Medical relevance of UK-funded non-human primate research published from January 1997 to July 2012

Abstract

In 2012, the Bateson Review of research using non-human primates (NHPs) recommended the commissioning of a working group to identify and follow-up the results of UK-funded NHP research of potential benefit for human health (Recommendation 4), but the Medical Research Council (MRC) has postponed implementation of the recommendation. Information on results and potential benefits of NHP research therefore remains unavailable. To fill this gap in knowledge, this study identified all published NHP research studies funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) from January 1997 to July 2012 and assessed full texts for medical relevance. In total, 284 papers were identified, of which 51 (18%) involved invasive NHP research, compared to 176 (61%) which used NHP tissue and cell lines, indicating a shift in research emphasis from invasive whole animal to cell-based research. Of these studies, 98 (35%) were medically relevant, of which 22 had potential therapeutic or public health applications. The relatively low proportion of medical studies together with the small number of applied studies raises questions over the level of investment in medical research and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer from basic to applied research. Implementation of the Bateson Review’s Recommendation 4 would address these questions.

Establishment of an osteoporosis model in tree shrews by bilateral ovariectomy and comprehensive evaluation

“…Non-human primates, including monkeys, are genetically similar to humans compared to other experimental animals, making the simulation of human pathology and physiology relatively accurate. However, their high cost, low reproducibility and ethical concerns severely limit their use as experimental models (9,10).…”

Non-human Primates in Neuroscience Research: The Case against its Scientific Necessity

“…Additionally, the "effectiveness of knowledge transfer from basic to applied research" -something frequently claimed to be beyond doubt and, indeed, "the only way to successfully cope with devastating disorders and reduce the invasive character of many clinical procedures applied for their diagnosis and treatment" (17) -has been questioned by many (e.g. 18). This is acknowledged by Recommendation 4 of the Bateson Review, which suggests developing a mechanism "…to identify research results with potential to deliver improvements to healthcare or other significant benefits to society, and to assess the extent to which the potential benefits are achieved".…”

“…This is acknowledged by Recommendation 4 of the Bateson Review, which suggests developing a mechanism "…to identify research results with potential to deliver improvements to healthcare or other significant benefits to society, and to assess the extent to which the potential benefits are achieved". Unfortunately, three years later, at the time of writing, the Medical Research Council (MRC) has indicated that this recommendation "is not currently being taken forward, as we have prioritised work on other recommendations in the Bateson Review" (18). Factual information on NHP research results and their medical relevance (as opposed to claims of efficacy and human relevance by NHP researchers) therefore remains unavailable to the public and the wider medical profession.…”