Alfred and his two wives

Humane Research Australia has focused on raising awareness of animal experimentation for decades, yet the three baboon escapees who gained international media - Alfred and his two wives - have achieved more in a day than we ever could.

Animal experimentation is an issue that few people like to discuss. Many people are not even aware that it still occurs in Australia, yet we use millions of animals every year. This includes cats and dogs, rabbits and rodents, farm animals, native animals and even our closest relatives – primates. And the procedures these animals are subjected to vary from observational studies to major physiological challenges, and even “death as an end point.”

No one likes the notion of using animals in such a way, but there is a misconception that it is a “necessary evil” for medical progress. The point is however, that it isn’t! Animals differ from humans in their anatomy, genetics and metabolism which means that whatever information is derived from testing on them cannot be transferred to human medicine with sufficient accuracy.

In fact, official figures derived from the US Food & Drug Administration show that over 95% of drugs deemed “successful” in animal tests fail in human clinical trials. That’s a staggering failure rate that leads to a logical conclusion: the 5% of drugs that worked, did so in spite of using animals in testing.  On the flip side, it’s also worth considering how many of those drugs that failed animal tests may have actually worked in humans?  Could we have inadvertently discarded a potential cure for cancer?

It was French physiologist Claude Bernard who once said “The physiologist is no ordinary man. He is a learned man, a man possessed and absorbed by a scientific idea. He does not hear the animals' cries of pain. He is blind to the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea, and organisms which conceal from him the secrets he is resolved to discover.”

Why Primates?

Using sentient, highly cognitive animals as “tools for research” could certainly be considered cruel, but just as importantly, it does not represent good science. Primates have been found to be poorly predictive of human outcomes and their use has proven to be ineffective at providing substantial contributions to biomedical research.  In his 2014 paper, “Monkey-based research on human disease: the implications of genetic differences”, J. Bailey concludes that despite a reported 90 to 93% genetic similarity, “monkey data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans.”

Similarly, a peer reviewed article published in 2010 states, “Humans respond differently than other primates to a large number of infections. Differences in susceptibility to infectious agents between humans and other primates are probably due to inter-species differences in immune response to infection.”

Even when genetically modified, there is no single animal model that can accurately mimic the complex human situation.  There are far too many unknown variables that cannot all be accounted for.

Logic tells us that because we have not had a 100% correlation between primate and human genetics in research, then should we continue to use primates, we are prone to continue mistakes, delays and even threaten human life on occasion when such ‘successful’ research conducted on primates is translated to humans.    

Interestingly, there are many ways today to obtain a significantly closer correlation to the 100% mark if not 100% itself by using modern alternatives to primates.  

It has been said that arguments against primate experiments have been confronting and just recycled from cruel practices decades ago. It might therefore be worth taking a closer look at some recent and local research: 

The animal’s head was shaved and swabbed with a topical antibiotic solution. Adults were administered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to prevent cerebral edema, then secured in a stereotaxic frame… Following a skin incision along the midline of the cranium, a triangular craniotomy was created over the occipital pole using a burr drill… with the aid of a diamond knife, to facilitate microsyringe penetration.

That is a direct quote from A Reproducible and Translatable Model of Focal Ischemia in the Visual Cortex of Infant and Adult Marmoset Monkeys (2014) – a graphic yet real account of what happens to these sentient and intelligent animals - often when fully conscious

According to an article written by primate experimenter James Bourne in 2016 “The welfare of every animal is continuously monitored and recorded. The outstanding facilities provided to support animal research in Australia are governed by individual state and territory legislation, ensuring the highest standards.”

Reviewing primate research and the facilities in isolation: “Maternal parity affects neonatal survival rate in a colony of captive bred baboons (Papio hamadryas)” (2007) addressed the baboon colony in Wallacia NSW and divulged some disturbing incidents of baby baboon deaths such as an incident where one body torn in two, another body was too decomposed to establish the cause of death and yet another where a baboon’s body was not even found. It would be very interesting to know whether these studies have been followed up to determine whether conditions for these animals have improved, as such reports certainly give us little confidence that the facilities are “outstanding” or ensure ‘highest standards’ are met. Such information has continually proven difficult if not impossible to obtain.

Furthermore, despite assurance that primates are kept in world class facilities, Humane Research Australia has unveiled damning information about the unexpected deaths of primates in Australia, over the past four years:

• A female macaque found bloodied and dead in a barrel outside.
• A female macaque found in her cage barely able to move. Staff attempted to recover her with fluids and warmth but she died about 1.5 hours later.
• A female marmoset found listless and bleeding from her bowel. After being treated and placed in a humidicrib she began gasping for breath and died.
• A male marmoset found listless with shallow breathing and vomiting clear foamy liquid. The vet was called for treatment but the marmoset died 30 minutes later.
   

Baboons (just like Albert and  his wives) have been used to test radioactive substances, and pregnancy hypertension at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and subjected to preeclampsia experiments and had shoulder tendons cut to investigate the healing process – all funded by Australian taxpayers.

