Depolarising primate experimentation: the good, the bad and the determined (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
A brief history of primate research: Global health improvements and ethical challenges
Archives of Medical and Biomedical Research, 2016
Humans have benefitted from close relationships with animals for hundreds of thousands of years. However it has only been in relatively recent times that they have made use of the scientific investigation of animals; their anatomy, physiology and response to disease in attempts to alleviate human suffering. Scientists rapidly realized the value of primates as research models-their evolutionary proximity to humans making them better predictors, or models, of human biology. Systematic studies using primates began in the last century and massive demand for research subjects almost caused the extinction of some important wild populations. This resulted in initially ex situ and then latterly in situ breeding centers, purpose-breeding animals for biomedical research. Primate research typically follows that using less sentient animals (generally rodents) in which mechanism and proof of principle are established before examining effect and safety in primates. The quality of life of millions of people has rested on progress from primate research. The broader society has become more concerned with how we treat animals and use of animals in research has come under particular scrutiny. The actions of extremists have threatened not only the continued use of primates in research, but also the property, welfare, and occasionally, lives of those that have committed their careers to studying primates to aid humanity. This commentary examines the history of primate research and discusses key advances as well as important lessons learnt about the ethics surrounding the use of primates in research.
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.
Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA, 2005
The Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust are undertaking a study into the use of non-human primates in biological and medical research. An independent working group of scientific experts, led by Sir David Weatherall, aims to produce a report summarising the findings of this study, early in 2006. The trends in primate research, and the nature and effects of recent and proposed changes in the global use of non-human primates in research, will be investigated. The associated ethical, welfare and regulatory issues, and the role and impact of the Three Rs principles of refinement, reduction and replacement will also be reviewed. As part of this study, a call for evidence was made. The evidence submitted by FRAME emphasised that the use of non-human primates for fundamental research or for regulatory testing still fails to take into account the fact that, although non-human primates are anatomically and physiologically similar...
Invasive Research on Non-Human Primates-Time to Turn the Page
Despite increasing ethical concerns, primates are still often used in invasive research (i.e., laboratory research that causes body manipulations causing them pain or distress and not aimed at directly improving their well-being). Here, we will review previous studies showing that primates have complex behaviour and cognition, and that they suffer long-term consequences after being used in invasive research. We will discuss the ethical problems that invasive research on primates posit, the legal protection that they are, to date, granted in different countries, and summarize the past and current attempts to ban this kind of research on primates. We will conclude why, in our opinion, invasive research on primates should be banned, and non-invasive methods should be considered the only possible approach to the study of primates.
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.
A Review of the Institute of Medicine's Analysis of using Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research
We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine's 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in bio-medical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological and ethical inconsistencies leading to ignorance of potentially unethical practices and policies regarding the use of animals in scientific research.
Summary Many animals are bred specifically for use in laboratories; the genetic variation between individuals is minimised, and housing and husbandry is often standardised. The rationale is to decrease the variation of the scientific findings, and allow a reduction in number of animals used, although these relationships are questioned. Non-human primates used in laboratories present a different case; there are genetic differences, and considerable variation in rearing practices, housing, enrichment and training both among, and often within, facilities. The impact of this variation on both welfare and science warrants further investigation.
Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons
BMC Medical Ethics, 2021
Background The use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature on this topic. Methods Seven databases were searched for articles published in English. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles. Two journals specialized in animal ethics, and the reference lists of included articles were subsequently also reviewed. Results We included 60 articles, most of which were published between...