Chimpanzee Research: An Examination of Its Contribution to Biomedical Knowledge and Efficacy in Combating Human Diseases

Research on captive chimpanzees incurs considerable animal welfare, ethical and financial costs. Advocates of such research claim these costs are outweighed by substantial advancements in biomedical knowledge, and that the genetic similarity of chimpanzees to humans enables the former to make critical contributions to preventing, diagnosing and combating human diseases. To assess these claims, we examined the disciplines investigated in 749 studies of captive chimpanzees published from 1995-2004 inclusive, and subjected 95 randomly selected papers to a detailed citation analysis: 49.5% (47/95) of papers had not been cited at the time of this study; 38.5% (34/95) were cited by 116 papers that did not describe well-developed methods for combating human diseases; 14.7% (14/95) of these chimpanzee studies were cited by (a total of 27) papers describing well-developed prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic methods for combating human diseases. Close examination of these 27 human medical papers revealed that in vitro research, human clinical and epidemiological investigations, molecular assays and methods, and genomic studies, contributed most to their development. Duplication of human outcomes, inconsistency with other human or primate data, and other causes resulted in the absence of any chimpanzee study demonstrating an essential contribution, or, in most cases, even a significant contribution of any kind, towards the development of the described human treatment

Washington University Record, August 9, 2007

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2112/thumbnail.jp

Washington University Record, September 9, 2005

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2045/thumbnail.jp

Outlook Magazine, Fall 1986

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/outlook/1082/thumbnail.jp

Origins of the HIVs and the AIDS Outbreaks

The AIDS pandemic was caused by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M (HIV-1M). It is not widely appreciated that there are three other HIV outbreaks that emerged independently in different regions of Africa during the last century. To date, 13 HIVs have been discovered, but only four of which became major outbreaks to varying degrees. HIV-1M is responsible for 90% of over 35 million deaths, and the other three epidemic HIVs are estimated to have infected from 25,000 to 750,000 people each. A handful of key determinants explain how and why this happened, including human interaction with the simian sources from which the HIVs emerged, but much more important were new ways that people spread the viruses to one another. The latter included population movement and urbanization, changes in sexual relations, war, and above all new medical procedures (unsterile injections and inadequately tested blood transfusions). The emergence of the viruses and their epidemic spread were not the result of a random mutation, but rather depended upon the combination of specific circumstances at different places and times. The AIDS pandemic was not a chance, natural occurrence; it is much more accurately described as a (hu)man-made disaster

Washington University Record, April 8, 2005

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2033/thumbnail.jp

How to Evaluate the Science of Non-human Animal Use in Biomedical Research and Testing: A Proposed Format for Debate

Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how scientific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers

Washington University Record, February 24, 2006

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2063/thumbnail.jp

Washington University Record, February 2, 1995

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/1676/thumbnail.jp