Category Archives: News

Latest animal research statistics from Belgium, Greece and Poland

Speaking of Research try to keep on top of the latest statistics coming from governments around the world. This post will look at three countries which have recently published their 2015 statistics.


Belgium’s three regions (Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia) independently publish the statistics for their region. We have collated the results (1-3) into a single table covering all of Belgium.

Animal research in Belgium for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Animal research in Belgium for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

There were 566,603 procedures in Belgium in 2015, down almost 15% from the previous year. The numbers fell in all three regions of Belgium, with the number of procedures in Flanders falling 14%, Brussels falling 7% and Wallonia falling 18%. By species, the biggest falls were in fish (down 24%), rats (down 46%) and guinea pigs (down 19%). This all follows a general downward trend in numbers over the past two decades.

Trends in Belgian animal experiments 1997-2015.

Trends in Belgian animal experiments 1997-2015.

Unusually for a European country, rabbits were used more than rats in 2015 (not true in 2014). Mice, rats, fish and birds still accounted for 87% of research, rising to 85% when rabbits were included.



(1) Brussels – Statistieken in verband met het gebruik van proefdieren in het brussels hoofdstedelijk gewest in 2015
(2) Flanders – Proefdieren in Vlaanderen in 2015 uitgedrukt in cijfers
(3) Wallonia – Statistiques d’utilisation des animaux dans les experiences en wallonie en 2015
(4) Belgium 2014 Statistics


Greece published its 2015 statistics recently (5).

Animal research in Greece for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Animal research in Greece for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

There were 47,784 procedures on animals in Greece in 2015, a rise of 13% (5,541 procedures) from the previous year. Over 97%  were mice, fish, rats and birds (mainly mice and fish). The number of fish more than tripled to 13,817 procedures. Unlike the previous year, there were procedures on cats (47), dogs (4) and primates (3). These species account for less than 0.15% of animals used.


The severity statistics show that 70% were classed as non-recovery or mild. 6.5% were classified as severe.

Severity of animal experiments in Greece


(5) Greece 2015 – Πληροφορίες σχετικά µε τη χρήση ζώων για επιστηµονικούς σκοπούς στην Ελλάδα για το έτος 2015


After the publication of the 2014 statistics we had to make an editor’s note because we spotted some unusual trends. It turned out that Poland had erroneously added over 400,000 fish to their statistics. We have concerns about the 2015 data which is why we have not written it up in full.

The 2015 statistics show that there were 174,456 procedures on animals in 2015. This is a 25% fall compared with the previous year (6).

This data may be incorrect

This data may be incorrect. See text below.

Our concerns are twofold. Firstly, the number of procedures on fish – 11,561 – is exactly the same as the data for 2014. This seems exceptionally unlikely. Secondly, there appears to be a discrepancy between numbers of animal procedures in the severity tables for 2015, and the numbers in the basic data. For example, the severity tables show 88,776 procedures on mice. The general data for 2015 shows 88,601 procedures.

For these reasons, we recommend caution when using this data. Speaking of Research will continue to try and get to the bottom of this data (as we did for the 2014 statistics).


(6) Poland 2015 – Zwierzęta wykorzystane w procedurach w 2015
(7) Poland 2014 Statistics

Speaking of Research

Help us help you!

The Speaking of Research website provides a wealth of information for the public about why animal research remains an important part of scientific, medical and veterinary discoveries. While our news blog may be most relevant to those involved in the field, the static pages provide information about the animal model, medical developments, regulations, statistics and more. So we believe the more easily the public can find our website, the better for everyone in the field.

So what happens when a member of the public searches for “animal testing” (which, according to Google Trends, is searched for around three times as much as “animal research”)?


Eight of nine search results on the first page provide a negative idea of animal research. The last one provides arguments from both sides. No wonder that young people are now opposed to animal research by a 14 percentage point margin.


There is, however, something you can do. Google’s algorithms mean that websites that are linked to by .edu and .gov websites will be more trusted and be pushed further up the search results. See more on the video below:

We need you to get added to your University department website (or Government website if you are that position). So please send an email to your department website editor (and convince friends in other life science departments to do likewise) to ask them to add links to pro-research organisations on an appropriate page. Many of you will have direct control over sections of your department’s page, so please take a few seconds to add the middle section of the letter below.

