More Monkey Business

The U.S. was already running short on primates for medical testing—and the problem just got worse.

By
21
A laboratory baby monkey being examined. (Photo by MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP via Getty Images)

The United States hasn’t had enough non-human primates to go around the last few years.

First, America’s largest supplier, China, ceased exporting them in 2020. Then the COVID-19 pandemic drove up demand for primates used in lab testing. Then animal trafficking allegations in America’s new largest source, Cambodia, caused the importer Inotiv to pause distribution last year.

The shortage of imports means that thousands of potential research projects have slowed down or stopped—a global problem given the importance of America’s pharmaceutical industry. And now that problem is only getting worse: Charles River Laboratories, one of America’s largest non-human primate importers, has now suspended shipments from Cambodia. 

Charles River Labs announced in a February report that it was joining Inotiv in suspending imports from Cambodia. The company had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as a part of an ongoing investigation into the alleged Cambodian monkey laundering ring. CRL stated it intended “to fully cooperate with the U.S. government as part of their investigation.”

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
21
By
Comments (21)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    My perspective is derived from 3 different professional lives. Automotive and Safety. Active implantable mechanical circulatory support and Medical Devices (for humans), and work in the Veterinary (canine pharmaceutical delivery) field most recently. My end of work is around product:market and customer assessment, development and manufacturing and quality. Observed human clinical trials for MedDev. Sponsored pharmacokinetics in lab beagles, which is routinely done with no harm for them by pharma.

    A huge problem in human medical device is that unlike Automotive, you just cant out 5,000 test vehicles (humans) send out on the test track to exercise where failures occur, reliability, durability, and meeting the intended use/requirements.

    As to primate testing. They was not used in our implantable device for the basic reason is that key circulatory hydromechanics aren't similar enough and couple other reasons. A lot and a lot of computational analyis is done along with in vivo testing analogs.

    For pharmaceuticals, I don't a. Know that science. B. Man made chemistry and macromolecular (living) chemistry are slightly odd pairs (generally). The former is imprecise compared to the latter.

    Here is some Veterinary AMA news on the topic.
    https://www.avma.org/news/new-law-clarifies-alternatives-animal-testing-safety-efficacy-drugs?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=todays-headlines-news

    Collapse
  2. Mr. E.

    "monkey laundering ring"

    Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahaha.

    Well done.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Probably Wrong

      A downstream consequence of the challenges in the whole animal trade is that access to individual NHP organs for tissue studies will be affected too. The price of rhesus pieces may skyrocket.

      Collapse
      1. Mr. E.

        Then the sellers will have the buyers over a, uh, barrel?

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Gzexpat

      You can't make that kind of stuff up...

      Collapse
  3. CatoTheElder

    I lament, first and foremost, the use of non-human primates as laboratory animals. As a retired physician, and having once upon a time used mammals (though not NHPs) in research, I understand the perceived need well. But I am no longer convinced that, despite regulation and reviews, NHPs as lab subjects are always a ‘last resort’, and thus, seen as necessary in the performance of what is deemed vital research.

    Humans are routinely cavalier in their treatment of the non-human—unless we’re talking about a human’s treasured possessions. This tendency persists in spite of efforts of regulators and ethicists to ensure otherwise.

    It’s also said that some of the research, as stated in the article, must be done in NHPs, because it can’t be done in humans. I find it an interesting item to ponder: would it be wrong to ask for human volunteers? Heck, would it be wrong to pay the volunteers? At least as much as it would cost now to purchase an allegedly ethically obtained NHP?

    This brings us to cost. It’s said here, in a manner suggesting the price is exorbitant, that a macaque or similar NHP acquired as grist for the research mill runs $33,000+. Frankly, I don’t see that as high enough. Make it at least $100K, with annual adjustments for inflation, and proscription of sales if numbers of the prospective sales animal in the wild fall below a predetermined threshold, or are not reliably counted within the last five years.

