Special report: June 2003
MONKEYING AROUND WITH HUMAN HEALTH
The cost to people of primate experiments
"It is time the public knew that using monkeys is
archaic and dangerous to human health. The abandonment of animal
models is absolutely vital for medicine to advance." Ray Greek MD
The government is gearing up to encourage a
massively increased use of primates in experiments.
Monkeying Around With Human Health shows that such an
action would be a betrayal of human patients as well as of the
animal victims.
 |
Part 1: Introduction
Public rejection of primate experiments. |
 |
Part 2: Primate experiments
An assessment of the main types of primate experimentation. |
|
Part 3: Looking to the future
Cambridge University, biohazards, and what you
can do. |
 |
Resources (PDF
format)
Report
Leaflet
Poster |
"I have yet to hear a sufficiently compelling scientific argument
that justifies the suffering inflicted on primates in medical
research." Dr Charlotte Uhlenbroek, leading primatologist and BBC
science presenter.
Written by Ray Greek MD and Kathy Archibald
BSc.
Published by Animal Aid, May 2003. ISBN: 0-9508990-9-7
MONKEYING AROUND WITH HUMAN HEALTH
Introduction
In this
special report on primate experiments, we set out the scientific
case against the laboratory use of primates for drug testing and
research into neurological conditions and infectious diseases.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: The Israeli
Society for the Abolition of Vivisection (ISAV)
THE PUBLIC SAYS
'NO!'
A NOP poll commissioned
by Animal Aid in April 2003 found that 52% of respondents
regarded experiments on primates as morally unacceptable. Only
40% said they were acceptable - the remainder fell into the 'don't
know' category. When asked whether they believed that results
from primate experiments could be reliably applied to people,
43% said they could not, whilst 44% said they could. Amongst the
younger age groups, a clear majority regarded such tests as
scientifically unreliable.
Clearly, some people
oppose research on primates even though they believe it may
benefit medicine. When the scientific irrelevance of primate
experimentation (as outlined in this report) becomes more widely
known, public opposition to it will undoubtedly increase. |
| |
|
Britain is the largest user of primates for
research in Europe. In 2001, 3,342 monkeys were used in 3,986 'procedures'
- an increase of 13% from the previous year.
(1) 62% of those monkeys were subjected to product
safety testing by pharmaceutical companies or their contract
research organisations. The remainder were used to study basic brain
function, disorders such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infectious
diseases including AIDS, as well as fertility and contraception.
The public is strongly opposed to the use of primates in
laboratories for a number of compelling reasons that cannot be
dismissed as mere sentimentality. Many dispute the claim that
research on primates is necessary for medical progress and believe
that the reverse is true. As the following pages will show, primates
are a poor model for such research and their use has resulted in
harm to patients, which is an inevitable consequence of reliance on
other species to study human diseases.
Our close kinship with primates is undeniable and the more we
learn about them, the more it becomes apparent that they share with
us emotions, intelligence and complex social relationships. They are
clearly capable of suffering psychologically as well as physically
when separated from their family groups, confined in a cage, denied
freedom to express their natural behaviour and subjected to painful
and invasive procedures. All these fates await primates used in
laboratory experiments.
This government came to power promising to reduce animal
experimentation. Yet since 2000, the British Union for the Abolition
of Vivisection (BUAV) has revealed, they have been secretly planning
a new macaque breeding centre - to be funded by the taxpayer - at
the military research centre at Porton Down in Wiltshire. (2) This
will inevitably increase the use of macaques in British laboratories
by avoiding the current difficulty and delay in procuring monkeys
from abroad.
The government has also enthusiastically endorsed a controversial
proposal by Cambridge University to build a large new primate brain
research centre - the biggest in Europe - whose fate was due to be
decided by Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, in the second half
of 2003.
In 2002, MEPs voted in favour of a complete review of the use of
all primates in experiments. They singled out Britain and Cambridge
University, in particular, for inadequate enforcement of existing
regulations.
The second section of this special report
will assess the three main types of primate experimentation, on the
basis of their scientific value - a key factor in any attempt to
justify such a controversial and distressing practice.
Primate experiments
In the second section of our special report into
primate experiments, we assess the main types of primate
experimentation, namely drug testing, brain function and disorders,
and the study of infectious diseases.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: Folly Wildlife
Rescue |
| |
|
Drug testing
Using primates damages and kills people
Primates have failed researchers with regard to their ability to
predict dangerous side effects of medications. For example:
- Hormone replacement therapy - given to millions of women
following research in monkeys - has recently been found to
increase their risk of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer.
