I see that you have co-sponsored HR 1326, the Great Ape Protection Act.
Although this bill would impose important controls on research that can cause
suffering in higher primates, its noble goal must be balanced with the
occasional need for invasive research using great apes when no other animal or
system can substitute.  For instance, in the case of a new vaccine for
hepatitis C, wouldn't it be better, after all other available strategies have
been completed and have proven safe in other animals, to test the safety of
this vaccine on apes before risking it in humans?  Although all life is
precious, do we really want to equate the value of an ape's life with that of a
human life?  This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, and I do
respect the many animal rights advocates who place human and animal life on
par.  However, the reality is that this equation of human and non-human life is
not the majority view, and this legislation ought to reflect that.  So, I hope
that you will consider introducing an amendment to HR 1326 that would provide
for a stringent review by an independent panel of scientists, veterinarians and
members of the community (with a membership similar to that of Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committees), to establish whether, in each individual case,
the science in a proposal is so compelling and carries such great potential
benefit to humanity that an exception to this ban on ape research ought to be
granted.  I imagine that such exceptions ought to be rare - but they ought to
be possible.  Please DO NOT implement a blanket ban on ape research, without
any possibility of rare exceptions.