    We really do seem to have forgotten that none of us get out of this alive, and that efforts to further lengthen lifespans and reduce suffering face intractable problems. The first is asymptotic; we all crash to zero, and with the accumulated ravages of age , it’s not really that far beyond the allotment in the old adage of three score and ten years. As regards suffering, it’s robbing a killing Peter to pay a deadly Paul. Each of us will die of something, and most of those somethings will bring along a burden of suffering, sometimes more/worse than what we might have experienced otherwise.

    Give human subjects $50K, free healthcare, no taxes for life, and a death payout of $500K, assure each protocol undergoes stringent review, and thorough transparency in procedures and outcomes, and there might be more volunteers than many would expect.

    We pay enlisted personnel in the armed services less well, in spite of real risk of illness, injury, or death. Why should we object to a plan like this?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Probably Wrong

      Well, Phase 1 trials and First in Human studies already use compensated human volunteers, and the nature of the work still tends to attract people without other great prospects. Plus, a quick perusal of clinicaltrials.gov will show you that there are always a few fly-by-night operations happy to set up in Slovakia or wherever. The role of NHPs in avoiding some worse incentives there is not to be discounted.

      Incidentally, Bari Weiss’ outfit recently did an interesting article on healthy human trial volunteers. https://www.thefp.com/p/the-human-beings-who-live-as-lab

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        Yeah, I know that my mention of paid volunteers isn’t exactly ice-breaking, though I’m not sure of the current state of things in detail. I don’t think such can ever rid itself entirely of the “I’m selling my plasma” aura, though.

        Your mention of worse alternatives is apropos, of course. It’s amazing what humans are willing to do to each other, even though we’re allegedly enlightened these days.

        I didn’t know of the article to which you’ve linked at thefp.com. I’ll definitely check that out.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Alec Dent vertical-nib Author

      Some food for thought: it’s not the rich who would respond to any of the incentives you just described. It would lead to a system in which the lower classes serve as guinea pigs while the better off reap the rewards. The alternative, cessation of animal testing, puts us in another similar position: the wealthy will always have access to the best healthcare, the best doctors, the best treatment, and the ability to socially distance, quarantine, lockdown, etc. in a way the poor never can. Stopping medical advancements would disproportionately hurt anyone who doesn’t have the resources to wall themselves off from the world and access to the best treatments. We’ll get to a point where the alternatives that are being developed are reliable, but for now it strikes me we’re in a lesser of two evils situation.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        Agreed. Unfortunately, we still need them for medical testing mostly because of the ethics surrounding human testing.

        I cannot wait for the day we no longer require animals for our use in this manner.

        Collapse
      2. CatoTheElder

        Thoughtful response; thanks, Alec. Even as I wrote that, I knew of course that wealthy persons wouldn’t be likely to volunteer—even at a pay & benefits level deemed “reasonable”—whatever that might be. And it pains me. When I was still practicing, the inherent inequalities in the delivery of health care—much more centered on economic class than anything else, race included, as far as I could tell, though race and other factors had their roles, too—were soul-wrenching at times.

        In fairness to myself, I should point out that I’m not proposing a cessation of medical research or anything that would necessarily lead to, as you put it, “stopping medical advancements”. There are many advances that haven’t, don’t, and shouldn’t rely on testing in non-human primates. I can almost sense the eyebrow-raising prompted by the last phrase. So, is testing in literal guinea pigs okay? As long as humanely and ethically performed, I think so. But as we come ever closer to our own species’ place in the sun, that is, when we’re testing on beings pretty clearly sentient in ways our own ancestors once denied were even remotely possible, I think we should take ever longer looks in the mirror and contemplate what we’re doing, and why.

        In a sense, it all comes down to two things: 1) a line of separation between kinds—i.e., being able to point to how macaques, chimps, bonobos, rhesus monkeys, and more are, despite their similarities to us, simply not human, and thus not deserving of the same consideration that our fellow humans are, and 2) a matter of numbers.