(3)
- Isoprenaline doses (for asthma) were worked out on animals,
but proved too high for humans. Thousands of people died as a
result. Even when the researchers knew what to look for they were
unable to reproduce this effect in monkeys. (4)
- Carbenoxalone (a gastric ulcer treatment) caused people to
retain water to the point of heart failure. Scientists
retrospectively tested it on monkeys, but could not reproduce this
effect. (5)
- Flosint (an arthritis drug) was tested on monkeys - they
tolerated the medication well. In humans, however, it caused
deaths. (6)
- Amrinone (for heart failure) was tested on numerous nonhuman
primates and released with confidence. People haemorrhaged, as the
drug prevented normal blood clotting. This side effect occurred in
a startling 20% of patients taking the medication on a long-term
basis. (7)
- Arthritis drug Opren is known to have killed 61 people. Over
3,500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren was
tested on monkeys without problems. (8)
- Aspirin causes birth defects in monkeys but not in humans. (9)
'It is the actual results of teratogenicity [birth defect]
testing in primates which have been most disappointing. Of the 15
listed putative human teratogens tested in non-human primates, only
eight were also teratogenic in one or more of the various species...'
- Dr JL Schardein, author of 'Chemically Induced Birth Defects'.
Despite these failures, marmosets, in particular, are
increasingly popular as the 'second species' - in addition to
rodents - required by regulators responsible for licensing new drugs.
They are attractive to pharmaceutical companies because they are
small and easy to breed in captivity. Their size makes them cheaper
than dogs to dose with expensive test compounds and easy to house in
small cages and inhalation chambers.
These benefits are itemised in a paper published by the
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 2001. (10) The
paper notes, however, that marmosets are very excitable and can be
difficult to handle. Their small size (and therefore blood volume)
can be a problem when multiple blood samples are required. Skilled
and experienced technicians are needed to dose marmosets
intravenously, to take blood from their femoral (thigh) artery, or
to dose them by 'gavage' - a long tube pushed down the throat to the
stomach. Marmosets cannot be trained to tolerate these procedures
and must be restrained and even sedated.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: Iain Green |
| |
|
Stolen from the wild
Not only do monkeys endure the trials of laboratory life, many
are imported from such distant countries as Mauritius, Israel,
Indonesia, the Philippines and China. 53% of procedures in 2001
involved animals imported from such sources outside the EU.
Investigations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
(Paradise Lost, available at) and by the RSPCA (Counting
the Cost, available at eveal appalling conditions at some
breeding centres, which are often founded, re-stocked and augmented
with animals trapped from the wild. Capture from the wild causes
huge distress. The first-generation offspring are sold to UK
laboratories, having been taken from their mothers as young as six
months old. Their journeys to the UK are in tiny, cramped crates and
can last as long as three days - some monkeys have died in transit.
Species under threat
Concern about the use of macaques, in particular, is heightened
by their conservation status. Long-tailed (also known as crab-eating
or cynomolgus) macaques and rhesus macaques are the most commonly
used species. They are 'old world' monkeys, native to Asia, where
they live in large social troops that sometimes number 100
individuals. They are very communicative and maintain close
relationships through mutual grooming. The long-tailed macaque is
listed as near-threatened on the 2000 International Union for the
Conservation of Nature 'red list'. The Japanese macaque is listed as
endangered; yet up to 2,000 are captured and sold to Japanese
laboratories every year. China is the main source of rhesus monkeys
for Britain but housing conditions there are particularly horrifying.
Breeding stock is taken from wild populations, which are in serious
decline.
'Drawing from the wild poses an additional threat to the
conservation status and, ultimately, survival, of some species and
local populations.' - Counting the Cost, report by the RSPCA.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: Iain Green |
| |
|
Monkey data is rubber-stamped
UK law states that the use of primates is permissible only if the
researchers can demonstrate that no 'lower' species could be used
instead. Yet regulators (the Medical Healthcare products Regulatory
Authority in the UK) accept marmoset toxicity data without query.
This further encourages their use purely in order to gain easy
official approval.
A fundamental point is that the use of primates - or indeed any
animal species - for safety evaluation has never been scientifically
validated. The effectiveness of the practice can be judged by the
fact that, following the 'successful' completion of all the animal
tests, more than 80% of new drugs fail when administered to healthy
human volunteers during Phase 1 clinical trials. (11)
'Most of the animal tests we accept have never been validated.
They evolved over the past 20 years and the FDA is comfortable with
them.' - Anita O'Connor, Food and Drug Administration (USA).
