Funding for nonhuman primate research questioned

July 28, 2011 by Deborah Braconnier report

A major review of nonhuman primate use in medical research has been conducted in the UK by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, who is the president of the Zoological Society of London and an ethnologist from Cambridge University, and his determination is that all future projects need to demonstrate plausible medical or social benefits or funding should not be provided.

Bateson’s review looked at 67 research studies conducted between 1996 and 2006 and included the use of some 3,000 monkeys. They evaluated the studies based on scientific quality of research, welfare costs to the animal and what benefits to medicine the studies produced.

Bateson discovered that nine percent of the cases examined showed insufficient or inadequate justification for their use of nonhuman primates and they were unlikely to be beneficial. One example was research on reproduction where a hysterectomy was performed and a mother and fetus were compromised. The study was not designed to look for new medical information but rather to train students and repeat a study that was reported a decade ago.

While these findings are disturbing and for these types of tests is unjustified, according to Bateson an outright ban on nonhuman primate research is not called for as most studies do provide medical benefits. He believes that scientific research and the use of monkeys should continue though there needs to be extensive safeguards put into place to evaluate each study before funding and the ability to use monkeys is granted.

Last year, over 2,600 monkeys were used in medical research in the UK. The majority of these were used by biotech and pharmaceutical companies in order to test medical treatments. The others were used by government institutions and universities to study conditions such as HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. In the United States, the use of nonhuman primates for research is much greater with as many as 60,000 experiments being conducted each year.

Animal welfare organizations believe the information discovered in this study only provides more proof for their fight for an outright ban on the use of nonhuman primates in any type of .

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
Jul 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Animal welfare organizations believe the information discovered in this study only provides more proof for their fight for an outright ban on the use of nonhuman primates in any type of medical research.
I think they should only use volunteer primates.
Cave_Man
Jul 28, 2011

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
and his determination is that all future projects need to demonstrate plausible medical or social benefits or funding should not be provided.


Because all researchers know what they will discover before they find it....................................................................................................................................................

Idiot. I bet if your research was military related he'd give you a green light. Thats where the moneys at people, commando monkeys not behavior science.
Norezar
Jul 29, 2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Well we could always switch to prisoners!
RobertKarlStonjek
Jul 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
So, we have the traditional, conservative artless Neanderthal and the arty, chatty, neophilic Cromagnon...is this competition really over???
LuckyExplorer
Jul 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
To clarify: I am not strictly against the use of primates for research, but to be critical against such research on primates. But the comments here are ignorant.

"Because all researchers know what they will discover before they find it...................Idiot.

Perfect comment Cave_Man!
Did you ever have anything to do with research?
Did you need to look for money and fundings for research?
I am sure you did not.

Before starting a research you should define your goals and you should have an idea what you are looking for.
If you did that you have to look for ALL options to perform that research. - And here is one mistake of the research above.

The better (or at least necessary additional) question would have been:
Did the researchers chose the appropriate method, was it necessary to use primates. The result might have been significant different. - Maybe better, but much more likely worse.

Dug
Jul 29, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
When you start to let non-scientist dictate the pathways and methods of science - you are in no different a situation than being in airplane in flight with an untrained pilot. I have no problem with scientific ethics being reviewed by qualified scientist of the same field of specialty, but it is beyond silly and stupid to let "Poodle Lovers Anonymous" direct science at any level.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jul 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
To clarify: I am not strictly against the use of primates for research, but to be critical against such research on primates. But the comments here are ignorant.
Well i think we needs ta use primates for testing to find out WHY dey is ignorant.
frajo
Jul 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I have no problem with scientific ethics being reviewed by qualified scientist of the same field of specialty, but it is beyond silly and stupid to let "Poodle Lovers Anonymous" direct science at any level.


Do you have a problem with Dr. Mengele?
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jul 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
I have no problem with scientific ethics being reviewed by qualified scientist of the same field of specialty, but it is beyond silly and stupid to let "Poodle Lovers Anonymous" direct science at any level.


Do you have a problem with Dr. Mengele?
Extremum ad absurdium and you know it. Unless you believe a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy.

Did mengele like Pudels?
Cave_Man
Aug 05, 2011

Rank: not rated yet

Did the researchers chose the appropriate method, was it necessary to use primates. The result might have been significant different. - Maybe better, but much more likely worse.



I agree, I'm just saying that sometimes we discover things we weren't looking for. People who don't need to use living breathing creatures to SHOULDN'T USE THEM, thats common sense, we're in the business of making scientific discoveries not discovering better ways to pervert morals and torture monkeys.

But how many discoveries are made when people aren't looking for them. I propose a different way of thinking about the whole situation, lets say there is a monkey experiment that has very narrow research aim, lets say some form of targeted drug. Let them do their experiment but also involve other teams from multiple disciplines to cross check gathered data for useful information that doesn't pertain to the original research, as long as it doesn't interfere its like a 2 for 1 sale.
Rank 5 /5 (3 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say

(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (16) | comments 130

Ancient Bethlehem seal unearthed in Jerusalem

Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription "Bethlehem," the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday, in what experts believe to be the oldest artifact ...

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 3.5 / 5 (14) | comments 23

Oldest Jewish archaeological evidence on the Iberian Peninsula

German archaeologists of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena found one of the oldest archaeological evidence so far of Jewish Culture on the Iberian Peninsula at an excavation site in the south of Portugal, ...

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (4) | comments 12

Dollars and sense: Why are some people morally against tax?

As the U.S. presidential election campaigns heat up, the economic debate is dominated by bailouts, austerity and, inevitably, taxation. Now a new study published in Symbolic Interaction asks why tax is such an important issue ...

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 3 / 5 (2) | comments 12

Oldest art even older

New dates from Geißenklösterle Cave in Southwest Germany document the early arrival of modern humans and early appearance of art and music.

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (3) | comments 6


Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012

(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...

Browser wars flare in mobile space

The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice

(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...

Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend

(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.

Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?

(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...