The Three Pillars of Ethical Research with Nonhuman Primates

This article provides an overview of the ethical issues raised by the use of non-human primates (NHPs) in research involving scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. It is not an exhaustive review of the literature and views on this subject, and it does not present any conclusions about the moral acceptability or otherwise of NHP research. Rather the aim has been to identify the ethical issues involved and to provide guidance on how these might be addressed, in particular by carefully examining the scientific rationale for NHP use, implementing fully the 3Rs principle of Russell and Burch (1959) and applying a robust "harm-benefit assessment" to research proposals involving NHPs.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Laboratory Animals, 1995

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...

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.