Bioethical Considerations in Translational Research: Primate Stroke

Abstract

Controversy and activism have long been linked to the subject of primate research. Even in the midst of raging ethical debates surrounding fertility treatments, genetically modified foods and stem-cell research, there has been no reduction in the campaigns of activists worldwide. Playing their trade of intimidation aimed at ending biomedical experimentation in all animals, they have succeeded in creating an environment where research institutions, often painted as guilty until proven innocent, have avoided addressing the issue for fear of becoming targets. One area of intense debate is the use of primates in stroke research. Despite the fact that stroke kills more people each year than AIDS and malaria, and less than 5% of patients are candidates for current therapies, there is significant opposition to primate stroke research. A balanced examination of the ethics of primate stroke research is thus of broad interest to all areas of biomedical research.

Preclinical Evaluation of Postischemic Dehydroascorbic Acid Administration in a Large-Animal Stroke Model

“…Despite the historic failures of neuroprotective agents, however, we remain optimistic that proper design and implementation of preclinical studies, incorporating studies in animals of higher order, will ultimately result in the successful translation of a neuroprotective strategy for the treatment of patients with stroke. How and when to employ primates in this development program remains a topic of intense debate and one that requires intense scrutiny as we endeavor to protect all research subjects, human and nonhuman, in our efforts to lessen the burden and suffering associated with stroke [20]. …”

“…As with human clinical trials, ethically responsible primate stroke research requires an interim statistical analysis, with termination of the study if this analysis suggests that the treatment will not succeed within the confines of the experimental design [19,20]. In the present study, the midpoint analysis determined that the completion of the study would not reveal a neuroprotective benefit for DHA in this model, and the study was thus terminated.…”

On balance: weighing harms and benefits in fundamental neurological research using nonhuman primates

“…Some procedures cause what most would consider severe harm, for instance the induction of stroke (Sughrue et al 2009; see also replies in the same issue), the severing of nerves to cause paralysis, or the infliction of other major and irreversible neurological damage. Other procedures cause minimal harm to the animal, such as the physical restraint of primates during non-invasive brain imaging.…”

The ethics of using transgenic non-human primates to study what makes us human

“…Some analysts try to articulate the unique concerns in transgenic research in terms of the "unnaturalness" of "crossing species boundaries," citing unspecified downstream evolutionary and ecological risks62,63. Others turn to notions of "animal integrity" or "species-specific dignity" to try to focus their critiques on the impact of transgenic manipulations on the animals themselves35,64,65,66. This approach is headed in the right direction, but it usually remains at a relatively abstract level that is hard to apply to the actual conduct of animal research.…”