The Crisis in Primate Research

In a recent article for The Atlantic, Sarah Zhang highlights a troubling situation in the U.S. regarding a shortage of monkeys. Laboratories engaged in the development of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments find themselves in fierce competition for a diminishing number of monkeys, exacerbated by a halt in exports from China. Before the pandemic, the reliance on primates was already on the rise; in 2017, the U.S. recorded a peak usage of 74,498 nonhuman primates in research. This number has continued to grow as demand increases.

Monkeys play a crucial role in the vaccine development process as they are often utilized during the final safety tests for humans. Given the close genetic relationship between nonhuman primates and humans, their immune responses and antibody reactions are expected to be quite similar. Observations reveal that these primates are capable of experiencing both pain and a desire for freedom, preferring to engage in natural behaviors in environments that align with their instincts.

Instead, these beings are confined to artificial habitats, stripped of joy and pleasure. Many are kept in cages, subjected to continuous testing, and ultimately euthanized—sometimes enduring this existence for decades. The fortunate ones face this grim fate, while others endure more severe suffering. The expectation for nonhuman animals to endure suffering and death for our benefit—be it for health, cosmetics, or food—comes without adequate compassion or welfare considerations, even in renowned research institutions.

In a December article for Science, David Grimm raised the question of whether aging lab monkeys should be retired to sanctuaries. The piece recounts the story of Bush, a 23-year-old arthritic macaque who spent his life in a cage undergoing repeated testing before being relocated to Peaceable Primates sanctuary.

Quote from Amanda Dettmer, Yale Primate Researcher:

“We’re not just concerned about the welfare of animals. We’re concerned about the welfare of society.”

The researchers at Princeton, who were responsible for Bush's testing, appear more sympathetic compared to other scientists interviewed, who argue that monkeys should serve human purposes, including suffering from age-related diseases until their final days. Concerns also arise about the logistics involved in finding homes for the numerous monkeys confined in U.S. laboratories.

Critics worry that the notion of retirement for lab monkeys could lead to a reduction in their use in research, similar to the phase-out of chimpanzees. Amanda Dettmer emphasizes the dual concern for animal welfare and societal well-being.

I recently checked on Bush at Peaceable Primates, where he enjoys celery, interacts with his neighbor, and basks in the sun.

The Ethical Standpoint on Animal Testing

In a previous piece, I expressed my belief that animal testing is ethically indefensible, even if it benefits human lives. The idea that humanity should thrive at the expense of countless others suffering is indeed radical. It’s not surprising that scientists, who define their role as enhancing societal welfare, may have differing views.

There’s a refreshing moral clarity in treating animals as sentient beings rather than mere subjects for experimentation. It can feel harsh to question the ethical implications of research aimed at alleviating the suffering caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, as the desire for effective vaccines is universal.

Many adhere to an ethical framework that prioritizes human interests and suffering, but is this approach justifiable? Animals deserve recognition as feeling beings; they are not mere objects or resources. They cannot consent to their suffering and should not have to endure pain simply because it serves human ends.