The use of non-human primates in biological and medical research: evidence submitted by FRAME to the Academy of Medical Sciences/Medical Research Council/Royal Society/Wellcome Trust Working Group (original) (raw)
Related papers
2017
Following a request from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) reviewed recent evidence to update the 2009 Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHEER) on 'The need for non-human primates in biomedical research, production and testing of products and devices'. This Opinion responds to six main issues in the mandate and highlights the many scientific approaches that could significantly contribute to the replacement, reduction and refinement (3Rs) of Non-Human Primates (NHP) studies and tests. However, there are significant issues that go beyond scientific rationale that prevent widespread adoption and development of alternatives for NHP laboratory use and these are discussed with suggestions of the opportunities to overcome them. Although the current state of knowledge does not permit to propose a timetable for phasing-out the use of NHP in Europe, the Opinion provides recommendations on how to advance 3Rs for NHP use, such as through alternative methods, training, improvement of techniques and protocols, sharing of knowledge and removal of barriers. Finally, research needs are given.
Non-human Primates in Biomedical Research
2006
Although non-human primates (NHP) account for less than a fraction of one percent of all of the animals used for biomedical research, their many similarities to humans make them vital, and presently irreplaceable, models for humans for certain types of research ( Hau et al., 2000 ). The most common areas of research in which NHP are used include microbiology (including HIV/AIDS), neuroscience and biochemistry/ chemistry. Several of the Old World monkeys ( Chlorocebus aethiops, Macaca mulatta, M. fascicularis and Papio spp. ) are the most commonly used species for research ( Carlsson et al., 2004 ). Based on all articles published in 2001, it has recently been estimated that the global number of NHP used in research, including those participating in more than one protocol, is in the vicinity of 100,000-200,000 animals annually ( Carlsson et al., 2004 ). The authors of the present paper were invited to give evidence to the joint Academy of Medical Sciences/Medical Re...
Anim Welf, 2006
The welfare of non-human primates used in scientific research must be safeguarded to promote scientific validity and for ethical reasons. Welfare can be improved by the refinement of practice, particularly if these refinements are applied to every aspect of the life of an animal used in the laboratory, from birth to death with the aim of both minimising harm and maximising well-being. Many refinement methods have been described in nationally and internationally accepted guidelines on laboratory practice, but awareness of these guidelines is not universal. In Part I of this review, we examine the influence of humans on non-human primates and summarise and evaluate methods of refinement that are or could be used to reduce suffering and improve welfare. In particular we focus on staff selection, education and training, human-animal bonds, staff communication, and training primates. In Parts II and III, refinements of housing, husbandry and experimental procedures are reviewed.
The Critical Role of Nonhuman Primates in Medical Research - White Paper
Pathogens and Immunity
Research with nonhuman primates (NHPs) – monkeys for the most part – has led to critical health advances that have saved or improved millions of human lives. While NHPs account for just one-half of one percent of animals in current medical research, it is no exaggeration to say they are essential to our ability to find cures for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, obesity/diabetes, and dozens of other diseases that cause human suffering and death.
Trends in the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical programmes
Laboratory Animals, 1978
Recent surveys of the use of primates in biomedical laboratories indicate that the demand, especially for imported animals, is declining. Reasons for this trend are not clear, although restrictions on export by countries of origin undoubtedly have a significant effect. More precise survey techniques and terminology would aid comparisons and help to identify the factors involved in changes in demand.
IACUC Review of Nonhuman Primate Research
ILAR Journal, 2013
This article will detail some of the issues that must be considered as institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) review the use of nonhuman primates (NHPs) in research. As large, intelligent, social, long-lived, and nondomesticated animals, monkeys are amongst the most challenging species used in biomedical research and the duties of the IACUC in relation to reviewing research use of these species can also be challenging. Issues of specific concern for review of NHP research protocols that are discussed in this article include scientific justification, reuse, social housing requirements, amelioration of distress, surgical procedures, and humane endpoints. Clear institutional policies and procedures as regards NHP in these areas are critical, and the discussion of these issues presented here can serve as a basis for the informed establishment of such policies and procedures.
Animals, 2018
Simple Summary: Legislation and guidelines governing biomedical research with humans and non-human primates (NHPs) rely on different ethical frameworks. In this paper we argue that the main ethical framework used to assess and justify NHP experimentation is inadequate for its purpose. We propose a change of framework that we believe would benefit NHPs and improve research quality. Abstract: Basic and applied laboratory research, whenever intrusive or invasive, presents substantial ethical challenges for ethical committees, be it with human beings or with non-human animals. In this paper we discuss the use of non-human primates (NHPs), mostly as animal models, in laboratory based research. We examine the two ethical frameworks that support current legislation and guidelines: deontology and utilitarianism. While human based research is regulated under deontological principles, guidelines for laboratory animal research rely on utilitarianism. We argue that the utilitarian framework is inadequate for this purpose: on the one hand, it is almost impossible to accurately predict the benefits of a study for all potential stakeholders; and on the other hand, harm inflicted on NHPs (and other animals) used in laboratory research is extensive despite the increasing efforts of ethics committees and the research community to address this. Although deontology and utilitarianism are both valid ethical frameworks, we advocate that a deontological approach is more suitable, since we arguably have moral duties to NHPs. We provide suggestions on how to ensure that research currently conducted in laboratory settings shifts towards approaches that abide by deontological principles. We assert that this would not impede reasonable scientific research.
Toxicologic Pathology, 2019
The recent Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks Final Opinion on “The need for nonhuman primates in biomedical research, production and testing of products and devices” (2017 SCHEER) highlights approaches that could significantly contribute to the replacement, reduction, and refinement of nonhuman primate (NHP) studies. Initiatives that have the potential to affect NHP welfare and/or their use are expected to be appropriate, fair, and objective and publicly disseminated information focused on NHPs in biomedical research, which includes toxicologic and pathologic research and testing, should be objectively evaluated by stakeholder scientists, researchers, and veterinarians. Thus, IQ Consortium member companies convened to develop an informed and objective response, focusing on identifying areas of agreement, potential gaps, or missing information in 2017 SCHEER. Overall, the authors agree that many positions in the 2017 SCHEER Opinion generally align with ...
Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 2013
Internet searches were performed on projects involving non-human primates (‘primates’) funded under the European Union (EU) 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7), to determine how project proposals are assessed from an ethical point of view. Due to the incompleteness of the information publicly available, the types and severity of the experiments could not be determined with certainty, although in some projects the level of harm was considered to be ‘severe’. Information was scarce regarding the numbers of primates, their sourcing, housing, care and fate, or the application of the Three Rs within projects. Project grant holders and the relevant Commission officer were consulted about their experiences with the FP7 ethics review process. Overall, it was seen as meaningful and beneficial, but some concerns were also noted. Ethical follow-up during project performance and upon completion was recognised as a valuable tool in ensuring that animal welfare requirements were adequately add...