Illogical and unsubstantiated claims will NOT convince us that primate experiments are necessary

Animal researchers have finally been drawn out of the woodwork to defend their cruel and unjustifiable use of animals and they are looking more and more amateur.  Why?  Because the claims they are attempting to make in defence of their unnecessary practice are simply not factual.

Animal experimentation has been shrouded in secrecy for so long with few people even aware of the use of primates for research in Australia, but the recent introduction of a senate bill and subsequent senate hearings concerning the importation of primates for research has forced vivisectors to speak out in an attempt to justify their actions.

So, what are these claims they are making? The following is a link to one of the presentations made at the recent IQ2 debate: Animal Rights Should Trump Human Interests.

We shall consider each claim in the order it was presented.

“The use of some animals in medical research remains necessary. Remembering for every monkey in research over 4 million are used in the food and dairy industry.”

This is irrelevant.  Two wrongs do not make a right - the question is not solved in the positive simply due to other unethical practices. 

“As a scientist whose work utilises monkeys I knew that a ban on importation would lead very quickly to a level of in-breeding in Australian facilities that would render valuable research impossible and force it into countries known for their unregulated practices.”

Australia already has three government-funded breeding facilities where primates are bred specifically for research purposes. Opponents of the bill have been arguing that they need to continue importing more animals in order to maintain the genetic diversity of the colonies. Such a claim raises a red flag suggesting that they intend using higher numbers of animals in future research. That contravenes the universally accepted 3R’s principle (Reduce, Refine and Replace animals) that all researchers are supposed to adhere to. 

Australia does not have a good record in that department, because we are the fourth-highest user of animals in research in the world. For these reasons we should be looking at reducing the number and replacing primates in experiments – not increasing stock, which only illustrates a lack of commitment to the 3Rs.

“Reason always comes off second-best in the face of fear and suspicion. Fear and suspicion characterises much of the debate about animals in research and is cloaked in deliberate and wilful misinformation.  Images of horrific animal experiments undertaken in the 50’s regularly feature today in animal rights literature, even though these experiments have been outlawed for many years.”

There are a number of sweeping statements that cannot go unchallenged.  Which experiments have been outlawed for many years? What are the horrific images featuring in today’s literature and in what context? These generic claims are extremely non-specific and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It’s likely that any “fear and suspicion” is self-fulfilling and has arisen from the industry’s own strong reluctance to divulge information. 

What of the current literature which addresses current practices? Opposition to animal experiments has matured over the years to a far more professional approach which addresses current practices. In fact, case studies published by Humane Research Australia are based on scientific publications from recent years. Their purpose is to break down the scientific jargon and inform the public – in lay terms – exactly what is happening to animals in laboratories and for what purpose. They demonstrate that accounts of monkeys (and other animals) being locked into restraining devices, having electrodes implanted in their skulls, induced with artificial diseases and undergoing other highly invasive procedures are not some exaggerated claims from yesteryear. They are happening right here and now.

“The Bill, defeated as it was, recycled many myths about animal experimentation… dangerous myths that computers and petri dishes can replace animals, that experiments inflict unnecessary cruelty and suffering, that baby monkeys are every day being ripped out the arms of their dead mothers in the jungle by poachers and then traded through unregulated corrupt profiteering to end up being tortured by mad scientists addicted to outdated scientific models.”

In reality the Bill didn’t recycle dangerous myths at all. The Bill instead brought the public’s attention to the dangers of relying on data from species which differ from us in their anatomy, genetics and metabolism. HRA does not espouse such a simplistic approach to replacing animals with computers and petri dishes, but rather acknowledges the need to undertake a battery of human-specific tests, embracing new technologies such as (but not limited to) body-on-a-chip, human tissue banks and non-invasive imaging techniques amongst others.  An arsenal of information obtained from a range of human-specific research methods will result in more accurate data than that obtained from another species, whose intricate cellular differences account for exponential variants that can result in dangerous outcomes when extrapolated to humans.

“Indeed, while humanity is making ever more incredible scientific advances, regular polling shows a growing and alarming public disagreement about basic scientific facts, including human evolution, the safety of vaccines and whether human-caused climate change is real.”

Notwithstanding the topics mentioned, could the “growing and alarming public disagreement” be interpreted as concerns raised from a growing public awareness, and if so, isn’t this a good thing? Don’t taxpayers deserve accountability for their public investments? For too long, researchers have remained unchallenged and have continued to waste valuable resources on animal experiments. Meanwhile, millions of people are suffering and dying of diseases for which still have no cure – because scientists continue to use the wrong species!

“But let me indulge here in some very recent examples of why I believe non-human primate research is important.  Recently researchers infected monkeys with the Zika virus because it is the closest scientist can get to understanding in real time what is happening when humans are infected with this virus.
In 2015, the world witnessed the worst epidemic of the Ebola virus to date. Monkeys were treated with an antibody isolated from a human Ebola survivor and developed almost complete protection against a lethal dose of Ebola.
And yet opponents of animal research argue that knowledge gained from monkey research is inapplicable to humans.  This claim is utterly and dangerously false. Anyone that argues that insights gained from animals are meaningless, is either poorly informed or knowingly untruthful.”

