America’s Primate Problem

A quiet crisis is worrying the medical industry: not enough monkeys for medical testing.

By
45
Wild macaques wait for food. (Photo credit should read CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

America needs more monkeys. 

To be more precise, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States needs them. Scientists are warning that a shortage of non-human primates (NHPs)—which have served as test subjects for Parkinson’s therapies, coronavirus vaccines, and a host of other medical treatments, preventatives, and cures—is imperiling U.S. drug development and medical research.

“There are tens of thousands of preclinical research projects that depend on NHPs to move forward that potentially could be delayed or could stop entirely,” National Association for Biomedical Research President Matt Bailey told The Dispatch. “This is the kind of thing that could grind drug development to a halt.”

Supply issues preceded COVID-19, but the pandemic turned a troubling trend into a full-blown crisis. Before 2020, about 60 percent of the roughly 30,000 NHPs the U.S. imports annually came from China, which started breeding primates for export decades ago. But China halted shipments of animals in January 2020, when the virus first became an international story. Today the country is unlikely to resume exports as the Chinese government focuses on its own medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
45
By
Comments (45)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Interesting article about an issue I knew nothing about. Good work, Alec.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    What an intriguing, not-well-known story. Thanks for covering it. I will now have my eyes and ears open for more about the monkey shortage and how it affects pharmaceuticals.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Nishanthmathews

    They should go to the Dutch Caribbean island of Sint Maarten where they're talking about culling the population of monkeys there to help with the eco system... Solve two problems with one solution

    Collapse
  4. MHNewsletters

    A Chinese company purchased land near us (Williston Florida) to house research monkeys and the community, county and eventually state shut them down. https://spotlightonlevycountygovernment.com/index.php/2023/01/21/state-lawmakers-vow-to-stop-monkey-farm-from-ever-happening/

    Collapse
  5. Mary Stine

    The unexamined elephant in the room here is this: How reliable are experiments on animals as compared to those on humans? Do we have any real statistics on this? Until I see those I'm in favor of ending all animal experiments.
    Another issue is whether we are accidentally creating viruses/bacteria that make the leap from animals to humans by using animals as lab experiments.
    And lastly, for those of us who have a faith: deliberate cruelty to animals is not sanctioned anywhere in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, nor anywhere I am aware of in the sacred texts of Buddhism or Hinduism.
    Could research using animals be better designed to avoid cruelty? Maybe, however that seems rare, but it should be the rule. Keeping animals confined alone in cages, with no affection, sunshine or fresh air is hardly
    "normal", so how could their lab results be "normal"?? Lab experiments with rabbits found that allowing rabbits free time with other rabbits in a safe play zone, as well as cuddles from their human handlers, yielded better test results.
    Perhaps we should consider asking for more human volunteers among the incarcerated, as well as the general public. Among other things, this might give people more respect for the incredible work that ethical researchers put into developing new drugs and vaccines, and it might give researchers faster feed back.
    We might not have the resentment and hostility to a new vaccine if more of us had ownership in its development.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    America is pretty stupid. Everything is not about the almighty dollar.

    There are a million things we should have provided for ourself, but pursuit of ever larger profits has weakened us, and put us under threat from other countries if they decide to withhold our supply.

    That's the psychology of an addict...getting yourself in a position where someone or something has control over the supply of something you need.

    We are addicted to huge profits and huge salaries for CEO's.

    So from rockets to monkies, we have to rely on others...and it always ends up hurting us in the end.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    There’s some primates in the House Freedom Caucus I happily volunteer.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Robert Knudson

    Good article - glad to see the business beat is starting out with monkey business.

    Collapse
  9. Duffterrall

    How much of this article is the long-term planning for the article where Alec discusses what it is like to eat a monkey?

    Collapse
  10. CatoTheElder

    I’ll go ahead and advocate for the position that will resonate positively with, I believe, a small minority of Dispatch readers.

    We should not be using non-human primates for such research.