(12)
Better research methods
There are more reliable methods to predict the safety and
effectiveness of drugs for people. These include in vitro (test
tube) studies using human cells and tissues, and sophisticated
computer simulations designed to mimic human metabolism. A ten-year
international study proved that human cell culture tests are more
accurate and yield more useful information about toxic mechanisms
than traditional animal tests. (13) The British company Pharmagene
uses human tissue exclusively, noting that 'a flood of new data on
human genetics is making drug research in animals redundant. If you
have information on human genes, what's the point in going back to
animals?' (14)
Screening new drugs in silico (on computer) is now taking the
place of many animal tests. German biotech company 4SC designs new
drugs entirely in silico and can process in one day what would take
other biotechs a month. 'The time is fast approaching when what we
are doing will be the industry norm,' says chief executive, Ulrich
Dauer. 'We have the accuracy, the speed and we don't waste time with
drugs that are not going to work.' (15)
The following example illustrates the ineffectiveness of
assessing drug safety in animals and the impossibility of detecting
subtle human responses: Eight out of ten drugs that were withdrawn
from the US market between 1998 and 2001 had serious side effects in
women that had not occurred in men. (16) All of them had, of course,
been tested extensively in animals before they were released onto
the market.
If men cannot predict the effects of drugs for women, how on
earth can we expect to obtain reliable data from monkeys?
| |
 |
| |
Credit: BUAV |
| |
|
Infectious disease research
Failure of the 'animal model'
Investigating diseases that infect humans in any species other
than humans is nonsensical, as pathogens and immune responses to
them are highly species specific. For instance, chimpanzees are
essentially immune to the human AIDS virus, Hepatitis B and C
viruses, the malaria parasite and many other pathogens to which
humans are susceptible.
'Up to this very day, all infectious diseases affecting
humans are far from having appropriate animal models and, even in
those cases where such infections are possible, the symptoms
observed in animals and the course of the disease are often very
different from those encountered in humans.' - Handbook of
Animal Models of Infection, Academic Press, 1999 p.7
The recent anthrax attacks in the US mail were initially not
taken seriously enough because experiments on monkeys showed the
bacterium was not fatal until 8-10,000 spores are inhaled. When
people died from much smaller doses it became apparent that this
does not apply to humans.
The same failings apply to vaccine development:
'...prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous
conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading
experimental models of the disease in monkeys.' (17) - Dr
Albert Sabin, MD, inventor of the polio vaccine.
Despite mounting evidence of vaccine research failures in animals,
tens of thousands of primates and other animals have been killed in
AIDS research over the past 20 years. This is despite the fact that
infecting animals, even chimpanzees, with HIV does not produce an
equivalent disease to human AIDS.
Chimpanzee AIDS research abandoned
This reality has long been recognised by many in the research
community and by AIDS activists, who have campaigned hard against
futile vaccine research in monkeys.
'What good does it do you to test something [a vaccine] in a
monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the
monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realise that humans
behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years.'
(18) - Dr Mark Feinberg, leading AIDS researcher.
After an extensive review of the American AIDS research programme,
the US government concluded that chimpanzees are a deficient 'model'
for use in AIDS research and redirected $10 million of funding. Even
the director of the Yerkes Primate Centre admitted that 15 years of
AIDS research in chimpanzees had produced little data relevant to
humans. (19)
Everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned from
studying people with the disease - through epidemiology and in
vitro research on human blood cells. Using primates to predict
how humans will respond is not simply unproductive, it has resulted
in medical catastrophe. In the early 1980s, the observation that HIV
did not affect chimpanzees led scientists to assume that the virus
would be harmless to humans too. They consequently advised health
authorities to allow transfusions with contaminated blood samples,
thereby giving rise to the French blood scandal that claimed
thousands of innocent victims.
False promise
The first five-year trial of an HIV vaccine, 'Aidsvax', based on
success in animals has recently been pronounced a failure. (20) The
5,500 high-risk volunteers in the trial were not protected from HIV
infection by the vaccine. Further trial results were due at the end
of 2003. Many thousands of participants have been given false
expectations which have been cruelly dashed.
Far too frequently, animal models have been used to develop
vaccines that are effective in laboratory animals but are
ineffective, or actually harmful, in humans. AIDS is a terrible
illness, and research money and personnel need to be directed toward
methodologies that are viable. Using an archaic methodology like
animal models to combat a 21st century disease is more than foolish,
it is immoral.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: ISAV
The image above was
taken in July 2001. It shows Malish, a young long-tailed macaque,
who was used in a series of exploratory brain research
experiments from 1998 till late 2002 by the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. The published conclusion from this research - which
is typical of primate experiments in labs around the world - was
that 'non-verbal subjects learn to categorize abstract images by
their ordinal number in the list'. |
| |
|
Brain research
Exercise in futility
Experimenting on monkeys with the hope of unlocking the secrets
of the human brain is an exercise in futility. The most dramatic
difference between humans and any other species, including the great
apes, is found in the central nervous system. Our brain is four
times larger than that of a chimpanzee, which is four times larger
than that of a macaque. The human brain is enriched with specific
cell types implicated in communication, language, comprehension and
autonomic functions.
