Chimpanzees play valuable role in biomedical research

In his June 12, 2012 article, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) argues that ending experimentation on chimpanzees is the right choice. While Rep. Bartlett is entitled to his views, we believe strongly that the passage of S. 810/H.R. 1513, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (GAPCSA), which he introduced, would have a devastating impact upon the advancement of medicine and human health.
 
Contrary to Rep. Bartlett’s claim that the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study is proof that chimpanzee research is no longer necessary, the IOM study found that pre-clinical testing of some monoclonal antibody drugs requires chimpanzees.  And, half of the study panel and numerous other scientists and physicians believe chimpanzees are necessary for evaluating candidate hepatitis C vaccines.  The IOM report also recognized that “a new, emerging, or re-emerging disease or disorder” may require chimpanzee research and that “comparative genomics research may be necessary for understanding human development, disease mechanisms, and susceptibility.”
 
Rep. Bartlett’s article contains several other inaccuracies.  First, he says that: “ . . . the Modular IMune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) System uses human cells to replicate the human immune response for quick and accurate therapeutics and vaccine development.  MIMIC can be used in every stage of drug and vaccine development and is both a more reliable and less expensive method than using chimpanzees.”
 
Although MIMIC and other in vitro methods may eventually be viable alternatives to some research with chimpanzees, there is presently no reasonable alternative to chimpanzee research to develop medical solutions for several devastating diseases.  In fact, not a single vaccine or drug has ever been developed and marketed using the MIMIC System in place of animal models.
 
Rep. Bartlett also incorrectly argues that chimpanzee research involving HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C has not been effective.  
 
In fact, the HIV vaccine experiments with chimpanzees were highly informative in disproving the efficacy of candidate vaccines, which could not practically or timely be accomplished with humans due to the number of vaccines and human subjects required. Chimpanzee research paved the way for entirely new strategies for HIV vaccine development which are currently being implemented. Moreover, while it is true that not all new hepatitis C drugs were tested in chimpanzees, development of these drugs depended heavily on prior research with chimpanzees.

Rep. Bartlett’s endorsement of a “contingency clause” in GAPCSA that would allow for chimpanzee research in future emergency situations disregards the consequences of dismantling the infrastructure that currently supports chimpanzee research. An outright prohibition on the use of chimpanzees now, even with a so-called “emergency” provision that would allow for their use if future conditions warranted it, is unworkable. The infrastructure to support chimpanzee research could not be re-created in a timely way, which would result in lost human lives.
 
Rep. Bartlett says that “ . . . sanctuaries provide these highly intelligent and social animals with a natural environment far superior for the study of their behavior than laboratories that induce stress, fear and other states that negatively affect research results.”
 
In fact, research facilities that house chimpanzees for research have excellent indoor-outdoor group housing facilities and highly sophisticated programs of behavioral and environmental enrichment. Unlike sanctuaries, research facilities have large veterinary, animal care, and behavioral services staffs, as well as extensive clinic and hospital facilities that provide specialized resources critical to the health and well-being of the chimpanzees.
 
Finally, Rep. Bartlett says that “The federal government currently pays $66 per chimpanzee per day for the maintenance of the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico, for instance; a sanctuary with a similar or larger population size spends approximately $43 per chimpanzee per day.”
 
Despite the claim that maintaining great apes in research settings costs the federal government more than retiring them to sanctuaries, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates that it spends an average of $34 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities and $44 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. In fact, moving the chimpanzees from Alamogordo to a research facility, as the NIH has proposed to do, would save the taxpayers $2 million per year.
 
Clearly, the right choice now is not to ban chimpanzees in biomedical research — both in terms of its costs and, more importantly, in terms of saving human lives.
 
Abee is director, Michale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 
Twilley is acting director, New Iberia Research Center at the University of Louisiana at Lafeyette.
 
VandeBerg is director, Southwest National Primate Research Center, and chief scientific officer at Texas Biomedical Research Institute
 
Stuart Zola is director, Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University.
 

---