        With regards to the first, it’s too easy for some of us, sometimes, to simply stop at “they’re not human, and thus we needn’t/shouldn’t treat them as human”. That doesn’t really tell us what acceptable behavior entails, though. Just how close or how far to/from “treating them as human” is appropriate? We’re still stuck with having to decide, in real, consequential ways, what the value of a given macaque or chimpanzee or whatever really is, and how that stacks up against human needs that, it seems, can only be fulfilled by using some of these animals as expendable items in research protocols.

        The second point of consideration, that of numbers, can be at least partially addressed by asking, and trying to answer, the question, “How many macaques used to research a given problem is too many?” Most Animal Care and Use Committees, as well as most Investigational/Institutional Review Boards, deal with the question of numbers only by saying that the number of animals used in a given protocol should be no more than necessary to allow an appropriate conclusion to be reached. But what about the next protocol? And the one after that? Already there is concern that some of the ideal test subjects come from species that can reasonably be considered endangered, threatened, or in some way at risk, either in particular geographic areas or in their entirety. We’ve pretty much moved on from use of gorillas as test subject for this reason—but only as a response to very loud objections from animal rights activists.

        Alec, you indicate some confidence that we’ll “get to a point where the alternatives [to NHPs as test subjects in biomedical research] are reliable”. If that’s indeed so, then cessation of the use of NHPs would only be a temporary delay in moving back those particular frontiers now being addressed by NHP research, and, should such a cessation be instituted, it could well become the case that such a situation would prompt more rapid development of those alternatives.

        I recently heard a news report of a female killer what being observed caring for an orphaned infant pilot whale. In usual circumstances, pilot whales and killer whales are sometimes competitors, and sometimes orcas even prey on pilot whales. I cannot but pause and think long and hard about what it might mean for an orca to become mother to a baby pilot whale.

        Now, I’ll be the first to stipulate that large marine mammals in general, and toothed whales in particular, are not the primary topic. But I’m sure you can see why being everywhere and always aware that we are not the only species on the planet, nor the only species with thought, emotion, language, and more, should give us good reason to consider what, in these circumstances, is right, and what is wrong.

        Thank you for your response, Alec. I hope I’ve not made myself a pain. Thanks for continuing to keep this item within our sphere of attention. Whether my own position is correct or not, I am certain we need to be giving all this a lot more thought.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Rdoconnell

      I'm a little confused by the argument. "We're all going to die of something, so why bother to do medical research?" Is that the gist?

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        No.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Rdoconnell

          Then perhaps you can be clearer about your opinion on what qualifies as worthy research versus what's fighting the inevitable.

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            Please read my original comment again, and then perhaps read my response to Alec. The topic of “what is worthy research” is only one point of consideration amongst several, as is the recognition that we’re fighting the inevitable, as you put it. My primary concern is that of how we go about deciding how to interact with, and use, to our sole benefit, other animals, and in particular animals with which we share quite a bit more than just an astronomical address.

            Collapse
  4. Jennifer Stanowski

    Can't they breed them here, do they have to keep importing them? I believe chimpanzees used to be used, but no more. But there was a glut of chimps for a while, that's why there are so many sanctuaries for them, they are retired lab animals.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Alec Dent vertical-nib Author

      They can, and some companies have started doing so. But it would be a multi-year and several hundred million dollar private/public investment to get the US to the point of sustainability and the government isn’t paying much attention to the issue. We are would only reach monkey independence in about five years. Same old story: investments could have been made decades ago but getting it from China was then cheaper, so…

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wilhelm

        Gen. "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we cannot allow a non-human primate gap!

        (Sorry, Alec. Didn't mean to be cavalier. It just struck me as amusing.)

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Linda Beggs

    I long for a day when there is no need for animal testing. Just seeing the picture of that little monkey makes we weep.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      I agree with you. It is unfortunate that it is necessary right now. I think it should only be used when absolutely necessary, not for every little thing, like cosmetics testing etc.

      I didn't even like reading this story. It appears the US is contributing to wildlife poaching across the globe. I don't understand why we don't have a breeding facility here? Just stop rewarding people for pulling them out of the wild.

      That is truly awful.

      Collapse
    2. Owenoofta

      Utopia is a long way off…!

      Collapse