(no subject)
Jan. 13th, 2003 06:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivka![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hobbitbabe recently posted questions about work - including asking about the oddest or most unpleasant work people had ever done. It got me thinking about my monkey job.Then the monkeys came up in conversation today on our way home from work. "I didn't say anything about the monkeys in my list of 100 things!" I realized. "You could post an addendum,"
curiousangel suggested. I gave it a try:1. I shaved the monkeys.
2. I dyed some monkeys red and green with Manic Panic hair dye. But I only did it once.
"Hey," I said. "This has potential."
So, without further ado:
1. I shaved the monkeys. I used a regular Gilette safety razor.
2. I dyed some monkeys red and green with Manic Panic hair dye. But I only did it once.
3. We carried the monkeys around in Playmate Coolers.
4. I once got in trouble with my housemates for leaving monkey blood in the refrigerator overnight.
5. I am all too familiar with the euphemism "self-mouthing."
6. The monkeys all had numbers tattooed on their arms in blue ink. No one but me seemed to think this was creepy.
7. I've spent much too much time looking after monkeys who had recently been anesthetized with ketamine to be able to conceive of that stuff as a party drug.
8. I am one of the world's experts on methods of testing infant monkeys' vision.
9. Even now, seven years later, when I see parents buying Corn Pops for their children, I am briefly shocked. That's monkey food.
10. It comforted me to reflect, from time to time, on the fact that my horrible, evil, cruel-to-the-monkeys boss used to have to jerk them off.
11. It comforted me even more to know that that would never, ever be part of my job description.
[Note: I don't really want to get into a debate about the validity of animal research. Something I once wrote about the topic can be found here. My opinion hasn't changed substantially since then.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 05:20 pm (UTC)I'm not sure why, but #1 sounds like an admission of guilt. "Yes, your honor, I shaved the monkeys." *Grin*
You have had an *interesting* life. Yes, I knew that. But, now I know the monkey parts too.
Okay...I should revise that so it doesn't say "monkey parts"...
Gesi
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 05:42 pm (UTC)Kate
who can support animal testing if a)there are not cosmetics involved b)the animals have sufficient time to study so they don't get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 06:00 pm (UTC)2. I am vaguely curious about items 5 and 10, but I suspect I really don't want to know.
3. I am fairly curious about the methods of testing infant monkeys' vision, but not enough to hassle you about it if you don't feel like going into more detail.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 07:10 pm (UTC)And...I eat Corn Pops. But from now on, when I buy them, I'm going to announce that I'm buying myself a box of Monkey Chow. (Pity Corn Pops don't say "Ralston Purina" on them.)
Did you close the lid on the coolers? Does seeing people using those coolers now make you think that there might be a monkey inside?
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 07:46 pm (UTC)Sheesh, who isn't? (Other than the monkeys themselves, of course, who apparently liked it fine.)
By the time I started working there, the experimental protocols in our lab no longer called for the collection of semen samples - but in any case, they had switched over to collecting samples with a piece of equipment called an "electro-ejaculator."
and generally found this fascinating reading.
Some aspects of the work were really fun. Other large swathes of it were achingly hard or mind-bogglingly tedious. I left out the tedious parts. *grin* Glad you liked it.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:09 pm (UTC)How about a brief overview?
Method One took advantage of primate infants' natural preference for high-contrast patterns over plain stimuli. We had pairs of cards made, each pair having one card with black and white stripes and one "matched gray" card - meaning that it had equal luminance to the striped card. The stripes were graded from "huge" all the way down to "tiny." We presented the baby monkey with each pair of cards, and an observer who couldn't see the cards tried to decide which one the monkey preferred. If the monkey appeared to prefer a striped card 75% of the time, we assumed that it was capable of distinguishing stripes of that size. If the monkey showed approximately equal preference for stripes and greys at a given size, we assumed that the stripes looked grey - that they weren't distinguishable.
Method Two is where the shaving came in. We placed recording electrodes on the back of the monkey's scalp, over the visual cortex, and a ground electrode on the monkey's side. Then we showed the monkey a visual stimulus on a computer screen - usually rapidly alternating bars that gradually faded in contrast. We then recorded the electrical activity in the monkey's visual cortex that corresponded with the alternation. As the contrast faded to the point at which the monkey could no longer see it, there stopped being cortex activity in the rhythm of the alternation.
The major problem with both Method One and Method Two was getting the monkey to look at the goddamned stimuli. Method Two also suffers from the additional disadvantages of needing to keep the monkey still and calm for shaving and electrode application, keeping the monkey from pulling the electrodes off, and keeping the monkey from moving - because movement would produce competing electrical stimuli in the brain and thus drown out the signal from the visual stimuli. Plus, all of this had to be done without making the monkey unhappy, because an unhappy monkey will refuse to look at the goddamned stimuli.
Unsurprisingly, a single session of Method Two usually took upwards of three hours.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:11 pm (UTC)...which you will never again have to explain to anyone who watched last week's er episode.
(it wasn't used on a monkey, however.)
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:21 pm (UTC)I'll catch up on ER eventually.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:22 pm (UTC)Uh huh. It's exactly what it sounds like. Infant monkeys are flexible little buggers.
Did you close the lid on the coolers?
How else would you keep the monkeys inside, huh? Yes, we closed the lids. They had air holes drilled in them. We'd also line the bottom with a towel, for comfort and cleanliness.
It was usually two monkeys to a cooler, and when they were small there was room enough to play. I'd often walk into a building and set the cooler down for a minute while I spoke to someone or set something up. People would walk past and see this lunch cooler shaking and making noises... we got some weird looks.
Does seeing people using those coolers now make you think that there might be a monkey inside?
Yes.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:27 pm (UTC)Did you close the lid on the coolers?
How else would you keep the monkeys inside, huh? Yes, we closed the lids. They had air holes drilled in them. We'd also line the bottom with a towel, for comfort and cleanliness.
Uhh. You're the one who shaved and dyed monkeys. Closing the lid seemed so mundane, somehow. I wish I could listen in on the moment that someone came up with this whole method, though. I know a lot of people who use the smallest size to carry lunch to work. Thanks to you, I'm now going to wonder...
I don't know if that's shared joy or shared pain.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:48 pm (UTC)It was disturbing.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 09:41 pm (UTC)I had my first bowl of Corn Pops -- delicious, coveted Corn Pops -- in years last Friday. You just made my day.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-14 11:59 am (UTC)But the part about monkey spunk still made me giggle.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-14 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-14 02:05 pm (UTC)