Chimpanzees and Bad Research: It’s in the Genes

BOSTON, MA  (January 2012)—A new paper, “Lessons from Chimpanzee-Based Research on Human Disease: the Implications of Genetic Differences” published in the international journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals presents scientific arguments against the need for chimpanzees for current or future research for human health.

The study’s author, Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D., geneticist and Science Director for NEAVS, critically assessed widespread claims that there is only a 1 or 2 % genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. He found major implications of many minor differences that in combination lead to vastly different biology, including susceptibility to diseases, the course diseases take, immune functioning and other significant effects. While chimpanzees are our closest genetic relatives, in reality, we differ genetically by around 5-7%. This relatively small genetic difference makes the chimpanzee poorly relevant to human disease research—including HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, cancer, and other areas. The study’s conclusions support an end to the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research, and a prioritization of the use of alternatives already available.

Says Bailey, “There are more humane, cheaper, and scientifically superior methods of research we could and should be using to replace chimpanzee research now and in the future. If we do not, we are causing chimpanzees to suffer and die needlessly, and shortchanging every person waiting for treatments, cures and preventions for the diseases that continue to take their toll on humans. Chimpanzee research doesn’t work because it can’t work.”

The study adds to the growing body of evidence against the use of chimpanzees. This includes several papers published by Bailey and others presented in his testimony before the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee, charged with assessing current and future needs for chimpanzees in biomedical research. The IOM’s nine-month investigation concluded: “most current biomedical research use of chimpanzees is not necessary.” The Committee outlined stringent recommendations for when and if chimpanzees can be considered. The National Institutes of Health announced that it would accept all IOM conclusions and is currently assessing the implications for chimpanzee use in the U.S.

There are approximately 1,000 chimpanzees currently in U.S. labs. The vast majority are warehoused and not being used in active research. The U.S. is the only remaining nation maintaining or using chimpanzees for invasive biomedical research. Ten countries have banned or severely limited their use. Further, the European Union adopted Directive 2010/63 which bans the use of great apes in research in all EU countries. The only exception would be in the case of a pandemic or for conservation of the species. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection worked to pass Directive 2010/63 and partnered with NEAVS on Bailey’s genetic study.

Contacts

Theodora Capaldo, EdD
(o)  978 352 8175 (c) 617 413 0611
Jarrod Bailey, PhD
011 4414 346 72626

The Miracle of Sanctuary

Chimpanzees step into the grass and sunshine for the first time in decades.

We wanted to be sure you saw this video footage that circulated in the media last month, showing the release of 38 chimpanzees who had been caged for decades and used in medical experiments. We get to watch as they walk outside for the first time in sanctuary. The images of their overwhelming delight as they step from their indoor enclosure out into the grass and sunshine of the Gut Aiderbichl Animal Sanctuary, near Salzburg, Austria, filled viewers worldwide with tears of amazement, joy, and the commitment to help others just like them who are still languishing in U.S. labs.

Some of the chimpanzees had been born in captivity, others stolen from their families in Africa as infants for use in research, including HIV experiments. When a U.S. pharmaceutical company took over the Austrian laboratory that was using the chimpanzees in 1997, the chimpanzee experiments ended—further testament to the massive failure of the use of chimpanzees in HIV/AIDS research.

Eventually the chimpanzees were released to an indoor, zoo-like setting. Finally, in September, the surviving chimpanzees were released into a spacious outdoor sanctuary.

The joyous images of them blinking wide-eyed in the sunlight and lying blissfully on beds of grass are a sharp contrast to the stark reality of their former lives. In laboratories, chimpanzees can be kept alone in 5’x5’x7’ steel and cement cages, sitting and sleeping on grids of bars. According to the Daily Mail newspaper report that accompanied the above video, “With no stimulation, no nurturing love and no hope, many were driven to the brink of madness and sometimes beyond.”

Now, for the first time in decades, these chimpanzees can enjoy the relative freedoms of sanctuary, roaming outdoors without bars between them … simple pleasures that to them must feel like heaven.

Chimpanzees at LEMSIP lab (now defunct), fate unknown
© Nancy Megna

Taking Action for All the Others

The U.S. is the last country in the world to hold chimpanzees for research. Some 1,065 chimpanzees are waiting behind laboratory bars for their turn in sanctuary. NEAVS is committed to giving all of them this same opportunity for release and restitution—and that day is getting closer.

Earlier this year legislators called for an investigation of the scientific merit of chimpanzee research. As a result, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has formed a committee to investigate whether chimpanzees are “scientifically necessary” in biomedical research.

I testified at the committee’s public hearing, sharing the stories of Jeannie and Tom, two chimpanzees rescued from research, who were fortunate enough to enjoy several years of peace and comfort at Fauna Foundation before they died.

There were several people at this meeting who profit from chimpanzee research and who made the typical (and unsubstantiated) arguments in favor of keeping chimpanzees in labs. But several scientists, including representatives of pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, testified that with advances in biomedical technology, chimpanzees are no longer necessary for developing high tech drugs like monoclonal antibodies, vaccines for epidemic diseases like malaria, or other areas. One expert on biodefense research testified that in his area, “I am not aware of any historic use of chimpanzees, no current use and, for the future, I don’t envision any need.”

The IOM report is scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2011. This report could have major implications for the chimpanzees now waiting in labs.

Fighting Science with Science

NEAVS has published two new science papers—strategic additions to our vast arsenal of peer-reviewed works building the ethical and scientific case for ending chimpanzee research.

Our science director, Dr. Jarrod Bailey, has a sixth paper now in press for the December issue of Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA).

Titled “Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: the Implications of Genetic Differences,” this paper analyzes the small degree of genetic difference (estimated at 1-3%) that separates humans from our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee. Despite this seemingly strong similarity, Dr. Bailey shows, there are in fact key differences in gene expression that make it impossible to use chimpanzees to accurately predict results in humans. This reality begs the question, if research using our closest relative in the animal kingdom is this unreliable, how much more unreliable is research using rats, mice, cats, dogs, or any other species? Dr. Bailey testified at the first IOM meeting and left everyone impressed with the wealth of information we are able to provide to substantiate our case to end the use of chimpanzees. The opposition falters and is left silent in response to our work; they cannot discredit it with arguments to its contrary because those arguments do not exist.

In addition, I and my co-author Gay Bradshaw, PhD, PhD have written a third psychology paper, currently in press for publication as an Animals & Society Institute Policy Paper: “Humanity, Reason, and Justice: Law of Psychiatric Injury and the Bioethics of Great Ape Wellbeing.” We demonstrate that it is virtually impossible to use chimpanzees in biomedical research without inflicting extreme and often lifelong psychological suffering on them—a direct violation of the Animal Welfare Act, which requires that the psychological well-being of primates be met. Given this inherent contradiction between federal law and the reality of laboratory life, this and our previous papers—which for the first time documented chimpanzee psychological suffering in human-based, clinical terms—challenge the ethics of science’s arbitrary species barrier as to who is worthy of protection and who is sacrificed … even if for no good reason.

NEAVS Website: Bigger & Better

In 2006, NEAVS launched releasechimps.org, our award-winning campaign website. Used by thousands around the world, including scientists, it remains the single most important and comprehensive resource for groups and individuals working on behalf of chimpanzees in labs.

This fall we are following suit with the release of a bigger, better NEAVS website that is equally comprehensive and promises to serve again as the resource to go to for information on all important issues surrounding the use of animals in research, testing, and education.

In addition to a sharpened image, including our new logo (the NEAVS rabbit, but now outside her rectangular box), our new site has updated and expanded information on the plight of animals in labs, as well as on the progress being made to replace animals with scientifically superior and humane alternatives. New or improved features include Frequently Asked Questions, resources for students and the public, the latest on areas of animal use and non-animal alternatives, updates on NEAVS campaigns, interactive tools, and ways to get involved. Our site address remains the same, neavs.org. Watch for the website launch at the end of this month!

Sanctuary Fund

Through our Sanctuary Fund, NEAVS proudly supports special and unique efforts to rescue animals from vivisection. Over the years NEAVS has given significant support to Animals Asia, the leading China-based rescue and advocacy organization working to end the horrific form of vivisection known as “bear farming,” in which endangered bears are confined for years in coffin-like cages in order to have their bile extracted through crude and excruciating surgeries. The bile, used in traditional Eastern medicine, can now also be found in items like toothpaste as those who profit from its sale exploit modern marketing strategies.

Most recently we made a special 2011 donation to the Moon Bear Rescue Fund to help care for bears now in sanctuary, as well as to rescue future bears in urgent need. NEAVS now sponsors a bear named Shima (“island” in Japanese—named after my rescued Akita named Shima, who was my dear companion for many years before her passing).

Chimpanzees step into the grass and sunshine for the first time in decades.

