Cambridge University primates

Last updated

Cambridge University primate experiments came to public attention in 2002 after the publication that year of material from a ten-month undercover investigation in 1998 by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). [1] The experiments were being conducted on marmosets, and included the removal of parts of their brains intended to simulate the symptoms of stroke or Parkinson's disease. [2] Some of the research was theoretical, aimed at advancing knowledge of the brain, while some of it was applied. [3]

Contents

BUAV said the investigation revealed examples of animal abuse indicating that animals were inadequately protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. After a review by the government's chief inspector of animals ruled against BUAV's argument that the project licences should not have been granted, BUAV applied to the High Court for a judicial review. [4] The review ruled against BUAV on three of the four grounds, but on the remaining ground it found the Home Office had underestimated the suffering of the marmosets by categorising the experiments as "moderate," rather than "substantial." The Home Office announced a review of its procedures for categorising animal suffering. [5]

Nature of the research

A marmoset inside Cambridge University, filmed by BUAV. Marmoset.jpg
A marmoset inside Cambridge University, filmed by BUAV.

As of October 2002, Cambridge University had three project licences, issued by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, permitting the controlled use of one New World non-human primate species, the common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus . The licence authorised the use of animals bred specifically for research use at breeding establishments in the UK in experiments to study brain function in relation to human disorders. According to the chief inspector of animals, the experimental protocols involved "the training and testing of animals using a range of behavioural and cognitive tasks; then disrupting normal brain function by chemical or physical lesions; the subsequent administration of experimental treatments intended to minimise the functional defects or repair the damage caused; and further testing to evaluate brain function." The animals were killed at the end of the experiments, most of them for tissue analysis. [7] : 13 

Scientists using marmosets at Cambridge have published their work in peer reviewed journals. This includes discoveries relating to the role of the prefrontal cortex in behaviour, [8] [9] understanding learning and memory, [10] modelling Parkinson's disease, [11] and the role of the amygdala in conditioned reinforcement. [12]

Allegations of cruelty

According to the British government's inspector of animals and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, in some experimental protocols, the monkeys were trained to perform certain behavioural and cognitive tasks, then were made to repeat them after minimally invasive surgery to switch off a small area of the brain, to assess how this had affected their functioning. For example, some of the monkeys suffered from a damaged arm after the experiments. They were then tethered in a way that forced them to use that arm to retrieve food or water. To encourage use of the limb, the monkeys were deprived of food or water for 22 out of every 24 hours for up to two and a half years. [3] The monkeys were usually given an extra feed on Friday afternoons, but some researchers allegedly deprived the monkeys of this too, so that they could keep them hungry for further tests on the Monday. [13]

During training for these tasks prior to brain surgery, BUAV claims that researchers were given instructions such as:

BUAV alleges that monkeys were left unattended for up to 15 hours after having parts of their brains removed to induce strokes, because Cambridge staff worked nine to five. BUAVCambridge2.jpg
BUAV alleges that monkeys were left unattended for up to 15 hours after having parts of their brains removed to induce strokes, because Cambridge staff worked nine to five.

One effect of the brain damage was that the monkeys would engage in stereotypical rotating movements. BUAV reported that one test for Parkinson's disease involved shutting them in a small Perspex box for up to one hour at a time to see how often they would rotate, and injecting them with amphetamine to make them rotate faster. BUAV says the monkeys were often "clearly distressed and bewildered; they could be seen crying out, twisting frantically, retching or desperately trying to escape." [3]

BUAV also says their investigator discovered monkeys who had had the tops of their scalps sawn off to have strokes induced, and who were then left unattended for 15 hours overnight without veterinary attention, because Cambridge staff worked nine to five. [14] Three full-time animal care staff were employed to look after 400 animals, according to a British government review, with the research scientists themselves responsible for the welfare of animals undergoing experimental procedures. [7] : 24 

A film produced by BUAV shows a monkey regaining muscle tone during surgery, an indication that the animal was insufficiently anaesthetised. The BUAV report suggested there was a delay of some minutes before more anaesthetic was given. [7] : 56 