    The premise for such use relies, as it must, on the idea that non-human species are less important, less valuable, and thus more readily and cheaply obtained than human subjects. There is no objective rationale for such a conclusion, and those creatures closest to us in their physiology are those most readily recognized as sentient, emotive, and deserving of respect on their own terms.

    Would a ban on the use of non-human primates present researchers with difficulties and greatly slow drug development? Undoubtedly, at least in the foreseeable future. But do our fears about a future pandemic, or the ravages of disease and injury, warrant what amounts to enslaving and abusing other beings? Why should a chimpanzee, a marmoset, a macaque, or a bonobo be subjected to testing we won’t inflict on ourselves? It is only because we value our own species more highly.

    It is, amongst sentient creatures, a commonplace to see value, safety, identity, and belonging in others of the same species. The same principle extends to the nationalistic and tribal tendencies we have within our own kind. One can easily generate evolutionary hypotheses for why such is so common.

    But considering all this dispositive on the matter of using non-human primates (or other sentient species) as research subjects, is simply a matter of confusing “what is” with what is right.

    If we want to make our lives better—and I think we should be earnestly working on that—it seems only fair that we shoulder as much of the burden as possible. The endangered macaques of Cambodia don’t have a responsibility to us to be our research animals. But, as the most powerful species on the planet, we have a responsibility, I believe, to temper our desires, our expectations, and demands, and to do our utmost to live with the rest of the creatures of the world, not above them.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jareds8080

      I'm sympathetic to the pain of animals, but we must not forget that, like the mouse in Burn's poem:
      "Still, thou art blessed compared with me,
      the present only toucheth thee,
      but och, I backward cast my e'e
      on prospects draear,
      and forward, tho I cannae see,
      I guess, an' fear."

      Humans experience, in virtue of their greater capacities, both more pain and more opportunity for fulfillment than a non-rational being possibly could. I recall an incident related to me in which one Chimpanzee, in a fit, bit the genitals off another male. Hours later, they were playing together, as if nothing at all had occurred -- can you imagine a human for which the same could be true?

      These creatures have no speech, no ethics, no foresight, no real understanding of what suffering is or what pleasure is. They tell no stories, have no dreams or goals beside the biological, have neither guilt nor innocence. They are born along on a current of immediacy, never dipping below the surface. You anthropomorphize them because you have been trained to, but in truth, they are separated from us by an almost incomprehensible gulf which we cannot cross.

      To incorrectly rank animals as equivalent to humans, willfully ignoring all evidence to the contrary, is not compassionate at all, but instead a species of inhuman cruelty and lack of feeling for one's fellow travelers. Go to the sick and suffering in a children's cancer ward, Cato. Tell them to their faces that you would trade a Macaque's life for theirs (you will not be able to tell the Macaque the reverse!)-- then perhaps you will understand the true gravity of what you so nonchalantly express here. Till then, you only play with ethics.

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        You should both read more carefully, and be careful of the assumptions you make. Being a now-retired pediatric intensive care specialist, I’m very familiar with human suffering, including amongst the most innocent. I did not rank animals as equivalent to humans; indeed, if you’ll read through my comments, you’ll see that I specifically advocate for treating those of other sentient species as individuals of their kind, with as much respect for that as I can muster. Your suggestion that I would “trade a Macaque’s life for [a child’s]” is an unwarranted extrapolation, and in its nature an unkindness, arising from mistaken assumption.

        I do not anthropomorphize animals. Instead, I push to recognize them for what they are, to respect them, and to acknowledge that they have their place in the universe. I refuse to accept your once-common, now quaint notion that other creatures have “no speech, no ethics, no foresight, no real understanding of [suffering or pleasure]”. I do not know—and nor do you—that animals “tell no stories, have no dreams or goals beside the biological”. Indeed, in the humpback’s song, the elephant’s visit to a graveyard of its kind, the clear, strong evidence for affection and memory in dogs, horses, dolphins, and, yes, monkeys, I see evidence that it’s possible they have much greater understanding of things than we tend to credit them. As I’ve stated nearby, I acknowledge that I do not know just what the mind of my dog, the orca in the harbor, or the macaque in the cage is thinking, feeling, etc. at any given moment. But I do know that animals can suffer, and can understand that suffering of a given kind can be a repeat experience—hence, the fear a dog I lost a few months ago had about going to the vet. She knew that unpleasantness could be had there, and wanted none of it. I know that when my current dog and I look in each other’s eyes, the oxytocin levels rise in each of us, and his behavior strongly suggests he has a particular fondness for me.