Dear Webmaster

Please can you add the following paragraph to our departmental website, on our page about animal research here: <insert url>

For more information about the role of animals in research we recommend the following website: – Speaking of Research: Providing accurate information about the important role of animal experiments in medical and veterinary research.

Kind Regards

<insert name>

Why not help a few key organisations by asking them to add more than one website, such as: – Speaking of Research – Americans for Medical Progress – Foundation for Biomedical Research – Animal Research Information

With your help we can ensure the public sees the facts about animal research!

Speaking of Research

Canada’s animal research in numbers for 2015

The statistics for animal research conducted in Canada in 2015 have been released by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). These numbers reflect research conducted by CCAC-certified institutions and by people working at CCAC-certified institutions, even if the research involves animals located outside of Canada. The criteria for CCAC certification can be found here. This also means that not all animals used for research in Canada are included in these reports. The CCAC reports that in 2015, 3,570,352 animals were used for research, teaching, and testing in Canada. This is a decrease of 4.8% from the 3,750,125 animals that were used in 2014.

Animal research in Canada for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Animal research in Canada for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Similar to other countries, mice remain the most popular species used for animal research, with an overall increase of 12%. Fish are a close second in terms of use in 2015, though there was a decrease of 26% in their use compared to 2014. The number of cattle used in research approximately doubled compared to 2014. All other reported species saw decreases in reported use.

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

84.2% of the animals used in research and testing were conducted on mice, rats, fish, and birds, which was slightly lower than in other countries. However, with the inclusion of cattle, this percentage rises to 93.9%.  Similarly to other countries, monkeys (4,942), cats (5,035), and dogs (9,573) comprised a small proportion of animals used for research, together accounting for 0.5% of all research animals, with an overall decrease of 5,592 animals from 2014 for these species.


Pain, suffering, and harm were also measured and classified under four categories of invasiveness:

  • None: Experiments which cause little of no discomfort or stress
  • Mild: Experiments which cause minor stress or pain of short duration
  • Moderate: Expierments which cause moderate to severe distress or discomfort
  • Severe: Procedures which cause severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.

It is important to understand that every animal in a group will receive the highest category of any single animal in that group, so if a study involved giving different animals different doses of a compound (in a single study), then all animals would receive a category of invasiveness equal to that received by the highest dose group. For further details on what these categories mean, please see here. In 2015, 31.1% of experiments were classified as “none” (this includes studies where the animal are anaesthetised and never woken up), 37.4% were considered “mild”, 29.5% were “moderate”, and 2% were “severe”.

Animals can be used in more than one protocol, provided these additional protocols do not result in pain. Some animals have been counted more than once in this dataset, which is why the total is higher than the total number of animals used in 2015. These data cannot be compared accurately to animal data reports prior to 2012.

Animals can be used in more than one protocol, provided these additional protocols do not result in pain. Some animals have been counted more than once in this dataset, which is why the total is higher than the total number of animals used in 2015. These data cannot be compared accurately to animal data reports prior to 2012.

Overall, there seems to be an upward trend in the number of animals used in research in Canada over the last 20 years, although this pattern is not particularly clear due to annual fluctuations. These fluctuations may be a consequence of the accounting procedures used (which changed in 2012), and may only reflect animals used in CCAC-certified institutions.

Trends in Canadian animal experiments 1996-2015. 2010 data temporarily unavailable due to an accounting error being fixed.

Trends in Canadian animal experiments 1996-2015. 2010 data temporarily unavailable due to an accounting error being fixed.

Finally, the CCAC Animal Data Report 2015 provides some information on animal use. The most common purpose of animal experiments was for basic research (61.2%), followed by “development of products or appliances for human or veterinary medicine” (16.0%); studies into human and animal diseases or disorders (12.9%); Regulatory tests (“animal testing”) (5.5%); and finally education and training (4.4%).

For more information see our Briefing on Animal Research in Canada.

Jeremy Bailoo

The USDA’s removal of information about animal research is a step backwards for transparency

Speaking of Research has considerable concerns about the wealth of information that has been removed from the USDA website in the last week. The USDA has removed access to an online database that allowed the public to easily obtain documents involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).This information includes the annual reports showing the number of animals used in research each year, and the animal welfare reports that are produced. [Direct links to annual reports were broken, but the reports still exist on the USDA website – Ed.]

