Kathleen Conlee

The Case for Phasing Out Experiments on Primates

Whether they realize it or not, most stakeholders in the debate about using animals for research agree on the common goal of seeking an end to research that causes animals harm. The central issues in the controversy are about how much effort should be devoted to that goal and when we might reasonably expect to achieve it. Some progress has already been made: The number of animals used for research is about half what it was in the 1970s, and biomedical research has reached the point where we can reasonably begin to envision a time when it could advance without causing harm to animals. With some effort and aggressive development of new biomedical research technologies, full replacement of animals in harmful research is within our grasp. The goal will not be reached all at once, however, and phasing out invasive research on all nonhuman primates should be the priority.

Noncompliance with Public Health Service (PHS) policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals: an exploratory analysis.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a major biomedical research-funding body in the United States. Approximately 40% of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on nonhuman animals (Monastersky, 2008). Institutions that conduct animal research with NIH funds must adhere to the Public Health Service (PHS) care and use standards of the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW, 2002a). Institutions deviating significantly from the PHSs animal care and use standards must report these incidents to the NIHs OLAW. This study is an exploratory analysis of all the significant deviations reported by animal-research facilities to OLAW during a 3-month period. The study identifies the most common issues reported and species involved. The study found that the majority of the incidents resulted in animal pain and distress and that 75% ended in animal death. This study offers preliminary recommendations to address the most common problems identified in this analysis. This study urges OLAW and other stakeholders to analyze larger, more recent samples of reported deviations to compare with these results and ultimately improve adherence to animal welfare standards.