'For cortical regions, such as the language areas, we cannot
use the macaque brain even as a rough guide as it probably lacks
comparable regions.' (21) - Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the
structure of DNA.
In addition to anatomical differences, the pattern of gene
expression in our brain is dramatically different from that of the
chimpanzee. (22) Humans are distinguished from all mammals by their
lack of a particular sugar molecule on the surface of cells,
especially in the brain. It is likely that this profoundly affects
brain development and function. Biochemical pathways in the human
brain are unique. (23)
Many of the attributes that we most celebrate - such as our
ability to express ourselves in prose, poetry, song and dance - are
uniquely human. We are clearly different, very different, from
chimpanzees.
Yet at British universities, including Oxford, Cambridge,
Manchester and London, monkeys are still used - at taxpayers'
expense - as models of human brain function.
This is despite the fact that human brains can now be studied
non-invasively using high-tec scanners. These enable the conscious
brain to be observed while engaged in a variety of cognitive tasks (e.g.
talking, singing, reading, writing) of which monkeys are not capable
- and thus could clearly not provide any relevant insight.
State-of-the-art research
Functional MRI scanners can monitor the brain activity of
volunteers undertaking tests of memory and other skills, to reveal
brain areas that are active during particular activities.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) temporarily disrupts brain
function, allowing scientists to assess the impact of 'switching off'
specific regions without permanently removing them. The Dr Hadwen
Trust for Humane Research is funding such studies into epilepsy
research at Oxford University. There are many other state-of-the-art
imaging techniques now available, including PET (positron emission
topography), CAT (computer-aided tomography), MEG (magnetoencephalography),
EROS (event-related optical signals) and VBM (voxel-based
morphometric analysis). These remarkable techniques are able to
differentiate such subtleties as musical ability or whether someone
is lying or how hard they are concentrating. Insights that can be
gleaned from monkeys seem absurdly crude by comparison.
One recent study of macaque monkeys at Oxford University was
aimed at determining the role of the cerebellum in cognition, by
making a series of lesions in their cerebella. (24) The monkeys'
skulls were opened and 16 separate injections were made of an acid
into the right hemisphere, followed a week later by further open-skull
surgery and 16 injections into the left hemisphere. The animals were
then tested, thousands of times, on cognitive tasks they had been
trained to perform before their brain damage. Then they were killed
and their brains extracted for analysis. The experiment served only
to emphasise the difference between human and monkey brains, by
contradicting similar studies that had already been conducted with
brain-damaged human subjects. Self-evidently, the only way to
investigate human brain function is to study the human brain.
Results from the brains of any other species are simply misleading.
| |
|
| |
Horror organ-swap
experiments exposed
Experimenting on wild-caught
primates is not banned in Britain. Between 1994 and 2000, wild
baboons and macaques were used in a programme of organ
transplant research conducted at Huntingdon Life Sciences for
Imutran Ltd, a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma. Wild-caught
animals were specifically chosen because they are bigger than
captive-bred primates. The monkeys were used as recipients for
genetically-modified hearts and kidneys taken from piglets in
horrific experiments involving extreme suffering. For two and a
half years Novartis suppressed details of these experiments,
taking out a court injunction against Uncaged Campaigns who were
battling to expose them. . Hundreds of mistakes in the research
are revealed, as well as hugely exaggerated claims of scientific
progress in overcoming organ rejection. Government ministers
were complicit in downplaying both the scientific failings and
the severe suffering, which was actually in breach of the law.
Immediately the evidence was exposed, Imutran closed down its UK
operation and moved to America, where regulations are even more
lax than in the UK. More than 100 MPs have called for an
independent inquiry into the scandal. |
| |
|
Neurological disorders
A destructive wrong turning
Increasingly, marmosets and macaques are being used to study
neurological diseases such as stroke, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and
Huntington's. Monkeys do not suffer naturally from any of these
conditions, so researchers destroy parts of their brain in order to
generate superficially similar symptoms and then test potential
treatments. But there are important differences between these
naturally-occurring diseases in humans and the artificially-induced
monkey versions - differences that render the monkey data invalid.