Shima is a young bear, just over two years old, who was rescued from a bear farm along with four others. Now safe from cruel confinement and bile extraction, she will have the opportunity to grow up with other bears in the relative freedom of sanctuary.

Bears worldwide are threatened by the international trafficking of bear parts for traditional Asian medicine. In my last President’s Report, I told you that NEAVS was supporting pending New York legislation to help end the sale and transportation of bear gallbladders and bile. I am pleased to report that this bill was signed into law and will take effect in January. The new law sets highly restrictive measures on the commercial trade in bear parts in New York—a major improvement that will help end the poaching of wild bears. There are now only four remaining states in the nation (Idaho, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming) which allow free commercial trade in bear parts.

In other sanctuary news, NEAVS also gave a major donation from our Sanctuary Fund to Chimp Haven as seed money to help build a new outdoor habitat enclosure for five new chimpanzees—Murphy, Flick, Pierre, JoJo, and Doc—who are former victims of HIV research. Jo Jo is one of the first chimpanzees that famed chimpanzee expert Dr. Jane Goodall met in a lab. These chimpanzees came from the Wild Animal Orphanage (WAO) in Texas, which closed due to bankruptcy. Our funds were the first awarded for this rescue and were followed by other significant contributions which have allowed construction to begin. We are pleased to support this effort. When sanctuaries fail, their animals must continue to be cared for. We thank Chimp Haven and Save the Chimps for opening their doors to these former WAO chimps, who were among those rescued from the LEMSIP lab in the late 1990s.

Looking Forward

In our Fall newsletter, I quoted John Stuart Mill: “Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption.” Never has it been more clear to me that we as a society are in the “discussion” phase of animal rights—and approaching the point of “adoption.”

As part of NEAVS’ Leadership Circle, you are among those who have given the most generously in support of our groundbreaking work. Your generosity is what makes our campaigns happen. Every science paper, every educational ad, every presentation, every legislative outreach or policy initiative, every rescued animal we’ve helped have a “good day” in sanctuary, is thanks to you.

What makes the case for animal rights all the more noble and extraordinary is that, unlike humans, animals have no ability to advocate on their own behalf. The fight for their protection is entirely in the hands of compassionate humans—those who have no stake in this debate other than a wish to see all living beings treated with dignity, kindness, and respect.

My sincere personal gratitude to you for being part of this army of compassion.

Sincerely,

Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D.
President

Drs. Capaldo/Bailey Post Aug 11-12, 2011 Meeting Comments

Dr. Capaldo verbal and written testimony Aug 11, 2011

Dr. Bailey Post May 26, 2011 Meeting Comments

Dr. Bailey testimony, May 26, 2011

NEAVS President, Dr. Theodora Capaldo, and Science Director, Dr. Jarrod Bailey, followed up their presentations to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Committee on Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research meetings on August 11 and 12 and May 26, 2011 with comments expanding their own testimonies (click here to read their testimonies) and addressing the errors, omissions, lack of substantiating information and other concerns with the testimony of those who continue to advocate for chimpanzee use in research.

The IOM expects to deliver its report by the end of 2011 and is currently accepting public comments (click here to submit your comments).

The years of scientific investigation that NEAVS/Project R&R has put into supporting our case to end the use of chimpanzees has delivered impeccable arguments as to how scientifically unnecessary and unproductive their use is and how inhumane and ethically indefensible it is. Our body of work (click here for information on all our published papers) is proving critical to the IOM’s deliberations. NEAVS/Project R&R clarifies the factual realities from the exaggerated and fictitious rhetoric that proponents of chimpanzee use still insist on relying on. NEAVS/Project R&R fights science with science.

The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) testified before the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies of Science during their second public meeting held in Washington D.C., August 11 – 12th. The Committee on Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research (the Committee) is charged with evaluating the scientific necessity of chimpanzee research. The National Institutes of Health instructed the Committee not to consider ethical concerns.

During the Public Comment forum, Dr. Theodora Capaldo, NEAVS President, advised the Committee by quoting Nature: “The agency [NIH] may wish to divorce the science from the ethics, but society at large will not accept such a distinction… nor is it intellectually defensible.” Dr. Capaldo’s testimony made it clear that one cannot separate scientific concerns from humane ones, since the well-documented physiological stress chimpanzees and other animals suffer from laboratory confinement and use affects their brains, bodies, and immune systems, having a profound effect on the nature of the data obtained from their use.

