They have good stories to tell, proclaims Corina Hadjiodysseos

In December last year, we saw the results of the Weatherall report(1) supporting the use of non-human primates in research of biological or medical importance.

Led by Sir David Weatherall, the study was commissioned by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust.

‘There is a scientific case for careful, meticulously regulated non-human primate research, at least for the foreseeable future, provided it is the only way of solving important scientific or medical questions and high standards of welfare are maintained,’ said Sir David Weatherall.

The results, welcomed by the scientific community, were predictably condemned by antivivisectionists who deem the use of non-human primates in medical research unnecessary.

Scientists responsible

This reaction was not a big surprise. Indeed, the idea of using monkeys for medical research makes many of us feel uncomfortable. Does that, however, mean that it should be banned as the antivivisectionists demand? Can primate research be deemed unnecessary if studies on relatively few animals lead to vaccines or treatments for diseases that affect thousands or even millions of people?

As with any debate, it is easy to get carried away by emotion and loaded slogans: something that antivivisectionists do well. In fact, it is even easier to get carried away from the main issue; which is whether or not research using any animals is necessary.

The scientific community is partly responsible for this. By keeping their heads down, many scientists have not only given the impression that they have something to hide but they have neglected those who would be their greatest supporters: the general public that benefits every day as a result of their work.

Opinion polls show that most people take a balanced approach and want to know more before making a decision about the issue. Recent surveys carried out by MORI(2) show 90 per cent of the public accept the need for animal research provided that suffering is reduced as much as possible, the research is for serious medical purposes, and there is no alternative.

Necessary research

Let’s return to the primate example. According to the Weatherall report, non-human primates are necessary to address particular research questions related to the immune, nervous and reproductive systems where rodents and other animals can be too different from humans. The report stresses that research and testing on non-human primates provides the only means of insuring against the failure of therapies in humans in areas such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease and vaccines for infections such as HIV. Is this not necessary?

The report states that three diseases – malaria, HIV and tuberculosis – which combined kill 800 people globally per hour, would best be tackled with vaccines that could only be developed using monkeys. Last year, medical procedures carried out on monkeys in the UK represented 0.16 per cent of animal tests (most use rodents) and a total of 3,115 monkeys. 

Just take a look back through the years on all the medical advances that were achieved by using monkeys: modern anaesthetics, kidney dialysis, hepatitis vaccines, life support systems for premature babies, to name just a few. Necessary?

Challenging the necessity of animal research is like challenging the necessity of the medical treatments and methods that we now have and those we will have in the future.

Scientists must talk

Now is the time for the scientific community to start meeting another necessity: that of more and better communication and openness with the public. Indeed, they have a responsibility to do so. In the past, people have had far more information from antivivisection campaigners than from biomedical researchers. This imbalance has to stop if the public are to get the information they need to decide for themselves whether they agree with the use of animals in medical research.

While committed antivivisectionists will never be persuaded, the general public needs to understand what is being done on its behalf. Scientists and their institutions have a responsibility to present the facts about their work and how necessary it is.

The Research Defence Society Resource Centre is rolling out a communications handbook that outlines measures that research institutions can take to improve communications on the use of animals in research without attracting unwanted attention. It includes general advice and guidelines on how to prepare a proactive communications strategy about the use of animals in medical research and demonstrates through examples that academic institutions can be more proactive in their communications with minimal risk.

References

1. Sir David Wetherall (December 2006). The use of non¬human primates in research (PDF).
2. The use of animals in medical research MORI survey.

Corina Hadjiodysseos is at the Resource Centre of the Research Defence Society