An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 1. Validity of the Chimpanzee Model
Bailey, J. (2010). Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 38(5), 387-418.
The USA is the only significant user of chimpanzees in biomedical research in the world, since many countries have banned or limited the practice due to substantial ethical, economic and scientific concerns. Advocates of chimpanzee use cite hepatitis C research as a major reason for its necessity and continuation, in spite of supporting evidence that is scant and often anecdotal. This paper examines the scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee hepatitis C research, and concludes that claims of the necessity of chimpanzees in historical and future hepatitis C research are exaggerated and unjustifiable, respectively. The chimpanzee model has several major scientific, ethical, economic and practical caveats. It has made a relatively negligible contribution to knowledge of, and tangible progress against, the hepatitis C virus compared to non-chimpanzee research, and must be considered scientifically redundant, given the array of alternative methods of inquiry now available. The continuation of chimpanzee use in hepatitis C research adversely affects scientific progress, as well as chimpanzees and humans in need of treatment. Unfounded claims of its necessity should not discourage changes in public policy regarding the use of chimpanzees in U.S. laboratories.
An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 2. Alternative Replacement Methods
Bailey, J. (2010). Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 38(6), 471-494.
The use of chimpanzees in hepatitis C virus (HCV) research was examined in the report associated with this paper (1: Validity of the Chimpanzee Model), in which it was concluded that claims of past necessity of chimpanzee use were exaggerated, and that claims of current and future indispensability were unjustifiable. Furthermore, given the serious scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee experimentation, it was proposed that it must now be considered redundant—particularly in light of the demonstrable contribution of alternative methods to past and current scientific progress, and the future promise that these methods hold. This paper builds on this evidence, by examining the development of alternative approaches to the investigation of HCV, and by reviewing examples of how these methods have contributed, and are continuing to contribute substantially, to progress in this field. It augments the argument against chimpanzee use by demonstrating the comprehensive nature of these methods and the valuable data they deliver. The entire life-cycle of HCV can now be investigated in a human (and much more relevant) context, without recourse to chimpanzee use. This also includes the testing of new therapies and vaccines. Consequently, there is no sound argument against the changes in public policy that propose a move away from chimpanzee use in U.S. laboratories.
An Examination of Chimpanzee Use in Human Cancer Research
Bailey, J. (2009). Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 37(4), 399-416.
Advocates of chimpanzee research claim the genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees make them an indispensable research tool to combat human diseases. Given that cancer is a leading cause of human death worldwide, one might expect that if chimpanzees were needed for, or were productive in, cancer research, then they would have been widely used. This comprehensive literature analysis reveals that chimpanzees have scarcely been used in any form of cancer research, and that chimpanzee tumours are extremely rare and biologically different from human cancers. Often, chimpanzee citations described peripheral use of chimpanzee cells and genetic material in predominantly human genomic studies. Papers describing potential new cancer therapies noted significant concerns regarding the chimpanzee model. Other studies described interventions that have not been pursued clinically. Finally, available evidence indicates that chimpanzees are not essential in the development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. It would therefore be unscientific to claim that chimpanzees are vital to cancer research. On the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that cancer research would not suffer, if the use of chimpanzees for this purpose were prohibited in the US. Genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees make them an unsuitable model for cancer, as well as other human diseases.
Developmental Context Effects on Bicultural Posttrauma Self Repair in Chimpanzees
Bradshaw, G.A., Capaldo, T., Lindner, L., & Grow, G. (2009). Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1376-1388.
Longitudinal studies have shown how early developmental contexts contribute significantly to self-development; their influence extends through adulthood, informs sociality, and affects resilience under severe stress. While the importance of sociality in trauma recovery is recognized, the relationship between developmental and posttrauma contexts and recovery effects is less appreciated, particularly in cases in which recovery contexts differ widely from the culture of origin. Using an attachment-based model of bicultural (competence in two cultures) development, the authors examined the role of self in posttrauma repair of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) who had been differentially reared by humans during neuroethologically formative periods and subsequently used as biomedical subjects. Results show that variations in posttrauma schema correlate with early socialization patterns. Self-resilience supports, but also may constrain, recovery depending on the compatibility of internal self models with recovery resources. Trauma severity notwithstanding, the cultural context of origin emerges as a critical factor in designing effective therapeutic intervention and assessments in primates, humans inclusive. Finally, the results underscore the ethical implications for the practices of cross-fostering nonhuman primates and their use in research.
