Ethical Review of Projects Involving Non-human Primates Funded under the European Union's 7th Research Framework Programme

Abstract

Internet searches were performed on projects involving non-human primates (‘primates’) funded under the European Union (EU) 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7), to determine how project proposals are assessed from an ethical point of view. Due to the incompleteness of the information publicly available, the types and severity of the experiments could not be determined with certainty, although in some projects the level of harm was considered to be ‘severe’. Information was scarce regarding the numbers of primates, their sourcing, housing, care and fate, or the application of the Three Rs within projects. Project grant holders and the relevant Commission officer were consulted about their experiences with the FP7 ethics review process. Overall, it was seen as meaningful and beneficial, but some concerns were also noted. Ethical follow-up during project performance and upon completion was recognised as a valuable tool in ensuring that animal welfare requirements were adequately addressed. Based upon the outcome of the survey, recommendations are presented on how to strengthen the ethical review process under the upcoming Framework Programme ‘Horizon 2020’, while adequately taking into account the specific requirements of Directive 2010/63/EU, with the aim of limiting the harms inflicted on the animals and the numbers used, and ultimately, replacing the use of primates altogether.

Controversies and challenges in research on urogenital schistosomiasis-associated bladder cancer

“…In contrast, C. sinensis - and O. viverrini -infected hamsters make an excellent model and even acquire cholangiocarcinoma when fed a diet that is high in nitrosamines, mimicking the human scenario [33–35]. Though non-human primates develop pathology similar to human disease, ethical considerations and financial cost preclude their regular use, and a relative lack of genetic and scientific tools in general complicate testing of relevant host pathways [36]. …”

Ethical and Scientific Pitfalls Concerning Laboratory Research with Non-Human Primates, and Possible Solutions

“…Similar criteria could be used for NHPs who cannot consent, but who can effectively communicate their wishes through behavioural traits interpretable by an experienced primatologist. Additionally, if NHPs who are enrolled in a research experience had legal guardians, whose consent was mandatory prior to commencing research―as occurs with humans unable to understand or communicate informed consent [60,77], and as occurs in studies involving owners together with their companion animals [80]―then we believe that research involving NHPs would likely become more transparent and less exploitative than has sometimes reportedly been the case [81].…”

“…Importantly, the ethical rules and laws that guide animal experimentation rely heavily on utilitarianism [59,81,88]. Most legislation on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes―including the current European Directive 2010/63/EU [75] states that the potential benefit of each research project should be balanced against the likely harm inflicted on the animals.…”

“…With the help of such tools, it would become easier to evaluate which procedures should be prohibited or modified in order to spare NHPs from severe pain or stress. Their use has been suggested for NHPs [46,61], but has not yet been widely implemented [81].…”