Funding for nonhuman primate research questioned

Jul 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 .

Explore further: Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

Related Stories

Researcher may have contracted virus carried by monkeys

Oct 28, 2010

It's the stuff of doomsday movies: A new virus jumps from animals to people, with ominous possibilities. At the California National Primate Research Center at the University of California, Davis, last year, a newly identified ...

Monkey studies important for brain science

May 15, 2008

Studies with non-human primates have made major contributions to our understanding of the brain and will continue to be an important, if small, part of neuroscience research, according to a recent review published in the ...

Brits rescue 88 research monkeys

Jan 30, 2008

Dozens of research monkeys used by a Chilean medical laboratory were sent to England following threats by an animal rights group.

MS-like disease discovered in monkeys

Jun 28, 2011

Researchers at Oregon Health & Science University have discovered a naturally occurring disease in monkeys that is very much like multiple sclerosis in humans -- a discovery that could have a major impact on efforts to understand ...

Recommended for you

Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

3 hours ago

A new study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), evaluated consumers' choice in fresh tomato selection and revealed which characteristics make the red fruit most appealing.

How the lotus got its own administration

6 hours ago

Actually the lotus is a very ordinary plant. Nevertheless, during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) a complex bureaucratic structure was built up around this plant. The lotus was part of the Imperial Household, ...

What labels on textiles can tell us about society

7 hours ago

Throughout Chinese history, dynastic states used labels on textiles to spread information on the maker, the commissioner, the owner or the date and site of production. Silks produced in state-owned manufacture ...

US company sells out of Ebola toys

Oct 17, 2014

They might look tasteless, but satisfied customers dub them cute and adorable. Ebola-themed toys have proved such a hit that one US-based company has sold out.

User comments : 10

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
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
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
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
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Well we could always switch to prisoners!
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2011
So, we have the traditional, conservative artless Neanderthal and the arty, chatty, neophilic Cromagnon...is this competition really over???
LuckyExplorer
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
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
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
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
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011

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.