The poor contribution of chimpanzee experiments to biomedical progress

Biomedical research on captive chimpanzees incurs substantial nonhuman animal welfare, ethical, and financial costs that advocates claim resultin substantial advancements in biomedical knowledge. However, demonstrating minimal contribution toward the advancement of biomedical knowledge generally, subsequent papers did not cite 49.5% (47/95), of 95 experiments randomly selected from a population of 749 published worldwide between 1995 and 2004. Only 14.7% (14/95) were cited by 27 papers that abstracts indicated described well-developed methods for combating human diseases. However, detailed examination of these medical papers revealed that in vitrostudies, human clinical and epidemiological studies, molecular assays and methods, and genomic studies contributed most to their development. No chimpanzee study made an essential contribution, or, in most cases, a significant contribution of any kind, to the development of the medical method described. The approval of these experiments indicates a failure of the ethics committee system. The demonstrable lack of benefit of most chimpanzee experimentation and its profound animal welfare and bioethical costs indicate that a ban is warranted in those remaining countries—notably the United States—that continue to conduct it.     

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility

The assumption that animal models are reasonably predictive of human outcomes provides the basis for their widespread use in toxicity testing and in biomedical research aimed at developing cures for human diseases. To investigate the validity of this assumption, the comprehensive Scopus biomedical bibliographic databases were searched for published systematic reviews of the human clinical or toxicological utility of animal experiments. In 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, the authors concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes, in only two cases, one of which was contentious. These included reviews of the clinical utility of experiments expected by ethics committees to lead to medical advances, of highly-cited experiments published in major journals, and of chimpanzee experiments--those involving the species considered most likely to be predictive of human outcomes. Seven additional reviews failed to clearly demonstrate utility in predicting human toxicological outcomes, such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Consequently, animal data may not generally be assumed to be substantially useful for these purposes. Possible causes include interspecies differences, the distortion of outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments, which was evident in at least 11 reviews. No reviews existed in which the majority of animal experiments were of good methodological quality. Whilst the effects of some of these problems might be minimised with concerted effort (given their widespread prevalence), the limitations resulting from interspecies differences are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome. Non-animal models are generally required to pass formal scientific validation prior to their regulatory acceptance. In contrast, animal models are simply assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. These results demonstrate the invalidity of such assumptions. The consistent application of formal validation studies to all test models is clearly warranted, regardless of their animal, non-animal, historical, contemporary or possible future status. Likely benefits would include, the greater selection of models truly predictive of human outcomes, increased safety of people exposed to chemicals that have passed toxicity tests, increased efficiency during the development of human pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic interventions, and decreased wastage of animal, personnel and financial resources. The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility.     

Behavioral management of chimpanzees in biomedical research facilities: the state of the science

The current status of the behavioral management of chimpanzees housed in US research facilities is examined, and recent advances are described. Behavioral management includes the application of environmental enrichment, animal training, and environmental design for improving animal welfare. Authors surveyed the six major chimpanzee holding facilities and found that the vast majority of chimpanzees are housed socially, with access to the outdoors. The institutions currently invest in behavioral scientists, enrichment specialists, and, most recently, chimpanzee trainers to implement and study chimpanzee behavioral management. This review is based on the substantial scientific literature related to managing social behavior, identifying the behavioral effects of restricted socialization, evaluating various forms of enrichment, and describing positive reinforcement animal training. Authors outline recent accomplishments in behavioral management, summarize behavioral issues that have been evaluated, and identify issues for future consideration. It is proposed that the enhanced application of behavioral management techniques, including training, could significantly reduce chimpanzee stress that is generally associated with experimental manipulations, and could improve animal welfare and the quality of biomedical research. The next challenge is to implement effectively and thoroughly the approaches that have been shown to be beneficial.     

