DOCSLIB.ORG

Xenotransplantation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Xenotransplantation Strasbourg, 21 February 2003 [cdbi/cdbi-cdsp-xeno/doc/divers/ CDBI/CDSP-XENO (2003) 1 XENO(2003)1E state of art final] REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE ART IN THE FIELD OF XENOTRANSPLANTATION In 1999, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe set up a Working Party on Xenotransplantation under the joint responsibility of the Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI) and the European Health Committee (CDSP) which decided to prepare a Report on the State of the Art in the field of Xenotransplantation. A previous version of this Report was used as a scientific basis for the preparation by the Working Party of a draft Recommendation on Xenotransplantation. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 2. INTENTION OF DOCUMENT ........................................................................................... 7 3. OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. 9 4. DEFINITION ................................................................................................................... 16 5. RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF XENOTRANSPLANTATION .............................................. 17 5.1. Recent activities in organ xenotransplantation ............................................................ 17 5.1.1. Heart xenotransplantation ............................................................................. 17 5.1.2. Liver xenotransplantation ............................................................................... 17 5.2. Recent activities in cellular xenotransplantation........................................................... 19 5.2.1. Transplantation of cells from the adrenal medulla.......................................... 20 5.2.2. Transplantation of cells producing neurotrophic growth factor ..................... 20 5.2.3. Transplantation of porcine neurons ............................................................... 20 5.2.4. Transplantation of pancreatic xenoislets ...................................................... 22 5.2.5. Transplantation of baboon bone marrow ....................................................... 23 5.2.6. Summary remarks relating to cellular xenotransplantation ........................... 23 5.3. Extracorporeal exposure to xenoorgans and xenocells ............................................... 23 5.3.1. Developments in the use of extracorporeal cellular xenotransplants ............ 23 5.3.2. Developments in the use of extracorporeal organ xenotransplants ............... 24 5.3.3. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25 5.4. Immunological and physiological challenges relating to xenotransplantation ............. 26 5.4.1. The Immunobiology of Xenotransplantation .................................................. 26 5.4.1.1. Hyperacute rejection ........................................................................... 27 5.4.1.2. Acute vascular rejection ..................................................................... 27 5.4.1.3. Acute cellular rejection ....................................................................... 28 5.4.1.4. Chronic rejection ................................................................................ 28 5.4.1.5. Strategies to prevent immunological rejection reactions ................... 28 2 5.4.2. The Physiology of organ xenotransplantation ............................................... 29 5.4.2.1. Heart xenotransplantation .................................................................. 29 5.4.2.2. Kidney xenotransplantation ................................................................ 29 5.4.2.3. Liver xenotransplantation ................................................................... 30 5.4.2.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 30 6. PRECLINICAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 31 6.1. The use of Non-human Primates in Xenotransplantation ............................................. 32 6.1.1. Microorganisms of non-human primates (with exception of retroviruses) and their transmission to humans .......................................................................... 33 6.1.2. Exogenous and endogenous retroviruses of non-human primates and their transmission to humans ........................................................................... 39 6.1.3. Non-human primates: General considerations on microbiological safety ..... 45 6.1.4. Health control considerations when using non-human primates ................... 46 6.1.5. Future prospectives in the use of non-human primates ................................. 47 6.1.6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 48 6.2. The use of Pigs in Xenotransplantation ........................................................................ 48 6.2.1. Risk of xenozoonosis when using pigs .......................................................... 48 6.2.2. Risk management for xenotransplant source animals ................................... 50 6.2.3. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 52 7. CULTURAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF XENOTRANSPLANTATION ......... 53 7.1. Culture .......................................................................................................................... 53 7.2. Attitudes ....................................................................................................................... 55 7.3. National Policies ........................................................................................................... 60 7.4. International Organisations and Policies ..................................................................... 