News blog

Study to examine use of chimpanzees in US research — UPDATED

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee that will recommend whether the US government should continue to support chimpanzee research opened its inaugural meeting yesterday in Washington, D.C. and began wrestling with the thorny questions it has been set.

The Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research is charged with determining “if chimpanzees are or will be necessary for research discoveries” to improve public health and for determining the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and vaccines. Its task also includes looking at whether the animals, humans’ closest living relatives, are necessary for progress in behavioral research.

Sally Rockey, NIH’s Deputy Director for Extramural Research, told the committee: “We are expecting a highly objective study, one that is going to consider the scientific ramifications of the use of chimpanzees….If they are needed, why are they needed? You need to describe that to us.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that supports chimpanzee research, asked the IOM to undertake the study in January, after three senators wrote this letter to NIH director Francis Collins. They were reacting to a controversial NIH proposal to move 176 government-owned chimpanzees out of semi-retirement and back into active research.

Yesterday, in a public session in a small, crowded room at the National Academies’ Keck Center in downtown Washington, the committee members asked pointed questions of invited guests that included officials from the NIH.


Committee member Jeffrey Kahn, the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, asked Rockey why the committee’s statement of task did not touch on the ethics and morality of chimpanzee research, but only on the whether the science warrants continued research.

On the heels of a closed committee session yesterday morning, “Many of us have questions about the scope of the task,” Kahn said. “It talks mostly about necessity of chimp research….it doesn’t say anything about the appropriateness of using chimps in research.”

Rockey replied: “We are trying to have this focus on the science behind this. When is there a scientific need to use chimpanzees?” She added: “Obviously, when you look at things like alternatives…you are going to be touching on some of these issues. But our main focus again is to look at the scientific need for chimps in research.”

A little later, Diane Griffin, a committee member and virologist who is chair in molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, pressed Rockey on the reason that NIH commissioned the study.

From Rockey’s presentation, “I deduce that the NIH right now doesn’t see a problem with vetting these different chimpanzee studies,” Griffin said, because the agency feels that rigorous oversight is in place and that the use of chimpanzees is scientifically justified.

“So I assume,” she continued, “that the main driving force for requesting the study is the senators’ letter and the general public interaction with the various issues, rather than the NIH perceiving that they don’t have a good policy in place now for making these decisions.”

“You’re correct,” Rockey replied.

Chimp research opponents Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist and scientific advisor to the New England Antivivisection Society and John Pippin, a senior medical and research adviser for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine also spoke to the committee. Kevin Kregel, the chair of the department of health and human physiology at the University of Iowa, spoke in favor of the research on behalf of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

Kregel’s testimony can be seen here; Pippin’s is available here.

The committee will meet again on August 11 and 12 and October 3 and 4. One of the August meeting days will be open to the public; the rest are closed. The committee aims to produce a report by the end of the year.

It has its work cut out for it. Near the end of the meeting, Jay Kaplan, a committee member who directs the primate center at Wake Forest University in North Carolina noted, with a touch of irony, the diametrically opposed opinions of the invited guests. “This certainly offers a challenge to the committee as to where the evidence lies,” he said.

Animal rights activists have complained that the membership of the committee is tilted in favor of continued chimpanzee research. But one drug company representative who was initially proposed as a committee member wasn’t present yesterday: Letty Medina, a veterinarian who is Associate Director of Animal Welfare and Compliance at Abbott Laboratories, has withdrawn from the committee. Similarly, Alan Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the executive publisher of Science, will not serve on the committee, although he was initially nominated to do so.

Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the National Academies, said in an email today that it is standard procedure for the credentials of proposed committee members to be reviewed for conflict of interest and bias — and for candidates to be withdrawn if a member’s position and background indicate a conflict of interest, or could be perceived as a conflict. “That’s what happened here,” Stencel wrote.

UPDATE: 1:40 pm, May 27

Yesterday’s testimony from Jarrod Bailey of the New England Antivivisection Society can be viewed here.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Carrie said:

    I’m glad that the government is taking a closer look at whether we actually need to be experimenting on chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are extremely intelligent, sensitive animals who are like us in a lot of ways, but who do not contract and develop diseases like we do. That’s why so many years of experiments on chimpanzees have resulted in data that just doesn’t translate. I’m really concerned about the make-up of this committee though. They say potential members are reviewed for conflicts of interest—but how did so many people who have clear, obvious conflicts (like directing a primate center!) get on the committee?

  2. Report this comment

    Wally said:

    HIV, hepatitis, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases have not been eradicated in humans after decades of experiments on chimpanzees. The IOM should recommend that the U.S. government follow other nations that have already done away with cruel and futile research on chimpanzees. Better yet, Congress should pass the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, prohibiting chimpanzee experiments.

  3. Report this comment

    Denice Mikkelson said:

    Please do not let these chimpanzees or an others go into so called research. They do not make good test subjects and the money can be better spent with other sources that are more reliable. Please release these and all chimps from any and all reseaarch.

    Thank you for your time.

    Denice Mikkelson

  4. Report this comment

    Yvonne Boudreaux said:

    We will look back on this era and wonder why it took us so long to end this barbaric and ineffective practice. We know too much to ignore doing the right thing, once and for all.

  5. Report this comment

    Valerie Storer said:

    Hats off to those who support this move. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

  6. Report this comment

    Jonathan Balcombe said:

    It is a mistake to only consider the scientific validity of chimpanzee experimentation. An informed ethical analysis based on chimpanzee sentience would clearly reject the continuation of such research for the same reasons it is unacceptable to be done on humans.

  7. Report this comment

    Brian Schmidt said:

    Please note that the letter from Dr. Kregel discusses the opportunity to intentionally infect these chimps with Ebola virus in order to test treatment strategies.

    I don’t question the scientific value of that and other experiments, but for the NIH to say it raises no novel bioethical issues that need in depth examination is being disingenuous. The limited scope of this research is unresponsive to the senators’ request.

  8. Report this comment

    Alfred Levinson said:

    Opponents of the use of chimpanzees for the development of vaccines and treatments for hepatitus C and D ignore the fact that the vaccine for Hepatitus B was developed using chimpanzees. Numerous human lives have been saved by their use. When it comes to saving human lives human rights trumps animal rights.

  9. Report this comment

    Malerie B said:

    Please cease brutalizing these precious beings. Enough is enough. Useless experiments using monies that could be better utilized to advance the health of all living beings without torturing any. No more human induced suffering to the animals-please.

Comments are closed.