        Whether humans have a greater capacity or opportunity for fulfillment than do other sentient species I do not know. Our means of fulfillment, working our way up Maslow’s heirarchy, perhaps, seem to be more varied, but there’s also this: amongst our own kind, the same is true. My capacity for happiness might be more or less than my neighbor’s. My understanding of and ability to withstand suffering might be more or less than the woman down the street who must use a walker wherever she goes. In both these cases and every other, the individual’s worthiness of respect and acceptance are not predicated upon those qualities, but simply exist because the individuals themselves do.

        I do not grant the same rights to a sheep as to my Australian shepherd. I do not grant to that dog the same rights as I do to my (human) friends. And I don’t grant the same rights to all humans with respect to their interactions with me. I share my bed with my wife, but not with my neighbor’s wife.

        Finally, a word regarding the tone of your comment, since you see fit to characterize mine as nonchalant, and me as only playing with ethics. Condescension and lecturing to an audience with which you are unfamiliar are not conducive to persuasion or the fostering of good feeling. I understand that you take a different position regarding how we should look upon and treat animals, with particular reference to scientific research. I have not questioned your motives, however, nor made assumptions, uncharitable or otherwise, about why you might think the way you do, feel the way you do, etc. You, on the other hand, seem not to respect either my position or my efforts, instead mischaracterizing them in crude, even insulting fashion. Finally, when it comes to playing with ethics, it may be that the shoe isn’t on the foot you think it is. The position I take is not unconsidered, nor is it one unheard of amongst philosophers and ethicists; indeed, it’s not uncommonly held by some of the same.

        I understand that many people see humans as a particularly elevated, perhaps even exalted species, or maybe a special creation of God, with naught but biological coincidence linking them to other animals. I also know that some even object to the notion of calling humans animals at all; that the differences are so vast, and our species so special, that we share no meaningful links.

        I do not share that view. I believe we are part of nature, not apart from it. I look at every sentient creature and see one worthy of respect, related to the individual’s kind, position in life, circumstances, and more. For me, that means careful consideration of whether, and how, we should use animals as scientific research subjects. If you think that such is merely “playing with ethics”, it’s you who doesn’t understand.Expand full comment

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jareds8080

          To say that you are not trading a Macaque’s life for a child is merely to show that you either do not know, or are too ashamed to recognize, the implication of your own words. What do you think will happen, oh former pediatric intensive care specialist, if primates are removed from the chain of testing for pediatric chemotherapies? Any risk not born by the animal is necessarily born by the child. You trade animal experiment for human, and there will be children who will die who would otherwise have lived. Perhaps you would not call this a trade, but ask the child and I suspect you will find a different answer! (The Macaque may not be so forthcoming on the issue.)

          You say you do not anthropomorphize animals, then go on to list crude attempts to find in animal activity some human comparison. Humpback whales do not “sing” save in analogy to human song – they have no word for song, they write no lyrics, they have no notation. We impress upon them our notion of what song is, in our feeble attempt to understand the inexplicable, but they themselves have no understanding of song, nor need of understanding.

          Children, however, do sing and know that they are singing and learn what singing can be. They take joy in past songs and wish to sing again and are sorrowed if they know they may one day sing no more. Would you permit the life of a small child of these to be snuffed out for the sake of a chimp? Would you tell her so – and her mother and father?

          You say it is “possible [animals] have much greater understanding.” If you wish to weigh the life of a chimp against that of a man, you will need a more certain scale than that.

          You say: “Whether humans have a greater capacity or opportunity for fulfillment than do other sentient species I do not know.” Really? You do not know whether to be Socrates unsatisfied is to be better than a pig satisfied? Make no judgements on human matters if you know not how much they matter.

          You say: “I believe we are part of nature, not apart from it.” Do you not know that nature cares not the least for the life of any creature? That she does not forbid any creature to slaughter any other? Make no appeal to justice from what cannot justify itself, oh man!

          You take issue with the stridency of my tone; I, sir, decry the clinical blandness of yours. You talk of sacred matters with all the waffling of a politician. [“The position I take is not unconsidered…; indeed, it’s not uncommonly held”, “There is no objective rationale for such a conclusion...” “But considering all this dispositive on the matter...”]

          Diplomatic words are for the cooling of passions – your passions are far too cool already! You have ice in your soul, shards of mirror in your eye, a calculator where your spleen should be. Arouse yourself! When did you forget the value of life, the tragedy of death, that you should speak so?Show lessShow less

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            ‘Tis a common mistake to jump to convenient conclusions about others. Projection makes for easy argument, because one need only contend with what oneself conjures.

            You can take your lecturing and posturing and superciliousness and with them seek elsewhere your ego gratification. Your failure to even begin to try to comprehend the position of others is odious. You seem to think that by declaring things to be the way you’d like them to be, they must be so. Your complete and utter lack of humility and sophomoric sophistry about things is strongly suggestive of a myopic, blinkered and inflexible mind.

            I don’t lack for passion. I don’t lack for love for my fellow humans. I simply see things from a perspective not restricted to one unchanged from that held by many, lesser informed, a thousand years ago.

            Yes, whales sing. I’m sorry you haven’t heard it, or can’t or won’t recognize that. Yes, elephants mourn. Yes, monkeys do get sad. And happy. And angry. And more.

            Your facile, self-serving claims about trading lives are just that, facile and self-serving. You’ve not thought through your own position and its implications, but you presume to see all sorts of flaws in mine. Would you slaughter each and every macaque, each and every chimpanzee, each and every bonobo, rhesus monkey, baboon, lemur, and orangutan in order to develop the next vaccine, the next anti-hypertensive, the next cholesterol-lowering drug, or whatever, just to save one human life? Or would the balance require two human lives? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand?

            And then what? The children you would be so pleased to have saved will find themselves in a world bereft of much beauty, wonder, and grace. A world in which non-human life isn’t valued, and, with time, human life is valued ever less as well, because, well, those others over there are just…different. And in the way. Or necessary subjects to test the next round of vaccines. Or whatever.

            Your soul is a wretched little thing, I suspect, given to cowering in corners when it isn’t screaming at others from a safe distance. Grasping beliefs found comforting while huddled in a dark, squalid corner, unsure and insecure in a manner that is enough to prevent consideration of whether the world out there might just be different than what you’ve been told.

            See, this sort of thing is easy. Even, perhaps for a moment, gratifying, though without any lasting benefit.

            Finally, there’s this: No, I don’t know whether Socrates unsatisfied is better off than a pig satisfied. And neither do you. You said yourself, we cannot begin comprehend what happens in the minds of those other species—indeed, you seem doubtful they’ve got a mind that can be satisfied, so I’m not sure you could even identify a satisfied pig. Even if you can, you have no way of measuring the “goodness” of a satisfied pig, nor, I’d wager, any way to quantify the “goodness” of an unsatisfied Socrates. And how would you know he’s unsatisfied? Because he told you? Are your criteria for an unsatisfied mind the same as his? But I’m sure you can sputter a bit and yell some more about how the answer’s so obvious.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Agree. The idea that the rest of the species on this planet were put here simply for us to use an abuse has caused horrific consequences for them, and in the long run, will for us as well.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Thank you for saying so, and saying it so well.

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        You’re welcome, of course, and, thank you for the compliment.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Very well said, thank you for sharing

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        And thank you!