According to Science Magazine, tens of thousands of reports have been removed, relating to around 1200 research labs and 6500 non-research facilities that are registered or licensed by the USDA. A statement from the USDA says:

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information

No doubt many will see some irony in starting a statement about the removal of information with “Based on our commitment to being transparent”. That said, it is not yet clear if reports are being removed permanently or simply temporarily removed until they have been assessed for privacy issues. Though the previously public information will still be available through FOIA requests, the statement concludes by saying “If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website”.

It is not just animal rights groups who have expressed concern. Matthew Bailey, President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, said:

“I would certainly agree that protection of personal information is of utmost importance, especially given the rich history of targeting the individuals involved in animal research. However, this change also makes it more time consuming, although not impossible, for organizations like FBR to analyze trends in animal use in research.”

Speaking of Research also has concerns. We believe the availability of data can foster an environment of openness and transparency about animal research. When information is hidden, particularly where it was once available, the public will naturally wonder why many stakeholders have cause for concern: the public wonders what is being hidden and why, and researchers must devote even more resources to combatting the public perception that they are not transparent.

USDA Statistics showing number of animas used in research

Speaking of Research uses the type of information that was available to help explain the realities of animal research to the public and media.

The USDA’s decision is also out of step with the direction of travel of many other countries. Approximately one month ago, after urgings from Speaking of Research, the EU website added a new page providing links to the annual statistical reports on animal research of member countries.

In our own commitment to openness, Speaking of Research has uploaded the Annual Reports of the USDA’s animal research to its website. They are available on our US Statistics page, or can be found below. We will be looking at what other information we can practically add in coming weeks.

Thousands of removed USDA documents have now been archived here.

Speaking of Research

Germany’s animal research in numbers for 2015

The statistics for animal research conducted in Germany in 2015 were submitted to the European Commission last week. We have summarised the data below. We compare that to the 2014 statistics also available on their website.


Animal research in Germany for 2015 by species [Click to Enlarge]

Germany used 2,799,961 animals in 2015, with an overall decrease (15.5%) in animal use when compared to 2014. Similar to other countries, mice remain the most popular species used in animal research, with an increase in use of 5% compared to 2014. Fish, birds, other rodents and other non-mammals saw sizable percentage decreases in their overall use compared to 2014, albeit compared to the total number of animals used, these relative differences are still small. Fish in particular saw a decrease because of differences in reporting between 2014 and 2015. According to the Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaf (BMEL), in 2014, “708,462 “other fish” (including about 563,600 fish larvae) were reported (21.38 percent). By 2015, however, the share of animals in the “other fish” category was only 2.88% (80,777 animals).”


Mice, rats and fish account for 91% of all animal procedures, rising to 95% if you include rabbits. Similarly to 2014, Germany remains one of the few European countries where rabbits are the fourth most commonly used species in 2015. Dogs, cats and primates accounted for 0.31% of all animals, despite a doubling in the number of animals used for these species.


Click to Enlarge

This year was the second year where there was retrospective assessment and reporting of severity (i.e. reporting how much an animal actually suffered rather than how much it was predicted to suffer prior to the study). The report showed that 43% of procedures were classed as mild, 17% as moderate, 4% as severe, and 36% as non-recovery, where an animal is anaesthetised for surgery, and then not woken up afterwards. Compared to 2014, there were some noticeable shifts in relation to severity. While the number of procedures which caused animals moderate and severe levels of stress and distress decreased, the numbers of procedures that were terminal increased.

Severity of animal experiments in Germany

Click to Enlarge

Looking at the historical data, we see that like several other countries, the number of animal experiments increased steadily between 2000-2012. The sharp increase in 2014 followed by a decrease in 2015, reflect in part differences in the accounting procedures used between 2014 and 2015. Thus, it is too early to say whether the fall in 2015 is a one-off or a sign of a future drop-off in animal experiments. It is likely that this drop also partly reflects a decrease in funding to science during the recession and economic turmoil of the past few years. Next year’s data may provide some insight into whether and how this trend will continue.

Trends in German animal experiments 2000-15. Click to Enlarge.

Trends in German animal experiments 2000-15. Click to Enlarge.

