagement to prevent the onset of an unpleasant withdrawal syndrome driven by negative reinforcement. Neuronal counter-adaptation is believed to contribute to the generation of withdrawal symptoms through changes in neurotransmitter activity or altered receptor expression. Environmental enrichment and physical activity have been shown to attenuate withdrawal symptoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dimethocaine</span> Stimulant

Dimethocaine, also known as DMC or larocaine, is a compound with a stimulatory effect. This effect resembles that of cocaine, although dimethocaine appears to be less potent. Just like cocaine, dimethocaine is addictive due to its stimulation of the reward pathway in the brain. However, dimethocaine is a legal cocaine replacement in some countries and is even listed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) under the category “synthetic cocaine derivatives”. The structure of dimethocaine, being a 4-aminobenzoic acid ester, resembles that of procaine. It is found as a white powder at room temperature.

Self-administration is, in its medical sense, the process of a subject administering a pharmacological substance to themself. A clinical example of this is the subcutaneous "self-injection" of insulin by a diabetic patient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">RTI-113</span> Chemical compound

RTI(-4229)-113 is a stimulant drug which acts as a potent and fully selective dopamine reuptake inhibitor (DRI). It has been suggested as a possible substitute drug for the treatment of cocaine addiction. "RTI-113 has properties that make it an ideal medication for cocaine abusers, such as an equivalent efficacy, a higher potency, and a longer duration of action as compared to cocaine." Replacing the methyl ester in RTI-31 with a phenyl ester makes the resultant RTI-113 fully DAT specific. RTI-113 is a particularly relevant phenyltropane cocaine analog that has been tested on squirrel monkeys. RTI-113 has also been tested against cocaine in self-administration studies for DAT occupancy by PET on awake rhesus monkeys. The efficacy of cocaine analogs to elicit self-administration is closely related to the rate at which they are administered. Slower onset of action analogs are less likely to function as positive reinforcers than analogues that have a faster rate of onset.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effect of psychoactive drugs on animals</span>

Psychoactive drugs, such as caffeine, amphetamine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), cannabis, chloral hydrate, theophylline, IBMX and others, can have strong effects on certain animals. It is believed that plants developed caffeine as a chemical defense against insects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">3-Fluoroamphetamine</span> Stimulant drug that acts as an amphetamine

3-Fluoroamphetamine is a stimulant drug from the amphetamine family which acts as a monoamine releaser with similar potency to methamphetamine but more selectivity for dopamine and norepinephrine release over serotonin. It is self-administered by mice to a similar extent to related drugs such as 4-fluoroamphetamine and 3-methylamphetamine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychoactive drug</span> Chemical substance that alters nervous system function

A psychoactive drug, mind-altering drug, or consciousness-altering drug is a chemical substance that changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior. The term psychotropic drug is often used interchangeably, while some sources present narrower definitions. These substances may be used medically; recreationally; to purposefully improve performance or alter one's consciousness; as entheogens for ritual, spiritual, or shamanic purposes; or for research, including psychedelic therapy. Some categories of psychoactive drugs, which have therapeutic value, are prescribed by physicians and other healthcare practitioners. Examples include anesthetics, analgesics, anticonvulsant and antiparkinsonian drugs as well as medications used to treat neuropsychiatric disorders, such as antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, and stimulant medications. Some psychoactive substances may be used in the detoxification and rehabilitation programs for persons dependent on or addicted to other psychoactive drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harris Isbell</span> American pharmacologist

Harris Isbell was an American pharmacologist and the director of research for the NIMH Addiction Research Center at the Public Health Service Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky from 1945 to 1963. He did extensive research on the physical and psychological effects of various drugs on humans. Early work investigated aspects of physical dependence with opiates and barbiturates, while later work investigated psychedelic drugs, including LSD. The research was extensively reported in academic journals such as the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Psychopharmacologia, and the AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry.

