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.     

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.     

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.     

Review: Assessing fish welfare in research and aquaculture,with a focus on European directives

The number of farmed fish in the world has increased considerably. Aquaculture is a growing industry that will in the future provide a large portion of fishery products. Moreover, in recent years, the number of teleost fish used as animal models for scientific research in both biomedical and ecological fields has increased. Therefore, it is increasingly important to implement measures designed to enhance the welfare of these animals. Currently, a number of European rules exist as requirements for the establishment, care and accommodation of fish maintained for human purposes. As far as (teleost) fish are concerned, the fact that the number of extant species is much greater than that of all other vertebrates must be considered. Of further importance is that each species has its own specific physical and chemical requirements. These factors make it difficult to provide generalized recommendations or requirements for all fish species. An adequate knowledge is required of the physiology and ecology of each species bred. This paper integrates and discusses, in a single synthesis, the current issues related to fish welfare, considering that teleosts are target species for both aquaculture and experimental models in biological and biomedical research. We first focus on the practical aspects, which must be considered when assessing fish welfare in both research and aquaculture contexts. Next, we address husbandry and the care of fish housed in research laboratories and aquaculture facilities in relation to their physiological and behavioural requirements, as well as in reference to the suggestions provided by European regulations. Finally, to evaluate precisely which parameters described by Directive 2010/63/EU are reported in scientific papers, we analysed 82 articles published by European researchers in 2014 and 2015. This review found that there is a general lack of information related to the optimal environmental conditions that should be provided for the range of species covered by this directive.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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)     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

国际前沿

高伟坚博士,英籍华人,1986年出生于英国。18岁以全优成绩考取曼彻斯特大学生命科学院。2008年以优等生荣誉毕业,获学士学位。2012年,获得该校博士学位。2004～2012年,先后获得“默沙东杰出学术成就奖”、英联邦帕金森氏病学会的“杰出研究和展示奖”、“曼彻斯特领袖项目”金奖、双重博士奖学金。他从小热爱生物医学,经过系统求学过程及严格的科研训练,在科研课题设计和科技论文撰写方面,表现出不菲的成绩。毕业后仅仅两年,便发表有影响的科技论文4篇。并参与Springer 组织的‘L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson ’ s disease ’一书的编撰工作。同时,还组织申请国际合作课题两项,参研课题四项。高博士现供职于法国波尔多第二大学,在华开展联合研发工作期间,多次表达了“自己作为华人,愿意为祖国生物医学发展贡献自己力量的想法”。也深知华人科学家因为语言障碍,而在科技论文发表和科研课题申请上遇到的重重困难。经我刊编委推荐及编辑部与部分专家讨论商议,特聘请高博士为两刊特约通讯员,开设专栏,希望高博士从信息获取、论文撰写、课题设计等方面开展工作,并定期向我刊介绍业内国际前沿动态,为我刊读者扩大视角。 本期推出神经科学研究中的动物选择和模型制作,欢迎读者就相关内容展开互动。     

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.     

Knowledge acquisition, semantic text mining, and security risks in health and biomedical informatics

Computational techniques have been adopted in medi-cal and biological systems for a long time. There is no doubt that the development and application of computational methods will render great help in better understanding biomedical and biological functions. Large amounts of datasets have been produced by biomedical and biological experiments and simulations. In order for researchers to gain knowledge from origi- nal data, nontrivial transformation is necessary, which is regarded as a critical link in the chain of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and reuse. Challenges that have been encountered include: how to efficiently and effectively represent human knowledge in formal computing models, how to take advantage of semantic text mining techniques rather than traditional syntactic text mining, and how to handle security issues during the knowledge sharing and reuse. This paper summarizes the state-of-the-art in these research directions. We aim to provide readers with an introduction of major computing themes to be applied to the medical and biological research.     

Human research tissue banks: the ATRA Project for establishing a human research tissue bank in switzerland

A large number of experiments in biomedical research are carried out on tissues, but, even though the results should be applicable to humans, these tissues are mainly of animal origin. The difficulty encountered in obtaining human organs and tissues is an acknowledged problem: not enough human tissues are available to meet research needs. We are introducing the ATRA Project, with the purpose of supporting progress in biomedical research in Switzerland through the establishment of one or more human tissue banks, which will be able to find, treat, preserve and supply human material. Where similar projects have already been launched, concerns have been expressed that donation for research purposes might compete with donation for transplantation, but most organs and tissues are in any case non-transplantable. Surplus surgical tissue is considered "sanitary waste", and must be treated according to specific regulations for collection, packaging, transport, treatment and disposal. A human tissue bank would not only abate the costs of treating sanitary waste, but would actually turn what is now considered waste into a resource which could be used to save human and animal lives.     

Centring individual animals to improve research and citation practices

Modern behavioural scientists have come to acknowledge that individual animals may respond differently to the same stimuli and that the quality of welfare and lived experience can affect behavioural responses. However, much of the foundational research in behavioural science lacked awareness of the effect of both welfare and individuality on data, bringing their results into question. This oversight is rarely addressed when citing seminal works as their findings are considered crucial to our understanding of animal behaviour. Furthermore, more recent research may reflect this lack of awareness by replication of earlier methods – exacerbating the problem. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, we critique seminal papers in animal behaviour as a model for re-examining past experiments, attending to gaps in knowledge or concern about how welfare may have affected results. Second, we propose a means to cite past and future research in a way that is transparent and conscious of the abovementioned problems. Third, we propose a method of transparent reporting for future behaviour research that (i) improves replicability, (ii) accounts for individuality of non-human participants, and (iii) considers the impact of the animals' welfare on the validity of the science. With this combined approach, we aim both to advance the conversation surrounding behaviour scholarship while also serving to drive open engagement in future science.     

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.     

Use and misuse of an imprecise concept: alternative methods in animal experiments

The concept of inhumanity of Russell & Burch in 1959 with proposals for human procedures in experiments on animals by way of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3 R's) and the revival of these by Smyth (1978) as alternatives to animal experiments are presented. Since then under the name 'alternative methods', replacement of in vivo by in vitro methods has found great public attention and promotion. It is argued that alternative methods are a fallacy, because in the progress of research a continual control and reinvestigation of findings on each system level is required until knowledge is complete, which makes in vivo experiments irreplaceable. True alternatives exist only for refinement within a system level. On the level of the organism, refinement would be in the care of animals and experimental procedure through alleviation of stress. The possibilities which refinement offers for animal welfare have been nearly forgotten and need promotion among researchers, animal technicians and attendants.