Experimental use of nonhuman primates is not a simple problem

It’s Time to Review the Three Rs, to Make them More Fit for Purpose in the 21st Century

“…For example, in my own work, I have authored and co-authored over 60 studies and reviews on this topic, all citing numerous supporting references to the work of scientists around the world. These include:— two recent papers that examined the translatability of findings from diverse fields of animal research to humans and found it to be extremely poor; 23,24 — analyses of the contribution of chimpanzee research to the benefit of human health (including in fields such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C research), which helped to realise an end to federally funded chimpanzee research in the USA; 25–28 — critical reviews of NHP research in multiple areas and its translational failure, particularly in neuroscience; 29–32 — the need for a shift to human-focused research in the field of Parkinson’s disease research; 33 — how animal testing of potential new human drugs is insufficiently predictive of human safety and toxicity 34–37 (including developmental toxicology 38 );— why a shift away from animal use in science and to a complete focus on human biology is essential, due to inter-species genetic differences 39,40 compounded by the adverse and unavoidable physiological effects of stress for animals in laboratories. 41,42 There are also myriad works by others that augment the evidence base, including various published papers 43–52 and a number of substantial books.…”

“…— critical reviews of NHP research in multiple areas and its translational failure, particularly in neuroscience; 29–32…”

Trade-Offs in Suffering and Wellbeing: The Utilitarian Argument for Primate Stroke Research

“…Opponents of animal experimentation frequently point to the disappointing results of much nonhuman animal research, and their failure to translate into benefits for humans (Bailey et al 2008). Alternatively it is sometimes claimed that alternatives to primate experimentation (for example, using computer models or cell cultures) could provide the same benefits as animal research without the costs (Bailey et al 2008). Furthermore it could be questioned whether experimental procedures that involve the removal of the eye and the infliction of large areas of brain ischemia are as free of suffering as Sughrue and colleagues (2009) claim.…”

The value of non-human primates in the development of monoclonal antibodies

“…This often leaves the non-human primate (NHP) that possesses the relevant target antigen as the only available model for nonclinical testing. However, from a scientific point of view, the use and predictive power of NHPs is questionable 3 . Their use also poses ethical, practical and financial hurdles.…”