Preparing chimpanzees for laboratory research

The chimpanzee is the only representative of the Great Apes that is extensively involved in biomedical research in primate laboratories. These apes are used as animal models in a variety of studies, including research on infectious disease, parasitic disease, pharmacokinetic studies, neuroscience, cognition, and behavior. Chimpanzees used in biomedical research in the United States reside largely in six specialized research and holding facilities, and most of the research with them is conducted at these sites. Given the relatively small population of chimpanzees and its importance to biomedical research, it is imperative that we carefully manage the care, production, and use of these animals in biomedical research studies. Selection criteria and preparation techniques are reviewed in this article in an effort to begin a discussion on best practices for choosing and handling chimpanzees participating in biomedical research. The use of routine health assessment information is described for subject selection, as are behavioral issues to be considered. Due to the relatively small number of chimpanzees available, issues related to experimental design and multiple uses of chimpanzees are discussed. Practices related to the transportation and acclimation of chimpanzees are described. Finally, behavioral conditioning procedures are discussed, including habituation, desensitization, and positive reinforcement training that have been applied to reduce animal distress and improve the quality of the science being conducted with chimpanzee subjects.     

An assessment of the use of chimpanzees in hepatitis C research past, present and future: 1. Validity of the chimpanzee model

The USA is the only significant user of chimpanzees in biomedical research in the world, since many countries have banned or limited the practice due to substantial ethical, economic and scientific concerns. Advocates of chimpanzee use cite hepatitis C research as a major reason for its necessity and continuation, in spite of supporting evidence that is scant and often anecdotal. This paper examines the scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee hepatitis C research, and concludes that claims of the necessity of chimpanzees in historical and future hepatitis C research are exaggerated and unjustifiable, respectively. The chimpanzee model has several major scientific, ethical, economic and practical caveats. It has made a relatively negligible contribution to knowledge of, and tangible progress against, the hepatitis C virus compared to non-chimpanzee research, and must be considered scientifically redundant, given the array of alternative methods of inquiry now available. The continuation of chimpanzee use in hepatitis C research adversely affects scientific progress, as well as chimpanzees and humans in need of treatment. Unfounded claims of its necessity should not discourage changes in public policy regarding the use of chimpanzees in US laboratories.     

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) responses to caregiver use of chimpanzee behaviors

The relationships between captive primates and their caregivers are critical ones and can affect animal welfare. Friendly relationships can improve quality of life; adversely, agonistic relationships can decrease quality of life. Caregivers in and of themselves should not be stressful to their charges, instead the caregivers' behaviors and the nature of their interactions with captive primates is likely the basis for the stress. One method to promote positive relationships in the captive environment is for caregivers to employ species‐specific behaviors in their interactions with their charges. This study tested the effect of caregivers' use of these behaviors with chimpanzees at The Zoo Northwest Florida in Gulf Breeze. The chimpanzee participants were three males. Data collection occurred during typical interactions between the human participants and the chimpanzees. Some days the caregiver presented chimpanzee behaviors and vocalizations (CB—Chimpanzee Behavior Condition) in the data collection interactions with the chimpanzees. On other days the caregiver presented human behaviors and used speech (HB—Human Behavior Condition) in the interactions with the chimpanzees. The interactions were videotaped. Data coders recorded the behavioral contexts for each chimpanzee as they occurred on the videotape and the time that each context began. Overall they engaged in significantly more friendly behaviors such as play in CB than in HB. They were significantly less interactive in HB than CB. Caregivers should understand and employ species‐specific interactions with chimpanzees to promote friendly interactions and animal welfare. Zoo Biol 27:345–359, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Animal welfare and the refinement of neuroscience research methods--a case study of Huntington's disease models