Response to the allegations

The British government's chief inspector of animals conducted a review and published a report in October 2002. It concluded the veterinary input at Cambridge was "exemplary"; the facility "seems adequately staffed"; and the animals afforded "appropriate standards of accommodation and care." [7] : 56  The caging system was "no longer state of the art" but complied with Home Office provisions; and the marmoset colony was "generally healthy." [7] : 6 The inspector noted four instances of non-compliance with the licence: in two experiments, the surgical procedure was at variance with the project licence; on one occasion, the water restriction schedule was at variance; on one occasion, the licence holder did not inform the department that the severity limit of an experiment had been exceeded; there were minor technical irregularities on reports of how the animals were used. [7] : 6 

The reviewers consulted two experts in veterinary anaesthesia to investigate the consequences of a monkey regaining muscle tone during surgery. They advised that "unless purposeful or voluntary movements had accompanied the return of muscle tone then ... the anaesthetic agents should have been sufficient to block awareness of pain. [7] : 57 

Cambridge University welcomed the report as "confirmation that there was no evidence to support the allegations made by the BUAV." [4]

The BUAV was invited to give evidence to the inquiry, but declined. Nor did it make available the unedited video footage from its film. After publication of the report, the group said it was "utterly appalled and deeply angered by the Home Office's complete dismissal of overwhelming evidence of animal suffering" and that "the government's claim that it was correct to categorise as moderate suffering experiments where monkeys had the top of their skull sawn off and part of their brain sucked out is ludicrous in the extreme." [15]

Judicial review

As a result of the information obtained during their investigation and in light of the subsequent review, BUAV applied to the UK's High Court for permission to seek a judicial review of the legality of the Home Office's interpretation of the Cambridge case, and the wider implementation of vivisection legislation. [14]

Mr Justice Burnton rejected four grounds for review directly related to the Cambridge case, but granted permission to seek judicial review on two wider grounds: whether death was an effect to be weighed in cost-benefit analysis and whether guidelines on restricting food and water should be a code of practice under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. [4] At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Keene allowed the review to proceed on two more counts that had originally been refused, on the grounds of public interest. These relate to the question of whether the Home Office underestimated the suffering of the Cambridge marmosets when setting severity limits and whether out-of-hours care and veterinary cover is required by law. [16]

The 2007 review found in favour of the Home Office on three of the grounds. On the issue of suffering, the court found that the Home Secretary had unlawfully categorised the experiments as "moderate", rather than "substantial". The Home Office, given leave to appeal the decision, which it did successfully in April 2008 with the Home Office awarded costs. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal testing</span> Use of nonhuman animals in experiments

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. This approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environments or habitats. Experimental research with animals is usually conducted in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to the industry. The focus of animal testing varies on a continuum from pure research, focusing on developing fundamental knowledge of an organism, to applied research, which may focus on answering some questions of great practical importance, such as finding a cure for a disease. Examples of applied research include testing disease treatments, breeding, defense research, and toxicology, including cosmetics testing. In education, animal testing is sometimes a component of biology or psychology courses. The practice is regulated to varying degrees in different countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vivisection</span> Experimental surgery

Vivisection is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system, to view living internal structure. The word is, more broadly, used as a pejorative catch-all term for experimentation on live animals by organizations opposed to animal experimentation, but the term is rarely used by practising scientists. Human vivisection, such as live organ harvesting, has been perpetrated as a form of torture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cruelty-free</span>

In the animal rights movement, cruelty-free is a label for products or activities that do not harm or kill animals anywhere in the world. Products tested on animals or made from animals are not considered cruelty-free, since these tests are often painful and cause the suffering and death of millions of animals every year.

