Talk:Animal testing on non-human primates

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

November 2006

Why does this topic need a separate article from what is contained in the Animal Testing article?--Hatch68 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a viable subarticle to the animal testing article, though it would benefit from a summary paragraph there. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Animal testing page is getting very long. Once this page is viable, I'm going to go back and summarize it on Animal testing instead of what's there at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article

This article has just been started, and still needs to be balanced with some sections on the opposite POV e.g. history of using primates, key research projects and the results, why some scientists say primates are still needed in animal testing. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There needs to be coverage of leading primate research facilities and experimental programmes outside (presumably in front of) the poorly-named "Allegations" section. I can do some behavioural labs next time I get a chunk of time, but I don't know anything about drugs or medical research.--Jaibe 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may also want to add a section "impact of the animal rights movement". Primate labs have gotten a lot more humane due to animal rights, but I also know of cases where legitimate university labs were shut down, leading all the neuroscientists to leave a university in protest, and for the animals to be sent to medical labs.--Jaibe 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I also know of cases where legitimate university labs were shut down, leading all the neuroscientists to leave a university in protest..." Really? This sounds more like urban myth than reality. Rbogle 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this article through Random Article and was struck by its not-neutral point of view. The reports of mistreatment of research animals are horrific, and would be sufficient to cause any sane human to question the value of these experiments, except that the author(s?) add their own perjoratives and commentary, which spins the presentation. This would be a stronger article if it really was neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It really doesn't matter. Any editing for POV is immediately reverted by a Wikipedia editor with an animal rights bias. Just look through the history of changes in the last month. I won't say it is a lost cause, but when an editor is bound and determined to exert their biased POV on an article, there is not a lot you can do. I run a primate testing laboratory in the USA. I cannot find a single referenced example of a primate from a zoo, circus, or animal trainer being transferred into a testing lab in the last 9 years, yet the introduction claims it as truth. I read that in the intro and thought it must be a myth. The reference in the intro says it with regard to chimps (from an animal activist web site), but does not offer ANY specifics. Further, when I add a reference on the number of purpose bred animals increasing in proportion (which DEFINITELY fits the reality that someone in my position sees in addition to being referencable), it is similarly reverted because the trend may not fit in the UK, which does a tiny fraction of the primate testing in the USA. After a point, it becomes hard to AGF. --Animalresearcher 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of the search for alternatives to primate-based models

One section seems NOTABLY lacking, and that's the current state of the search for alternatives to primate-based models.

Antagonists will say that there's no search because alternatives are not possible; proponents will say abolition now. However, we do talk about the 3 Rs in Europe and elsewhere, and there ought (I say) to be some empirically verifiable history of (a) the search FOR nonhuman research alternatives to the use of NHPs AND (b) a chart of which NHP uses do not currently HAVE feasible alternatives (so that those HUMANE researchers CAN at least chart out the status of the morally obligatory project of replacements development.

Many charts and lists of 'alternatives' focus on models for toxicology testing, which is besides the point, I believe. 

 MaynardClark (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

I reverted Animalresearcher's recent edit because the source does indeed say that NHPs in labs are taken from zoos, circuses, and animal trainers, as well as being wild-caught and purpose bred. It's also misleading to say, as AR wrote, that "purpose-bred primates are increasing in prevalence relative to wild-caught," because it gives the impression that there are more purpose bred than wild caught, or that the former is catching up with the latter, and that's not true, so far as I know. One of the sources AR himself supplied says:

"There does not appear to have been any noticeable decrease in the number of primates imported into the EU for research and testing. Most users of old-world primates (about 90% of which need to be imported) report an increase in animal use. In the UK (Europe's main primate user), a survey of user establishments3 found that the number of old-world primates used, and thus imported, has increased by about 50% during 1994-5, at the height of the airline campaign.
"There does not appear to be a significant problem with the supply of the marmoset, the main type of new world monkey used in research and testing in the EU. Most sources confirm that we already breed enough to meet the EU requirement although it may be important to take steps to co-ordinate supply and demand. However, the majority of the primates used in the EU are old-world animals and we currently only breed about 10% of the numbers used." "The supply and use of primates in the EU", European Biomedical Research Association.

SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources that said the former (purpose-bred) were increasing in number relative to wild-caught, and in addition to being sourced, this point fits well with first-hand impressions. There have been changes in the USA that make it very hard to import primates, and the breeding colony sizes have increased dramatically in the past few years to compensate (part of the NCRR plans). But furthermore, the citation that animals are taken from "zoos" or "animal trainers" is from an agenda-driven site Project R&R. That might be OK, if they provided evidence that animals were actually ever taken from zoos or trainers. It is just stated without source. I searched in vain to find other sources to validate this statement, but I could not. Given the agenda driven nature of the information, and the lack of validation from any other sources, I do not consider it a reliable indicator of current primate procurement. Also, this obviously POV statement occurs in the introduction which is supposed to reflect the content of the article. If you were to find and source reliable information on the current transfer of transfer of primates from zoos and animal trainers to animal testing I would find those statements in the introduction appropriate. As it sits now they do not either reflect the article, or valid sourced information on the current state of primate testing, and that should be fixed. If they are not fixed I will remove them, again, in the near future, feel free to discuss here also. --Animalresearcher 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further research http://www.primate.wisc.edu/wprc/history.html shows that there was a collaborative zoo/research center agreement with some drama between Wisconsin Primate Center and The Vilas Zoo. However, that ended 9 years ago and there are no longer Primate Center primates at the zoo. Other than that, I could not find any source on primates in testing laboratories coming from animal trainers or zoos... Still looking... --Animalresearcher 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a second point, this reference was omitted http://www.researchtraining.org/moduletext.asp?intModuleID=816#lesson10587 which explains the reasons why wild-caught primates are decreasing in prevalence relative to purpose-bred in the USA (whose primate testing dwarfs that of the EU and UK). Importation has become more difficult/costly, and more laboratories are interested in specific pathogen free animals (SPF), which almost only come from purpose-bred facilities. It may also be of interest that recently established primate breeders in multiple places in the USA are now providing 5000+ primates per year for testing - very nearly all purpose bred. These breeders did not exist ten years ago. Alphagenesis, Primate Products, and a third in California, are all very large now. I think all of this will change in another 10 years, because China is setting up very massive primate testing facilities. But for now, there are good sources to support that purpose-bred animals are increasing in numbers relative to wild-caught. I would like even more to find a reference on the absolute numbers, but the USA regulations do not tabulate animal source. --Animalresearcher 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chimps from zoos, circuses, or animal trainers

A further explanation of a revert that will certainly be reverted, again, by Slimvirgin. The use of chimpanzees in US laboratory research uses roughly 1700 animals. The National Research Council finds a need for only 600 of them (according to IDA). http://www.idausa.org/facts/chimpresearch.html There has been a surplus of chimps for over 15 years because they are not euthanized if not needed, and because they were thought to be a promising model for AIDS (but Rhesus are now used instead). The point, is that US researchers have acquired no new chimps have been acquired from the wild or zoos or circuses or animal trainers in well over a decade. And, for 11 years, they have not bred chimps in captivity for the simple reason that there are more chimps than the US researchers know what to do with in captivity already. There are citable examples of US primate centers providing "foster" sanctuary for chimps en route from personal owners to wildlife sanctuaries as well. So when the New England anti-vivisection society says that chimps are taken from the wild, zoos, circuses, or animal trainers, the reliability of the information is extremely dubious, extremely dated AT BEST. And the NEAVS provides no citation for its information, it just simply states it. REPEATING SOMEONE ELSE'S UNSUBSTANTIATED SLANDER is not a good policy for an encyclopedia, and it is the reason for my revert. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. NHPs (from the US, at least), cannot be taken from the wild, from zoos, circuses, etc. The source provided for this statement is wrong and not a credible source. The EU and other countries do allow for wild-caught NHPs, but not in the US. We should make this distinction. I have corrected the statement, and removed the releasechimps.org link, which is clearly a biased site. Propoganda should not be pushed on the wiki. We need to publish the truth. Chaldor (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK section