The use of animals in biomedical and other research presents an ethical dilemma: we do not want to lose scientific benefits, nor do we want to cause laboratory animals to suffer. Scientists often refer to the potential human benefits of animal models to justify their use. However, even if this is accepted, it still needs to be argued that the same benefits could not have been achieved with a mitigated impact on animal welfare. Reducing the adverse effects of scientific protocols ('refinement') is therefore crucial in animal-based research. It is especially important that researchers share knowledge on how to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. We have previously demonstrated that even in studies in which animal use leads to spontaneous death, scientists often fail to report measures to minimize animal distress (Olsson et al. 2007). In this paper, we present the full results of a case study examining reports, published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2004, of experiments employing animal models to study the neurodegenerative disorder Huntington's disease. In 51 references, experiments in which animals were expected to develop motor deficits so severe that they would have difficulty eating and drinking normally were conducted, yet only three references were made to housing adaptation to facilitate food and water intake. Experiments including end-stages of the disease were reported in 14 papers, yet of these only six referred to the euthanasia of moribund animals. If the reference in scientific publications reflects the actual application of refinement, researchers do not follow the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) principle. While in some cases, it is clear that less-than-optimal techniques were used, we recognize that scientists may apply refinement without referring to it; however, if they do not include such information in publications, it suggests they find it less relevant. Journal publishing policy could play an important role: first, in ensuring that referees seriously consider whether submitted studies were indeed carried out with the smallest achievable negative impact on the animals and, secondly, in encouraging scientists to share refinements through the inclusion of a 3Rs section in papers publishing the results of animal-based research.     

在机能实验教学中加强动物实验伦理学教育的实践与思考

动物实验是机能实验学中的主要研究手段,对帮助医学生加深课堂理论知识的理解,提高动物实验操作技能有十分重要的作用。实验动物的伦理问题已经在生物医学研究中得到广泛关注,在机能实验教学中加强动物实验伦理学教育是医学生医德培养的重要途径。     

Lessons from chimpanzee-based research on human disease: the implications of genetic differences

Assertions that the use of chimpanzees to investigate human diseases is valid scientifically are frequently based on a reported 98-99% genetic similarity between the species. Critical analyses of the relevance of chimpanzee studies to human biology, however, indicate that this genetic similarity does not result in sufficient physiological similarity for the chimpanzee to constitute a good model for research, and furthermore, that chimpanzee data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans. Leading examples include the minimal citations of chimpanzee research that is relevant to human medicine, the highly different pathology of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C virus infection in the two species, the lack of correlation in the efficacy of vaccines and treatments between chimpanzees and humans, and the fact that chimpanzees are not useful for research on human cancer. The major molecular differences underlying these inter-species phenotypic disparities have been revealed by comparative genomics and molecular biology - there are key differences in all aspects of gene expression and protein function, from chromosome and chromatin structure to post-translational modification. The collective effects of these differences are striking, extensive and widespread, and they show that the superficial similarity between human and chimpanzee genetic sequences is of little consequence for biomedical research. The extrapolation of biomedical data from the chimpanzee to the human is therefore highly unreliable, and the use of the chimpanzee must be considered of little value, particularly given the breadth and potential of alternative methods of enquiry that are currently available to science.     

Epidemiological studies on radiation carcinogenesis in human populations following acute exposure: nuclear explosions and medical radiation.

The present review provides an understanding of our current knowledge of the carcinogenic effect of low-dose radiation in man, and surveys the epidemiological studies of human populations exposed to nuclear explosions and medical radiation. Discussion centers on the contributions of quantitative epidemiology to present knowledge, the reliability of the dose-incidence data, and those relevant epidemiological studies that provide the most useful information for risk estimation of cancer induction in man. Reference is made to dose-incidence relationships from laboratory animal experiments where they may obtain, for problems and difficulties in extrapolation from data obtained at high doses to low doses, and from animal data to the human situation. The paper describes the methods of application of such epidemiological data for estimation of excess risk of radiation-induced cancer in exposed human populations and discusses the strengths and limitations of epidemiology in guiding radiation protection philosophy and public health policy.     

Animal Welfare in Studies on Murine Tuberculosis: Assessing Progress over a 12-Year Period and the Need for Further Improvement

There is growing concern over the welfare of animals used in research, in particular when these animals develop pathology. The present study aims to identify the main sources of animal distress and to assess the possible implementation of refinement measures in experimental infection research, using mouse models of tuberculosis (TB) as a case study. This choice is based on the historical relevance of mouse studies in understanding the disease and the present and long-standing impact of TB on a global scale. Literature published between 1997 and 2009 was analysed, focusing on the welfare impact on the animals used and the implementation of refinement measures to reduce this impact. In this 12-year period, we observed a rise in reports of ethical approval of experiments. The proportion of studies classified into the most severe category did however not change significantly over the studied period. Information on important research parameters, such as method for euthanasia or sex of the animals, were absent in a substantial number of papers. Overall, this study shows that progress has been made in the application of humane endpoints in TB research, but that a considerable potential for improvement remains.     