Cruelty Free International is an animal protection and advocacy group that campaigns for the abolition of all animal experiments. They organise certification of cruelty-free products which are marked with the symbol of a leaping bunny.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Animals Act 1986, sometimes referred to as ASPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1986, which regulates the use of animals used for research in the UK. The Act permits studies to be conducted using animals for procedures such as breeding genetically modified animals, medical and veterinary advances, education, environmental toxicology and includes procedures requiring surgery, if certain criteria are met. Revised legislation came into force on 1 January 2013. The original act related to the 1986 EU Directive 86/609/EEC which was updated and replaced by EU Directive 2010/63/EU

Shamrock Farm was the United Kingdom's only non-human primate importation and quarantine centre, located in Small Dole, near Henfield in West Sussex. The centre, owned by Bausch and Lomb and run by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. for Shamrock (GB) Ltd, provided animals to various laboratories and universities for use in animal testing. It was Europe's largest supplier of primates to laboratories, and held up to 350 monkeys at a time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Silver Spring monkeys</span> Macaques used in neuroplasticity research; subjects of an animal-cruelty court case

The Silver Spring monkeys were 17 wild-born macaque monkeys from the Philippines who were kept in the Institute for Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. From 1981 until 1991, they became what one writer called the most famous lab animals in history, as a result of a battle between animal researchers, animal advocates, politicians, and the courts over whether to use them in research or release them to a sanctuary. Within the scientific community, the monkeys became known for their use in experiments into neuroplasticity—the ability of the adult primate brain to reorganize itself.

The Animal Procedures Committee advised the British Home Secretary on matters related to animal testing in the UK. The function of the committee was made a statutory requirement by the Animals Act 1986, which mandated that it should have at least 12 members, excluding the chair. The APC no longer exists as the ASPA has been revised in accordance with EU legislation. It was disbanded on 31 December 2012 and was replaced by the Animals in Science Committee in 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tipu Aziz</span>

Tipu Zahed Aziz, FMedSci is a Bangladeshi-born British professor of neurosurgery at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, Aarhus Denmark and Porto, Portugal. He specialises in the study and treatment of Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, dystonia, spasmodic torticollis, fixed abnormal posture of the neck, tremor, and intractable neuropathic pain. Besides his medical work, he is also notable as a public commentator in support of animal experimentation.

Gillian Rose Langley is a British scientist and writer who specialises in alternatives to animal testing and animal rights. She was, from 1981 until 2009, the science director of the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, a medical research charity developing non-animal research techniques. She was an anti-vivisection member of the British government's Animal Procedures Committee for eight years, and has worked as a consultant on non-animal techniques for the European Commission, and for animal protection organizations in Europe and the United States. Between 2010 and 2016 she was a consultant for Humane Society International.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Anti-Vivisection Society</span> Animal protection organization

The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) is an international not-for-profit animal protection group, based in London, working to end animal testing, and focused on the replacement of animals in research with advanced, scientific techniques. Since 2006, the NAVS has operated its international campaigns under the working name Animal Defenders International (ADI), and the two groups now work together under the ADI name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of animal testing</span>

The history of animal testing goes back to the writings of the Ancient Greeks in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, with Aristotle and Erasistratus one of the first documented to perform experiments on nonhuman animals. Galen, a physician in 2nd-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "Father of Vivisection." Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients. Although the exact purpose of the procedure was unclear, a Neolithic surgeon performed trepanation on a cow in 3400-3000 BCE. This is the earliest known surgery to have been performed on an animal, and it is possible that the procedure was done on a dead cow in order for the surgeon to practice their skills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal testing on non-human primates</span> Experimentation using other primate animals

Experiments involving non-human primates (NHPs) include toxicity testing for medical and non-medical substances; studies of infectious disease, such as HIV and hepatitis; neurological studies; behavior and cognition; reproduction; genetics; and xenotransplantation. Around 65,000 NHPs are used every year in the United States, and around 7,000 across the European Union. Most are purpose-bred, while some are caught in the wild.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boyd Group</span> British think tank

The Boyd Group is a Britain-based, independent think tank considering issues relating to animal testing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nafovanny</span> Vietnamese captive-breeding primate facility

Nafovanny in Vietnam is the largest captive-breeding primate facility in the world, supplying long-tailed macaques to animal testing laboratories, including Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK and Covance in Germany.

