Of White Papers And Commentators: The Use Of Nonhuman Primates In Research

Two weeks ago, nine scientific societies, including the American Physiological Society, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Academy for Neurology, published a white paper entitled “The critical role of nonhuman primates in medical research“. The paper, which notes how nonhuman primates are critical to all stages of research, provides a huge number of examples of medical breakthroughs made possible thanks to studies in nonhuman primates. Among the paper’s appendices is a list of over fifty medical advances from the last fifty years alone; these include: treatments for leprosy, HIV and Parkinson’s; vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis B; and surgeries such as heart and lung transplants. This is no small feat considering the group of species accounts for around only 0.1% of animal research in most countries (that provide data).

critical-role-of-non-human-primates-in-medical-research

On September 2nd, 2016, John P. Gluck wrote an op-ed for The New York Times called “Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher“. Gluck is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the University of New Mexico. However, this Op-Ed has not come out of the blue. Gluck has long worked alongside PETA and other animal rights groups to condemn nonhuman primate studies. This op-ed is timed for just before today’s NIH workshop on “Ensuring continued responsible research with non-human primates” – a workshop that PETA is petitioning congress about. The article explains why Gluck stopped conducting animal research, his ethical stance against it, and concludes by saying:

“The federal government should establish a national commission to develop the principles to guide decisions about the ethics of animal research. We already accept that ethical limits on experiments involving humans are important enough that we are willing to forgo possible breakthroughs. There is no ethical argument that justifies not doing the same for animals.”

This is disingenuous of Gluck. The strict regulatory system that exists in the US, and most other developed nations, is the very embodiment of principles aimed to guide decisions on when and how we should conduct studies on nonhuman primates (as well as other species). Some countries have specific regulations surrounding primate research (e.g. the UK considers them a specially protected species and researchers must explain why no other species can be used instead). In the US, all primate research is governed by the Animal Welfare Act (enforced by the USDA), and any research receiving federal funds will also be subject to the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Animals (PHS policy; enforced by OLAW). The PHS Policy also endorses the US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Use in Testing, Research and Training, which forms the foundation for ethical and humane care and use of laboratory animals in the US. Every research protocol must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee – a group made up of including scientists, veterinarians and lay-persons – who review and evaluate the study, recommending ways in which it could be improved (both scientifically and from an animal welfare perspective).

Other commentators have noticed this as well. As Wesley J Smith writes in the National Review:

Gluck would have readers believe there are no strict ethical regulations that govern primate research. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Animal Welfare Act already has many stringent requirements governing research on monkeys-as the law should-including cost-benefit analyses, the requirement that any pain experiments cause be palliated, and the requirement that oversight boards approve the purpose and approach of proposed experiments.

Ultimately, Gluck’s article reads as an ethical objection to animal research with some scientific gloss. The heart of his objections is Singer-esque in nature (he mentions Peter Singer earlier in the article). He almost directly condemns our different treatment of humans and nonhuman primates as speciesist:

The ethical principle that many of us used to justify primate experiments seemed so obvious: If you are ethically prevented from conducting a particular experiment with humans because of the pain and risks involved, the use of animals is warranted. Yet research spanning the spectrum from cognitive ethology to neuroscience has made it clear that we have consistently underestimated animals’ mental complexity and pain sensitivity, and therefore the potential for harm. The obvious question is why the harms experienced by these animals, which will be at least similar to humans, fail to matter? How did being a different member of the primate grouping that includes humans automatically alter the moral universe?

No doubt our understanding of the cognitive abilities of animals has improved, and with it has come a greater appreciation for their capacity to suffer. We are a long way from the 17th century philosophers, like Malebranche, who thought animals could not suffer. Our greater understanding of the capacity of animals to suffer pain or distress informs the way we treat animals in laboratories. For example, it was not until the early 1990s that the USDA adopted regulations requiring group housing of nonhuman primates (DiVincenti and Wyatt, 2011), this was thanks to many years of studies showing that nonhuman primate welfare was best met by keeping primates in social groups. As such, it is wrong for Gluck to claim that harm to animals “fail to matter”. While we may give animals a different consideration compared to humans (it is legal to eat animals and keep them as pets), it would be wrong to say they exist outside our moral sphere. The UK’s House of Lords set up a select committee in 2002 to look at animal studies; when assessing the ethics they concluded (s 2.5):

The unanimous view of the Select Committee is that it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering.

This is the heart of sensible moral consideration – that we should minimise the suffering of animals wherever possible while realising that we also have a moral imperative to conduct animal studies to reduce greater suffering among humans and animals.

Image from Californian National Primate Research Center

Photo by Kathy West.

Primates at the Californian National Primate Research Center. Reproduced with permission.