在机能实验教学中加强动物实验伦理学教育的实践与思考

动物实验是机能实验学申的主要研究手段,对帮助医学生加深课堂理论知识的理解,提高动物实验操作技能有十分重要的作用。实验动物的伦理问题已经在生物医学研究中得到广泛关注,在机能实验教学中加强动物实验伦理学教育是医学生医德培养的重要途径。     

Life-long well being: applying animal welfare science to nonhuman primates in sanctuaries

Nonhuman primates have become common in sanctuaries, and a few such facilities even specialize in their care. Sanctuaries can improve the well being of many unwanted primates, especially in terms of housing and socialization. However, diverse facilities call themselves sanctuaries, and they have varying conditions, care programs, and restrictions. In addition, a general lack of regulation of sanctuaries for nonhuman animals creates problems in enforcing even minimal standards. The application of animal welfare science in the sanctuary setting can help foster high standards and empirically based decision making. Sanctuaries offer excellent environments for studying primates without the limitations inherent in breeding, exhibition, and medical research facilities. However, some sanctuaries avoid scientific study. Many sanctuaries have little opportunity to study animal welfare in a systematic manner due to financial considerations or a lack of specific expertise among staff and volunteers. Most published sanctuary research involves reintroduction procedures at sanctuaries in source countries. Nevertheless, one chimpanzee sanctuary's successes in performing long-term studies and using simple evaluation methods, such as check sheets, have demonstrated the benefits of applying animal welfare science to sanctuary-housed nonhuman primates.     

Life-Long Well Being: Applying Animal Welfare Science to Nonhuman Primates in Sanctuaries

Nonhuman primates have become common in sanctuaries, and a few such facilities even specialize in their care. Sanctuaries can improve the well being of many unwanted primates, especially in terms of housing and socialization. However, diverse facilities call themselves sanctuaries, and they have varying conditions, care programs, and restrictions. In addition, a general lack of regulation of sanctuaries for nonhuman animals creates problems in enforcing even minimal standards. The application of animal welfare science in the sanctuary setting can help foster high standards and empirically based decision making. Sanctuaries offer excellent environments for studying primates without the limitations inherent in breeding, exhibition, and medical research facilities. However, some sanctuaries avoid scientific study. Many sanctuaries have little opportunity to study animal welfare in a systematic manner due to financial considerations or a lack of specific expertise among staff and volunteers. Most published sanctuary research involves reintroduction procedures at sanctuaries in source countries. Nevertheless, one chimpanzee sanctuary's successes in performing long-term studies and using simple evaluation methods, such as check sheets, have demonstrated the benefits of applying animal welfare science to sanctuary-housed nonhuman primates.     

Ethical considerations in fish research

Fishes are used in a wide range of scientific studies, from conservation research with potential benefits to the species used to biomedical research with potential human benefits. Fish research can take place in both laboratories and field environments and methods used represent a continuum from non-invasive observations, handling, through to experimental manipulation. While some countries have legislation or guidance regarding the use of fish in research, many do not and there exists a diversity of scientific opinions on the sentience of fish and how we determine welfare. Nevertheless, there is a growing pressure on the scientific community to take more responsibility for the animals they work with through maximising the benefits of their research to humans or animals while minimising welfare or survival costs to their study animals. In this review, we focus primarily on the refinement of common methods used in fish research based on emerging knowledge with the aim of improving the welfare of fish used in scientific studies. We consider the use of anaesthetics and analgesics and how we mark individuals for identification purposes. We highlight the main ethical concerns facing researchers in both laboratory and field environments and identify areas that need urgent future research. We hope that this review will help inform those who wish to refine their ethical practices and stimulate thought among fish researchers for further avenues of refinement. Improved ethics and welfare of fishes will inevitably lead to increased scientific rigour and is in the best interests of both fishes and scientists.     