For example:
- Parkinson's disease becomes progressively worse in patients,
while the chemically-induced marmoset version demonstrates gradual
recovery (25)
- plaques and tangles in the brain are the hallmark of
Alzheimer's disease in humans but not in monkeys (26)
- brain-lesioned marmosets used in the study of Huntington's
disease do not replicate the pathology or symptoms of Huntington's
disease (27)
- the cause of the brain damage is different and one would
therefore expect the treatment to be different too (25)
- countless treatments for stroke have been developed in
primates and other animals - yet all of them have failed or even
harmed patients in clinical trials. 'Over-reliance upon such
animal models [for stroke] may impede rather than advance
scientific progress in the treatment of this disease' -
Professor David Wiebers, Mayo Clinic. (28)
People provide the answers
Future advances in our understanding and treatment of
neurodegenerative diseases will come from where they always have -
human-based observation and ethical clinical research. Everything we
know about these diseases has been learned from studying patients
while they are alive and after they have died - as well as
population research and studies using human tissues cultured from
biopsies or from autopsy samples.
A new brain-imaging probe has allowed the visualisation of
Alzheimer's plaques in the brains of living patients for the first
time. This will enable earlier diagnosis and accurate monitoring of
the effects of treatments. A number of genes implicated in both
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases have been discovered through
population analysis. Biochemical pathways have been charted via the
study of human brain tissue. It is now possible to keep slices of
living brain tissue alive for weeks, allowing researchers to study
the effect of chemicals on entire neural networks, not just
individual cells. Tissues from different parts of the brain can be
co-cultured on the same chip to examine the communication between
them.
Population studies have demonstrated links between dementia and
high cholesterol diets, as well as with smoking, inadequate vitamin
B12 and folate intake, and low oestrogen levels. Valuable
discoveries such as these, from human-based research, render the
study of artificial approximations of the disease in animals
redundant.
'Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative
diseases occur in humans and it is in human tissue that we will find
the answers to these diseases' (29) - Dr John Xuereb, Director
of the Cambridge Brain Bank Laboratory.
In the final section of this special
report, we discuss Cambridge University's plans to build Europe's
largest primate research centre on the outskirts of Cambridge and
outline what you can personally do to help the primates.
Looking to the future
In the final section of our special report on
primate experiments, we highlight Cambridge University's proposal
for a huge primate research centre and explain why this should not
be allowed to go ahead.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: BUAV
Differences are
in the genes
Evolutionary theory
explains why we cannot use one animal to glean detailed
knowledge about another. It is the different genetic make-up of
different species (which ensures their reproductive isolation;
the very definition of a species) that prevents them from being
able to 'model' one another in terms of how they will respond to
a disease or a drug. The differences are not between the
structural genes (which build the body) - it is true that
structural genes are remarkably similar across the species.
Rather, the differences are in the way the structural genes are
turned on and off by the regulatory genes. It is as though
humans and monkeys share a common genetic keyboard on which very
different tunes are being played. What matters is not similarity
with respect to the keyboard but differences with respect to the
order and timing of the pressing of the keys.
'Each species is a small
universe in itself, from its genetic code to its anatomy,
behaviour, life cycle and environmental role, a self-perpetuating
system created during an almost unimaginably complicated
evolutionary history.'
(30) - Dr Edward O. Wilson, Emeritus Professor of
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. |
| |
|
Proposed new primate research centre at Cambridge University
Cambridge University wants to build Europe's largest primate
research centre on the outskirts of Cambridge. Because the proposed
development - the size of two retail superstores - would be on Green
Belt land, it was the subject of a two-week public inquiry at the
close of 2002. The final decision, expected in the summer of 2003,
will be made by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.
It will be difficult for the DPM to reject the application, given
that his boss - Tony Blair - has publicly supported it. An even more
enthusiastic supporter is Science Minister Lord Sainsbury - a man
with his own major financial stake in the biotech industry and who,
at the time of writing, had already donated £11.5 million to the
Labour Party; £8.5 million since joining the government. Such
inappropriate ministerial generosity seriously compromises the
impartiality of the planning process. Equally, Lord Sainsbury's
support of the proposed Cambridge centre is a great boon to his old
university, which stands to reap large financial benefits from
pharmaceutical spin-offs.
The university claims the proposed primate research will advance
understanding of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases,
stroke, depression, schizophrenia, drug addiction and childhood
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
However, this claim was challenged at the public inquiry by a
series of medical experts who highlighted the long history of
failures of primate experimentation. They revealed that the true
origin of progress in neuroscience has always been human-based
research and that future human studies hold the key to finding
treatments for these devastating diseases.