If you look at the sections by country, the first is all about chimps in the USA (and not other NHPs). The second contains extensive citations from an HSUS analysis which is USA specific on chimp and monkey use. It needs to be broken out if UK is to have its own section (which is fine by me). But currently the section, as you ported it here from the Animal Testing page, refers to monkey use in the UK and USA, so I changed the section title to reflect that. Simply reverting the change so that the section is still mislabelled is silly.

Also, I suspect the SIV use of macaques is somewhat misleading, because behavioral pharmacological experiments use about 40 times more primates than other granted experiments, which creates a bias in the HSUS study. So, I changed the citation to reflect their analysis - they looked at grant narratives in CRISP, and papers published on PubMed (for chimps). For Rhesus they looked only at grant narratives on CRISP (which is also troublesome because there is no requirement to mention an animal species in the CRISP narrative, so many researchers avoid mentioning if they use NHPs, the actual number of grants is definitely higher).--Animalresearcher (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add material, but stop removing it? Length is not an issue. If you dispute what the sources say, please outline it point by point instead of posting long explanations, because it makes the material much harder to get through. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the LEAD section, once again, to better summarize the content of the page, and moved the Weatherall/BUAV issue down the page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the point about the Conlee study is that she summarized US use by two means. First, she scanned grant narratives in the NIH CRISP archive. These grant narratives generally do not contain the number of animals per grant. For example, suppose I have a grant to perform electrophysiological studies in awake monkeys. I may use 2 animals per year. My colleague may perform behavioral pharmacology, and use 100 monkeys per year. We each have one grant in the CRISP archive. So, Conlee would summarize that there is one grant for cognitive/physiological studies, and one grant for behavioral pharmacology studies. However, there are 50 times as many animals used in behavioral pharmacology. The point is that the attribution to the Conlee study needs to reflect that she surveyed numbers of grants for types of use and species, and not numbers of animals. These can be wildly different as toxicology type studies typically use dozens of animals per year, while physiological studies use less than 5 per grant. --Animalresearcher

(talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup to that, I added another reference which notes that toxicology testing in the USA is largely private and contracted. Therefore the analysis of use in the USA would not reflect it, since for monkeys it only queried grant awards, and only from NIH. This leaves open the possibility (a near certainty in my mind) that toxicology use is also the dominant use in the USA, and that this use would be overlooked by the methodology in the Conlee study. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg

Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primate testing

69.128.162.67 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I am an avid hunter, and killing deer and small animals is not a problem for me. But the use of our closest cousins (Chimps, in example, share 98% of our genes) as hariy test tubes greatly angers me. These animals are hurt, mistreated, and killed, all in the name of "Science." If you are not haunted by the saddnes and hoplessness of the animals in this article's pictures, there is something wrong with you. I understand that this "testing" saves lives. What these "doctors" must realise is that it also destroys them. Please stop the cruel treatment of our closest family. If our "ultimate" race can not co-exist with our closest realitives, then how do we treat the animals who are not like us? if we can not co-exist, how can we have the right to live on this planet? -chimps are 98% humans. that's more than people who mistreat them will ever be.[reply]

Please note that this is a page for discussion of the content and editing of the associated page and is not a forum for general opinions on animal testing. Wikipedia talk pages are not general bulletin boards or forums for opinions on topics. They are for discussion of editing and formatting of reliable third party sources on the subject matter of the page. This is a page on non-human primate testing. Chimps are a non-human primate and have been, and are currently, the subject of testing, so reliable sources about them are included here, as are reliable sources about the ethical debate about using them (and associated bans and ongoing proposals).--Animalresearcher (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: July 2008

