• 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 – justification; species differences; limitations of laboratory animal research:

There is scientific criticism of the use of animal models of human disease, for example:

• “Animal models cannot determine whether a vaccine will be effective against HIV-1 infection of humans; only phase III trials in humans can do so”1.
• The outcome of laboratory animal tests can be influenced by many factors including sex, age, diet, genetic strain, health, degree of starvation, method of dosing, temperature, humidity, and even bedding material2.
• “Animal models can only be validated after successful trials in humans… “It would be risky to extrapolate vaccine success based solely on results of challenge studies in nonhuman primates”3.
• “Animal models differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human disease, are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient”4.
• The various elements of the laboratory environment i.e. loud noises, restraint and separation from companions are said to have the same effect as electric shocks in that they hamper the antibody response to bacterial and viral infections, while stresses affect the nervous system, thus increasing circulating hormones and suppressing the immune function5.

Send this page to a friend