‘Successful’ Testing Examples In Primates

Two examples often touted as success stories (using primates) are the development of the Polio Vaccine and Deep Brain stimulation as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease.  These claims are misrepresentative of the historical records.

The original polio vaccine successfully tested in monkeys resulted in numerous human deaths and paralysis when translated.   Further experiments (also on monkeys) led to development of a nasal treatment which caused permanent olfactory damage to children.  

Then in 1941, Dr Albert Sabin decided to study human autopsies to disprove the nasal theory and stated: “…prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys”.    [We now know that Polio is contracted through the digestinal tract in humans whereas in monkeys, it’s contracted through the respiratory system.]  

Finally, in 1949, Nobel Laureate John Enders grew the virus in tissue cultures. Unfortunately he did however use monkey tissue which then resulted in a virus (SV4O) jumping the species barrier.   Thankfully it is now grown in human cell culture and could have been originally thereby saving countless lives and leading to a far more expeditious medical solution for humanity.

More recently, deep brain stimulation for sufferers of Parkinson’s disease is often credited to the cruel work with MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine) treated monkeys, developed after the serendipitous discovery of symptoms of Parkinsonism in young drug addicts exposed to the narcotic contaminant.   Yet the practice has actually been used to treat sufferers since the 1940’s - many years before the first ever description of the MPTP-primate model ever existed.

In summary, primates have been used throughout history in crude and invasive experiments, but the fact that they were used in the process does not imply nor logically follow that they were a necessary part of the development of medical treatments. 

A Necessary Evil?

Proponents of animal experiments inevitably peddle the imagery of sick children and terminally ill patients being more important than animals – hence the reason why (they say) animal research, no matter how cruel is unfortunately, necessary.  That argument however is gross misdirection and misleading at best  There would be very few people who have not been personally affected by cancer, Parkinson’s disease or stroke – either through the loss of a loved one or their own personal battles – but these people are precisely the reason why Australia should be embracing appropriate methods of research – not antiquated experiments based on a species which differs from us genetically, anatomically and metabolically.

It's further argued that animal research in Australia is conducted under the strictest scrutiny and follows the globally accepted principles of reduction, refinement and replacement known as the 3R’s principle. 

The research community constantly tells us that all medical experiments on primates in Australia are done with rigorous ethical procedures in place.   There is state legislation, a code of practice and a system of animal ethics committees (AECs) in place which exist to supposedly protect research animals.   Unfortunately these committees are often used to simply allay the concerns of the community and as an assurance that the animals are well protected.   HRA has uncovered many experiments that should never have been given approval via an AEC.  Frequently the animal welfare representative on an ethics committee does not have sufficient expertise to challenge the scientific validity of the experiment and therefore needs to rely on the researchers themselves to justify it. [Examples of experiments conducted after AEC approval are available on our website.]

There is also too much pressure on the AECs to approve protocols in order for the research institutions to receive further funding.  The legislative measures that are currently in place to protect these animals are unfortunately failing.

Not only is this a cruel and unethical industry, it is a huge waste of precious resources – funding and time that would be better spent on research methods that are applicable to humans – not a pseudo-model of a human that is more likely to lead to erroneous data.

Lack of Disclosure

While technically some data on animal experiments  is publicly available, very few members of the general public are privy to animal research information.  Medical journals are often behind paywalls and or must be accessed only via university databases despite the majority of the research, and the breeding facilities themselves being funded by Australian tax payers.

Primate research is a hidden industry and it can be difficult even for those in the know to obtain information through Freedom of Information requests and even questions in Federal Parliament.

It has also been argued that animal experiments remain secretive due to researchers being personally threatened and attacked, yet opponents of animal experiments do not rely on protests or arguing on grounds of cruelty or abuse.  Organizations such as HRA wish to open up debate on the scientific merit of using animals as research tools and unfortunately are often denied this opportunity due to these unverifiable claims of fear for the researchers’ safety.

It’s a very convenient excuse to deflect attention or criticism of their work and to avoid accountability.

Certainly animal experimentation is a very emotive issue to some and it’s understandable that members of the public will be deeply disturbed to learn what is going on behind lab doors, but HRA is not aware of any such incidents in Australia where researchers have been threatened by animal ‘liberationists’.   In fact HRA has approached the Australian Federal Police recently to ascertain if there had ever been such cases. No cases were found.

Thank You

Albert and his two wives have finally exposed this hidden industry.  Australians are now aware that we have three government-funded breeding facilities where these animals are bred specifically for research purposes.  The facilities, used to breed marmosets, macaques and baboons, currently hold around 750 primates in total, and 272 primates were used in the last recorded year (2017).

HRA’s view is that Australian researchers should be using non-animal methodologies that are far more relevant to studying human disease rather than trying to replicate a disease in a species that is genetically different to our own.  It is illogical to expect to use animals and achieve accurate or indicative results for humans.