I tagged this article NPOV because it is quite biased in its discussion of NHP research. There is little to no discussion about the actual contributions and benefits of NHP research in this article. If there was no benefit to society, why would it exist? We need to address this. We need to provide clear examples of what direct benefits have resulted from animal research. Ideally, this page should be built to discuss all aspects surrounding NHP research. It needs to both clearly elaborate the benefits and contributions NHP research has made to science/medicine, and additionally, it needs to clearly and concisely state the issues and concerns (animal rights, moral and ethical issues) surrounding NHP research. Anything short of this is a biased article. I hope to work on this with the help of the community in the coming weeks/months. Chaldor (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this occurs through the organizaton? There is a section on notable studies that highlights several high impact studies using non-human primates, and the most common uses of primates in testing are also mentioned. I am all in favor of even more, though, but I suspect that the fault is at least partly in the page layout and not in the content. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. This article may need a reorganization of its structure to make it appear more balanced. In referring to the animal testing, which I feel is more balanced, there is an entire section (as opposed to subsections) devoted to the types of research that animals are used in. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have the "modes of restraint" subsection within the same section as the aids/DBS section. We need a better section title than just "uses", and break up these big sections to make the article flow better. Chaldor (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broke up the usage section a bit to make the flow more sensible. I think there might still need to be a bit more shuffling around Chaldor (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Legal status section

  • Is this section necessary in this article? The text is nearly a duplicate of what is present in Primate#Legal status. This page is supposed to discuss NHP research, but I feel the legal status section fails to do any of this. I think it should be removed from the article given the presence of this discussion in the more relevant primate page. Chaldor (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged it before with the section on Bans, and feel the content is more appropriate there. Also, I feel its first sentence is placed there specifically to lead the reader (ie: POV), and should be deleted. I think if you look over the edit history you will find Slimvirgin opposed and reverted most of these changes. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see it working if this section was merged with the bans section, however there would have to be references provided that illustrate the reason for the bans is some recognition/questioning of legal status of NHPs. Otherwise, I think the discussion of legal status is inappropriate in this article and best suited in the primate section (as it is now). If we can find sources (or if the sources currently provided for bans/legal status...I haven't looked through them yet) have banning of NHP research motivated by legal status arguments as opposed to "it's just wrong," then I would strongly support merging these two sections. Regardless, this section should not stand on its own, as it is out of place. Chaldor (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bans are, by definition, changes in legal status, and also changes in individual rights. These two sub-headings are exactly the same, EXCEPT that one discusses theoretical and un-instantiated legal changes, and the other discusses already passed legal changes. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree with this. There doesn't need to be two sections discussing such a similar topic. These should be merged and recombed for relevance. Chaldor (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros & Cons section?

  • The "methods of restraint" section discusses it as a "one of the disadvantages of using NHPs". The section itself is a bit onesided, but it doesn't list any of the other disadvantages of NHP use, nor does it clearly state any of the advantages. I think it would be nice to build up a section that illustrates the pros & cons (and move this higher up in the article) and have the "methods of restraint" section as one of the cons. It seems like it's just floating on it's own right now. Chaldor (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are notable differences in NHP use in testing compared to other non-human animals. Specifically, there is an enormous body of literature on environmental enrichment and handling, and its impact on the animals. Whereas I think the restraint section was introduced specifically to highlight suffering of animals in testing, the more general issue of work on environmental enrichment and handling of NHPs is pretty valid and interesting, and a significant issue that those of us who work with NHPs deal with on a regular basis. I would be in favor of expanding/altering the restraint section along those lines. What do you think?--Animalresearcher (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. The techniques for handling used in NHP research are significantly different than those for other type of animals. It would make sense to put the methods of restraint section into a larger, more general section titled "Handling" or something like that. It would make it far more neutral than simply pointing out the problems with restraint and offering a few alternatives (that are not always appropriate given the experimental context). I think the concept of enrichment deserves its own section. It is one of those very non-intuitive concepts that is mandated by NHP regulations that does have a huge body of literature associated with it. It is sadly overlooked by many people on the other side of the debate, but is one of the fundamental tools in maintaining NHP health and happiness. Chaldor (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg

The image Image:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU debate

The EU proposal to ban all primate experiments should be covered in detail here. See Talk:Animal testing#Globalize. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Orlady (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Animal testing on non-human primates → Animal testing on primates — 'Animal testing' already implies that the subjects are non-human, we don't need to state it twice. Yes, humans technically are animals; but colloquially speaking, 'animals' excludes humans, and certainly does in phrases like 'animal rights' and 'animal testing'. Robofish (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Non-human primates" appears to be a technical term and is used widely in the referenced sources, so I am unsure about a move. Humans are considered primates after all, even arguably in colloquial speech, although as you say animal testing does exclude humans. City of Destruction 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point about 'non-human primates' being a phrase worth keeping in the title, but I still feel it's redundant with 'animal'. Perhaps that's the word to remove instead; giving something like Experimentation on non-human primates or Use of non-human primates in research? Robofish (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd lean towards leaving it as it is. I agree with City of Destruction's point that "non-human primates" is the familiar term. The question then becomes one of whether or not to change "Animal testing" to something else. Although I accept Robofish's point that it becomes redundant, I don't think that's a big problem, and the present title has the advantage of being consistent with our other animal testing pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both "animal testing" and "non-human primates" are widely used expressions. The latter seems more important to me to include since it is so specific. On the other hand, "animal testing" has always been problematic - "experimentation" might be better, but my guess is that most hits to that page would come thru "animal testing" disambiguation. For ease and the use of these terms by the public, I think the article should retain its current name. Bob98133 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the current title is convoluted and unnatural: "Animal" is redundant with "[non-human] primates". Instead, I'd support Experimentation on non-human primates, Medical testing on non-human primates, or rather much more concise Experimentation on primates or Medical testing on primates. When we use descriptive titles, we do not have to be precise to the last letter -- it is clear from the context that "primates" here does not include humans. 08:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I wish I had seen this discussion. I would have vigorously and vehemently opposed referring to NHPs as (all) primates. MaynardClark (talk)

Neutrality of Photos

Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible to find some more neutral photos to balance the article? The ones here are mostly from very old research centres or unusual circumstances where covert filming has taken place. Abergabe (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and would strongly support doing that. Perhaps at Commons? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revisions (related to chimpanzee information)

I think it would be proper to move the section Animal testing on non-human primates#Chimpanzees in the U.S. from its current position as a subsection under Animal testing on non-human primates#Use to a new position as a subsection under Animal testing on non-human primates#Species and numbers used. I would further suggest revision of the section title to simply "Chimpanzees" commensurate with proposed addition of content related to EU ban in 2010. The following is a proposed revision to the section:

The use of chimpanzees in medical research was banned outright by the European Union in 2010.[1] Though the use of chimpanzees continues in the United States As of 2011, this use has come under renewed scrutiny as a result of an NIH request to the IOM to craft an informed opinion on their continued use.[1]
The current full "Chimpanzees in the U.S." section would subsequently be provided as a subsection of the new "Chimpanzees" subsection", retitled as "Chimpanzee use in the United States".

There are two drivers behind this request. First, to (eventually) globalize the treatment of the use of chimpanzees in research in the article and second to keep the "Use" section devoted to specifics on the methodologies used in testing on non-human primates, regardless of where they are used.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Vastag, Brian (13 August 2011), "Chimpanzee research an endangered species as experts debate usefulness, ethics", The Washington Post, retrieved 14 August 2011
  • I think that's a very thoughtful plan, and I appreciate that you presented it in talk first. It makes good sense to me and I would support doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Species and numbers used section should include updated information. The US declared Chimpanzees endangered in 2016 ( https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=E81DA137-BAF2-9619-3492A2972E9854D9 ) at this time many chimps in biomedical labs have been sent to sanctuaries for retirement. Daniypink (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resource in SciAm

Ban Chimp Testing; Why it is time to end invasive biomedical research on chimpanzees by The Editors of Scientific American September 30, 2011.