Wickham Laboratories Ltd is a contract testing laboratory that supports the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. Located in Hampshire, England, it was founded in 1962 and remains an independent company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harlan (company)</span> Laboratory supplier

Harlan Sprague Dawley Inc. was a supplier of animals and other services to laboratories for the purpose of animal testing. It provided pre-clinical research tools and services for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, agrochemicals, industrial chemical, and food industries.

The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) is a national, registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization "dedicated to ending the use of animals in research, testing, and science education" and replacing them with "modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely, and scientifically superior."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Vivisection Coalition</span>

The Anti-Vivisection Coalition (AVC) is a United Kingdom-based pressure group which campaigns against animal testing. The AVC are described as 'main driver' of the Stop Vivisection Initiative, a petition launched in November 2012 which attracted more than a million signatures. The Stop Vivisection Initiative called upon the European Union to ban animal testing. If the signatures are verified, "the initiative will be granted hearings at the European Commission and the European Parliament".

The Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) is a federally funded biomedical research facility located at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The WNPRC is part of a network of seven National Primate Research Centers which conduct biomedical research on primates. As of 2020, the center houses approximately 1,600 animals.

References

  1. ↑ "Witness the Cutting Edge of British Medical Research". British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Archived from the original on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  2. ↑ Bird, Maryann (7 December 2003). "Animal Passions". Time magazine. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008.
  3. 1 2 3 "Cambridge University". British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Archived from the original on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  4. 1 2 3 "Animal group's court review win". BBC News. 12 April 2005.
  5. ↑ James Randerson (28 July 2007). "Government downplayed animal suffering in experiments". The Guardian.
  6. ↑ "BUAV film showing brain-damaged marmosets, filmed inside Cambridge University". Archived from the original on 8 March 2006. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Aspects of non-human primate research at Cambridge University" (PDF). Home Office. October 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 January 2009.
  8. ↑ Dias R, Robbins TW, Roberts AC (March 1996). "Dissociation in prefrontal cortex of affective and attentional shifts". Nature. 380 (6569): 69–72. Bibcode:1996Natur.380...69D. doi:10.1038/380069a0. PMID   8598908. S2CID   4301013.
  9. ↑ Clarke HF, Dalley JW, Crofts HS, Robbins TW, Roberts AC (May 2004). "Cognitive inflexibility after prefrontal serotonin depletion". Science. 304 (5672): 878–80. Bibcode:2004Sci...304..878C. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.333.8219 . doi:10.1126/science.1094987. PMID   15131308. S2CID   35978932.
  10. ↑ Barefoot HC, Baker HF, Ridley RM (February 2002). "Crossed unilateral lesions of temporal lobe structures and cholinergic cell bodies impair visual conditional and object discrimination learning in monkeys". Eur. J. Neurosci. 15 (3): 507–16. doi: 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01888.x . PMID   11876778. S2CID   223190.
  11. ↑ Milton AL, Marshall JW, Cummings RM, Baker HF, Ridley RM (April 2004). "Dissociation of hemi-spatial and hemi-motor impairments in a unilateral primate model of Parkinson's disease". Behav. Brain Res. 150 (1–2): 55–63. doi:10.1016/S0166-4328(03)00231-6. PMID   15033279. S2CID   41078502.
  12. ↑ Parkinson JA, Crofts HS, McGuigan M, Tomic DL, Everitt BJ, Roberts AC (October 2001). "The role of the primate amygdala in conditioned reinforcement". J. Neurosci. 21 (19): 7770–80. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-19-07770.2001 . PMC   6762910 . PMID   11567067.
  13. 1 2 "Out of Mind". BUAV. Archived from the original on 5 October 2006. Retrieved 8 October 2006.
  14. 1 2 3 Laville, Sandra (8 February 2005). "Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests". The Guardian.
  15. ↑ Thew, Michelle. "Response by the BUAV to a review by the Chief Inspector into aspects of non-human primate research at Cambridge University". Archived from the original on 4 July 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  16. ↑ "Judicial review investigating cruelty to monkeys at Cambridge University given yet another legal boost". British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 18 July 2005. Archived from the original on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  17. ↑ Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 2007 (PDF). London: TSO. 2008. ISBN   978-0-10-295801-0. OCLC   328800420.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.