No abstract

We assessed the use of nonhuman primates and nonhuman primate biological material in research by reviewing studies published in 2001 in peer-reviewed journals. The number and species of primates used, the origin of the animals, the type of study, the area of research of the investigation, and the location at which the research was performed were tabulated. Additionally, factors related to the animals that may have affected the outcome of the experiments were recorded. A total of 2,937 articles involving 4,411 studies that employed nonhuman primates or nonhuman primate biological material were identified and analyzed. More than 41,000 animals were represented in the studies published in 2001. In the 14% of studies for which re-use could be determined, 69% involved animals that had been used in previous experiments. Published studies most commonly used nonhuman primates or nonhuman primate biological material from the species Chlorocebus aethiops (19%), Macaca mulatta (18%), M. fascicularis (9%), and Papio spp. (6%). Of these studies, 54% were classified as in vitro studies, 14% as noninvasive, 30% as chronic, and 1% were considered acute. Nonhuman primates were primarily used in research areas in which they appear to be the most appropriate models for humans. The most common areas of research were microbiology (including HIV/AIDS (26%)), neuroscience (19%), and biochemistry/chemistry (12%). Most (84%) of the primate research published in 2001 was conducted in North America, Europe, and Japan. The animals and conditions under which they were housed and used were rarely described. Although it is estimated that nonhuman primates account for an extremely small fraction of all animals used in research, their special status makes it important to report the many husbandry and environmental factors that influence the research results generated. This analysis has identified that editors rarely require authors to provide comprehensive information concerning the subjects (e.g., their origin), treatment conditions, and experimental procedures utilized in the studies they publish. The present analysis addresses the use of primates for research, including the effects of a shortage of suitable nonhuman primate subjects in many research areas.

Many factors may influence the outcome of surveys on how people view the use of animals in research. Some aspects are related to the instrument used, whereas others are related to the characteristics of the respondents. Conducted in Western countries, the study is primarily a review of 56 surveys targeting scientists, students, and the public. Surveys were obtained from searching online databases and reference lists, or directly from authors whose surveys were not otherwise available. Factors related to the instrument listed include the questionnaire used and wording of questions. Factors related to the respondent include age, gender, upbringing, religion, knowledge, education, and practical experience. Results demonstrate that there was great discrepancy in acceptance/opposition estimations reported in different surveys. It is concluded that interpretation and comparison of results from different surveys should be made with caution.

Positive reinforcement training (PRT) techniques have received considerable attention for their stress reduction potential in the behavioral management of captive nonhuman primates. However, few published empirical studies have provided physiological data to support this position. To address this issue, PRT techniques were used to train chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to voluntarily present a leg for an intramuscular (IM) injection of anesthetic. Hematology and serum chemistry profiles were collected from healthy chimpanzees (n=128) of both sexes and various ages during their routine annual physical examinations over a 7-year period. Specific variables potentially indicative of acute stress (i.e., total white blood cell (WBC) counts, absolute segmented neutrophils (SEG), glucose (GLU) levels, and hematocrit (HCT) levels) were analyzed to determine whether the method used to administer the anesthetic (voluntary present for injection vs. involuntary injection) affected the physiological parameters. Subjects that voluntarily presented for an anesthetic injection had significantly lower mean total WBC counts, SEG, and GLU levels than subjects that were involuntarily anesthetized by more traditional means. Within-subjects analyses revealed the same pattern of results. This is one of the first data sets to objectively demonstrate that PRT for voluntary presentation of IM injections of anesthetic can significantly affect some of the physiological measures correlated with stress responses to chemical restraint in captive chimpanzees.