Ethical Concerns in Primate Use and Husbandry

Subsequent to World War II, a dramatic increase occurred in the utilization of nonhuman primates in biomedical and psychological research and industry. At the same time field studies on the ecological and social behavior of natural populations of primates also increased, making possible more realistic assessments of both the behavioral potentiality of primate populations and their conservation status. In spite of the growing body of information indicating the endangered or threatened status of most species, many laboratory workers and planning agencies continue to regard primates as renewable resources, even seeking to bypass protective legislation in habitat countries to obtain them. As a consequence, insufficient financial support has been made available for the development of breeding colonies for research programs which may be essential. However, much utilization of primates is open to question. The appropriateness of primates as models, the numbers of animals used in experiments, and the redundancy of experimentation frequently are given little consideration. Likewise, field data on the biological and social requirements of primates have been consistently ignored in housing and other aspects of care, thereby calling into question the results of much research. The lack of restraint on the utilization of primates (and other animals) in research may ultimately be a consequence of the man/nature dichotomy embedded in traditional interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought

Ethical Concerns in Primate Use and Husbandry

After World War II, a dramatic increase occurred in the utilization of nonhuman primates in biomedical and psychological research and industry. At the same time, field studies on the ecological and social behavior of natural populations of primates also increased, making possible more realistic assessments of both the behavioral potentiality of primate populations and their conservation status. Despite the growing body of information indicating the endangered or threatened status of most species, many laboratory workers and planning agencies continue to regard primates as renewable resources, even seeking to bypass protective legislation in habitat countries to obtain them. As a consequence, insufficient financial support has been made available for the development of breeding colonies for research programs which may be essential. However, much utilization of primates is open to question. The appropriateness of primates as models, the number of animals used in experiments, and the redundancy of experimentation frequently are given little consideration. Likewise, field data on the biological and social requirements of primates have been consistently ignored in housing and other aspects of care, thereby calling into question the results of much research. The lack of restraint on using primates (and other animals) in research may result from the man/nature dichotomy embedded in traditional interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought

Temple and pet primates in Thailand

En Thailande, pays de religion bouddhiste prédominante, des populations isolées de Macaca fascicularis vivent dans les temples aussi bien en zone urbaine que rurale. Ils sont nourris par les offrandes mais sont régulièrement abattus quand ils ravagent les champs de riz ou de mais adjacents. Les macaques et les gibbons, et spécialement le lar (Hylobates lar) sont prisés comme animaux de compagnie en zones rurales et urbaines. Les gibbons sont même considérés comme l'animal de compagnie préféré des thai. Le nombre de primates mis en vente a rapidement crû à mesure que la coupe légale ou illégale des forêts a réduit la surface forestière à seulement 12% du territoire, isolant les populations de primates et les rendant plus vulnérable

Temple and pet primates in Thailand

In Thailand, a predominantly Buddhist country, isolated populations of long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) especially may be found at temples in both rural and urban areas where they are provisioned by people making merit although the monkeys may be shot as agricultural pests in adjacent rice or corn fields in rural areas. At the same time, macaques and gibbons, especially the lar gibbon (Hylobates lar), have been kept as pets in both rural and urban areas. Gibbons even are reported to be the « favorite pet for Thais ». The number of primates being offered for sale has risen dramatically as legal and illegal timbering have reduced Thailand’s forest cover to perhaps no more than 12 %, peripherali-zing primate populations and making them more vulnerable to hunting. A provision in Thai law permitted individuals to possess as many as two primates or other wild animals of the same species — « a potential pair to promote breeding » — even though their capture and sale was prohibited. Changes in Thailand’s wildlife laws governing private possession of wild animals have caused owners to abandon pets to government agencies and temples. Private rescue centers offer acute care and permanent shelter for some of these primates but cannot cope with the numbers involved. Pilot studies suggest that rehabilitation and réintroduction may be feasible alternatives for some former captive gibbons.En Thailande, pays de religion bouddhiste prédominante, des populations isolées de Macaca fascicularis vivent dans les temples aussi bien en zone urbaine que rurale. Ils sont nourris par les offrandes mais sont régulièrement abattus quand ils ravagent les champs de riz ou de maïs adjacents. Les macaques et les gibbons, et spécialement le lar (Hylobates lar) sont prisés comme animaux de compagnie en zones rurales et urbaines. Les gibbons sont même considérés comme « l’animal de compagnie préféré des thai ». Le nombre de primates mis en vente a rapidement crû à mesure que la coupe légale ou illégale des forêts a réduit la surface forestière à seulement 12 % du territoire, isolant les populations de primates et les rendant plus vulnérables. Un article de la loi thai autorise la possession de 2 primates, ou autres animaux sauvages de la même espèce, par habitant — « un couple permettant la reproduction » — bien que la capture et la vente soient interdites. Cette modification légale a causé l’abandon de nombreux animaux aux agences gouvernementales et aux temples. Des centres de sauvetage privés offrent les soins et le refuge à une partie de ces primates mais ne peuvent prendre en charge la totalité des animaux. Les études pilotes de réhabilitation et de réintroduction proposent une alternative pour une partie des gibbons captifs.Eudey Ardith A. Temple and pet primates in Thailand. In: Revue d'Écologie (La Terre et La Vie), tome 49, n°3, 1994. pp. 273-280

Ethical Concerns in Primate Use and Husbandry

Subsequent to World War II, a dramatic increase occurred in the utilization of nonhuman primates in biomedical and psychological research and industry. At the same time field studies on the ecological and social behavior of natural populations of primates also increased, making possible more realistic assessments of both the behavioral potentiality of primate populations and their conservation status. In spite of the growing body of information indicating the endangered or threatened status of most species, many laboratory workers and planning agencies continue to regard primates as renewable resources, even seeking to bypass protective legislation in habitat countries to obtain them. As a consequence, insufficient financial support has been made available for the development of breeding colonies for research programs which may be essential. However, much utilization of primates is open to question. The appropriateness of primates as models, the numbers of animals used in experiments, and the redundancy of experimentation frequently are given little consideration. Likewise, field data on the biological and social requirements of primates have been consistently ignored in housing and other aspects of care, thereby calling into question the results of much research. The lack of restraint on the utilization of primates (and other animals) in research may ultimately be a consequence of the man/nature dichotomy embedded in traditional interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought

Ethical Concerns in Primate Use and Husbandry

After World War II, a dramatic increase occurred in the utilization of nonhuman primates in biomedical and psychological research and industry. At the same time, field studies on the ecological and social behavior of natural populations of primates also increased, making possible more realistic assessments of both the behavioral potentiality of primate populations and their conservation status. Despite the growing body of information indicating the endangered or threatened status of most species, many laboratory workers and planning agencies continue to regard primates as renewable resources, even seeking to bypass protective legislation in habitat countries to obtain them. As a consequence, insufficient financial support has been made available for the development of breeding colonies for research programs which may be essential. However, much utilization of primates is open to question. The appropriateness of primates as models, the number of animals used in experiments, and the redundancy of experimentation frequently are given little consideration. Likewise, field data on the biological and social requirements of primates have been consistently ignored in housing and other aspects of care, thereby calling into question the results of much research. The lack of restraint on using primates (and other animals) in research may result from the man/nature dichotomy embedded in traditional interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought