Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635823955.pdf (Australia)
The use of non-human primates in experiments in the UK -unnecessary and unjustifiable A Cruelty Free International science report Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Synopsis The British public does not support the use of non-human primates in research and yet, Great Britain is the third highest user of non-human primates in Europe.
Over 2,200 non-human primates were used in 2013 and their use is on the increase.

The majority of these individuals are imported into the UK from countries outside the European Union, including those as far away as Vietnam and Mauritius.

To satisfy demand for non-human primates, tens of thousands are held in captivity in large-scale facilities in these countries; many will have been caught in the wild and their offspring exported.
They are packed into small wooden crates and shipped as cargo on airplanes to laboratories in the UK and other countries around the world.

This report highlights the scale and impact of non-human primate research in the UK, provides recent examples of the types of experiments they are used in and questions why they have to be used at all.
The examples, which include subjecting non-human primates to invasive brain surgeries to study human behaviour and infecting them with deadly diseases as part of a ‘defence’ strategy against bio- terrorist attacks, show that it is still far too easy to use these highly intelligent and social animals in extremely cruel and destructive experiments that are wasteful and even frivolous in their design.
Far from helping produce cures for debilitating human diseases, most of the experiments appear to have minimal benefits for humans and give the impression of having more to do with defending the continued use of non-human primates or satisfying the curiosity of 2 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 researchers than advancing medical science.
In fact, we believe that the information actually needed to help human patients can be derived from alternative methods that do not involve non-human primates or other animals, such as ethical studies in human volunteers and innovative experiments involving human tissues and cells.

Although the use of non-human primates does not have public support, it continues largely in secrecy in universities, hospitals, contract testing facilities and even government laboratories across the UK.
Worryingly, UK researchers are also collaborating with researchers overseas to carry out cruel experiments on monkeys that may not be permitted in the UK.

This report presents some examples of overseas research and also tackles the issue of transparency, highlighting areas where the public continues to be misled on the extent of suffering experienced by non-human primates in laboratories.
The Coalition Government pledged to work to reduce the numbers of animals in experiments as well as to end the secrecy surrounding animal experiments; ending non-human primate experiments would be an appropriate place to start.

Cruelty Free International Cruelty Free International is the leading organisation working solely to end animal experiments worldwide.

Our vision is to create a world where nobody wants or believes we need to experiment on animals.
Our dedicated team are experts in their fields, combining award-winning campaigning, political lobbying, pioneering undercover investigations, scientific and legal expertise and corporate responsibility.

Educating, challenging and inspiring others across the globe to respect and protect animals, we investigate and expose the reality of life for animals in laboratories, challenge decision-makers to make a positive difference for animals, and champion better science and cruelty free living.
A Cruelty Free International science report 3 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Contents 06 Introduction 06 08 The scale of the use of non-human primates in the UK Public concern for non-human primates 09 Where do the non-human primates come from?
10 Impact on wild non-human primate populations 11 11 11 Poor welfare in breeding facilities in source countries Early weaning Transport over long distances 12 Pharmaceutical research and testing 12 What is done to the non-human primates?

12 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in toxicity testing?

12 What are the alternatives?


14 14 Example 1: AstraZeneca, Macclesfield Example 2: The National Institue for Biological Standards & Control (NIBSC) and Pfizer, Hertfordshire 15 HIV/AIDS research 15 What is done to the non-human primates?

15 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in HIV/AIDS research?

15 What are the alternatives?

16 16 Example 3: University of Oxford Example 4: NIBSC, Hertfordshire 17 Parkinson’s disease research 17 What is done to the non-human primates?
17 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in Parkinson’s disease research?

17 What are the alternatives?

18 18 Example 5: King’s College London Example 6: King’s College London 4 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 19 Defence research 19 What is done to the non-human primates?
19 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in defence research?

19 What are the alternatives?

20 20 Example 7: Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury Example 8: Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury 21 Brain and behaviour research 21 What is done to the non-human primates?

21 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in brain and behaviour research?

21 What are the alternatives?


22 22 23 Example 9: University of Oxford Example 10: University College London Example 11: Newcastle University 24 Neurological disorders research 24 What is done to the non-human primates?

24 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in neurological disease research?