Excerpt ...

The testing began shortly after Bobby’s first birthday. By the time he was 19 he had been anesthetized more than 250 times and undergone innumerable biopsies in the name of science. Much of the time he lived alone in a cramped, barren cage. Bobby grew depressed and emaciated and began biting his own arm, leaving permanent scars.

Bobby is a chimpanzee. Born in captivity to parents who were also lab chimps, he grew up at the Coulston Foundation, a biomedical research facility in Alamogordo, N.M., that was cited for repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act before it was shuttered in 2002. He is one of the lucky ones. Today he lives in a sanctuary called Save the Chimps in Fort Pierce, Fla., where he can socialize and roam freely. Last year the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced plans to put some 180 ex-Coulston chimps currently housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility back in service, to rejoin the roughly 800 other chimps that serve as subjects for studies of human diseases, therapies and vaccines in the U.S., which is the only country apart from Gabon to maintain chimps for this purpose.

Public opposition is on the rise. In April a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, to prohibit invasive research on great apes, including chimps. And when the NIH announced its plans for bringing the Alamogordo chimps out of retirement, objections from the Humane Society, primatologist Jane Goodall and others prompted the agency to put the plans on hold until the Institute of Medicine (IOM) completes a study of whether chimps are truly necessary for biomedical and behavioral research. The IOM project itself has been criticized: the NIH instructed it to omit ethics from consideration.

In April, McClatchy Newspapers ran a special report based on its review of thousands of medical records detailing research on chimps like Bobby. The stories painted a grim picture of life in the lab, noting disturbing psychological responses in the chimps. Then, in June, Hope R. Ferdowsian of George Washington University and her colleagues reported in PLoS ONE that chimps that had previously suffered traumatic events, including experimentation, exhibit clusters of symptoms similar to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in humans.

That chimps and humans react to trauma in a like manner should not come as a surprise. Chimps are our closest living relatives and share a capacity for emotion, including fear, anxiety, grief and rage.

Testing on chimps has been a huge boon for humans in the past, contributing to the discovery of hepatitis C and vaccines against polio and hepatitis B, among other advances. Whether it will continue to bear fruit is less certain. Alternatives are emerging, including ones that rely on computer modeling and isolated cells. In 2008 pharmaceutical manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced it would end its use of chimps.

In our view, the time has come to end biomedical experimentation on chimpanzees. The Senate bill would phase out invasive research on chimps over a three-year period, giving the researchers time to implement alternatives, after which the animals would be retired to sanctuaries.

We accept that others may make a different moral trade-off. If the U.S. elects to continue testing on chimps, however, then it needs to adopt stricter guidelines. Chimps should be used only in studies of major diseases and only when there is no other option. Highly social by nature, they should live with other chimps and in a stimulating environment with room to move around. And when a test inflicts pain or psychological distress, they should have access to treatment that eases those afflictions.

The Animal Welfare Act affords chimps some protection. But clearly more is needed. To develop and enforce tighter regulations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces the Animal Welfare Act, should establish an ethics committee specifically for biomedical research on chimps. The committee would need to include not just medical researchers but also bioethicists and representatives from animal welfare groups. Such measures would no doubt make medical testing on chimps even more expensive than it already is. Yet if human lives are going to benefit from research on our primate cousins, it is incumbent on us to minimize their suffering, provide them with an acceptable quality of life—and develop techniques that hasten the day when all of Bobby’s fellow chimps can join him in retirement.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Primate cognition 99.190.80.8 (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT & WSJ resources

  • U.S. Will Not Finance New Research on Chimps by James Gorman published December 15, 2011, excerpt ...