An editorial in New Scientist (23rd November 2002) also sounded a
note of caution on the proposed labs: 'The projected cost
of the new centre is £24 million. The university publicly proclaims
that the centre will find treatments for particular brain disorders
but admitted in its evidence that "much of the research will be more
basic".' The article went on to warn that 'exaggerating the medical
relevance of animal experiments is unacceptable whether it is for
the purposes of PR or gaining grants... If the experiments are
unlikely ever to lead to treatments, they should be beyond the pale.'
The following is a selection of statements submitted to the
inquiry:
'The track record of primate research is abysmal. The
abandonment of animal models is absolutely vital for medicine to
advance.' - Ray Greek MD, Medical Director of Europeans For
Medical Advancement - representing Animal Aid, the National Anti-Vivisection
Society, Naturewatch, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
Uncaged and X-CAPE (Cambridge Against Primate Experiments).
'Continuation of this [primate] research may well retard
understanding of, and the finding of cures for, debilitating
illnesses such as strokes and Parkinson's disease.' - Dr Gill
Langley, representing the British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection.
'No species can function as a reliable biological model for
another species. Even the chimpanzee, our closest relative in
evolutionary terms, is no model for research on the human brain.'
- Professor Claude Reiss, Director of Alzheim' R&D - representing
Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine.
'The new laboratory would merely generate volumes of useless
data at vast expense to the taxpayer and of no value to patients.'
- Jerry Vlasak MD - representing the Physicians' Committee for
Responsible Medicine.
'It is ethically problematic, to say the least, to willingly
waste money on primate experimentation such that more clinically
relevant human research must go underfunded.' - Lawrence Hansen
MD, Professor of Pathology and the Neurosciences, University of
California San Diego School of Medicine.
Throughout the inquiry, the poverty of the university's case was
exposed as was the lack of scientific evidence to support its claims.
The university was unable to document examples of findings from
monkeys translating into progress in medical care for people -
because there are no hard examples to be found.
| |
 |
| |
Credit: BUAV
Read our
Cambridge Inquiry evidence
Animal Aid, working
alongside local Cambridge campaigners, played the leading role
in bringing together the National Anti-Vivisection Society,
Uncaged, PETA, Naturewatch and local activists, X-CAPE (Cambridge
Against Primate Experiments), for joint written and oral
submissions to the Cambridge Inquiry. The 'coalition's'
scientific witness was Ray Greek MD, Medical Director of
Europeans For Medical Advancement and co-author of two ground-breaking
books on the failings of the 'animal model' for human medical
research. - plus further evidence on the . The British
Union for the Abolition of Vivisection made a parallel
presentation to the inquiry, based on the findings of its
Cutting Edge undercover investigation of primate research at
Cambridge University itself. |
| |
|
Centre of excellence
The UK - and indeed, Cambridge University - could be a centre of
excellence in neuroscience without resorting to animal use. The
Neurosciences Research Institute at Aston University is a prime
example of such foresight, with its new 'Academy of Life Sciences'
scheduled to open in April 2004. The £8 million Academy will provide
the opportunity for innovative cross-disciplinary work by the
integration of clinically related research in neuroscience. It will
include research groups working on behavioural and cognitive
sciences, neuro-imaging, vision and ophthalmology.
World-class research on human brains, both living and
post-mortem, such as that conducted at Aston University, the Wolfson
Brain Imaging Centre and Cambridge Brain Bank, is the key to the
future of neuroscience. It is time the public knew that using
nonhuman primates is archaic and dangerous to human health. A
facility to study the brains of monkeys rather than humans would be
a foolish and expensive monument to the past.
'The true enemy of excellence is conservatism, an unthinking
adherence to the shibboleths of the past' - The Observer, 17
Nov 2002, Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government, Oxford
University.
Current primate research at Cambridge University
Cambridge University already conducts monkey brain experiments
related to the study of stroke, Parkinson's, Huntington's and other
neurological disorders. Animal Aid exposed serious flaws in these
experiments in its 2001 Mad Science Awards.
Additionally, the BUAV published a report in May 2002 arising out
of a ten-month undercover investigation of Cambridge University's
primate brain research programme . The report reveals shocking
evidence of animal suffering and a number of breaches of Home Office
licence regulations.
The cutting edge
Marmosets were subjected to major surgery in which their skulls
were sawn open and parts of their brain sucked out. They were then
left unattended overnight, while suffering tremors and bleeding head
wounds. Incredibly, these experiments were formally categorised by
the Home Office - which is charged with regulating such activities -
as leading merely to 'moderate' rather than 'substantial' suffering.
The BUAV investigation additionally revealed that several aspects
of housing and husbandry at Cambridge contravened the Universities
For Animal Welfare guidelines. Before and after surgery the monkeys
were deprived of water for 22 hours per day to force them to perform
the tasks for which they were being trained. Food restriction was
also employed as a motivational tool. Stress is inevitable if
animals are unable to drink when thirsty or can see cage-mates being
fed while they are not. Yet the university stated in its Cambridge
inquiry evidence that 'it is vital for the experiments that the
animals are stress-free'.