Stimulant use disorder is a type of substance use disorder where the use of stimulants caused clinically significant impairment or distress. It is defined in the DSM-5 as "the continued use of amphetamine-type substances, cocaine, or other stimulants leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, from mild to severe". These psychoactive drugs, known as stimulants, are among the most widely used drugs in the world today, although not all stimulants can induce addiction. As of 1993, Approximately 200 million Americans have used some type of stimulant in the past year alone.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Deneau, Gerald; Yanagita, Tomoji; Seevers, M. H. (1969). "Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey". Psychopharmacologia. 16 (1): 30–48. doi:10.1007/bf00405254. hdl:2027.42/46354. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   4982648.
  2. ↑ Deneau, Gerald; Yanagita, Tomoji; Seevers, M. H. (1969). "Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey: A measure of psychological dependence". Psychopharmacologia. 16 (1): 30–48. doi:10.1007/BF00405254. hdl:2027.42/46354. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   4982648.
  3. ↑ Wikler, Abraham; Martin, William R.; Pescor, Frank T.; Eades, Charles G. (1963). "Factors regulating oral consumption of an opioid (etonitazene) by morphine-addicted rats". Psychopharmacologia. 5 (1): 55–76. doi:10.1007/bf00405575. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   14082382.
  4. ↑ Weeks, James R. (1962-10-12). "Experimental Morphine Addiction: Method for Automatic Intravenous Injections in Unrestrained Rats". Science. 138 (3537): 143–144. Bibcode:1962Sci...138..143W. doi:10.1126/science.138.3537.143. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   14005543.
  5. ↑ Thompson, Travis; Schuster, Charles R. (1964). "Morphine self-administration, food-reinforced, and avoidance behaviors in rhesus monkeys". Psychopharmacologia. 5 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1007/bf00413045. hdl:2027.42/46396. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   14137126.
  6. ↑ Seevers, M. H. (1968-11-04). "Psychopharmacological elements of drug dependence". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 206 (6): 1263–1266. doi:10.1001/jama.206.6.1263. ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   5695790.
  7. ↑ Nichols, John R.; Headlee, Cecil P.; Coppóck, Harold W. (December 1956). "Drug Addiction I. Addiction by Escape Training**St. Louis College of Pharmacy and Allied Sciences". Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Scientific Ed.). 45 (12): 788–791. doi:10.1002/jps.3030451206. ISSN   0095-9553.
  8. ↑ Beach, Horace D. (June 1957). "Morphine addiction in rats". Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie. 11 (2): 104–112. doi:10.1037/h0083703. ISSN   0008-4255.
  9. ↑ "Bulletin on Narcotics, Volume LXII, 2019". Bulletin on Narcotics. 2020-07-31. doi:10.18356/4e171ea4-en. ISBN   978-92-1-005176-7. ISSN   1564-8680.
  10. ↑ "Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals American Psychological Association", Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Part 2, Techniques in the Behavioral and Neural Sciences, vol. 6, Elsevier, pp. A1–A7, 1991, doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-81251-3.50016-3, ISBN   978-0-444-81251-3 , retrieved 2024-05-18
  11. ↑ "Puzzling over links between monkey research and human health | LSHTM". www.lshtm.ac.uk. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  12. 1 2 3 Ghasemi, M., & Dehpour, A. R. (2009). Ethical considerations in animal studies. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2, 1
  13. ↑ Singer, Peter. “Equality for Animals?” In Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2011
  14. ↑ Prescott, M. J. (2010). Ethics of primate use. Advances in Science And Research, 5(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-5-11-2010
  15. ↑ Lopresti-Goodman, Stacy M.; Villatoro-Sorto, Brandon (2022-12-29). "The Benefits and Challenges of Conducting Primate Research in Different Settings". Animals. 13 (1): 133. doi: 10.3390/ani13010133 . ISSN   2076-2615. PMC   9817835 . PMID   36611742.
  16. ↑ Howell, L. L. & Fantegrossi, W. E. (2009). Intravenous drug Self-Administration in nonhuman primates. Methods Of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5220/
  17. ↑ Cohen, C. (1986). The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. New England Journal Of Medicine/The New England Journal Of Medicine, 315(14), 865–870. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198610023151405
  18. ↑ Pirzada, N. (2022). The Ethical Dilemma of Non-Human Primate Use in Biomedical Research. Voices in Bioethics, 8. https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v8i.9348
  19. ↑ Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, Harvard Law School (2023). More Than 380 Scientists Call for an End to Funding of Cruel Monkey Experiments at Harvard Medical School. Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, Harvard Law School. Derived on 14.05.2024 from: https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/cruel-monkey-experiments/
  20. ↑ Gage, S. H., & Sumnall, H. R. (2019). Rat Park: How a rat paradise changed the narrative of addiction. Addiction, 114(5), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14481
  21. ↑ Jessica N. Porter, Adam S. Olsen, Kate Gurnsey, Brian P. Dugan, Hank P. Jedema and Charles W. Bradberry Journal of Neuroscience 30 March 2011, 31 (13) 4926-4934; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5426-10.2011
  22. ↑ Wilson, M. C.; Schuster, C. R. (1972). "The effects of chlorpromazine on psychomotor stimulant self-administration in the Rhesus monkey". Psychopharmacologia. 26 (2): 115–126. doi:10.1007/bf00422098. hdl:2027.42/46383. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   4403705.
  23. ↑ KOOB, G. F; STINUS, L.; LE MOAL, M.; BLOOM, F. E. (1989). "Opponent process theory of motivation: neurobiological evidence from studies of opiate dependence". Opponent Process Theory of Motivation: Neurobiological Evidence from Studies of Opiate Dependence. 13 (2–3): 135–140. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(89)80022-3. ISSN   0149-7634. PMID   2682399.
  24. ↑ Shaham, Yavin; Shalev, Uri; Lu, Lin; de Wit, Harriet; Stewart, Jane (2002-10-26). "The reinstatement model of drug relapse: history, methodology and major findings". Psychopharmacology. 168 (1–2): 3–20. doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1224-x. ISSN   0033-3158. PMID   12402102.
  25. ↑ Haney, Margaret; Spealman, Roger (2008-08-01). "Controversies in translational research: drug self-administration". Psychopharmacology. 199 (3): 403–419. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1079-x. ISSN   1432-2072. PMC   2731701 . PMID   18283437.
  26. ↑ For further reading, https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/what-is-animal-research/a-z-animals/monkey"
  27. ↑ Lynch, Wendy J; Nicholson, Katherine L; Dance, Mario E; Morgan, Richard W; Foley, Patricia L (2010-06-01). "Animal models of substance abuse and addiction: implications for science, animal welfare, and society". Comparative Medicine. 60 (3): 177–188. ISSN   2769-819X. PMC   2890392 . PMID   20579432.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.