    In making the announcement, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the N.I.H., said that chimps, as the closest human relatives, deserve “special consideration and respect” and that the agency was accepting the recommendations released earlier in the day by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that most research on chimpanzees was unnecessary.

Bias?

It seems to me like this article is kind of primarily focused on the testing being morally wrong, and it seems to try and build an argument to say it is, it just seems biased and needs to be balanced out.Nex Carnifex (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you. It's an artifact of a lot of pro-animal rights editing in Wikipedia's early days. Please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and fix anything you'd like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anti-animal sentiment that is dismissive toward nonanimal persons itself a form of bias? MaynardClark (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article today and it certainly does NOT have enough information about how horrific it is for the animals. In fact it appears to be only vaguely mentioned and some of the sources are older than 1995. I suggest that the two sources in the section of above this one ( bias? ) be inserted into the article somehow. They are two sources under 'NYT & WSJ resources' that are dated 12/15/2011 and another above that one in 'resouce in Sciam' dated 9/30/2011. Mylittlezach (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's NPOV standards are difficult to apply when, as one editor pointed out, the research subjects' experience and perspective could not be expressed completely, as they would do if they could have that perspecttive or POV expressed. MaynardClark (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research vs. (Product) Testing

While research is indeed testing, not all testing is 'basic science' research (putatively to produce new 'knowledge'). Some testing is pretty routinized. The place in the broader research enterprise of the search for nonanimal methods (IM) ought to be more prominent in an articule that is designed to be useful and worthwhile or understanding that broader knowledge-production enterprise in civil and morally sensitive human society, as well as in the broder array of populations - both human and nonhuman. Where replacement of larger animals with smaller animals (typically rodents) is mentioned or suggested, that 'can of worms' (new moral issues and concerns) needs to be synopsized (and some mention made of a search - or absence of a search - for replacing those smaller but yet sentient nonhuman beings. MaynardClark (talk)

Requested move 11 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED to keep side wide consistency. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]


Animal testing on non-human primates → Experimentation on non-human primates – Experimentation on non-human primates is a better title. animal testing excludes humans, so the non-human part is redundant in the current title. If we want to keep non-human in the title however, we should change it to to the title experimentation on non-human primates. Voortle (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There's no reason for this article to be at any title longer than primate experimentation. The fact that human experimentation is excluded from the article's topic can be mentioned in the lead. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree that the proposed title is an improvement, largely because it does away with the redundancy of have both "animal" and "non-human" together. That said, I feel like the "non-human" part could also be dropped. While humans are indeed primates, I think it would be sufficiently clear in context that the title refers to non-humans. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'non-human primates' in title and Support proposed name change. Don't forget the Nazi programs which experimented on humans. Randy Kryn 13:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So does, for instance, every successful drug trial. That doesn't mean that the title must be an unwieldy mess. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is already a small suite of articles with similar names to the current title of this article, e.g. Animal testing on rodents, Animal testing on frogs, Animal testing on invertebrates. I would suggest at the moment that we think about site-wide consistency. I also think the "non-human" needs to stay in case someone in the future wants to try and include humans - that could be a huge can of worms for this article.DrChrissy (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the testing done on the can of worms. Randy Kryn 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The parent article is under animal testing. I see no reason to turn it the vague "experimentation". Dimadick (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "animal testing" (where the parent article is located) is a more WP:PRECISE terminology and must not be removed. +Suggest move to "Animal testing on primates", per WP:CONCISE. The "non-human" part is already implied in the title from the phrase "animal testing", so "non-human" adds no value to the title. Khestwol (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this title as well. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it fails WP:PRECISE as it does not properly describe the scope of this article. This is not about all forms of experimentation, it is about a type of testing -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Monkey test" and "monkey testing"

The usage and topic of monkey test and Monkey testing is under discussion, see talk:monkey test -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ape research" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ape research. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Ape research until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Primate research" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Primate research and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Primate research until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_testing_on_non-human_primates"