24 What are the alternatives?
25 26 26 Example 12: Newcastle University Example 13: University of Cambridge Example 14: University of Cambridge 27 29 31 31 32 Research on non-human primates overseas Lack of transparency regarding research on non-human primates Conclusions Recommendations References and resources A Cruelty Free International science report 5 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Introduction The scale of the use of non-human primates in the UK The UK is the third largest user of non-human primates in the EU.
In 2013 alone in the UK, at least 2,202 non-human primates were used in some 3,236 experiments (some non-human primates are used more than once).1 Fig.

1.

The number of new and old world non-human primates used in experiments in the UK in 2013.2 Non-human primates used in the UK include new world monkeys (marmosets and tamarins) and old world monkeys (rhesus and long-tailed macaques).
Other non-human primates such as owl monkeys, spider monkeys and baboons have not been used for several years but there is no prohibition on them being used in the future.

Old world monkeys constitute the larger proportion of non-human primates used in the UK (87%).

The majority of non-human primates in the UK (82%) are used in regulatory testing to assess the toxicity of potential new human medicines.3 12% are used in fundamental biological research.
This is research designed to answer ‘interesting’ scientific questions that animal researchers speculate might be useful medically in the future.

5% of non-human primates are used in experiments to develop new safety tests for non- medical purposes.4 Current areas of fundamental and applied medical research that use monkeys in the UK includes pharmaceutical research, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, defence research and even more fundamental research related to the brain and neurological disorders.
Marmosets used to be used in reproductive research at the MRC unit for Reproductive Sciences in Edinburgh but this closed down in 2011.

6 1 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Fig.

2.

Purpose of experiments conducted on non-human primates in the UK in 2013.5 Fig.

3.
3.

The total number of experiments on non-human primates over the last 10 years in the UK.6 Between 2004 and 2010 an average of over 4,300 non-human primates were used in experiments every year.

After a significant decrease in 2011 to just under 2,500 experiments, the use of non-human primates appears to be on the rise again and reached over 3,200 experiments in 2013.

Worryingly, more experiments on the larger, old world monkeys appears to account for the increase.
Across the EU, 6,095 non-human primates were used in 2011 alone, with a similar pattern of use, species and source as the UK.7 A Cruelty Free International science report 7 2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Public concern for non-human primates The public do not support the use of non-human primates in experiments.
In a UK government poll of public attitudes to animal research in 2014, only 16% of UK respondents said it was acceptable to use large monkeys such as macaques for medical research to benefit people while only 19% supported the use of small monkeys such as marmosets.8 As a result of public pressure, the UK government issued a policy statement in 1997 that it would no longer permit the use of great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans) in experiments; these animals had not actually been used since before 1987.
And, the recently revised UK legislation, which came into force in January 2013, states that the use of great apes is banned.9 No such ban is in place for other non-human primates however, despite their substantial similarity to great apes, including high intelligence and similar capacity to suffer.

Under EU and UK legislation, there are supposedly greater restrictions placed on the use of non-human primates in research compared to other species.
However, as this review will show, this so-called ‘special protection’ fails to prevent them from being used on a large scale in often speculative experiments that inflict considerable suffering.

8 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Where do the non-human primates in the UK come from?
The source of non-human primates used in UK laboratories raises important ethical questions in itself.

Many are imported from countries in outside the EU.

The species most widely research is the long-tailed macaque.

It is listed in Appendix II of CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) and is the most widely traded mammal on the CITES appendices.
In 2013, 1,992 non-human primates were imported into the UK, the majority of these being long-tailed macaques from Mauritius and Vietnam.10 imported and used Fig.

4.

The reported source of non-human primates in the UK in 201311 The reliance of the UK research industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, on non-human primates sourced from Asia raises additional welfare concerns.
The ongoing dependence on using wild macaque populations for breeding, the often poor conditions in breeding facilities, the early forced separation of females from their infants and transport over long distances has significant welfare consequences for the animals.

Over the past ten years there has been a significant shift in the source of non-human primates for research in the UK.

Between 2007 and 2011 the majority of non-human primates used in experiments were bred in the UK.
However, the last two years have seen a large increase in the use of imported non-human primates and now over 70% of non-human primates used in experiments come from overseas.

This is only partly explained by the fact that the majority of non-human primates now used in UK experiments are macaques, who tend to be imported.
A Cruelty Free International science report 9 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Fig.

5.
5.

