VIVISECTION AND THE ABUSE OF PRIMATES

Introduction

Animal experimentation, like slavery, is a fundamental underpinning of societal injustice because it treats animals as mere tools or things. This reductionist treatment of animal bodies as biofactories results from an inexplicable and repugnant view of organisms as mere commodified machines and artefacts to be manipulated and reconstructed according to human whim. Ignoring the interests of an animal just because they are not human is speciesism, an immorality akin to racism.

In October 1997 the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism at the time, Dr Pallo Jordan said that there was no national policy on the export of primates and that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was in the process of developing a national policy on the use of animals in research experiments and the export of primates to other countries.” We are now in 2009 and to date there is still no national policy.

The profound ethical implications arising from experimentation on non-human primates are beginning to reshape regulations governing animal experimentation in other countries but not in South Africa. There are no official or independently verifiable figures available on the number of indigenous primates in South Africa. This means that their population status, the extent of trapping, mortality rates, the number of permits granted to trap, information relating to holding facilities, the number of primates used in scientific procedures, and the kinds of experiments where primates are used is unknown.

The key capacity that should protect other primates from experimentation is their ability to experience pain, suffering and distress. The notion that humans are unique has been shattered under the weight of new knowledge, and we must urgently review the way we treat other animals. And in the case of primates, the scientific evidence itself demonstrates that there is no sufficient biological rationale for morally discriminating between all humans and all other primates.

The very act of being in a laboratory is immensely stressful to primates. The laboratory is very different to their natural environment in space and complexity, so they suffer from both physical and mental confinement. In addition the nature of transport – the capture, placing in boxes, travel and isolation has significant adverse effects on primates. Internationally anti-vivisection organisations draw attention to the use of primates in experiments because they argue that the vivisection industry has acted immorally and ecologically irresponsibly by decimating tens of thousands of indigenous primates and linking into the legal and illegal trade of primates. Confining animals, who would normally live in a very large and complex home range in the laboratory, must have a significant adverse effect on their welfare. At its best laboratory primate housing represents only a small fraction of their home range. The worst, still commonly used in many countries, is a small, barren metal box in which the animals can only take a few steps in any direction. Other aspects of the lifetime experience of laboratory primates also cause stress and suffering, particularly where they cannot control their environment, social grouping, or what is done to them. Any pain or distress associated with experimental procedures is therefore compounded by additional adverse effects resulting from capture, breeding practices, transport, housing, identification, restraint, and finally, death. For these reasons alone, the use of primates in research and testing is a matter of extreme concern.

Clearly our primate cousins suffer terribly in laboratories and urgent action is required to end these tests. The technology to achieve change already exists - it is institutional inertia and vested interests that are holding back progress. Universities should be moving forward and developing a centre of excellence for cutting-edge, non-animal research which would only enhance their reputations as seats of human progress.

A number of initiatives around the globe, involving the public, politicians and scientific and ethical experts, have been calling for a new relationship with our close primate relatives. The pressure to protect all primates, not just the apes, from laboratory experiments is strong and ever growing. Despite the growing weight of opinion against primate experiments, there is no evidence that globally they are decreasing. Indeed, in many instances they are increasing. Thus it seems that the views of primate researchers are diverging rapidly from those of the public on whose behalf they conduct their experiments.

Morally Reprehensible

There are compelling indications that non-human primates in experiments suffer as intensely, both physically and emotionally, as humans would suffer in the same experiments. Recognising this, we are ethically compelled to stop using them in experiments. The moral status of primates is at the centre of the ethical debate about their use in biomedical research and testing. Decades of painstaking observations of primate behaviour in natural habitats have fuelled the revolution in our understanding of the mental, social and cultural complexities of primates. Primates are highly intelligent social animals who in the wild have large home ranges covering a rich and varied habitat in which they display a complex range of behaviours. Confining them in laboratories and using them in experiments causes them an immense amount of suffering which is totally unacceptable.

Primates share with us many morally relevant capacities that were once thought unique to humans. There is very powerful evidence that animals throughout the order of mammals, at the least, are conscious of their pain, pleasure, appetites and emotions, as well as being conscious of the outside world. Monkeys, as well as apes and humans, 'know what they know and remember' and also 'know when they forget'. They communicate meaning as well as emotion in their vocalisations; understand and use abstract symbols; mentally represent numbers; undertake problem-solving; constantly make decisions; comprehend cause and effect; form concepts and have desires; observe and interpret the gaze of other individuals, and practice deception. There are strong, affectionate bonds between individuals, particularly mothers and offspring, and maternal siblings, that may persist throughout life. They show emotions clearly similar to those we label happy, sad, angry, and depressed. They have a sense of self and a sense of humour. Like us, they can be aggressive and even brutal or compassionate and altruistic.



Like us, they are able to remember past events and anticipate and fear future experiences – such as pain. These attributes are morally significant because they show that other primates are harmed not only by physical pain, but also by mental and emotional distress - such as is caused by a barren environment, frustration, restraint or social isolation and the presence, or anticipation, or something fearful or painful.

In laboratories primates are kept in conditions that are considered unacceptable and illegal in every other animal use endeavour. They are caged alone - out of touch and sometimes even out of sight and hearing of their fellows. Their movement is greatly restricted, and they undergo invasive and often painful experimentation. All of this results in massive physical and emotional stress. It is not surprising that many literally go insane, displaying abnormal behaviour such as repeated stereotypic movements, self mutilation or hair loss. For those primates that are caught in the wild, to this is added the stresses of capture and storage, before the long and often fatal journey to primate dealers and laboratories around the world. The laboratory environment therefore causes immense suffering even before any research has started. There is thus a continuum of consciousness and cognition throughout the primate order and most likely throughout the whole animal kingdom, in ways that we have only recently begun to understand.

The fact that sentient animals feel pain and distress is sufficient reason, on moral grounds, to avoid inflicting them. However in the case of experimentation, it is often argued that the potential benefits to humans justify keeping animals in unnatural and highly confined conditions and causing them pain, suffering and distress. We disagree with this anthropocentric viewpoint. It can never be morally acceptable to conduct invasive research on beings so like us. The very nature of a primate is such that you cannot institutionalise it in the laboratory and have a healthy animal. A primate is such that isolating in itself is deleterious. To imprison them in small cages, their only stimulation, other than the delivery of food and the cleaning of their cages, lab personnel performing protocols on them? If we look into the eyes of one of these primates, shall we not feel deep shame? We must realize that we humans are part of the natural world, a world peopled with beings who, like us, think and, above all, feel. Their lives have meaning in their own right - not meant for our selfish benefit, to be used, abused, and discarded. It's time we used our superior intellect to find alternatives to invasive medical experiments on all sapient, sentient beings. The continued treatment of animals as malleable artefacts is as much a threat to human’s own vital sensibilities as it is to animal welfare, and that it will progressively erode the scope for and substance of human’s moral existence.

Experiments on other primates do not benefit humans

Amid growing tension and controversy over animal research, and experimentation involving other primates in particular, one salient point is being avoided - does it actually work? Has using other primates in experiments made a positive contribution to human medical progress?

Professors Pound, Ebrahim, Sandercock, Bracken and Roberts argue that animal research in to potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews (article in the British Medical Journal 2004). The need for primate research is not "self evident” and its validity highly questionable. But, for a variety of political and vested interests reasons, few scientists openly question whether primate models are a reliable research method. One of the main obstacles to open discussion and debate is that researchers, threatened by those who oppose their modus operandi, believe that the best strategy is to defend all animal research regardless of its actual value and to discourage and actively suppress criticism from within their ranks.

For the benefit of human medical progress, it is time for objectivity, transparency and honesty in the assessment of primate models and their contribution to medical science. Only by ensuring this, can we be confident that we are utilizing scientific technology to the full, performing the best translational research possible, and making real progress towards the relief of human suffering and disease. Exploitative primate research diverts funding from more productive and effective non-animal research

Primate research on the three leading killers; heart disease, cancer and stroke, has failed to yield significant insights about the diseases in humans, or to produce drugs to treat them. The scientific literature is replete with examples of PRIMATE data confounding human disease research by conflicting with known human data or by leading research up ‘blind alleys’, or even by causing human harm when translated to the clinic.

Every area of research in which other primates have been used provides evidence against its utility:

1. AIDS Although HIV can infect chimpanzees it does not induce disease in them. Human beings are the only species to have been found to be susceptible to HIV38. Experimental results cannot be confidently extrapolated to humans. None of 50-plus PRIMATE-tested vaccines (such as “Aidsvax”) has succeeded in humans. Currently, the favoured ‘animal model’ of AIDS uses rhesus monkeys infected by a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus called SIV, or an artificial hybrid virus called SHIV. Although it is possible that a long time ago SIV mutated into HIV in humans when we ate infected monkeys, monkeys do not catch HIV and we do not catch SIV. There are a number of key differences between the two viruses which show why SIV is a poor model for human HIV and AIDS. Decades of harmful research have subjected thousands of monkeys to pain, illness and death in their experiments. It is time that the false hope that primate research will help us fight the AIDS epidemic should be abandoned. Effective anti-HIV drugs were conceived and developed using in vitro and in silico methods, without reliance on animal models. Non-animal methods have always been and will continue to be the way forward for beating AIDS.
2. Hepatitis (HCV)
   Primate experiments have failed to contribute to elucidate HCV infection, vaccine development, and understanding hepatocellular damage, with most progress relying on in vitro and clinical studies. Significant differences exist in viral infection and disease between humans and other primates.
3. Alzheimer's disease
   Primate models have failed to inform us of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Plaques and tangles in the brain are the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease in humans, but not in monkeys. Human and in vitro studies produced the important genetic, biochemical, and lifestyle information and hypotheses that are elucidating the disease. An Alzheimer’s “vaccine”—AN-1792—was well-tolerated in monkeys, but caused strokes and inflammation of the central nervous system in humans.
4. Parkinson’s Disease
   Fundamental differences in the symptoms and pathology of Parkinson’s disease exist between other primates and humans. Major breakthroughs arose through epidemiology, clinical studies, genetic research, human tissue studies, and autopsies.
5. Stroke
   Primates have artificially modelled strokes for decades, despite critical physiological differences. Significant species and strain-specific differences exist. Of about 150 drugs found to be successful in animals (often other primates), none has been successful in humans.
6. Hormone Replacement Therapy
   This therapy was found to be protective against heart disease and stroke in other primates, but actually increased the risk in humans.
   
   A growing body of opinion, including many medical and scientific professionals, is of the view that other primates are just too different from human beings to serve as ‘surrogate’ humans; they cannot be predictive of the human situation, and one cannot rely on data from primate experiments when extrapolated to humans. Primate research can be manipulated in order to retrospectively correlate with and ‘confirm’ human data, but this should not be taken as evidence of its worth. The differences between other primates and humans are clear to see. Depending on the methods of calculation, humans are 97–99% genetically identical to chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary relatives. Yet the physiological and biochemical differences that manifest due to this relatively small degree of genetic variation are immense. Our biochemical differences mean that we suffer from different diseases, respond in different ways to infectious agents, have different metabolisms, and find different substances toxic. We are now learning why this is so, and it carries through to primate use in biomedical research.
   
   There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the positive contribution or successful translation of primate research to human medicine, that there is a great deal of conveniently, often overlooked, data showing primate research to be irrelevant, unnecessary, even hazardous to human health and to have little or no predictive value or application to human medicine. The scientific and medical community at large can no longer ignore such a substantial body of information: when extrapolated to humans, primate research has caused untold amounts of harm by causing human suffering and death, and indirectly by delaying medical progress and diverting research funds from more appropriate methodology.
   
   Ending primate research would benefit human medicine by halting the flow of unreliable data from it, and by diverting research funds to more appropriate and promising methods. These include batteries of human-based tests that provide reliable and relevant information on which to base further research and translate laboratory findings to the clinic. Many scientific techniques and methodologies are more relevant to human medicine and more predictive and reliable for human beings than primate-oriented research, and are directly responsible for the great strides we are now making towards treating and curing the most widespread and debilitating human diseases.
   
