ABSTRACT. Through the analysis of case studies of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in residence at a sanctuary, who previously sustained prolonged captivity and biomedical experimentation, we illustrate how human psychological models of diagnosis and treatment might be approached in great apes. This study reflects growing attention to ethical, scientific, and practical problems associated with psychological well-being of animals. The analysis concludes that a diagnosis of Complex PTSD in chimpanzees is consistent with descriptions of trauma-induced symptoms as described by the DSM-IV and human trauma research. We discuss how these findings relate to diagnosis and treatment of chimpanzees in captivity and the issue of their continued laboratory use. This clinical study contributes toward theory and therapeutic practices of an emergent trans-species psychology inclusive of both humans and other species. Such an ability to extend what we know G. A. Bradshaw

Longitudinal studies have shown how early developmental contexts contribute significantly to self-development; their influence extends through adulthood, informs sociality, and affects resilience under severe stress. While the importance of sociality in trauma recovery is recognized, the relationship between developmental and posttrauma contexts and recovery effects is less appreciated, particularly in cases in which recovery contexts differ widely from the culture of origin. Using an attachment-based model of bicultural (competence in two cultures) development, the authors examined the role of self in posttrauma repair of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) who had been differentially reared by humans during neuroethologically formative periods and subsequently used as biomedical subjects. Results show that variations in posttrauma schema correlate with early socialization patterns. Self-resilience supports, but also may constrain, recovery depending on the compatibility of internal self models with recovery resources. Trauma severity notwithstanding, the cultural context of origin emerges as a critical factor in designing effective therapeutic intervention and assessments in primates, humans inclusive. Finally, the results underscore the ethical implications for the practices of cross-fostering nonhuman primates and their use in research.

Studies indicate that more students are opposing the use of invasive procedures on animals. When students are forced to use animals in ways that they view as harmful, painful, stressful or lethal to the animals, several reactions may occur. Such students may suffer psychological trauma as the result of seeing themselves or others engaged in behaviour that they find ethically objectionable. Their cognitive abilities may become impaired, resulting in less learning. They may withdraw and lose interest in science when not given the option to conscientiously object. Students — even those who believe they are willing participants — can become desensitised and may develop a utilitarian view of animals, thereby diminishing their capacity for compassion and ethical decision-making. Qualified, compassionate people — especially women — often decide to end their career in science rather than compromise their values. This loss contributes to the gender gap in science and to individuals feeling disappointed and derailed in their career aspirations. The psychological consequences to individuals combined with social, environmental, educational and scientific consequences present a compelling argument for the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education.

Millions of animals are used in research and toxicity testing, including in drug, medical device, chemical, cosmetic, personal care, household, and other product sectors, but the environmental consequences are yet to be adequately addressed. Evidence suggests that their use and disposal, and the associated use of chemicals and supplies, contribute to pollution as well as adverse impacts on biodiversity and public health. The objective of this review is to examine such evidence. The review includes examinations of (1) resources used in animal research; (2) waste production in laboratories; (3) sources of pollution; (4) impacts on laboratory workers' health; and (5) biodiversity impacts. The clear conclusion from the review is that the environmental implications of animal testing must be acknowledged, reported, and taken into account as another factor in addition to ethical and scientific reasons weighing heavily in favor of moving away from allowing and requiring animal use in research and testing.

No abstract