At the Committee’s first public forum on May 26th, NEAVS’ Science Director, Dr. Jarrod Bailey, was among the scientists the Committee invited to testify. Dr. Bailey provided testimony that the use of chimpanzees in HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis C, and other human disease research has been limited, inaccurate, un-predictive, and unnecessary and has contributed little or nothing to human health. Dr. Bailey summarized his research for the Committee:

“After careful review of over thirty years of chimpanzee use in many areas of human disease research, the following conclusions can be drawn and supported scientifically… they’re rarely used today. They have proven to be poor models in many areas, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C; chimpanzee use in cancer and heart disease research has been almost non-existent because either they don’t get the disease, or they get a very different disease. There is burgeoning evidence of major, important and widespread genetic differences showing why chimpanzees are poor models for human research….and why they can never be good models.”

At the recent meeting, Dr. Capaldo expanded upon Dr. Bailey’s testimony by citing research on the psychological and physiological stress effects on chimpanzees in labs:

“Studies have established that chimpanzees in research suffer from PTSD, depression and other psychological maladies. And routine and invasive procedures cause elevations of physiological stress indicators…. Stress affects immune systems—crucial for the study of infectious diseases—and vital organs such as the liver—important for the metabolism of drugs—and renders the use of chimpanzees flawed science…even if assumed they may have value—which we do not.”

Dr. Capaldo backed her scientific arguments with the dire ethical concerns surrounding chimpanzee use. She concluded her testimony by introducing the committee to Jeannie and Tom, rescued from years of invasive research by the Fauna Foundation. They both later died in sanctuary. Dr. Capaldo reminded committee members that despite their mandate to focus only on the science, “we are talking about living beings, not test tubes.” She read an excerpt from Jeannie’s history of use and psychological suffering and from Tom’s autopsy report—both undeniable proof of the physical and psychological suffering that chimpanzees endure, noting, “Their stories are not atypical.” She asserted that, “Arguing [their] worth to research, except as a study of its casualties, would be indefensible.” The room was silent. She appealed to the Committee that to arrive at an informed decision, the ethical concerns surrounding chimpanzee use cannot be put aside—for scientific as well as ethical reasons and that including them “will direct the better science that would follow.”
Several others testified in favor of ending research on chimpanzees, notably Dr. Jane Goodall, who joined the meeting via video conference. Dr. Goodall pointed out that over the last 10 years, “…technology has exploded with new techniques in research.” Goodall also said of chimpanzees kept captive for research, “…from their point of view, it’s like torture.”

Other scientists presented on topics including chimpanzee behavior, genetics, communication, learning, and the role of chimpanzees in hepatitis research, monoclonal antibodies, malaria, biodefense, and alternative methods.

Animal researchers and representatives of the biomedical lobby industry or those currently engaged in the “business” of doing or providing chimpanzees for research provided testimony in favor of keeping chimpanzees in labs. But on the order of the numbers game, the side to end research on chimpanzees overtook the session, with those in support of it failing to adequately argue either its worth or necessity. Especially important was scientific testimony from Ann-Marie Cruz, Program Officer, Research and Development, PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Theresa Reynolds, Director, Safety Assessment, Genentech; and Robert Hamatake, Director of HCV Biology, GlaxoSmithKline. They all testified that with advances in technology, chimpanzees are no longer necessary for developing high tech drugs called monoclonal antibodies, vaccines for epidemic diseases like malaria and other areas. Following this encouraging trilogy, on day two was the testimony from James Swearengen, former Director of Comparative Medicine, National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center. He began his testimony on biodefense research noting that his comments would be short and to the point. “I am not aware of any historic use of chimpanzees, no current use and, for the future, I don’t envision any need.”

The Committee’s role throughout the two days was a mix of penetrating questions that stayed on task and challenged presenters to back their arguments, clarify and support their conclusions as to both the necessity and even the applicability of chimpanzee use to human health. Still, the questions of other members appeared biased in the foregone conclusion that chimpanzees and all animal models are valid.

Fortunately, public and NEAVS’ criticism of the original Committee composition led to the inclusion of some new members with less direct or vested interest in the animal model. These members are proving extremely important in raising public confidence that the Committee may be able to reach an objective conclusion and may minimize the impact of “old school” researchers who resist progress.

We can only hope that the Committee finds with us that the use of chimpanzees in research is neither necessary nor productive for human health. If that happens, we can only hope that NIH heeds the Committee’s recommendations. There are too many reasons not to: 1,000 chimpanzees in U.S. laboratories and millions of humans suffering from diseases for which effective research is long overdue.