65 7.5. An Ethical Overview of Clinical Xenotransplantation ................................................... 66 7.5.1. “Interfering with nature” ................................................................................ 66 7.5.2. Issues of consent ........................................................................................... 67 7.5.3. The effects on others ..................................................................................... 67 7.5.4. Risk ................................................................................................................ 68 3 7.5.5. Commercial interests ..................................................................................... 68 7.5.6. The Public ...................................................................................................... 68 7.6. The Ethical and Welfare Issues relating to the Use of Animals for Xenotransplantation ............................................................................................................................................. 68 7.6.1. Questions regarding the ethical acceptability of using animals ..................... 69 7.6.2. Welfare issues for source animals ................................................................. 70 7.6.2.1.Techniques in Transgenesis .................................................................. 71 7.6.2.2. Derivation of ‘S/QPF’ animals ............................................................... 71 7.6.2.3. Husbandry and care .............................................................................. 71 7.6.2.4. Procedures and collection of organs .................................................... 72 7.6.2.5. Welfare issues for animals in research ................................................. 72 7.6.3. Licensing and control .................................................................................... 73 7.6.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 74 7.7. Religious faiths and xenotransplantation ..................................................................... 74 8. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS ......................................................... 76 8.1. Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 76 8.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 85 Glossary: ............................................................................................................................ 87 References: ......................................................................................................................... 90 4 1. INTRODUCTION Xenotransplantation (the transplantation of cells, tissues and organs from one species to another) was first considered almost a hundred years ago. Since then, there have been sporadic instances of clinical applications in the history of medicine but interest was only rekindled in the early 1990s as a result of new progress in the biomedical sciences. Indeed, because of the great success of allotransplantation (human to human) an ever increasing number of operations are being performed and the need for human transplants now exceeds many times the supply. It is because of this shortage and the possibility for scientists to create a virtually unlimited supply of transplants through the use of animal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 Issn: 2456-8643 Survey of Primates In
    International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Bioresearch Vol. 5, No. 03; 2020 ISSN: 2456-8643 SURVEY OF PRIMATES IN TWO SELECTED FOREST RESERVES IN BENUE STATE, NIGERIA Uloko, I. J1. Orsar, T. J2 And Adendem, M. N3 Federal University Of Agriculture,makurdi,benue State, Nigeria https://doi.org/10.35410/IJAEB.2020.5508 ABSTRACT This study focused on primate distribution and abundance in yaaiwa and Ipinu-Igede Forest Reserves in Kwande and Oju local Government Areas of Benue State, Nigeria, respectively. The study also assessed the species of tree composition and abundance in addition to types of anthropogenic activities in these areas. The research period was from June, 2018 to May, 2019. The methods used were line transect method to determine their population density and the total enumeration count for plants species composition and abundance. Structural questionnaire were used to obtain information on anthropogenic disturbances in the study areas. Results revealed that population density of the three species of primates sighted in the study areas were very low, 1.68 individuals /km2 due to high rate of anthropogenic activities such as farming, hunting and logging in and around these study areas. However, the presence of three different species of primates such as olive Baboon (Papio Anubis), Patas monkey (Erythrocebus Patas) and Tantatus monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops) were confirmed, through physical observations and indirect indices such as calls, dungs and foot prints. The plant species and ecology of the study areas were mainly of primary forest which was seriously modified through human activities. Clearly, most of the respondents were energetic youths of age between 16 – 35 years, who were mostly said to be unemployed who posed threat to wildlife conservation in these study areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Population Density and Structure of Primates in Pandam Wildlife Park, Plateau State, Nigeria