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      I am also troubled by the morality of using primates as test subjects. It isn't simply the potential discomfort and loss of life that the research itself imposes on the subject: it is the often crappy, stressful, and unnatural existence that animals are subjected to their whole lives. It is simply and unequivocally inhumane to keep an intelligent and social creature in a smallish, solitary cage all of its life. I'm sure there are established guidelines that recognize this; what I am less sure of is whether they are followed in all research labs in America. And I have even more doubts on how test primates are treated in the countries we source them from.

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        The article points directly at these kinds of concerns--when we get most of our research macaques from Cambodia, where they're native but endangered, it doesn't take a vivid imagination to see how and where and why abuses might occur--of the "system" and of the animals themselves.

        Almost regardless of the pros and cons of near-human primates as research subjects, I think the use of endangered species of NHPs as research subjects should be outlawed. The reason they're endangered is, in a word, Us. For this same us to use them as research subjects, too often in the context of questionable ethics, housing, etc., is, for me, unconscionable.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          I'd agree with that. I'm sure, though, that part of the problem is that so many primates are now either threatened or endangered. Deforestation hits them hard and we are continuing to merrily cut down the forests they depend on.

          Darwin once predicted that we humans would drive "the anthropomorphous apes" to extinction, and it looks as if we are well on our way to fulfilling that prediction.

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            Yup. We have met the enemy, and he is us. Why any others—of whatever species—should be paying the price is beyond me.

            Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Cthocas

      "The premise for such use relies, as it must, on the idea that non-human species are less important, less valuable, and thus more readily and cheaply obtained than human subjects. There is no objective rationale for such a conclusion, and those creatures closest to us in their physiology are those most readily recognized as sentient, emotive, and deserving of respect on their own terms."

      Question begging, to be honest.

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        I don’t see it.

        Collapse
        1. Emike2014

          Possibly this: "There is no objective rationale for such a conclusion."

          Which is precisely the debated question - are the non-human primates less [...]?

          For you it appears obvious they are not less. To me, by observation, they are less, even if not merely objects.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Cthocas

            Right. The very fact we're debating abstract concepts over a globalized network run by advanced electronics plausibly suggests there is some "objective rationale" for understanding macaques as a lower order, even if that's doubtful in the case of Matt Gaetz.

            And that's not to say it's ethical to experiment on primates. It might not be. But the premise that non-human species are equally important to humans is one not all humans would assume a priori.

            Collapse
          2. CatoTheElder

            I stand by the statement. To view, say, the macaques prominently mentioned in the article as less important and/or less valuable is not a purely logical decision. The reasoning for or against works from an assumption as to what might make a species more or less valuable, important, etc. The same issue arises in intra-species considerations as well; do we want to say that some humans are intrinsically more important or valuable than others, the decision based on things like height, IQ, or even--wait for it--skin color? Yes, presidents and billionaires are seen as more important and sometimes maybe more valuable to society than the rest of us, but even that is fraught with concerns.

            As a simple matter of pragmatism, lines of some sort must be drawn at times. We will do this and allow that. We will not do that or allow this. But we should always recognize the assumptions, valuations, biases, etc. that go into our determinations as to where those lines are placed.

            Because young children and persons with intellectual disabilities are generally not capable of providing informed consent, research using those persons as subjects is done under intense scrutiny, different rules, and sometimes completely proscribed. At the same time, use of monkeys, which can never give informed consent, as research subjects is subject to rules, scrutiny, etc. as well, but not with the same respect to the individuals involved.

            Given that some people are proponents of granting personhood to at least some species of animals, such as some of the non-human primates, but also to elephants, for instance, and whales, I think it behooves us to consider carefully how we decide just who/what are subjected to what actions, rules, restrictions, and more.

            Collapse
    7. MathewA

      I don't like animal testing. But yes I do value human life above animal life. So until science has advanced to the point that it's not necessary, then it should continue to be done.

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        I see your response as a generally kind and thoughtful one. I do see a potential problem, however. How do we tell when “science has advanced to the point that it’s not necessary” to use non-human primates as research subjects of this sort—that is, in the place of humans because there is a perception of significant risk inherent in the testing?

