US CHIMPANZEE SANCTUARIES

There are plans in the USA for congressional legislation to create a national 'research-retirement system' for lab chimpanzees freed from their forced labour in the service of 'humanity' - or at least of the biomedical industry. A scientific advisory committee is drafting national sanctuary standards for chimpanzees released from medical and scientific research.

'Retirement' is an odd term for release from slavery, but we wish this effort well, and we hope it brings a far better life to chimpanzees who have endured so much for so long.

This 'retirement' should happen soon, and it should be permanent. There should be a law preventing chimpanzees from sanctuaries being subjected to invasive experiments, or any research that is not purely observational. They have already sacrificed more than anyone has a right to ask, or in their case force them to give. Sanctuaries should not be breeding colonies to supply the biomedical industry. These chimps have suffered too much, without their babies being stolen for a new generation of lab chimpanzees.

Sanctuaries should be designed to meet the needs of the individual chimpanzees. Every effort should be made to allow them, finally, to live on their own terms. It must be recognised that humans were never justified in imprisoning them in the first place.

Sadly, most sanctuaries - unless they are created to protect free-living chimpanzees - will be a form of captivity. Although sanctuaries can offer laboratory chimpanzees a much richer existence, they can rarely give residents a life that is as full and independent from humans as it could be in safe, 'natural' habitats.

One complex question facing human caretakers is whether or not to allow chimpanzees in their care to breed. We need to ask: Is this in the interests of the prospective parents or of their babies?

Ideally, there would be no need to interfere further in their lives. There are potential advantages of having offspring. Individual adult chimpanzees could enjoy the experience; it could make their lives richer. And having young ones around can allow a more natural community to develop.

But the artificiality of the sanctuary situation raises problems. Space is likely to be restricted, and the chimpanzees will be reliant on their human carers for food and protection. They will probably never be autonomous.

At minimum, sanctuaries should have by-laws prohibiting actions that are not in the chimps' own best interests. This will provide some protection. But chimpanzees can live for over 50 years, and by-laws can be changed. Without legislated basic rights and the status of persons, there are no firm guarantees for their future. Legally, they will still be 'property', or at least lack the legal standing to prevent their being used for human ends.

Sanctuaries are expensive. Any free space will almost certainly be needed by chimpanzees who are already alive. Babies should not be born into sanctuaries where the space is already inadequate. Further, sanctuaries designed for the survivors of biomedical experiments may be unsuited to housing vital, expanding communities for many generations to come.

Even if it later proves possible to introduce new-borns into habitats where they can live freely, this will still involve separating them from their mothers, and destroying social bonds. Moreover, it is doubtful whether chimpanzees who may have been psychologically damaged by their laboratory confinement will be able to care for infants at all adequately, or teach them how to survive independent of humans.

It does seem likely that some adult chimpanzees suffer from not having offspring, but this must be weighed against the potential suffering of generations of new-borns entering a life of captivity, or at least of uncertain security.

That leaves the question of breeding for species conservation. 'Species' is basically an abstract, human concept, not directly linked to the lives of individuals. While being an understandable human concern, species conservation is not a direct interest of chimpanzees themselves. But it may affect them in the long term.

The GAP argues that chimpanzees should have basic rights, and be recognised as persons and as individuals. Their status and treatment - in particular, whether or not they are left to breed - cannot be dependent on population numbers of free-living chimps. It would be wrong to sacrifice the wellbeing of individual chimpanzees for a numerical notion of species. Condemning new-borns to an impoverished existence or one of complete dependence on human benevolence would represent such a sacrifice.

It is worth saying here that protecting free-living great apes as individuals will also lead to preservation of their species, but for reasons that stem from their own needs and interests, and not from those of humans. Conservation of species must not be used as an excuse for imposing inadequate conditions on individual, captive great apes.

Putting all this together, one scenario where allowing breeding in sanctuaries might be justified is:

(1) The chimpanzees have rights enforceable at law through qualified guardians, whose task it is solely to represent their individual interests in all matters that affect them. (This is similar to the arrangement for orphaned humans);

(2) Sanctuaries are a kind of halfway house, allowing new generations to stay or leave as they choose, and according to their ability to live independently. Such a design would allow offspring to live largely independent of human support, but still be protected from poachers and bushmeat killers, and - if not taught by their parents to gather their own food - provided with a proper food supply;

(3) Enough sanctuary space is available to take all existing captive chimpanzees, and to allow them a rich life of their own.

We welcome your comments and ideas on this subject.