Both sides of the debate can cherry pick examples of the utility or danger of using animal data. It is often argued that the use of primates has been instrumental in the development of major medical breakthroughs but examples often used, such as the development of the Polio Vaccine and treatment for Parkinson’s Disease, are often misrepresentative of the facts.

[Polio is contracted through the digestinal tract in humans whereas in monkeys, it’s contracted through the respiratory system.   The original vaccine ‘successfully’ tested in monkeys, resulted in numerous human deaths and paralysis.  
Deep brain stimulation for sufferers of Parkinson’s disease is often credited to the cruel work with monkeys, yet the practice has been used to treat human sufferers since the 1940’s - decades before the current primate model. ]

Conversely we might consider the recent much publicised drug disaster in France whereby six healthy men participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial of a new drug, code named BIA 10-2474, ended up with serious neurological damage (and one of whom died). The drug, intended to treat pain and anxiety, was believed to have been tested on chimpanzees yet the test results did not extrapolate well to humans.

Even more recently, Pacritinib, a test drug for the treatment of a rare blood cancer called myelofibrosis, caused volunteers to suffer brain haemorrhages or heart failure – after animal models failed to predict these outcomes.

Now we appear to be traveling down a familiar trajectory with the Zika virus. Shouldn’t we learn from our past mistakes and not succumb to scare tactics?

The bottom line is, cherry picking will not assist either side of the debate. We therefore need to consider the empirical evidence – systematic reviews, meta analyses and retrospective analysis – and these continually indicate the lack of utility of primate experiments.

“The political reality, however, is that the imagery and language peddled by animal research opponents is utterly confronting.”

It would worthwhile getting examples of this so called imagery and language so peddled, to support the case.

“The facts, if you care to accept them, are:
First, non-human primates used for research in Australia are sourced from regulated breeding facilities overseas. They are not taken from the jungle.”

Until recently, macaques were sourced from Tinjil Island in Indonesia – a free-living colony which has been documented and filmed by Cruelty Free International. Undercover footage has revealed crude capture methods, separation of family members and stark holding cages. This is all available on film. HRA has also received confirmation that macaques used for HIV studies in Australia were indeed sourced from Tinjil Island.

More recently, marmosets have been flown in from a French facility. So far, two of these animals have been found listless, bleeding and gasping for breath. They both died earlier this year. According to Monash University, their deaths were unexpected and unexplained.  So, regardless of whether animals have been wild-caught (which is actually illegal) or obtained from a “credible” breeding facility, surely we can agree that the long-distance transportation of these highly cognitive animals in the cargo hold of a plane is major cause for concern?

“Second, All animal research in Australia is conducted under the strictest scrutiny and follows the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement known as the 3Rs. Under these principles, animal-based research is only approved by a qualified animal ethics committee, which includes members of the lay public, welfare organisations and veterinarians.”

The current regulatory system is in fact self-regulated and is known to be far from protective for lab animals. Recent concerns have been raised with the Victorian government – responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act., but not even aware of the aforementioned incidents involving the unexpected and unexplained deaths of marmosets.

Further concerns about the role of animal ethics committees are the inconsistencies in decision making, the lack of scientific expertise of the animal welfare and layperson to challenge the scientific validity and justification of the protocols they are expected to approve and the non-requirement for animal facility inspections to be unannounced.

Despite the many inadequacies of the system, ethics committees are held up to provide assurance to the public that the use of animals has been carefully considered and justified. This does not correlate with the worries expressed to HRA by members of these committees.

“However, researchers remain hesitant to speak out as history tells us that this can have significant repercussions on the individual and the research program. I fear with recent activist developments in Europe, scientific advances in health have been retarded.”

Retarded? …or challenged?  The key measure to good science is its ability to be questioned and to withstand scrutiny. Without this fundamental requirement it becomes nothing more than a religious doctrine.

To use sentient, highly cognitive animals as “tools for research” is certainly cruel, but just as importantly, it does not represent good science. Despite the genetic similarity, primates are not sufficiently predictive of human outcomes due to the many genetic, metabolic and anatomical differences between them and us. There have been several research papers and systematic analyses published recently that confirm this. In fact it has been suggested that the predictability of primate models is no more accurate than the toss of a coin.

Finally, it has been said that during the IQ2 debate, a participant debating against animal experiments was referred to as “demented”.  Clearly, the vivisectors would do well to nominate a new spokesperson to defend their work, as resorting to personal attacks and innuendos only weakens their position and deflects from the core issue – the (ir)relevance of using non-human animals as models for human disease.

Whilst animal experiments has always been, and will remain, a highly polarising issue, what we now need is a non-emotive, science-based discussion that addresses the shortcomings of animal-based data and the urgent need to develop and validate human-based methods of research. Until then, both animals and humans will continue to suffer needlessly.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust