• Home
• About us
• Take action
• Campaigns
• Media centre
• Publications
• Store

Issues

• About vivisection
• Animal rescues
• Research
  without animals

• About LDF
• Applying for a grant
• New Science
• News
• Projects
• Reports

• Animal Defenders International
• My Mate’s a Primate

• Work with LDF

• Translation

1. Scientific Steering Committee ‘Statement’ section

12 July 2007

In its first statement, the SSC considers that the use of NHP will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

• justification
• the possible existence of alternatives
• ethical considerations
• the problems that could result from not using NHP (i.e. perceived need)
• unnecessary and duplicated or redundant research using nonhuman primates should be avoided at all costs (and for example by a EU-wide coordination between research laboratories),
• that the housing and welfare conditions of the animals should be optimal
• that, for each research proposal, it should be verified that no alternative is available and that it is ethically justified.

However, it considers that for certain experiments there may be no alternatives to the use of non-human primates, for example, drugs and vaccines for diseases such as: AIDS, TSE 1, malaria, influenza.

ADI Response – duplication, redundant research:

Whilst so much research and testing is carried out in secret, and much unpublished, duplication or redundant research on non-human primate species is almost inevitable.

• Data sharing by companies developing new products is an ongoing problem. Commercial testing laboratories are obliged to keep results secret, as they are commercially sensitive and the property of the client.
• For chemicals, the REACH regulations provide for mandatory data sharing. This was considered to be critical for avoiding the duplication of animal tests between, often competing, commercial companies. Commissioner Margot Wallström commented: “..several measures are foreseen... to avoid unnecessary tests, to save animal lives and to reduce cost to the Industry. For example, available data will be accepted to avoid performing new tests, and the establishment of consortia for data sharing will be strongly encouraged”.
• At Inveresk contract testing laboratory in Scotland, some animals were used in tests for products that were already in human trials. And in a test for an asthma drug, cynomologus monkeys suffered effects including, diarrhoea, swelling in the stomach, the males’ testes increased in weight, they suffered red and swollen penises and scrota and females suffered abdominal and umbilical hernias. The monkeys lost weight and their heart rates fell. Yet the (confidential) report of this study admits that the client was in possession of information from previous experiments on cynomolgus monkeys, “.... has indicated that the test compound may affect the cardiac function and produce pericardial effusion in cynomolgus monkeys when given intravenously or via inhalation”11.
• In 2002, 5 rhesus macaques were infected with HIV in order to test the efficacy of vaccines. The animals were given four immunizations at 3-week intervals. The vaccines were already being tested in human clinical trials when the experiment began and no new knowledge was gained12.
• All but one of the findings in a study using chimpanzees to look at the differences between acute and chronic hepatitis, were supported by an equivalent human study13.
• During HIV experiments with newborn macaques, different infants were given infected material by mouth – one animal was fed the blood of another youngster that had developed AIDS. The findings were unclear, but the authors claim a paper from two years previously, confirmed their findings in neonates14.

Send this page to a friend