    Sustainability, Agri, Food and Environmental Research, (ISSN: 0719-3726) , 6(2), 2018: 18-35 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.7770/safer-V6N2-art1503 ASSESSMENT OF POPULATION DENSITY AND STRUCTURE OF PRIMATES IN PANDAM WILDLIFE PARK, PLATEAU STATE, NIGERIA DENSIDAD POBLACIONAL Y ESTRUCTURA DE PRIMATES DIURNOS EN EL PARQUE DE VIDA SILVESTRE EN PANDAM, ESTADO DE PLATEAU, NIGERIA. Gabriel Ortyom Yager*, James Oshita Bukie and Avalumun Emmanuel Kaa, Department of Wildlife and Range Management, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria. *Correspondent author email & Phone: [email protected]; 08150609846 ABSTRACT A survey of diurnal primate species in Pandam Wildlife Park, Nigeria was conducted to determine its population density and structure. Eight transect lines (2.0km length, 0.02km width) at interval of 1.0km were located as representative samples in the Park within the Three-range stratum (riparian forest, savannah woodland and, swampy area) based on proportional to size of the strata in providing information on the primates’ species present in the Park which include Cercopithecus mona, Erythrocebus patas, Papio anubis and, Chlorocebus tantalus. Direct method of animal sighting was employed. Data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA and diversity indices. The results showed that savannah woodland strata had more number of individual species encountered (132) and the lowest was the swampy area. Also the savannah woodland had the highest species diversity and richness while the riparian forest strata had the highest number of species evenness. More so, Cercopithecus tantalus was widespread throughout the Park among other primates and Cercopithecus mona is most likely to decline even more rapidly than others since they inhabit the very tall trees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomy of Primates in the Laboratory Context
    P0800261_01 7/14/05 8:00 AM Page 3 C HAPTER 1 The Taxonomy of Primates T HE T in the Laboratory Context AXONOMY OF P Colin Groves RIMATES School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 3 What are species? D Taxonomy: EFINITION OF THE The biological Organizing nature species concept Taxonomy means classifying organisms. It is nowadays commonly used as a synonym for systematics, though Disagreement as to what precisely constitutes a species P strictly speaking systematics is a much broader sphere is to be expected, given that the concept serves so many RIMATE of interest – interrelationships, and biodiversity. At the functions (Vane-Wright, 1992). We may be interested basis of taxonomy lies that much-debated concept, the in classification as such, or in the evolutionary implica- species. tions of species; in the theory of species, or in simply M ODEL Because there is so much misunderstanding about how to recognize them; or in their reproductive, phys- what a species is, it is necessary to give some space to iological, or husbandry status. discussion of the concept. The importance of what we Most non-specialists probably have some vague mean by the word “species” goes way beyond taxonomy idea that species are defined by not interbreeding with as such: it affects such diverse fields as genetics, biogeog- each other; usually, that hybrids between different species raphy, population biology, ecology, ethology, and bio- are sterile, or that they are incapable of hybridizing at diversity; in an era in which threats to the natural all. Such an impression ultimately derives from the def- world and its biodiversity are accelerating, it affects inition by Mayr (1940), whereby species are “groups of conservation strategies (Rojas, 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Backyard Farming and Slaughtering 2 Keeping Tradition Safe
    Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe Backyard farming and slaughtering 2 Keeping tradition safe FOOD SAFETY TECHNICAL TOOLKIT FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Bangkok, 2021 FAO. 2021. Backyard farming and slaughtering – Keeping tradition safe. Food safety technical toolkit for Asia and the Pacific No. 2. Bangkok. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. © FAO, 2021 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this license, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non- commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL SACRIFICE in ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION The
    CHAPTER FOURTEEN ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION JOANN SCURLOCK The relationship between men and gods in ancient Mesopotamia was cemented by regular offerings and occasional sacrifices of ani­ mals. In addition, there were divinatory sacrifices, treaty sacrifices, and even "covenant" sacrifices. The dead, too, were entitled to a form of sacrifice. What follows is intended as a broad survey of ancient Mesopotamian practices across the spectrum, not as an essay on the developments that must have occurred over the course of several millennia of history, nor as a comparative study of regional differences. REGULAR OFFERINGS I Ancient Mesopotamian deities expected to be fed twice a day with­ out fail by their human worshipers.2 As befitted divine rulers, they also expected a steady diet of meat. Nebuchadnezzar II boasts that he increased the offerings for his gods to new levels of conspicuous consumption. Under his new scheme, Marduk and $arpanitum were to receive on their table "every day" one fattened ungelded bull, fine long fleeced sheep (which they shared with the other gods of Baby1on),3 fish, birds,4 bandicoot rats (Englund 1995: 37-55; cf. I On sacrifices in general, see especially Dhorme (1910: 264-77) and Saggs (1962: 335-38). 2 So too the god of the Israelites (Anderson 1992: 878). For specific biblical refer­ ences to offerings as "food" for God, see Blome (1934: 13). To the term tamid, used of this daily offering in Rabbinic sources, compare the ancient Mesopotamian offering term gimi "continual." 3 Note that, in the case of gods living in the same temple, this sharing could be literal.