One Brain Cell Can Restore Feeling to Paralyzed Monkeys: More Proof—as if any is needed—of Neccesity of Animal Research

Some stories are two-fers; that is they relate to two (or perhaps more) issues we address here at SHS. This is one of those. Scientists, using monkeys in experiments, have discovered that one brain cell may be able to restore feeling in the paralyzed. From the story:

One tiny brain cell is all it takes to restore voluntary movement of paralysed muscles, scientists in the United States reported Wednesday.

In experiments pointing to new treatments for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury or stroke, monkeys learned within minutes to harness the power of a single neuron to activate muscles immobilised by drugs.

There are some 100 billion neurons in the human brain, and the study suggests an unsuspected degree of flexibility in the kinds of tasks they can perform.

One of the first scientists to hypothesize that the brain is flexible was Dr. Edward Taub—who I interviewed for my upcoming book. He believed that paralyzed people could be taught to use their arms even though numb. For this, he had to use monkeys in experiments to learn if he was right, and if so, what that might mean. But that brought his work to the attention of the fanatics at PETA. Alex Pacheco, co founder of PETA infiltrated the lab pretending to be a student deciding on a future career. When Taub took a vacation, the formerly reliable maintenance crew stopped showing up and the place got filthy. Pacheco didn’t alert administration. He called the cops, turning Taub in for abuse to animals. Taub spent the next several years successfully clearing his name in the notorious Sliver Spring Monkey Case, about which I have written before.

So, back to the two-fer. This shows the power and potential of non controversial biotechnology. But I think it is an even better illustration that the animal rights ideologues who claim that animals are of no use in scientific studies are either hopelessly ignorant or lying. Because to learn this, scientists needed access to living organisms with a brain. And that meant either animals or humans, since the experiments are potentially dangerous. Again, from the story:

Several obstacles remain, however, before this new technique can be tested in humans, he said.

To avoid infections, the system would have to become fully implantable so that no wires passed through the skin. And electrodes would need to be made more stable so that they could record the activity of neurons over a period of years, rather than week

So, do we endanger humans, endanger monkeys, or refuse to engage in this research that holds such great potential to improve human lives altogether.? I choose monkeys.