Most of the University's primate experiments have been performed
on marmosets. But future research will focus on macaques, because
marmosets' brains, Cambridge has admitted, are 'too small'.
Nevertheless, a marmoset breeding unit is planned for the new
centre. Clearly, their small brains will not preclude their
continued use.
| |
 |
| |
Did primate experiments cause African AIDS catastrophe?
On September 11-12th,
2000, the Royal Society hosted an extraordinary meeting,
convened to examine the theory that the AIDS epidemic was
sparked by trials of oral polio vaccine (OPV) in Africa in the
1950s. The theory claims that SIV (simian immunodeficiency
virus), an organism naturally carried by chimpanzees without ill
effect, was unwittingly passed to humans in contaminated polio
vaccines which were cultured in ground-up chimpanzee kidneys.
Once in its new host, the virus mutated into HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) with devastating effect: 50 million
people are now infected, most of them in Africa. The evidence
which first pointed to such an outcome was the striking
correlation between the earliest African AIDS cases and the
sites of OPV trials in the former Belgian Congo between 1957 and
1960. The theory's main proponent is former UN official and BBC
correspondent, Edward Hooper. Having researched the issue for
more than 10 years, he sets out his case in The River: a
Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS (Little Brown, 1999). |
| |
|
Biohazard
Viral threat to humans
There is a real and potentially serious risk of an outbreak of
human infection resulting from primate use and consequent disposal
of their waste products and body parts into the drainage and
disposal systems. Primates carry a range of diseases that can be
harmful, even fatal, to humans. The herpes simian B virus, which
infects 80-90% of macaques, is a classic example of a virus that can
be dangerous to humans once out of its host species in whom it
causes no illness. Twenty-nine people have died from B virus
infection, all of them laboratory researchers or animal handlers.
Marburg Disease is named after the German town where the first
outbreak occurred in 1967. Twenty-nine laboratory workers became
infected, suffering high fever, slow heart rate, headaches,
inflammation of the eyes, stomach ache, vomiting, diarrhoea, and
prostration. Seven died. They had been exposed to tissues or cell
cultures from recently-imported African green monkeys.
In 1989, the US authorities in New York State banned all imports
of long-tailed, rhesus and African green monkeys when it was
suspected that long-tailed macaques supplied from the Phillippines
were infected with the lethal Ebola virus. They were actually
infected with Reston Strain Filovirus, as were two other macaques in
1996. The Philippines government temporarily banned the export of
monkeys while levels of filovirus infection were investigated; one
facility holding animals infected with the 'Reston' virus was
subsequently closed and hundreds of monkeys were destroyed.
Between 1955 and 1963, millions of people were exposed to monkey
virus SV40 through contaminated oral polio vaccines made from monkey
kidneys. At the time, the virus was thought to be harmless. SV40 is
now known to be associated with several human cancers. Nevertheless,
monkey tissues are still used in vaccine production.
Monkeys undoubtedly harbour innumerable viruses that science has
not yet identified. Clearly, it is impossible to screen for agents
that we don't yet know exist. Who can predict what perils we may
unwittingly unleash upon ourselves, without even realising our
mistake for years or decades? This is especially the case where
disease symptoms take time to become evident - as with AIDS or CJD.
Twenty-four monkeys escaped from primate research facilities in
the US in March 2003 alone, illustrating that total containment,
even of the live animals, cannot be assured in practice. Mistakes
can and will occur.
'The public health risks associated with primate research
laboratories are a matter of serious concern...Guess wrong, and
people may die.' - Dr S Corning, MRCVS, International
consultant on primate infectious diseases, in evidence to Cambridge
University public inquiry on behalf of the International Primate
Protection League.
What you can do
Whether or not Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, gives
permission for Cambridge University's new centre, experiments on
primates have no future. Primate supply is unsustainable and has
been interrupted in the past by conservation or disease threats in
source countries. Public abhorrence of monkey research is likely to
force a curtailment of the practice in the foreseeable future.
Science is moving away from outdated studies of human disease in the
wrong species, towards more productive and clinically relevant
methodologies.
Anyone who witnessed the public inquiry will know that the only
decision that could be justified as being in the public interest
will be a rejection of planning permission.
This is the only sustainable choice and would show an enlightened
recognition of the future direction of scientific discovery.
| |
 |
| |
Your help is vital to
stop primate labs being built. |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
Credit: ISAV |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
Credit: PETA |
| |
|
Action
Please sign the petition
against primate experimentation at or contact BUAV for hard
copies: BUAV, 16a Crane Grove, London N7 8NN. Tel: 020 7700 4888.