Building an Inner Sanctuary: Complex PTSD in Chimpanzees
Bradshaw, G.A., Capaldo, T., Lindner, L., & Grow, G. (2008). Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(1), 9-34.
Through the analysis of case studies of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in residence at a sanctuary, who previously sustained prolonged captivity and biomedical experimentation, we illustrate how human psychological models of diagnosis and treatment might be approached in great apes. This study reflects growing attention to ethical, scientific, and practical problems associated with psychological well-being of animals. The analysis concludes that a diagnosis of Complex PTSD in chimpanzees is consistent with descriptions of trauma-induced symptoms as described by the DSM-IV and human trauma research. We report on how these findings contribute to diagnosis and treatment of chimpanzees in captivity and elucidate discussion concerning their continued laboratory use. This clinical study contributes toward theory and therapeutic practices of an emergent trans-species psychology inclusive of both humans and other species. Such an ability to extend what we know about models of human trauma opens deeper understanding and insights into ourselves as well as individuals from other species.
An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research
Bailey, J. (2008). Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(4), 381-428.
Prior to Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV)-infected macaques becoming the ‘model of choice’ in the 1990s, chimpanzees were widely used in AIDS vaccine research and testing. Faced with the continued failure to develop an effective human vaccine, some scientists are calling for a return to their widespread use. To assess the past and potential future contribution of chimpanzees to AIDS vaccine development, databases and published literature were systematically searched to compare the results of AIDS vaccine trials in chimpanzees with those of human clinical trials, and to determine whether the chimpanzee trials were predictive of the human response. Protective and/or therapeutic responses have been elicited in chimpanzees, via: passive antibody transfer; CD4 analogues; attenuated virus; many types and combinations of recombinant HIV proteins; DNA vaccines; recombinant adenovirus and canarypox vaccines; and many multi-component vaccines using more than one of these approaches. Immunogenicity has also been shown in chimpanzees for vaccinia-based and peptide vaccines. Protection and/or significant therapeutic effects have not been demonstrated by any vaccine to date in humans. Vaccine responses in chimpanzees and humans are highly discordant. Claims of the importance of chimpanzees in AIDS vaccine development are without foundation, and a return to the use of chimpanzees in AIDS research/vaccine development is scientifically unjustifiable.
Chimpanzee Research: An Examination of Its Contribution to Biomedical Knowledge and Efficacy in Combating Human Diseases
Bailey, J., Balcombe, J. & Capaldo, T. (2007). Project R&R.
Research on captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) incurs considerable animal welfare, ethical and financial costs. Advocates of such research claim these costs are outweighed by substantial advancements in biomedical knowledge, and that the genetic similarity of chimpanzees to humans enables the former to make critical contributions to preventing, diagnosing and combating human diseases. To assess these claims, we examined the disciplines investigated in 749 studies of captive chimpanzees published from 1995 – 2004 inclusive, and subjected 95 randomly selected papers to a detailed citation analysis: 49.5% (47/95) of papers had not been cited at the time of this study; 38.5% (34/95) were cited by 116 papers that did not describe well-developed methods for combating human diseases; 14.7% (14/95) of these chimpanzee studies were cited by (a total of 27) papers describing well-developed prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic methods for combating human diseases. Close examination of these 27 human medical papers revealed that in vitro research, human clinical and epidemiological investigations, molecular assays and methods, and genomic studies, contributed most to their development. Duplication of human outcomes, inconsistency with other human or primate data, and other causes resulted in the absence of any chimpanzee study demonstrating an essential contribution, or, in most cases, even a significant contribution of any kind, towards the development of the described human treatment.