        Given that science advances knowledge in irregular fits, jerks, and jumps as well as the occasional well-mannered regular pacing or glide, and the simple fact that new knowledge raises new questions, with new experimental procedures, I don’t think it can be relied upon that we’ll know it when the pace of scientific advancement can continue unchanged without the use of animal subjects. And the development of one vaccine, say, with it proving safe and reliable, doesn’t ordain that the next will prove equally safe or reliable, so one can’t necessarily rely on established technique, either.

        Will not humans always find questions about how best to fend off, treat, or ameliorate their maladies of the day? And will we not always, and necessarily, wonder about novel treatments and whether they might actually be unsafe until reasonably shown otherwise?

        I think the task of showing that such testing is “unnecessary” is inherently Sisyphean, as is, in a different sense, human existence. We’re always pushing the rock of pain, illness, and sorrow up the hill, only to find in the morning that these nastinesses are still with us.

        Collapse
    8. Mid 20's All-Around Good Guy

      "The premise for such use relies, as it must, on the idea that non-human species are less important, less valuable, and thus more readily and cheaply obtained than human subjects."

      Your response was well reasoned and thoughtful. However, I accept the premise you outline above and would argue it is morally correct to value human lives over any other species, including primates. The highest dignity should be reserved for humans, the creatures with the highest faculties. If animals are of equal value, then we risk treating fellow humans like dogs. That is not to say animals are undeserving of compassion, and Primates should be treated as humanely as possible in the process of conducting tests that improve human lives.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        "If animals are of equal value, then we risk treating fellow humans like dogs."

        It seems to me that that the risk is usually the other way around: people who treat animals cruelly or who are indifferent to their suffering are all too often indifferent to suffering in humans as well. And a society that condones brutality to animals often overlooks brutality to humans as well.

        Collapse
      2. CatoTheElder

        Thank you for the thoughtful response. I very much respect your position, though I don’t completely agree. Having, in my younger days, participated in research using animal subjects, and on many occasions been in position to observe animals used as subjects, as well as the circumstances in which they are maintained, etc., I can attest to the fact that many researchers work hard to be ethical and humane in their use of animal subjects. (Please note the formal definition of “ethical”, which is what I intend here.) Many, however, fall short of what I see as acceptable use and treatment of animals as test subjects, even granting the premise you espouse.

        Were I less cynical about humanity, I’d perhaps agree with you. As for treating fellow humans like dogs, well, I don’t see that as, generally speaking, a big risk. In fact, I think the greater lesson to be learned from consideration of the differences in how we treat fellow humans v. how we treat dogs should be one of re-evaluation of how we treat dogs.

        A final note: I’m not sure that we must consider all animals equal in order to recognize that each deserves a proper modicum of respect. I certainly don’t look at pillbugs as having the same moral standing as, say, guinea pigs, which, in turn, don’t, in my eyes, warrant the same consideration as do macaques, orangutans, or, of course, humans. And each of these last three also have proper differences in moral/ethical valuation, though the similarities due in consideration and treatment at least start to approach the asymptotic, in my view. It is these finer distinctions that are, I think, the most difficult to identify, quantify, express, and come to treat properly. Thus I would want to err toward respect, and even kindness, rather than allow inappropriate harm.

        P.S. I especially respect your final statement regarding the treatment of primates.

        Collapse
    9. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

    10. Mark.E.Dodds

      Are you personally volunteering as a research subject. Or willing to take untested vacines? Or shall we just let the next pandemic just run its course with no effective vaccine?

      Collapse
      1. Clisbyw

        I can't speak for the poster, but I took part in a 2-year Covid-19 vaccine trial (Astra-Zeneca). I absolutely would consider being in other trials of untested vaccines.

        Collapse
      2. CatoTheElder

        I have participated in research as both scientist and subject. And yes, in the right circumstances, I would be willing to be a subject in a vaccine trial.

        Collapse
    11. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      This is a great informative analysis and conclusion Cato

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        Thank you!

        Collapse
Load More