printer
friendly, larger print version
Subject: primfocus: committee on primate research criticised for 'blind
acceptance" of experiments
http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/opinion-former-index/animal-welfare/dr-hadwen-trust-eu-science-committee-on-primate-research-criticised--blind-acceptance%E2%80%99-experiments-$1262539$447630.htm
Dr Hadwen Trust: EU science committee on primate research criticised
for 'blind acceptance' of experiments
21, Jan 2009
EU science committee on primate research criticised for 'blind
acceptance' of experiments. Replacing lab primates "a matter of moral
and scientific urgency" says Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research.
The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, a leading non-animal medical
research charity, has heavily criticised a key EU science committee
support for experiments on non-human primates, published yesterday.
The Opinion by the Scientific Committee on Health & Environmental
Risks (SCHER)[1] fails to take account of scientific evidence of the
limitations of primate research and downplays the potential of
advanced alternative techniques. The Dr Hadwen Trust [2], says it may
be an 'uncomfortable truth' for scientists, but some adult primates
have mental abilities greater than human infants [3] so an EU-wide
strategy to replace them with alternative techniques is a matter of
moral as well as scientific urgency.
An Opinion by SCHER was requested by the European Commission as part
of the long delayed revision of Directive 86/609/EEC, Europe's animal
experiments law. A proposal to revise the law was published on Nov 5
2008. [4] The Commission has been under intense pressure to examine
the ethical and scientific case for an EU phase-out of primate
research and testing. In September 2007 the European Parliament
overwhelmingly voted in support of a Written Declaration demanding an
end to research on great apes and wild-caught primates and
establishment of a timetable for replacing the use of all primates
with ethical alternative research techniques. [5]
Emily McIvor, Policy Director at the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane
Research, says despite being asked to produce a scientifically
balanced and accurate assessment, SCHER's Opinion is flawed from the
outset because it assumes the credibility of primate research without
unbiased scientific scrutiny.
"SCHER's Opinion could and should have been a turning point in
Europe's bioethics, mapping out what needs to be done to achieve
primate-free laboratories." says Ms McIvor, "Instead it lacks both the
scientific scrutiny and the necessary vision to do anything other than
maintain the status quo. Its blind acceptance of the validity of
primate research in areas such as neurology, stroke and AIDS, despite
clear evidence to the contrary, suggests a level of bias or inaccuracy
that would simply be deemed unacceptable in other areas of scientific
enquiry."
The Dr Hadwen Trust is particularly disappointed by the Committee's
assessment of non-animal alternatives. Whilst SCHER does "recognises
that there are promising developments that have replaced non-human
primate use" [6], its assessment of alternatives is short-sighted.
Where current replacement gaps do exist and primate 'models' are
clearly failing, SCHER could and should have called for urgent
priority funding.
"Almost 10,500 primates are subjected to experiments in Europe every
year, despite many of them having cognitive abilities comparable to
human babies." says Emily McIvor. "That may be an uncomfortable truth
for some scientists, but that makes strategy to replace primates a
matter of moral and scientific urgency. Advanced techniques like human
brain imaging, computer modelling and human cell culture are already
replacing primates with studies more relevant to human patients. With
further technology development, total replacement is achievable but
SCHER seems to have ignored that path to progress."
Primate research: failed treatments and new hope
AIDS: Over 25 years, at least 37 animal-tested HIV vaccines have
failed in human trials. Rhesus macaque monkeys are the favoured, but
unsuccessful, 'model' but these could be replaced with a combined
approach - population studies, in vitro cellular infection models
including the newly launched 'human immune system in a test tube',
molecular biology and computer modelling.
STROKE: Ninety-five stroke drugs have passed animal tests but failed
in human clinical trials. For over 170 years primates have been used
but failed to yield safe, effective new drugs for people. Population
studies, brain imaging, post-mortem brain analysis and in vitro
multi-cell cultures would provide more useful data relevant to human
stroke.
MALARIA: 350-500 million cases of malaria occur worldwide, and over
one million people die from malaria each year. Vaccines developed and
tested in primates have failed in humans. In vitro human liver cell
cultures could soon replace primates in identifying vaccine candidates
and screening anti-malarial drugs.
BRAIN FUNCTION: Research into human psychological processes such as
memory and depression can involve surgically implanting electrodes in,
or removing parts of, the brains of primates. Advances in non-invasive
imaging now provide a range of cutting edge imaging techniques,
including the creation of temporary 'virtual' lesions in the human
brain. With these more relevant techniques available, the use of
primates is scientifically superseded as well as being ethically
inappropriate.
HEPATITIS C: Despite decades of animal-based research there is still
no definitive cure or vaccine. Mathematical modelling has already
benefited hepatitis C patients by elucidating the virus's dynamics and
improving drug treatment. Human cell cultures for research and drug
screening for this illness have also led to major developments in this
area.
Notes to Editor
1 The need for non-human primates in biomedical research, production
and testing of products and devices, SCHER published 20 January 2009
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/ committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_110.pdf
2. The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UK's leading non-animal medical research
charity funding exclusively non-animal techniques to replace animal
experiments, benefiting people and animals.
www.drhadwentrust.org
www.scienceroom.org
3. Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget's AB task:
evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Experimental Brain Research 74 (1989)
4. Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the
approximation of laws and administrative provisions of the Member
States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and
other scientific purposes. Draft proposal
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0543:EN:NOT
5. Written Declaration 40/2007 "Urges the Commission, the Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament to use the revision process of
Directive 86/609/EC as an opportunity to: i. Make ending the use of
apes and wild caught monkeys in scientific experiments an urgent
priority; ii. Establish a timetable for replacing the use of all
primates in scientific experiments with alternatives."
6. The need for non-human primates in biomedical research, production
and testing of products and devices, SCHER, 3.2, p21.
In the EU, 10,451 primates were used in 2005; the vast majority
(7,000) were used for toxicology studies, 1,450 are used for basic
medical research including brain research and 1,400 are used for
pharmaceutical R&D. In the USA, 62,315 primates were used in 2006. In
Japan, an estimated 2,802 primates were used in 2004. In Great
Britain, 3,125 primates were used in 2007.
Primfocus mailing list
Primfocus@waste.org
https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/primfocus