The Committee initially convened on April 5th and expects to issue its final report by the end of 2011.
 

The IOM is seeking additional PUBLIC COMMENTS that could make a difference in their report. Please take this opportunity to tell the Committee that chimpanzee research is cruel and scientifically unnecessary, and that you oppose it. Below is sample language for you to consider, but please personalize your comments for maximum impact.

I urge the Institute of Medicine to guarantee an objective review of the necessity and applicability of chimpanzee research to human health. To meet the ethical obligation the Committee has to the public, as well as the scientific obligation it has to research, the Committee must consider all aspects of the use of chimpanzees: scientific, ethical, humane and economic. Each of these areas has its own implications for human well-being. NIH cannot be allowed to tie the Committee’s hands.

The majority of the U.S. chimpanzee population has spent decades languishing in a lab—some 40 or 50 years. This fact alone challenges arguments of their necessity or usefulness and compels consideration of their suffering. At any given time fewer than 20% are in active protocols—hardly an indication of necessity or usefulness. A full 71% of the American public believes that those who have spent 10 years or more should be retired to sanctuary.

I respectfully request that the Committee leaves no stone unturned in examining the use of chimpanzees and includes a better balance to the opinions of scientists with vested interests in perpetuating their use. You must call on more scientists within the animal protection community as well as practitioners in various areas of human health. As can be seen, those outside of the NIH system, or institutions funded by it, are providing compelling evidence that the scientific necessity and useful of chimpanzees is a historic fact that can no longer be defended by modern science.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

According to the IOM website, the study will

“explore contemporary and anticipated biomedical research questions to determine if chimpanzees are or will be necessary for research discoveries.”

Should the committee identify biomedical questions, they will proceed

“to describe the unique biological/immunological characteristics of the chimpanzee that make it the necessary animal model for use in the types of research, and provide recommendations for any new or revised scientific parameters to guide how and when to use these animals for research.”

Their next task is to

“explore contemporary and anticipated behavioral research questions to determine if chimpanzees are necessary for progress in understanding social, neurological and behavioral factors…”

And finally,

“The committee will explore contemporary and anticipated future alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research….” *

The IOM has responsibility to assign qualified and objective members to the committee. As first assembled, however, the named “unbiased” appointees raised eyebrows as to their claimed impartial status.

NEAVS believes that the current member selection falls short of fulfilling IOM’s directive. As composed, the committee has the appearance of favoring a one-sided outcome and will not foster the confidence of neutral scientists, the public, or legislators that it will deliver results purged of bias. While NEAVS respects the care NAS/IOM is taking in assigning members, we believe that without the elimination of certain members and the addition of specifically qualified balancing members, NAS/IOM cannot issue an objective report.

NEAVS thoroughly reviewed the provisional committee members’ profiles. After such review, NEAVS sent comment to NAS/IOM pointing out that there are no members who are experts in research involving chimpanzees, too few reflecting ethics and humane concerns, and urging NAS/IOM to remove six members. Three provisional appointees have since been withdrawn.

To fulfill the committee’s shortcomings and ensure a balanced composition, NEAVS proposed our Science Director, Jarrod Bailey, PhD. Dr. Bailey spent the last six years reviewing the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research—a project assigned after he evaluated the importance or unimportance of chimpanzee studies to biomedical scientific papers and the contribution they made to human clinical progress and practice. He authored reviews of chimpanzee use in areas of medical research described as “major killer diseases.” They include papers on the development of AIDS vaccines, cancer research, and hepatitis C research—including extensive review of alternatives in the development of a hep C vaccine. Dr. Bailey stands as a unique resource for information and scientific reference that would otherwise take the committee years to gather. Read NEAVS/Project R&R’s scientific papers.

The Committee invited Dr. Bailey; John Pippin, MD, Senior Medical and Research Adviser, PCRM; and Kevin Kregel, PhD, Chair, Animal Issues Committee, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to present at the committee’s first meeting in Washington, DC on May 26th. By all accounts, Drs. Bailey and Pippin presented compelling testimony as to why the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research and testing for human health can and must end.

View Dr. Bailey’s presentation (Part 1) and follow-up report (Part 2) addressing the presentations of Drs. Kevin Kregel and Harold Watson, Deputy Director, Division of Comparative Medicine, National Center for Research Resources, NIH.

Watch for our updates on the Committee’s progress and our comments at the upcoming IOM public comment meeting in August.