Other interesting information provided by the annual statistical release includes:

  • 8% of animals used were bred within the EU [Table 3]
  • The main purpose of research was “Basic Research” (58.7%), followed by “Regulatory use and Routine production” (22.5%), “Maintenance of colonies of established genetically altered animals, not used in other procedures”, “Translational and applied Research” (13.6%), and all other uses (5.2 %) [Table 9]
  • Two-thirds of the total dogs, cats and primates were used for Regulatory testing [Table 9]
  • 40% of animals were genetically altered, compared with 60% which were not. Over 98% of the genetically altered animals were mice or zebrafish [Table 20]

For further information about animal research (Tierversuche) in Germany see our background briefing, available in English and German.

Speaking of Research

2015 Statistics:

2014 Statistics:

N.B. Some our more eagle-eyed readers may have noted the 2014 statistics referenced in this article do not correspond to those we published a year ago. This is because the German authorities changed the counting methodologies for 2015 and re-released an altered 2014 statistics so that they could be fairly compared to the 2015 data.

More thoughts on animal suffering

My recent article “Not just intelligence: Why humans deserve to be treated better than animals” elicited many thoughtful comments and plenty of debate, both on this blog and in Reddit. In this new post I have compiled some new thoughts that came up during the debate. To view the full discussion, please follow the hyperlinks.

Do animals have the ability to suffer?

I think that, strictly speaking, most animals species do not have the ability to suffer. These will include animals like corals, jellyfish, starfish, worms, clams, snails and insects that comprise millions of species with nervous systems so small that cannot possibly endow them with enough consciousness to suffer. In comparison, the species of chordates that can be said to suffer are a tiny minority. My work is in pain neuroscience, where we make quite nuanced distinctions between suffering, distress, pain and nociception. We know that many species have nociception, but we cannot infer from that that they feel pain, and even less that they suffer. Other show the same physiological signs of distress that we have (elevated levels of cortisol in the blood), but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they suffer. There are animals that clearly do not have nociception, pain, distress or suffering, like sponges. On the other end of the cognitive scale, it is clear that humans do suffer. At what point in the evolutionary tree the ability to suffer appears is not an easy question to answer.


Philosophers have been speaking of suffering as an absolute, something that exist in itself. In fact, neuroscience points out that suffering cannot exist without consciousness and is not independent of certain cognitive abilities like emotions and memory. An animal can only be said to be suffering inasmuch as it is conscious of this suffering, which links the problem of suffering with the “hard problem” of consciousness. This is because an unconscious animal would be just an automaton, something that responds to stimuli without having a subjective experience of those stimuli. As long as a being is self-conscious, including having extended consciousness, the life of that being has value of its own. So, like it often happens when we look at the living world, there is a gradient of minds between complete automatons and fully conscious human beings. Consciousness, and its attending capacities to suffer and be happy, develops gradually with evolution. So suffering, like consciousness, had to develop gradually during evolution. I doubt that there is a threshold, a hard line, with suffering on one side and not suffering on the other, so we have to wrap our minds around the fact that some animals have more capacity for suffering than others. Therefore, different species should be treated according to their mental capacities, which is, if you want, a hard form of speciesism. But it is what we do all the time, for example, when we kill the fleas that afflict our dog. Clearly, the dog has more moral standing in our eyes than the fleas.

In addition to consciousness, I think that suffering requires the presence of a self because otherwise the existence of the subjective experience of suffering doesn’t make sense. This is a variant of the problem of consciousness: do non-human animals have a self? That’s doubtful. Maybe apes and dolphins do, rats and mice probably don’t. But, again, that is highly speculative. Hence, there has to be a scale of suffering. In that scale, humans are capable of much deeper suffering (and much deeper happiness) because we can see ourselves as selves with an existence extending in time, so we not only suffer in the present, but we can see that we have suffered in the past and that we will suffer in the future. Without episodic memory and extended consciousness, animals do not have selves with that continuity in time.

An endangered fox in the California Channel Islands

An endangered fox in the California Channel Islands

Questioning the ability of animals to suffer doesn’t mean that scientists are looking for a justification to inflict pain on animals. Rather, here scientists face two different moral imperatives. The first is the fundamental dictate of science of looking for the truth unhindered by cultural and societal biases. This leads us to examine the questions of animal pain and suffering in an objective way. The second moral imperative is not to be cruel to animals that can potentially suffer. It is because of this and the cautionary principle that we treat animals like rats and mice as if they can suffer, even when we don’t know for sure that they can. However, we do know with absolute certitude that humans can suffer, which is an additional argument to put human suffering before putative animal suffering. Therefore, it is morally justifiable to use animals in biomedical research to alleviate human suffering, while at the same time taking all possible measures to minimize the distress of animals involved in research.