And there is no doubt we have a moral imperative. To return to the recent white paper:

Research with monkeys is critical to increasing our knowledge of how the human brain works and its role in cognitive, motor and mental illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and depression. This research is also fundamental to understanding how to prevent and treat emerging infectious diseases like Zika and Ebola. NHP research is uncovering critical information about the most common and costly metabolic disorder in the U.S. – type 2 diabetes – as well as the obesity that leads to most cases.

Without NHP research, we lose our ability to learn better ways to prevent negative pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth and premature birth. This research is also helping scientists to uncover information that makes human organ transplants easier and more accessible, literally giving new life to those whose kidneys, hearts and lungs are failing.

The eradication of these diseases is not worth giving up on. For some animals such research could be the difference between survival and eradication. Ebola has a 95% mortality rate for gorillas. An outbreak in 1995 reportedly killed more than 90% of the gorillas at a national park in Gabon. Overall it is estimated that one third of all the world’s gorillas have been wiped out by Ebola in the last 20 years. If nonhuman primate research (primarily in monkeys rather than great apes), can come up with a vaccine then it will be both animals and humans who can benefit. Humans are unique in that they are the only species with the cognitive capability of making a decision of this magnitude. In the words of Wesley J Smith:

This is the difficult fact that can’t be avoided: We need primate research if we are going to advance science, relieve human suffering, and bring new treatments into medicine’s armamentarium. At some point, we have to decide whether to help humans or not experiment on monkeys.

Looking forward to today’s NIH workshop (which will be streamed live online), it would seem they have struck the right tone. Reviewing the evidence, reviewing the policies, and looking to see what can be improved – that is the essence of science – while still appreciating that the duty of the NIH is to improve the health of a nation.

[T]he Office of Science Policy is taking the lead in planning a workshop on September 7th, 2016 that will convene experts in science, policy, ethics, and animal welfare. Workshop participants will discuss the oversight framework governing the use of non-human primates in NIH-funded biomedical and behavioral research endeavors. At this workshop, participants will also explore the state of the science involving non-human primates as research models and discuss the ethical principles underlying existing animal welfare regulations and policies. NIH is committed to ensuring that research with non-human primates can continue responsibly as we move forward in advancing our mission to seek fundamental knowledge and enhance health outcomes.

Tom Holder

5 responses to “Of White Papers And Commentators: The Use Of Nonhuman Primates In Research

  1. “1990s that the USDA adopted regulations requiring group housing of nonhuman primates” That is a complete lie. I work at a facility where the NHP’s are not group housed. I for one am sick of these articles showing happy monkeys at primate research centers. Show a picture of a typical macaque in typical laboratory housing, alone in a steel cage smaller than my dog’s crate with one toy to chew on that never gets changed. Because that is what the USDA regulations require. As long as the NHP can see another NHP that is considered acceptable. As long as the cage is large enough so that the animal can stand up, and turn around, that is considered acceptable. “Psychological enrichment” required by the USDA is not regulated and is at the discretion of the facility. So one dog chew toy and an apple or orange (never anything different) is considered enrichment and passes USDA regulations.

    • Exceptions to group housing must have solid scientific justification, the USDA regulations do demand group housing wherever possible. Where is it that you work?

      Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter A – Animal Welfare
      Part 3 Standards, Subpart D Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Nonhuman Primates, Section 3.81:

      (a) Social grouping. The environment enhancement plan must include specific provisions to address the social needs of nonhuman primates of species known to exist in social groups in nature. Such specific provisions must be in accordance with currently accepted professional standards, as cited in appropriate professional journals or reference guides, and as directed by the attending veterinarian. The plan may provide for the following exceptions:

      If a nonhuman primate exhibits vicious or overly aggressive behavior, or is debilitated as a result of age or other conditions (e.g., arthritis), it should be housed separately;
      Nonhuman primates that have or are suspected of having a contagious disease must be isolated from healthy animals in the colony as directed by the attending veterinarian. When an entire group or room of nonhuman primates is known to have or believed to be exposed to an infectious agent, the group may be kept intact during the process of diagnosis, treatment, and control.
      Nonhuman primates may not be housed with other species of primates or animals unless they are compatible, do not prevent access to food, water, or shelter by individual animals. and are not known to be hazardous to the health and well-being of each other. Compatibility of nonhuman primates must be determined in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and actual observations, as directed by the attending veterinarian, to ensure that the nonhuman primates are in fact compatible. Individually housed nonhuman primates must be able to see and hear nonhuman primates of their own or compatible species unless the attending veterinarian determines that it would endanger their health, safety, or well-being.
      (b) Environmental enrichment. The physical environment in the primary enclosures must be enriched by providing means of expressing noninjurious species-typical activities. Species differences should be considered when determining the type or methods of enrichment. Examples of environmental enrichments include providing perches, swings, mirrors, and other increased cage complexities; providing objects to manipulate; varied food items; using foraging or task-oriented feeding methods; and providing interaction with the care giver or other familiar and knowledgeable person consistent with personnel safety precautions.