The reported source of individual non-human primates being used in experiments in the UK over the last 10 years.12 Impact on wild non-human primate populations In 1995, following an in-depth investigation by Cruelty Free International into the international trade in non-human primates trapped from the wild, the UK banned the use of wild-caught non-human primates for research.
However, non-human primates born to wild-caught parents and those exported from farms which trap wild primates for breeding purposes continue to be allowed into the country.

In doing so, the UK is helping to perpetuate a trade that centres on the cruel trapping of wild animals.

The majority of non-human primates imported into the UK in 2013 were the offspring of wild-caught non-human primates imported from Mauritius.

The capture of non-human primates from the wild inflicts substantial suffering.
Non-human primates are highly social animals whose sense of wellbeing and welfare are strongly and inextricably dependent on intact family and social structures.

The negative impact caused by trapping and the removal of wild non-human primates from their natural social groups is recognised by a number of organisations and official bodies.
For example, the UK government’s former advisory committee, the Animal Procedures Committee, stated “Trapping wild non-human primates can cause significant distress, suffering and physical injury.”13 10 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Poor welfare in breeding facilities in source countries Field investigations by Cruelty Free International in source countries such as Mauritius, Vietnam and Cambodia have revealed the suffering inflicted on non-human primates during their capture and subsequent captivity facilities.
Unacceptable conditions were often found at holding and breeding farms that breached international animal welfare guidelines and raise questions over the validity of captive-breeding claims.14 large-scale breeding in In January 2013, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was amended to transpose the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
The Home Office no longer requires users of non-human primates from overseas breeding centres to seek permission in advance from the Home Office.

This means that the responsibility of ensuring that non-human primates are coming from breeders and suppliers with proper controls and processes in place has been left solely with the UK users, who naturally want to reduce costs.
Early weaning Unlike the offspring of many other mammals, infant non-human primates have a long period of dependence and development which requires an extended period of maternal care.

In the wild, infants normally remain with their family group for many years.

Natural weaning is a gradual process.

Forcibly separating infants from their mothers is an extremely distressing experience for both the mother and infant.
Despite evidence showing this not to be the case, the UK government considers six months acceptable as the weaning age for macaques in UK and overseas breeding facilities.15 Transport over long distances Transportation alone can have a significant impact on the welfare of the non-human primates involved.

Studies carried out have shown that transportation causes profound negative and lasting effects on the welfare of non-human primates.
The long-tailed macaque in particular has been identified as a species unsuited to transport.16 The animals are transported in small wooden crates, usually too small to allow them to stand up, and travel as cargo, mainly on passenger flights.

They can endure inadequate ventilation, noise, temperature fluctuations and delays en route.

Individuals may become ill or even die in transit.


For others, anxiety and stress can lead to infection and the onset of disease which may remain latent until the animals reach their final destination.

A Cruelty Free International science report 11 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Pharmaceutical research and testing What is done to the non-human primates?
About 82% of the non-human primates used in the UK are subjected to drug testing.17 Macaques or marmosets are used in 28 or 90 day repeated dose toxicity tests, reproductive toxicity tests and toxicokinetics tests.

These are standardised tests that are designed to assess the long term toxicity of new drugs.

These studies are generally not published and are not often available for public scrutiny.
Drug testing usually involves forcibly restraining the animals so that a test substance can be given by injection, a stomach tube or by forcing the animals to breathe it in.

This is often done on a daily basis.

Depending on the drug administered, the non-human primates may experience adverse effects such as vomiting, internal bleeding, respiratory distress, fever, weight loss, lethargy, skin problems, organ failure and even death.
What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in toxicity testing?

Non-human primates are typically used as the ‘second species’, alongside a mouse or a rat, because of their perceived genetic closeness to human beings.

The notion of similarities between species is, however, a dangerous assumption.
The international drug regulatory body, the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH), noted that in regard to toxicity testing non-human primates “can differ from humans as much as other species.”18 Furthermore, recent data obtained from 13 large pharmaceutical companies for drug approvals made between 2007 and 2011 found that 95 per cent of drugs fail in human trials, because they are not safe or do not work, even though they will have ‘passed’ tests involving non-human primates.19 As a result, there is increasing concern that the use of non-human primates in toxicology might be due to convention rather than any genuine necessity.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which is the UK Government’s alternatives centre, notes that there has “yet to be a comprehensive scientific review of the rationale for [non-human primate toxicity testing].”20 What are the alternatives?