The Take Care Program and Responsible Use of Antibiotics

While the contribution of antimicrobial use in pork production to resistant bacteria in human health is uncertain, pork producers have the responsibility to deliver safe and wholesome pork to consumers. The development of a comprehensive producer education and awareness program focused on the responsible use of antimicrobials in pork production is described. The Take Care—Use Antibiotics Responsibly^TM program is based on principles and guidelines that provide the producer and veterinarian the basis for antibiotic use decision-making. The goal of the program is to protect public health while preserving animal health and welfare.     

Modeling sepsis in the laboratory: merging sound science with animal well-being

Despite impressive advances in biomedical research, few noteworthy breakthroughs have been made in the treatment of sepsis during the past several decades. This stalemate is primarily due to the intricate and heterogenic nature of the systemic immune responses characterized as the sepsis syndrome. In general, such complexity must be approached with in vivo models. Several animal models have been described, suggesting that none adequately address all of the pressing needs in sepsis research. The most clinically applicable models involve a localized infection, such as surgically induced polymicrobial sepsis, that gradually propagates a systemic immune response. Because relevant models must mimic a severe and chronic syndrome, animal well-being is often a concern in sepsis research. A balance between the needs of sepsis research and animal welfare can only be achieved through knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of and alternatives to in vivo sepsis models.     

Research with animals: requirement, responsibility, welfare

Recognition of unacceptable cruelty to animals in pasttimes such as bull-baiting, dates in Britain from the early 19th century. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1824. Several bills to curb cruelty were discussed in Parliament, and the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle Act was passed in 1822. Other Acts have followed over the years. Cruelty in the form of painful scientific experiments, including dissection of living, conscious animals, vivisection, was proscribed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. That Act required anyone wishing to experiment with animals to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State. Conditions for issue of licences were strict and remain so to this day. The Act is still valid, and is enforced by the Home Office, with its medical and veterinary Inspectors. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 allows experiments on animals under strictly controlled conditions. Experiments must have the clear objective of improving the welfare of man and/or animals. Benefits from experiments carried out under the Act have been enormous, covering every aspect of diagnosis, treatment, and prophylaxis in human and veterinary medicine. Coincidentally, the welfare of laboratory animals has also been greatly improved. There has always been some opposition to the use of animals in biomedical research. The subject is emotive but, by and large, discussion has been rational and within the law. In recent years, however, the morality of using experimental animals has been examined more closely. The possibility of replacing them by alternative methods has been investigated. Where these alternatives are applicable, they are used and further research on them continues. The questioning of animal experiments has emphasized the need to look constantly at animal welfare to ensure humane treatment of all animals, especially those restricted in a laboratory or on a farm. Attention has been drawn in this work to our existing laws protecting animals, but new legislation is being demanded, not only by some lay welfare groups but also by scientists. Hence, it has become very important to discuss various ways of ensuring animal welfare, including by legislation, especially with those knowledgeable in laboratory animal science and animal experiments.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

The use of human tissues and cells in biomedical research: the unusual suspects

There are compelling reasons to search for alternatives to the use of animals in medical and pharmaceutical research. Aside from the obvious animal welfare issues, both the well-established differences between animal models and humans, and the inherent inter-individual variability in human biological responses, indicate that human-based alternatives are urgently required. However, any such alternative must out-perform the animal-based alternative, otherwise there will be little or no uptake and adoption by end-users. Data obtained from inbred animal models is often highly reproducible, and is therefore attractive to researchers in the fields of biomedical and pharmaceutical research. The inter-individual variability observed during human volunteer and human tissue-based studies is often considered to be problematic, and has been highlighted further with the advent of the 'omics' technologies, which generate large biological datasets. However, the variability in both baseline data and response to pharmacological or toxicological challenge observed in human tissues potentially contains a veritable gold mine of information, which may be critical for the advancement of drug discovery.     

Comparison of research cost: man--primate animal--other animal models

The costs of research in human subjects are compared to those in primate animals and in other animal models on the basis of data available from a U.S. institution. The cost of experimentation in a chimpanzee is 3.59% of the per diem cost of clinical research in man. The cost for the dog is 37.1% of that of the chimpanzee, and the mouse costs 2.02% of the cost of the dog.