Session C2: Ethical Issues in Primate Research

Chairs: Ursula G. Sauer (Germany) and Kathryn Bayne (USA)

C2: The Moral Standing of Non-Human Primates: Why They Merit Special Consideration
Ursula G. Sauer. Akademie fuer Tierschutz, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany. ursula.sauer@tierschutzakademie.de.

Scientific experiments with non-human primates are viewed very controversially. Those who use the primates for scientific purposes contend that the results will be of great benefit to humans. They say that the distress to the animals is minimal and, therefore, their experiments are ethically acceptable. On the other hand, there are those who oppose primate experiments altogether, due to the close relationship between these animals and humans. A literature study on primate experiments in fundamental brain research was conducted to evaluate the outcome of research projects performed over a decade. Objective criteria were applied both for determining the cost side (internationally published distress scores, taking into account also distress due to procurement, transportation, and housing) and the benefit side (evaluating publications that arose from the experiments, citation scores, etc.). In many cases, the balancing differed significantly from the scientists' self-assessment and did not lead to the conclusion that the experiments had been ethically acceptable. From the point of view of animal welfare, experiments with non-human primates should be discontinued. A multitude of non-animal test methods exist for their replacement.

C2: A Demographic Analysis of Primate Research in the USA
Kathleen M. Conlee. The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Research Issues, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. kconlee@hsus.org.

The use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research, particularly great apes, raises many concerns and considerations. Indeed, some countries have banned research on great apes altogether. An up-to-date analysis of primate research worldwide, including species and numbers of animals, type of research, and relevant legislation, is essential to tackling these issues. The United States uses more nonhuman primates (including great apes) in research per year than any other country in the world, and seven times more than the European Union. According to a search of a National Library of Medicine database, over 2,500 papers regarding primate studies were published in 2001 alone (~90% laboratory studies, ~10% field studies). Primate research spans a variety of fields, including hepatitis, HIV, vaccine and drug testing, cognition, human pathologies/diseases, drug abuse, and xeno-transplantation. The HSUS proposes that cost-benefit analyses of primate research be conducted to properly assess "value added" to relevant fields of research and whether the use of primates is the only, or most effective, strategy for biomedical progress.

C2: Ethical and Welfare Implications of the Acquisition and Transport of Non-Human Primates for Use in Research and Testing
M. Jennings and M.J. Prescott. Research Animals Department, RSPCA, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 9RS, UK. mprescott@rspca.org.uk.

Assessment of the ethical and welfare implications of any laboratory animal use should encompass the entire life-history of the animals concerned, including their acquisition and transport. This is particularly important in the case of non-human primates, because the acquisition of some species involves capture from the wild, inadequate husbandry, and/or lengthy, multi-staged travel from the country of origin to the laboratory where they are used. Thus, non-human primates endure considerable 'harms' even before they reach the laboratory. Despite this, the information necessary to increase awareness of, and assess the potential harms of acquisition and transport, is not readily available. This paper, therefore, highlights the ethical and welfare concerns associated with these processes and makes recommendations intended to reduce their impact on welfare. Although the information presented is collated from a recent report that analyzes the UK trade in non-human primates for research and testing, the concerns and many of the recommendations are applicable in an international forum. The need to minimize suffering is emphasized, as is the need for critical review of the necessity and justification for all non-human primate use, a reduction in the numbers used, and the development of alternatives to replace their use.

C2: The Welfare of Non-Human Primates in Research in the EU--An Update
David B. Morton. BMS, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B31 2EP, UK. d.b.morton@bham.ac.uk.

In 1986, the Council adopted Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes and that seeks to improve the controls on the use of laboratory animals, to set minimum standards for housing and care, as well as address the training of personnel handling animals and supervising experiments. It also aims at reducing the number of animals used for experiments by encouraging the development and the validation of alternative methods to replace them. The Directive's Annex 2 contains guidelines on the housing and care of laboratory animals, and they rely on scientific knowledge of the physiological and ethological needs of the animals, as well as an understanding of the influence of the environment on their well-being.

The European Commission has recently requested an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare and is anticipating a report on the welfare of non-human primates used for experiments. The Committee has to take into account the most recent scientific information to propose how the welfare of these animals could be improved and to identify the most important issues within the EU. Since the scientific basis of the Directive dates back at least fifteen years, some provisions are out-of-date. At the same time, the Commission could fulfill its commitment to improve the controls and welfare of non-human primates and to provide an opportunity to revisit some of the definitions and existing provisions. An update will be given on the progress of this report.

C2: The Great Ape Project: Legislating for the Control of the Use of Non-Human Hominids in Research, Testing, and Teaching--Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand)
Neil E. Wells. School of Animal Health and Welfare, UNITEC Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. nwells@unitec.ac.nz.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand), which commenced on January 1, 2000, provides that the use of non-human hominids in research, testing, or teaching is not permitted unless the Director-General of Agriculture approves the use, and then, only if the use is in the interests of the non-human hominid itself or its species. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 originated with two Parliamentary Bills. The first, a Private Member's Bill, in the name of Pete Hodgson MP, was tabled in 1997, and the second, a Government measure, was tabled a year later. Neither Bill made any reference to non-human hominids. The Great Ape Project made submissions that non-human hominids be afforded similar rights to humans, i.e. not to be deprived of life, not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment, and not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation. Proponents and opponents of the measure argued for and against the tenet of introducing "rights" issues into what was essentially "welfare" legislation. These arguments are analyzed, and the legislative process that enabled this modification is examined.