Please write to your MP
and express your disgust at this government for promising to reduce
animal experimentation, while actually increasing primate use - the
most contentious aspect of all! Ask him or her to support the Zero
Option campaign for the ending of primate experimentation, as
initiated by the BUAV following its 2002 Cutting Edge
undercover exposé of Cambridge University's primate research. Please
check with Animal Aid and the BUAV on the progress of parliamentary
initiatives, such as an Early Day Motion which you can encourage
your MP to sign.
You can find the name and email address of your MP at or
phone the House of Commons Information Office on 020 7219 4272. The
address for all MPs is: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can
contact MPs directly on 020 7219 3000.
Please also write to:
The Medical Research Council,
and ask it to cease funding primate experiments with your money: Sir
George Radda, MRC, 20 Park Crescent, London W1B 1AL.
The Home Office,
and tell it you believe the use of all primates should be banned as
a matter of urgency: Bob Ainsworth MP, Home Office Minister, 50
Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT.
Cambridge University,
(currently hoping to qualify for 'world-class status') and ask it to
reconsider its use of monkeys before its reputation is tarnished
irreparably: please write a polite, welcoming letter to the new Vice-Chancellor,
who is due to take up her position in October 2003: Professor Alison
Richard, c/o Vice-Chancellor's Private Office, The Old Schools,
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN. Professor Richard has studied
primates throughout the world, but is best known for her work on the
lemurs of Madagascar. For 20 years she has played an active role in
efforts to conserve the remaining forests and wildlife of
Madagascar, through integrating community involvement. She may be a
valuable ally.
Local and national newspapers,
to say that Britain is the monkey -killing capital of
Europe; that experiments on primates have never helped people but
have frequently harmed us; that if John Prescott allows Cambridge
University to build its new lab, the public interest and the
planning process will have been perverted. For further information,
invite readers to contact X-CAPE (Cambridge Against Primate
Experiments) atAnimal Aid: The Old Chapel, Bradford Street,
Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW Tel: 01732 364546;
info@animalaid.org.uk;
www.animalaid.org.uk
All of these letters need only be brief and MUST be polite
please.
Your help is vital. Without public pressure, more and
more primate labs will be built - with consequent monkey suffering
and to the detriment of human health.
REFERENCES
- Statistics of Scientific Procedures on
Living Animals GB 2001, HMSO 2002
- Marie Woolf, Independent, 9th December
2002
- H D Nelson et al, Journal of the American
Medical Association (2002) 288: 872-881, Cancer (2003) 97:
1442
- S Carson et al, Pharmacologist (1971)
18: 272
- CT Eason et al, Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology (1990) 11:288-307
- RD Mann, Modern Drug Use, an Enquiry on
Historical Principles, MTP Press 1984
- Human Toxicology (1987) 6: 436
- CT Eason et al, Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology (1990) 11:288-307
- Lancet (1962) 599-600
- D Smith et al, Laboratory Animals
(2001) 35: 117-130
- BM Bolton and T DeGregorio, Nature Reviews
Drug Discovery (2002) 1 (5): 335-336
- personal communication
- B Ekwall, Toxicology in vitro (1999)
13: 665-673
- New Scientist, 'Pioneers cut out animal
experiments', 31st August 1996
- Leo Lewis, The Independent, 8th
September 2002; 'Will the genes map lead to a dead end?'
- See report at www.gao.gov/new.items/d01286r.pdf
- Statement before the Subcommittee on Hospitals
and Health Care, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives, USA April 26th 1984 serial no. 98-48
- Atlanta Journal Constitution 21st
September 1997
- The Scientist (1999) 13 (16): 7
- New Scientist (2003) 177 (2385): 7 -
see also http://briandeer.com/vaxgen-aidsvax.htm
- F Crick and E Jones, Nature (1993) 361:
109-110
- Science (2002) 296: 233-235 and 340-343
- A Varki, Genome Research (2000) 10:
1065
- PD Nixon and RE Passingham, Neuropsychologia
(2000) 38: 1054-1072
- Medical Research Modernisation Committee,
Perspectives on Medical Res. (1991) 3: 35-46
- PH St. George-Hyslop and DA Westaway, Nature
(1999) 400: 116-117
- AL Kendall et al, Brain (2000) 123 (7):
1442-1458
- Stroke (1990) 21: 1-3
- BBC Radio Cambridge, 7th February 2002
- Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2003)
18: 77-80
This concludes our special report into
primate experimentation.
GO
BACK