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title Inventing the Scapegoat: Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/055689pg Journal Journal of Ritual Studies, 25(1) Author Janowitz, Naomi Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Inventing the Scapegoat: Theories of Sacrifice and Ritual No figure appears in studies of sacrifice more often than the scapegoat. Numerous societies, the argument goes, have a seemingly innate need to purge sins via an innocent victim. The killing of this victim constitutes the core of sacrifice traditions; explaining the efficacy of these rites outlines in turn the inner workings of all sacrifices, if not all rituals. I do not believe, however, that the enigmatic figure of the scapegoat can support a universal theory of sacrifice, especially if the general term “scapegoat” turns out refer to a variety of rituals with very different goals. Rene Girard’s extremely influential theory of the scapegoat includes a biological basis for the importance of the figure (Girard, 1977). According to Girard, humans are naturally aggressive, a la Konrad Lorenz. This innate aggression was channeled into an unending series of attacks and counterattacks during the earliest periods of history. A better outlet for aggression was to find a scapegoat whose death would stop the cycle of retribution (p. 2). For Girard, Oedipus was a human scapegoat, placing this model 2 at the center of Greek culture in addition to Biblical religious traditions (p. 72). Jonathan Smith’s observations on Girard’s model in “The Domestication of Sacrifice” are both simple and devastating (1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Euthanasia of Experimental Animals
    EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS • *• • • • • • • *•* EUROPEAN 1COMMISSIO N This document has been prepared for use within the Commission. It does not necessarily represent the Commission's official position. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int) Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997 ISBN 92-827-9694-9 © European Communities, 1997 Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Belgium European Commission EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS Document EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS Report prepared for the European Commission by Mrs Bryony Close Dr Keith Banister Dr Vera Baumans Dr Eva-Maria Bernoth Dr Niall Bromage Dr John Bunyan Professor Dr Wolff Erhardt Professor Paul Flecknell Dr Neville Gregory Professor Dr Hansjoachim Hackbarth Professor David Morton Mr Clifford Warwick EUTHANASIA OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS CONTENTS Page Preface 1 Acknowledgements 2 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Objectives of euthanasia 3 1.2 Definition of terms 3 1.3 Signs of pain and distress 4 1.4 Recognition and confirmation of death 5 1.5 Personnel and training 5 1.6 Handling and restraint 6 1.7 Equipment 6 1.8 Carcass and waste disposal 6 2. General comments on methods of euthanasia 7 2.1 Acceptable methods of euthanasia 7 2.2 Methods acceptable for unconscious animals 15 2.3 Methods that are not acceptable for euthanasia 16 3. Methods of euthanasia for each species group 21 3.1 Fish 21 3.2 Amphibians 27 3.3 Reptiles 31 3.4 Birds 35 3.5 Rodents 41 3.6 Rabbits 47 3.7 Carnivores - dogs, cats, ferrets 53 3.8 Large mammals - pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, horses 57 3.9 Non-human primates 61 3.10 Other animals not commonly used for experiments 62 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilizing Remote Sensing to Describe the Area of Occurrence of the Dania Beach
    Utilizing Remote Sensing to Describe the Area of Occurrence of the Dania Beach Monkeys, Chlorocebus sabaeus, from Introduction to Present by Ashley M. Lyon A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL August 2019 Copyright 2019 by Ashley M. Lyon ii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my mother, grandmother, and my love, Ian. I could not have done any of this without your love and support. The mountains have been tall and treacherous, the valleys have been few, and I know I would have never made it across without you. To my loves Sassy, Dracula, June, and Dolly- thank you for the unconditional love, comfort, and warmth. To the doctors, nurses, and medical staff at The Cleveland Clinic Florida, and especially the radiologist at Windsor Imaging Fort Lauderdale that caught the tumor before it spread, thank you for saving my life. I did not expect to get cancer in grad school, but I beat it with the excellent care and support I received. Last, but certainly not least, I’d like to thank my FAU family, especially those in the anthropology, biology, and GIS departments. Thank you to my cohort for the endless hours of laughter and joy. I found family and comradery away from home. Thank you to my professors for the knowledge you bestowed upon me. Thank you to the anthropology department for all the support, especially when I was going through cancer treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Xenotransplantation and the Harm Principle
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 16(1) – June 2007 Xenotransplantation and the harm principle: Factoring out foreseen risk An Ravelingien, PhD Research Assistant, Department of Philosophy, Ghent University ([email protected] ) http://jetpress.org/v16/ravelingien.html Abstract Xenotransplantation – the transplantation, implantation, or infusion of live cells, tissues or organs from a nonhuman animal source into humans – has been suggested as the most imminent strategy to alleviate the shortage of human grafts. The pursuit of this technology is nonetheless restricted by an unquantifiable risk that the use of animal grafts will unleash new zoonoses that may affect the public at large. This paper is concerned with what the proper response to this public health threat should be. We will demonstrate that the regulatory measures taken to prevent secondary infections currently do not warrant full-blown protection of public health. That reality forces us to reconsider the extent to which the public should be guaranteed protection from a xenotransplant-related health hazard. In pondering that question, we will suggest that the permissibility of health hazards posed by emerging (bio)technologies is dependent on the perception that the benefits are both substantive and attainable and on the duty to account for foreseeable risks. In that sense, there is both good and bad news for the acceptability of xenotransplantation. An increased understanding of the infectious agents that are known to pose a health risk, relates the man-made health threat to risks that have a natural origin. 1 The risk of a xenogeneic pandemic On 18 January 2006, 90,628 patients were enlisted on waiting lists for an organ transplant across the US (OPTN 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Actant Stories and the Australian Xenotransplantation Network
    Constructing and Fracturing Alliances: Actant Stories and the Australian Xenotransplantation Network Copyright - Neil Leslie, Wellcome Images; reproduced with permission Peta S. Cook BPhoto; BSocSc (Sociol.) (hons.) Humanities Research Program Queensland University of Technology Submitted in full requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 “The XWP [Xenotransplantation Working Party] agree that, in retrospect, a sociologist would have been a useful addition to the group to help understand these issues” (Xenotransplantation Working Party 2004: 14, emphasis added). - i - Keywords sociology; xenotransplantation; transplantation; allotransplantation; actor-network theory; science and technology studies; public understanding of science (PUS); critical public understanding of science (critical PUS); scientific knowledge; public consultation; risk; animals - ii - Abstract Xenotransplantation (XTP; animal-to-human transplantation) is a controversial technology of contemporary scientific, medical, ethical and social debate in Australia and internationally. The complexities of XTP encompass immunology, immunosuppression, physiology, technology (genetic engineering and cloning), microbiology, and animal/human relations. As a result of these controversies, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia, formed the Xenotransplantation Working Party (XWP) in 2001. The XWP was designed to advise the NHMRC on XTP, if and how it should proceed in Australia, and to provide draft regulatory guidelines. During the period
    [Show full text]
  • Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality
    Animal Studies Journal Volume 8 Number 2 Article 11 2019 Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality Nekeisha Alayna Alexis Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary / Independent Scholar, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Art and Design Commons, Art Practice Commons, Australian Studies Commons, Communication Commons, Creative Writing Commons, Digital Humanities Commons, Education Commons, English Language and Literature Commons, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Film and Media Studies Commons, Fine Arts Commons, Legal Studies Commons, Linguistics Commons, Philosophy Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Health Commons, Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies Commons, Sociology Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Alexis, Nekeisha Alayna, Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality, Animal Studies Journal, 8(2), 2019, 154-174. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol8/iss2/11 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Disturbing Animals in a Christian Perspective: Re/Considering Sacrifice, Incarnation and Divine Animality Abstract What does Christianity say about other animals? For many people, Jesus-followers and others alike,
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduced Primate Species, Chlorocebus Sabaeus, in Dania
    AN INTRODUCED PRIMATE SPECIES, CHLOROCEBUS SABAEUS, IN DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA: INVESTIGATING ORIGINS, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND ANTHROPOGENIC IMPLICATIONS OF AN ESTABLISHED POPULATION by Deborah M. Williams A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL May 2019 Copyright 2019 by Deborah M. Williams ii AN INTRODUCED PRIMATE SPECIES, CHLOROCEBUS SABAEUS, IN DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA: INVESTIGATING ORIGINS, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND ANTHROPOGENIC IMPLICATIONS OF AN ESTABLISHED POPULATION by Deborah M. Williams This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate's dissertation advisor, Dr. Kate Detwiler, Department of Biological Sciences, and has been approved by all members of the supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ~ ~,'£-____ Colin Hughes, Ph.D. ~~ Marianne Porter, P6.D. I Sciences arajedini, Ph.D. Dean, Charles E. Schmidt College of Science ~__5~141'~ Khaled Sobhan, Ph.D. Interim Dean, Graduate College iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people who made this possible. It truly takes a village. A big thank you to my husband, Roy, who was my rock during this journey. He offered a shoulder to lean on, an ear to listen, and a hand to hold. Also, thank you to my son, Blake, for tolerating the late pick-ups from school and always knew when a hug was needed. I could not have done it without them.
    [Show full text]