      (c) Special considerations. Certain nonhuman primates must be provided special attention regarding enhancement of their environment, based on the needs of the individual species and in accordance with the instructions of the attending veterinarian. Nonhuman primates requiring special attention are the following:

      Infants and young juveniles;
      Those that show signs of being in psychological distress through behavior or appearance;
      Those used in research for which the Committee-approved protocol requires restricted activity;
      Individually housed nonhuman primates that are unable to see and hear nonhuman primates of their own or compatible species; and
      Great apes weighing over 110 lbs. (50 kg). Dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities must include in the environment enhancement plan special provisions for great apes weighing over 110 lbs. (50 kg), including additional opportunities to express species-typical behavior.
      (d) Restraint devices. Nonhuman primates must not be maintained in restraint devices unless required for health reasons as determined by the attending veterinarian or by a research proposal approved by the Committee at research facilities. Maintenance under such restraint must be for the shortest period possible. In instances where long-term (more than 12 hours) restraint is required, the nonhuman primate must be provided the opportunity daily for unrestrained activity for at least one continuous hour during the period of restraint, unless continuous restraint is required by the research proposal approved by the Committee at research facilities.

      (e) Exemptions.

      The attending veterinarian may exempt an individual nonhuman primate from participation in the environment enhancement plan because of its health or condition, or in consideration of its well-being. The basis of the exemption must be recorded by the attending veterinarian for each exempted nonhuman primate. Unless the basis for the exemption is a permanent condition, the exemption must be reviewed at least every 30 days by the attending veterinarian.
      For a research facility, the Committee may exempt an individual nonhuman primate from participation in some or all of the otherwise required environment enhancement plans for scientific reasons set forth in the research proposal. The basis of the exemption shall be documented in the approved proposal and must be reviewed at appropriate intervals as determined by the Committee, but not less than annually.
      Records of any exemptions must be maintained by the dealer, exhibitor, or research facility and must be made available to USDA officials or officials of any pertinent funding Federal agency upon request.

      • Ah, the old adage “it’s required but if scientifically justified, not really” You of course know I can not disclose where I work but it is a VERY well known research center. My facilities caging is designed for studies where they do not want any transmission of substances however very few of our studies require those circumstances and certainly not for the “training” animals. To provide for group/pairhousing that would mean an addition of cages and that my friend of course means money. So (as regulations mention) just being able to see conspecifics is an adequate substitute. Also it was mentioned among some people in the department to add more or better enrichment to prevent the self-mutilation and stereotypical behavior expressed. We were told the company does not want to pay for more enrichment. When expressed that enrichment does not even need to cost that much (a paper towel tube filled with foraging material would do), we were told the company does not want to take time away from the caretakers duties to “care” for the animals. This is of course an AAALAC accredited facility. It would be really fascinating to see the actual numbers of NHP’s in research and how many are single housed compared to group/pair housed. And no, seeing conspecifics would not count. If you just go on the AALAS learning library website, the main website for the education for people in animal research, it seems that about half of the pictures depicting NHP’s are in caging I described. I doubt those numbers would ever come out because that would be huge ammo for activists. No matter how you want to spin it, defending research on monkeys and showing a happy monkey outside eating a pumpkin is insanely misleading because even if this is true for some monkeys, that is so far beyond the bare minimum standard set by regulations it is asinine.

        • That would be sad, if true. My personal experience of going to laboratories in the UK and the US, is that primates have always been group housed. I would (a) suggest you push hard to add enrichment and encourage group housing, (b) read a recent about those who work hard to improve animal welfare:
          https://speakingofresearch.com/2016/10/18/reigniting-my-fire-for-animal-research/

          • Of course it’s true. There is nothing I can do to push anything. Like I said, we are AAALAC accredited so everything we do is perfectly legal and is up to regulation standards. If I speak out I would just be labeled an animal activist and fired. Just because it is your experience, does not mean it is everywhere and it is perfectly legal. I’ve read the article you posted before. I can truly relate to it. I am afraid if I go somewhere else it would be no better. I am losing my faith in research. Seeing a highly intelligent macaque in the conditions I see them in and knowing close to 9/10 studies does not translate to humans will do that to you. Just last week I drove home crying and was crying all night. It happens too often. But I will be looking for a new job soon. I want to get out as soon as possible. I pray that you are right but my feeling is that you are wrong.

Join the conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s