   In Vitro and Human Ex Vivo Methods: More Reliable
   
   There is a strong argument that the range, diversity, relevance and performance of many powerful in vitro, in silico, human ex vivo, microdosing and other studies negate any data that can be provided from animal models; it follows that using data that is directly relevant to humans as the basis for the choice of a poorly predictive animal model is of questionable scientific merit. Scientific justification for the use of a particular animal species against human-specific methods, rather than simply against another animal species, would be far more apposite. Scientists in academia and in the pharmaceutical industry itself have acknowledged for decades the inability of animal-based pre-clinical models (including primates) to assess human ADMET properties (how a drug is Absorbed, Distributed, Metabolised and Eliminated, and its Toxicological properties). These technologies include microarrays and other DNA technologies; proteomics and metabolomics; mathematical and computer modelling; epidemiology; human clinical research; in vitro molecular biological techniques; microfluidics devices harbouring many types of human cells in an almost ‘natural’ environment and interacting with one another; and many more. Studies of brain function and neurological disorders account for much PRIMATE research, yet the most dramatic differences between us and other primates are in the brain. Human brains can now be studied non-invasively using a huge array of imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), magnetoencephalography (MEG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), EROS (event-related optical signals), VBM (voxel-based morphometric analysis) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Perhaps the most exciting technology with regard to drug development is microdosing’, in which nanogram doses of new drugs are traced through the human body. Employed as ‘Phase 0’ clinical trials, microdosing provides extensive information about a drug’s pharmacokinetic properties in a human environment and has already been endorsed by the FDA (April 2005) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (January 2003).
   
   The Cruel Primate Trade
   
   Growing global concern about the decline of primates in the wild and the possibility of more stringent regulation of the trade has coincided with a flurry of primate sales to laboratories. The use of primates in experiments is not just an animal welfare and rights issue but also a conservation concern. Moreover, the primate trade for vivisection is a cruel and barbaric business. Primates face many threats to their survival. These threats include habitat destruction through deforestation, slash and burn agriculture, commercial forestry human encroachment and trade. All primate species are declining in numbers in the wild and many are threatened with extinction. It is widely acknowledged that the exploitation of wild primate populations threatens their continued survival. Faced with the increasing destruction of their habitat, many primate populations cannot afford the additional loss, suffering and mortalities caused by the primate trade. The commercial trade in species is a major contributor in pushing many towards extinction and endangering species not presently 'endangered'.
   
   In the European Union alone in 2006 over 10,000 old world monkeys were brought in from African and other countries for the purposes of scientific research in Europe. The capture and transport of primates from these places is very stressful and many monkeys die on the way – let alone the severe social impacts this has for the families and social groups left behind.
   
   South Africa is in an unusual situation because it is both a supplier and a user of primates. In South Africa there is an urgent need for an independent and reliable population count and for documentation of mortality rates at all phases of the trade. To list a species under Appendices I or II of CITES, information is required on population size, geographic range, habitat destruction, trade, or other possible conditions that could severely reduce its population or lead to extinction. No reliable or comprehensive figures of wild primate populations exist in South Africa.
   
   In South Africa chacma baboons and vervet monkeys, who have spent their entire lives in freedom, roaming wild in troops, are ripped from their surroundings and family groups in the most brutal way and then incarcerated in appalling conditions at holding stations. Pictures of the chacma baboon are used in South Africa to promote tourism but in reality these animals are facing slow eradication and their survival hangs in the balance. Baboons are indigenous to Africa and consist of five subspecies: Olive Baboon (Papio anubis), Chacma Baboon (Papio ursinus), Hamadryas Baboon (Papio hamadryas), Yellow Baboon (Papio cynocephalus) and Guinea Baboon (Papio papio). According to baboon behavioural expert, Rita Miljo, baboons are highly social animals and each baboon, like every human, has its own individual character. In the nineteenth century baboons lived in troops comprising 120 members. Currently the average size of a troop is between thirty and forty but can be as little as eight individuals. Baboons can live up to 45 years old but because of the difficult circumstances in which they live in the wild, their average lifespan is only 10 to 12 years. The removal of big males, who are highly sought after by research laboratories, results in chaos and disorder within the troops. As higher primates, a generic feature they share with humans, the high levels of intelligence, complexity and sensitivity of baboons is beyond doubt. According to Dr Shirley Strum, “individual baboons have a variety of intricate and demanding social relationships with other members of their troops. They engage in a multitude of activities, including communication, reciprocal grooming, play, and infant care, which is performed by both sexes.
   
