House legislators are looking to require the National Institutes of Health to write a plan for using fewer monkeys and other primates in medical research labs and moving them to sanctuaries once they’re retired.
The provision, included in funding legislation that is moving through the lower chamber, is a response to the fears of some scientists and animal rights activists who worry about the primates’ well-being and who question the usefulness of animal testing in developing medicines for people. The findings for nonhuman primates don’t always translate well, they say.
“I don’t think it’s crucial to say get rid of all animal testing altogether, but at the very least I would say there are a lot of animal tests that are not necessary and are not wise,” said Dr. Stephen Kaufman, an ophthalmologist and assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University who called himself a “strong skeptic” of animal testing.
Monkeys are the closest animals to humans, and for that reason many scientists see them as helpful in brain and other research. But animal rights groups also say their closeness to humans is especially controversial with the public when they learn monkeys used in government-funded experiments are infected with diseases, exposed to chemicals or undergo surgery, and sometimes killed.
[Related: NIH director defends industry-funded studies criticized by Elizabeth Warren]
The spending bill would require the NIH to write a report that would outline plans to reduce the amount of research based on monkeys. NIH laboratories housed 3,309 primates in 2018, and one of its divisions owns 2,625 primates on Morgan Island, S.C., though the facility is managed by Charles River Laboratories.
The NIH would not be required to implement the plan it comes up with, and it wouldn’t extend to primates at outside research facilities that get grants from the agency. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., authored the provision, calling primate testing “expensive, inefficient, and inhumane.”
One advocacy group, the White Coat Waste Project, makes the case against animal testing by arguing that it amounts to wasteful government spending. NIH doesn’t have an estimate for how much it spends on research involving animals, but the White Coast Waste Project pegs the amount between $15 billion and $20 billion a year, or roughly half the agency’s budget.
“If it has value, then let the private sector fund it,” said Justin Goodman, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the group. “This is a government funding issue.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has made similar arguments over the years. Alka Chandna, PETA’s laboratory oversight specialist, said she thought it unethical to use limited government funds for research involving animals when they could be used elsewhere.
[Also read: CrossFit sues NIH and CDC Foundations over donor list]
“We have finite health dollars from which we can address various human diseases,” she said.
Many scientists disagree with this negative assessment of animal testing, particularly because such testing is required for any drug the Food and Drug Administration approves.
“Animal models remain a critical part of our ability to understand the biology underlying human disease, as well as new diagnostics, preventive measures, and hopefully cures for human disease,” said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, associate director for science policy at NIH.
The vaccine to fight Ebola, which appears to be working in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was tested on nonhuman primates. The animals also are used in developing HIV vaccines, and the NIH recently announced it would be funding more Alzheimer’s disease testing using marmosets. PETA blasted the announcement about marmosets, claiming that such studies have “failed 99.6% of the time” and noting that only humans develop Alzheimer’s.
Animal rights groups recommend alternatives including cells in a petri dish, donated blood, 3D printing of animal limbs, or computer models. Many of these methods are already being used, and government agencies have ended some testing on primates.
In 2015, NIH Director Francis Collins announced the agency would stop funding research on chimpanzees. In January 2018, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb stopped an Arkansas lab from conducting nicotine experiments on squirrel monkeys after four monkeys died. The 26 remaining monkeys were moved to Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary in Gainesville, Fla.
Animal rights advocates and some lawmakers want to see the government go further.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is running for president, introduced legislation in December to restrict testing on primates. In May, Reps. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., introduced legislation that would require all federal agencies to retire monkeys, dogs, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs after experiments, rather than killing them.
The NIH and other scientists have to justify the use of animals for experiments and are required to follow standards to make sure that animals’ pain is minimized, that they’re housed properly, and that primates are getting the mental and physical exercise they need.
Scientists say that for decades they have had animals adopted out whenever possible, and on its campus the NIH allows adoption on a case-by-case basis, though it’s most common for primates to head to other labs. Monkeys are harder to place than cats or dogs, because they’re wild animals that need to be relocated somewhere they can receive care from people who are highly trained to feed and socialize them.
Other complications include the possibility that an animal will have an infection, which could spread to other animals in a sanctuary, or that an animal will not interact well with other primates. If monkeys aren’t placed properly, they can die.
Cindy Buckmaster, who supports research using animals and is chairwoman of the board of directors for Americans for Medical Progress, said she is delighted as a scientist when she is able to retire animals to sanctuaries. Doing so costs about $20,000 per monkey, and she does think government officials should discuss the costs and difficulties entailed.
“It wears on our emotions to euthanize,” she said. “When we get the chance to find animals homes, we live for this. The entire research community embraces this concept.”
