Preparing chimpanzees for laboratory research

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

BACKGROUND

The use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature on this topic.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for articles published in English. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles. Two journals specialized in animal ethics, and the reference lists of included articles were subsequently also reviewed.

RESULTS

We included 60 articles, most of which were published between 2006 and 2016. Twenty-five articles argued for a total ban of GA research, 21 articles defended partial restrictions, and 14 articles argued against restrictions. Overall, we identified 110 reason types, 74 for, and 36 against, restricting GA research. Reasons were grouped into nine domains: moral standing, science, welfare, public and expert attitudes, retirement and conservation, respect and rights, financial costs, law and legal status, and longer-term consequences.

CONCLUSION

Our review generated five main findings. First, there is a trend in the academic debate in favor of restricting GA research that parallels worldwide policy changes in the same direction. Second, in several domains (e.g., moral standing, and respect and rights), the reasons were rather one-sided in favor of restrictions. Third, some prominent domains (e.g., science and welfare) featured considerable engagement between opposing positions. Fourth, there is low diversity and independence among authors, including frequent potential conflicts of interests in articles defending a strong position (i.e., favoring a total ban or arguing against restrictions). Fifth, scholarly discussion was not the norm, as reflected in a high proportion of non-peer-reviewed articles and authors affiliated to non-academic institutions.

Chimpanzees as vulnerable subjects in research

Using an approach developed in the context of human bioethics, we argue that chimpanzees in research can be regarded as vulnerable subjects. This vulnerability is primarily due to communication barriers and situational factors-confinement and dependency-that make chimpanzees particularly susceptible to risks of harm and exploitation in experimental settings. In human research, individuals who are deemed vulnerable are accorded special protections. Using conceptual and moral resources developed in the context of research with vulnerable humans, we show how chimpanzees warrant additional safeguards against harm and exploitation paralleling those for human subjects. These safeguards should include empowering third parties to act as surrogate decision makers for chimpanzees, ensuring participant "assent," and avoiding recruitment of animal subjects based merely on convenience.

Practical and critical instruction for nonhuman primate diabetic models

Diabetes mellitus, a disease of metabolic dysregulation, is characterized by inappropriate hyperglycemia resulting from progressive loss of insulin secretion or action. The potential of nonhuman primate (NHP) models in diabetes research has been well understood. NHPs have long been regarded as the "gold standard" for preclinical studies. However, there are persistent, severe obstacles to the development and application of these models. At present, a consensus for standardized strategies of diabetic induction has not been achieved. The different modeling methods of diabetes has led to various characterizations of the pathology of the disease; however, there are deficiencies of systemic evaluation programs for nonhuman primate diabetes models. In this scenario, experimental systemic programs provide the highly required guidelines for NHP diabetic models. Moreover, given the expensive and relatively small population of primates and the fatal diabetic complications, it is imperative to carefully manage the care and use of these animals in biomedical research studies. This article briefly reviews the technical and managerial aspects of NHP diabetes models providing practical and critical instruction on housing and care, routine management, development strategy, modeling diagnosis, evaluation, and disease control, as well as guidelines for model selection for various purposes. The present article sought to provide guidelines for NHP models of diabetes in their development and application. It is not intended to outline mandatory requirements for clinical accreditation.

Physiological and Welfare Consequences of Transport, Relocation, and Acclimatization of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Manipulations of the environments of captive nonhuman primates often have welfare consequences to the animals, including behavioral effects, and for certain manipulations, physiological effects as well. The processes of transporting, relocating, and acclimatizing nonhuman primates across facilities represent manipulations that are likely to have welfare, behavioral, and physiological consequences to the relocated animals. Seventy-two chimpanzees were relocated from the Primate Foundation of Arizona (PFA) in Arizona to the Keeling Center (KCCMR) in Texas. Animals were transported for approximately 21 h in single cages in a USDA-approved, climate-controlled trailer. Chimpanzees were weighed, anesthetized, and blood samples were collected 1) immediately prior to departure from PFA, 2) immediately upon arrival at the KCCMR, and 3) at additional time point(s) between 3 and 12 weeks after arrival at the KCCMR. Chimpanzees were quarantined in familiar pairs or social groups for 60-90 days at the KCCMR. Blood samples were analyzed for hematological and clinical chemistry parameters and compared across time points. In addition, samples from a subset of animals were assayed for cell-mediated immune parameters. Comparisons of the data obtained just prior to transport, to the data obtained immediately upon arrival, revealed numerous statistically significant differences in hematological, clinical chemistry, and immunological parameters. Some of these were indicative of stress, and thus, changes in welfare state, although many remained within the published normal ranges for chimpanzees. Additional analyses showed that many of the clinical chemistry values collected 3 to 12 weeks after arrival at the KCCMR had returned to pre-transport values. In contrast, of the cell-mediated immune parameters that were affected by transport and relocation, few had returned to pre-transport levels 8 weeks after transport, and three of the four hematology variables analyzed had not returned to pre-transport levels 12 weeks after transport. Comparisons of body weights before and immediately after transport revealed that animals lost an average of 2.5 kg during the 21-h transport, a statistically significant reduction that some animals never regained. These results demonstrate that transport and relocation affect a variety of physiological parameters with potential welfare implications and that some of these effects last as long as 3 months. These findings have important implications for the welfare and use of recently transported nonhuman primates, especially chimpanzees, in biomedical research. In order to allow animals to adapt to their new surroundings and to prevent unwanted confounds from influencing experiments, sufficient time must be provided after transport for chimpanzees to acclimatize.

Preparation of animals for use in the laboratory: issues and challenges for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

Preparation of animals is important for optimization of animal welfare as well as to minimize interanimal variation, thereby strengthening the quality of data for in vivo studies. These issues are important in the work of institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs), but they pose many challenges as well. This article provides IACUC members with a resource for use in determining whether and how preparation of animals for research affects the IACUC's responsibilities. The topics addressed are intended to serve as a starting point for consideration and discussion. Questions related to subject selection and acclimation of subjects to experimental housing and procedures are emphasized and should provide IACUC members with a framework for discussion of relevant questions. Guidelines are provided for promoting the acclimation of a number of species to experimental settings. Additional, potentially controversial points are also raised, including the effects on longitudinal data sets of changing subject preparation procedures. The roles of the IACUC in the research endeavor are multifaceted and continuously evolving. As empirical data are produced that affect additional aspects of animal care and use, it is important for these committees to be able to evaluate and, when appropriate, stimulate the implementation of improved procedures and strategies.