   Within the South African context, nature conservation authorities and laboratories have taken advantage of the ‘vermin’ and ‘problem animal’ status of both the vervet monkey and the baboon. In South Africa provincial nature conservation authorities issue permits for trapping baboons and vervet monkeys for use in laboratories. Research facilities that use wild animals are supposed to be inspected by nature conservation representatives and are supposed to apply for holding permits annually (including for so-called captive-bred primates). In some provinces, nature conservation authorities require an ethically approved study protocol and proof of agricultural damage before permits for capture are issued. However, it seems that permits are not supplied.
   
   According to Dr Daan Goosen, ex-Roodeplaat Research Laboratory, and now deputy chair of the South African Association of Laboratory Animal Scientists (SAALAS), South Africa is in a fortunate position in regard to the supply of primates, which were much sought after internationally for research purposes and in this regard various projects were launched jointly with scientists in the USA, France, Austria and Germany. Macaques and baboons make up the largest proportion of the primate trade. Sold for as little as $12 each by the trappers, these primates are then being sold onto the international research industry for anything up to $1200 per baboon. The majority of baboons currently used in research are wild caught. Until mid-2000, a company called Mann & Miller based in Kenya supplied most wild caught baboons to the international research industry. In the USA, baboons from Kenya have been imported by primate dealers Charles River and in the UK by Shamrock (GB) Ltd., which was closed in 2000, and controversial contract testing laboratory, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Other animal dealers in Ethiopia and Tanzania also sold a small number to laboratories, but these were primarily wild animal and bird dealers just cashing in on the trade. During 1999, at least two US companies, Buckshire Corporation and Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, received shipments of baboons from Tanzania.
   
   Trapping usually affects healthy individuals who are in their prime. Furthermore, trapping is haphazard and takes no cognisance of adequate demographic data and ecological impact implications. Long-term ecological field studies and adequate demographic data have not yet been developed for any primate species. During the trapping process their family groups are severely disrupted and they are cruelly taken from the freedom of their natural environment and placed in unnatural conditions. Capture methods cause stress and injury and very often trapped primates are left in traps for days on end in direct sunlight, exposed to other environmental extremes and without access to water or food. If they survive this, they are forced together with other troops and other species causing conflict and extreme trauma and stress.
   
   Primates targeted for research are shipped as cargo in the holds of commercial airlines and transported thousands of miles around the world. From here they will spend their remaining days, confined in cages and subjected to pain and suffering, used simply as research tools by an industry that will ultimately kill them. According to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection for every wild-caught primate that goes to a laboratory means that between eight and ten have died in the process. Official trade figures underestimate the numbers taken from the wild because they do not take into account the sheer numbers that are lost during, and as a result of, the capture and transportation process. Nor do they take into account the numbers captured for captive breeding programmes.
   
   
   
   The wild-caught trade in primates involves massive suffering during capture and transportation. Trappers use baited traps in crates and the baboons may be left in these crates without food or water for days on end. Individuals that are old, pregnant or too thin are killed at this stage because they do not meet the requirements for research laboratories. The remaining animals are held in holding stations where mortality rates are alarming.
   