We need a definition of suffering for many practical matters and not just for animal research. Of course, we should treat animals, and even plants, with respect and not harm less for frivolous reason. But sometimes it is necessary to harm animals. There are many cases in which is necessary to kill animals to protect the environment – the case of pigs and goats in the California Channel Islands comes to mind. In those cases we need to balance two wrongs against each other: the suffering caused to the animals and the destruction of the environment produced by them, possibly including the extinction of some species. Animal research is another example: we need to use animals to find the cure for human diseases. When we look at the ethics involved in those cases, we need to carefully consider whether the animals involved do suffer or not, and how much weight we put on that suffering.

Feral pigs are an invasive species in the California Channel Islands

Feral pigs are an invasive species in the California Channel Islands

Suffering is not the only relevant issue in the animal research debate

Some animal rights proponents argue that mental abilities are a red herring because the only question that is relevant in the animal rights debate is whether animals can suffer. This is not true for two reasons.

First, this is in direct contradiction to what other animal rights proponents say: that animal rights go beyond the right to life and the right not to suffer, and also include the right to be free, the right not to be used for somebody’s else goals, etc. Then the question of whether animals have the mental capacities that enables them to know whether they are free or to care about whether they are being used are completely relevant.

Second, the way we treat a being is also determined by the intrinsic value we give to that being. For example, a species has an intrinsic value, so when a species goes extinct this means a terrible loss, and a deep moral wrong. Humans deserve respect not just because they suffer, but because of their intrinsic value. And that intrinsic value is based on our rich mental lives, our ability not just to suffer but also to be happy, to enjoy beauty, to find meaning in our lives. Therefore, mental capacities beyond the ability to suffer or to think intelligently are fundamental. It’s not just about humans, the same reasoning is used to give a dog more intrinsic value than the fleas that it carries in its fur.

But even if we accept the narrow framing that suffering is the only relevant question, suffering does not exist in isolation of all other mental functions. In particular, there cannot be suffering without consciousness because if there is no subjective awareness of the suffering, then it is not really taking place. Also, suffering, like happiness, acquires a deeper meaning for beings like us that can put it in a context of a life with a past and a future, in the middle of a society and a culture that creates a much richer context for any of our experiences.

Ultimately, the thing that worries me the most about the whole animal rights movement is how it has come to degrade the idea of what it means to be human by denying our rich mental abilities and making us equals to animals. Instead of elevating animals to human status, it degrades humans to animal status. Therefore, the animal rights movement is really a form of misanthropy, a radical anti-Humanism.

by Juan Carlos Marvizon

Special Issue of Primate Journal Focuses Solely on Non-Human Primate Well-Being

This month, the American Journal of Primatology published a freely-available Special Issue entitled, “Non-Human Primate Well-Being.” The entire issue is dedicated to the physical, psychological and physiological well-being of laboratory-housed non-human primates, and is notable for its cross-facilities studies as well as for the diversity of primate species that are represented, including rhesus and pigtailed macaques (Macaca mulatta and Macaca nemestrina, respectively), vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sp.), and owl monkeys (Aotus sp.)

A female (L) and male (R) pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) housed at the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle, WA. Photo: Dennis Raines.

A female (L) and male (R) pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) housed at the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle, WA. Photo: Dennis Raines.

The Special Issue (synopsis provided in the Introduction) is a compilation of review articles and empirical research articles from non-human primate experts that provide evidence-based information pertaining to social housing for laboratory primates and the utility of techniques to indicate chronic stress and related measures of well-being. With increased regulatory, accreditation, research, and public attention focusing on nonhuman primate well-being, the release of this issue is timely. The issue’s target audience includes those who hold scientific and/or management oversight of captive primate behavioral management programs, though it’s freely-available status provides a unique opportunity for the general public to become familiar with the types of research being conducted to improve the well-being of laboratory primates.

“The well-being of non-human primates in captivity is of joint concern to scientists, veterinarians, colony managers, caretakers, and researchers”

– Baker & Dettmer, Am. J. Primatol., 79:e22520, p. 1

The Special Issue is conceptually comprised of two parts: Pair Housing in Laboratory Primates and Indices of Well-Being in Laboratory Primates. The Pair Housing section begins with two extensive review articles analyzing the scientific literature surrounding social housing introductions and maintenance of social housing in macaques, the most commonly-studied genus of captive non-human primate in the U.S. Included in the first of these articles (Truelove et al., 2017) is a set of recommendations from researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center for many key issues involved in the management of macaques, such as partner selection, introduction, and special populations. The second review article by Hannibal et al. (2017) from the California National Primate Research Center “assists with harmonizing social management and research aims” (Baker & Dettmer, 2017) by highlighting the important fact that changes in the social environment can influence the physiological and physical health of captive non-human primates. Importantly, this article also takes into account how the change in social status may influence research goals.

The remaining articles in the first section present empirical research in which controlled experimental manipulations were conducted to identify the ways in which pair introductions are influenced by species, demography, partner selection techniques, and early interactions. Notable experts in primate behavior provide these important contributions, including John Capitanio et al. (2017) from the California National Primate Research Center, Matthew Jorgenson et al. (2017) from Wake Forest University, Larry Williams et al. (2017) from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Julie Worlein et al. (2017) from the Washington National Primate Research Center in Seattle.

Vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops sp.). Photo: Kathy West.

Vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops sp.). Photo: Kathy West.

The second part of the Special Issue on Indices of Well-Being in Laboratory Primates presents, for the first time, research on a long-term index of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity: hair cortisol. Cortisol is a hormone associated with stress responsivity, and its measurement in hair is an established biomarker of chronic stress. In several empirical research articles in this section, hair cortisol concentrations (HCCs) are related to behavioral indices of well-being including alopecia (hair loss), anxious behavior, and self-injurious behavior (SIB). Importantly, many of the studies in this section rely on collaborations between several primate facilities across the U.S. The first three papers, by recognized experts in non-human primate well-being, describe risk factors and biomarkers for alopecia in rhesus monkeys. Melinda Novak et al. (2017) from the University of Massachusetts Amherst describe how relationships between alopecia and HCCs over an 8-month period are different for monkeys that regained their hair versus those that continued showing hair loss. Notably, these relationships were facility-specific. Related, Rose Kroeker at al. (2017) from the Washington National Primate Research Center describe how prior facility origin influences rates of alopecia in monkeys that are currently housed at the same facility. Of particular note is the fact that prior facility effects were evident 2 years after relocation. Amanda Dettmer et al. (2017) from the National Institutes of Health describe a unique risk factor for alopecia: pregnancy. They relate this particular risk factor to higher HCCs and differential maternal investment in the neonatal period.

The following three articles provide novel information linking HCCs and behavioral indices of well-being across four facilities. Amanda Hamel et al. (2017) from the University of Massachusetts Amherst describe a cross-facility study showing how HCCs relate to responsivity on a well-established, reliable behavioral assay for non-human temperament and behavioral reactivity: the Human Intruder Test (HIT). Kristine Coleman et al. (2017) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center then describe how alopecia and temperament relate in monkeys housed in the same four facilities, importantly relying on a cage-side version of the HIT that minimized potential reactivity that may result from separation from the social partner. Emily Peterson et al. (2017) study the HIT in relation to SIB, providing new information between SIB and anxious temperament.

Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) mother and infant. Photo: Kathy West.

Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) mother and infant. Photo: Kathy West.

The Special Issue closes with a review by Allison Martin et al. (2017) from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center describing the utility of applying a behavioral analytic theoretical framework in studies of non-human primate well-being, with a special focus on the prevention and treatment of abnormal behaviors. This paper is unique in applying human clinical approaches to primatology, which represents a unique reversal of the translation of research methods.

Collectively, this Special Issue represents a comprehensive, evidence-based collection of rigorous research studies and detailed reviews from recognized experts in primate behavior that serves to provide new, timely, and critical information that will ultimately improve the welfare of these valuable research animals. Funding agencies, professionals working with captive non-human primates, and the public alike should familiarize themselves with these studies, as they highlight the dedication of the research community to continually improving the everyday lives of the animals that contribute important advancements to human health and to general scientific knowledge.