Are results of primate research worth the suffering it causes?

2011

Assertions that the use of chimpanzees to investigate human diseases is valid scientifically are frequently based on a reported 98-99% genetic similarity between the species. Critical analyses of the relevance of chimpanzee studies to human biology, however, indicate that this genetic similarity does not result in sufficient physiological similarity for the chimpanzee to constitute a good model for research, and furthermore, that chimpanzee data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans. Leading examples include the minimal citations of chimpanzee research that is relevant to human medicine, the highly different pathology of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C virus infection in the two species, the lack of correlation in the efficacy of vaccines and treatments between chimpanzees and humans, and the fact that chimpanzees are not useful for research on human cancer. The major molecular differences underlying these inter-species phenotypic disparities have been revealed by comparative genomics and molecular biology -there are key differences in all aspects of gene expression and protein function, from chromosome and chromatin structure to post-translational modification. The collective effects of these differences are striking, extensive and widespread, and they show that the superficial similarity between human and chimpanzee genetic sequences is of little consequence for biomedical research. The extrapolation of biomedical data from the chimpanzee to the human is therefore highly unreliable, and the use of the chimpanzee must be considered of little value, particularly given the breadth and potential of alternative methods of enquiry that are currently available to science.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences

2011

“…The use of chimpanzees in biomedical research remains at the centre of debate, both within the scientific community and among the general public. The suffering experienced by the chimpanzees involved (1)(2)(3)(4)(5), combined with growing evidence of the lack of human relevance of the data produced (6)(7)(8)(9)(10), provide compelling ethical and scientific arguments that have contributed to worldwide legislative decisions to ban, or at least significantly restrict, experimentation on chimpanzees and other great apes (1). These concerns are reflected in the United States, both in public opinion (11), and in legislative actions, such as the CHIMP (Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection) Act in 2000, the Burr Amendment of 2007 (12), and the 2009 reintroduction of the Great Ape Protection Act (GAPA; 13) -legislation that seeks to prohibit the conducting of invasive research on all great apes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 1. Validity of the Chimpanzee Model

2010

The USA is the only significant user of chimpanzees in biomedical research in the world, since many countries have banned or limited the practice due to substantial ethical, economic and scientific concerns. Advocates of chimpanzee use cite hepatitis C research as a major reason for its necessity and continuation, in spite of supporting evidence that is scant and often anecdotal. This paper examines the scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee hepatitis C research, and concludes that claims of the necessity of chimpanzees in historical and future hepatitis C research are exaggerated and unjustifiable, respectively. The chimpanzee model has several major scientific, ethical, economic and practical caveats. It has made a relatively negligible contribution to knowledge of, and tangible progress against, the hepatitis C virus compared to non-chimpanzee research, and must be considered scientifically redundant, given the array of alternative methods of inquiry now available. The continuation of chimpanzee use in hepatitis C research adversely affects scientific progress, as well as chimpanzees and humans in need of treatment. Unfounded claims of its necessity should not discourage changes in public policy regarding the use of chimpanzees in US laboratories.

“…However, invasive research involving the use of captive chimpanzees has been banned, or at least severely restricted, across much of the world (8). The continued use of chimpanzees in invasive research in the USA is therefore highly controversial, and there exist compelling arguments against it -for example, the extent of suffering of those chimpanzees involved, and concern over the lack of human relevance of the data produced (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). The latter -i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 2. Alternative Replacement Methods

2010

The use of chimpanzees in hepatitis C virus (HCV) research was examined in the report associated with this paper (1: Validity of the Chimpanzee Model), in which it was concluded that claims of past necessity of chimpanzee use were exaggerated, and that claims of current and future indispensability were unjustifiable. Furthermore, given the serious scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee experimentation, it was proposed that it must now be considered redundant -particularly in light of the demonstrable contribution of alternative methods to past and current scientific progress, and the future promise that these methods hold. This paper builds on this evidence, by examining the development of alternative approaches to the investigation of HCV, and by reviewing examples of how these methods have contributed, and are continuing to contribute substantially, to progress in this field. It augments the argument against chimpanzee use by demonstrating the comprehensive nature of these methods and the valuable data they deliver. The entire life-cycle of HCV can now be investigated in a human (and much more relevant) context, without recourse to chimpanzee use. This also includes the testing of new therapies and vaccines. Consequently, there is no sound argument against the changes in public policy that propose a move away from chimpanzee use in US laboratories.