   It is unknown to what extent South Africa exports primates to laboratories overseas. The role that airlines would play here is pivotal. There are three issues connected with the export of primates: (1) The suffering imposed by long-distance transport of primates from their country of origin to their overseas destination. The Transport Working Group of CITES agreed that "high mortality on arrival in a country of import is a direct result of improper transport, and indicates inappropriate implementation of Article IV(2)(c) requirements. High mortality during quarantine can be an indicator of improper transport". Due to international pressure fewer and fewer airlines now accept primate shipments. (2) The exportation of primates is depleting wild primate populations. (3) The nature of the research conducted by the importing agency. Primates are often sold to huge suppliers, such as Charles River Corps., and their final destination and the nature of the experiment is therefore not known. The impact on the primate trade on wild populations in two of the biggest suppliers of primates for research, Indonesia and the Philippines, has been huge. There is severe habitat destruction but it is clear that trapping has contributed to population decline and to the fact that the long-tailed macaque has become rare or extinct on some islands of the Philippines. This situation should not be allowed to happen in South Africa.
   
   A reliable and independent assessment of the impact of indigenous primates on the agrarian economy is needed. It is generally assumed that baboons and vervet monkeys are an agricultural 'nuisance' and that they cause serious agricultural loss in South Africa. However, there is no convincing or substantial data to support this. To our knowledge no investigation has ever been undertaken to assess the economic effects indigenous primates are having on agriculture and it is therefore an unsubstantiated allegation. An independent study needs to be undertaken to determine to what extent, if any, these indigenous primates are affecting the agrarian economy. Indigenous primates are being punished for pursuing their natural instinct. The 'problem animal' status gives farmers carte blanche to do what they want to baboons and vervets - and this usually means, shooting, poisoning or trapping them.
   
   In South Africa farmers are being paid lucratively to supply primates for use in laboratories. It costs dealers next to nothing to capture them but customers pay large sums of money for each animal. Laboratories in the USA, For example, pay from $900 to $1,500 for a baboon. The commercial incentive therefore needs to be investigated. There are other options that farmers can use to solve their “problems” apart from death and trapping. If it can be proved that baboons and vervets are causing a threat to agriculture then more humane and innovative ways need to be investigated and used to deal with this. Translocation to a viable alternative environment (not a laboratory) is one acceptable option that needs to be investigated. Monitored and selective birth control may be another.
   
   Breeding primates for research is controversial and at odds with the increasing world-wide recognition that primates are sentient beings that display high level of intelligence, have complex social, emotional and family lives and are capable of suffering. It is disingenuous to portray a breeding centre as an animal welfare ‘advance’ by claiming that capturing baboons from the wild and then setting up a captive breeding colony represents progress compared to the continuous direct use of wild-caught baboons. Vivisectors try to portray breeding centres as an animal welfare endeavour because they claim that capturing baboons from the wild and then setting up a captive breeding colony represented progress compared to continuous direct use of wild-caught baboons. But the presentation of a captive-breeding centre to produce baboons as an animal welfare ‘advance’ would be a perversion of the truth. Confinement of such animals, whether originally wild-caught or not, is an inherently abusive and traumatic experience for these primate victims.
   
   Ultimately, the establishment of such centres would subvert the increasing international recognition of the moral duty to treat such animals with respect as free individuals with basic needs that can never be expressed in captivity. Captive breeding also adversely affects wild population levels, is not self-sustaining and does not appear to be reliably producing second generation bred primates for trade purposes. At any rate even if this were not the case, captive breeding programmes are in themselves also immoral and perpetuate unsound scientific practices.
   
   If anything, captive-breeding centres entrench the prejudice that baboons are merely instruments of technology to be used and abused as their more powerful relatives – humans - see fit. Furthermore, by facilitating the supply of the animals to vivisection laboratories, it would perpetuate the suffering and death of baboons in experiments in the face of a gradual enlightenment of attitudes towards them. Whatever course is followed, the animals are faced with one of two wretched fates before being used in painful animal experiments: begin your life in the wild and be snatched into captivity; or spend all your days in captivity.
   
   Recent investigations of primate breeding facilities in the European Union highlight not only the poor conditions in which these animals are held but the very real possibility that these centres are supplementing their stocks with wild caught animals. It is highly likely that medical research is responsible for reducing wild populations of other monkeys, just as has been claimed for chimpanzees. In countries where there are captive breeding programmes they very often do not meet CITES requirements and captive bred primates should therefore be treated as wild-caught primates.