An innovative technique called microdosing can be safely used in human volunteers to measure how very small doses of potential new drugs behave in the human body.
These microdoses are radio-labelled, injected into human volunteers and measured (usually in blood samples) using a sensitive measuring device called an accelerator mass spectrometer.
An 12 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 independent trial demonstrated a very promising correlation between microdose predictions and human test results,21 making this a useful alternative for toxicokinetics tests.
The technique has been accepted by international drug regulators and is included in the ICH guideline on human safety studies and clinical trials, but may not be as widely used as it should be.22 Human cells, including blood and liver cells, are already used within the pharmaceutical industry to test the safety of new drugs, but they are under developed and under used.
Assays based on human tissue can measure physiological effects at the level of the organ, cell or even the gene and can be superior to extrapolation from animal data.23 For example, they could have detected the adverse reactions caused by Cox-2 inhibitor drugs such as Vioxx, despite the cardioprotective results obtained in non-human primate tests.24 In another example, based on ‘satisfactory’ animal tests, including in non-human primates, six people volunteered to use a novel monoclonal antibody treatment called TGN1412.
All suffered catastrophic illness, including multiple organ failure.25 Had the tests been done using human tissue, this tragedy could have been avoided.26 A Cruelty Free International science report 13 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Example 1: AstraZeneca, Macclesfield27 AstraZeneca researchers wanted to investigate the safety of potential drugs for the treatment of diabetes and obesity in humans.
Female marmosets, who were purchased from the University of Manchester, were split into two groups and forced to ingest two different cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The drugs were inserted directly into their stomachs through a tube down their throats twice a day for a week.

On the last day of the experiment, blood samples were taken and the marmosets killed so that the researchers could dissect their adrenal glands, which are known to help regulate metabolism and blood pressure.
Dogs and mice were also used as part of the same experiment to compare drug reactions across different species.

The researchers acknowledged that one of the drugs had already been tested in dogs and caused dangerous side effects.

They suggested that toxicities in animal experiments could be to blame for the fact that these drugs are not working in people, i.e.

the doses considered to be ‘safe’ in animal tests are too low to actually work in humans.
However, after testing the drugs in dogs (again), mice and marmosets, the researchers concluded that safety tests in marmosets would be ‘insufficient’ anyway as they are not as sensitive to the effects of these drugs as dogs, and potentially humans, are.
Example 2: The National Institute for Biological Standards & Control (NIBSC) and Pfizer, Hertfordshire28 Scientists from the NIBSC, a government institute, teamed up with Pfizer to investigate the potential of using tamarins in research to find new drugs and vaccines for hepatitis C. Eight red-bellied tamarins who were bred in the UK were used in the experiment.
Because tamarins are not susceptible to the hepatitis C virus (HCV), they had to be injected with a different virus called GBV-B that is thought to be closely related.

Half of the animals were killed six weeks after being infected with the virus while the others were killed after almost six months.

All of the tamarins were subjected to repeat blood sampling throughout the experiment and their livers were dissected for further testing.
Only humans and chimpanzees can get HCV, and while GBV-B may be similar, there are significant differences.

For example, while HCV leads to chronic liver disease in 70% of those humans infected, GBV-B only causes acute infections in monkeys and will eventually be cleared from the body.

The researchers also admit that they found important immunological differences between tamarins and humans, which could limit the value of future vaccine studies in tamarins.
14 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 HIV/AIDS research What is done to the non-human primates?

Over thirty years ago, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was identified as the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Since then it has infected almost 78 million people worldwide, with only 39 million alive today.29 HIV is a retrovirus which attacks the cells responsible for maintaining the immune system.

Non-human primates, however, are not susceptible to the HIV virus and do not develop AIDS.

The reason they are used in HIV/AIDS research is because they can be infected with the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) which is similar to HIV and causes disease generally similar to AIDS.
This simian AIDS (or SAIDS) causes immense suffering in non-human primates through weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, diarrhoea, vomiting, loss of appetite and neurological disorders.

What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in HIV/AIDS research?
Researchers use non-human primates for this research because they develop SAIDS much more quickly than humans develop AIDS.30 SIV, however, differs from the genetics of HIV by 50%.31 As a result, although non-human primates have been used for the last 30 years in an attempt to develop and test potential vaccines for HIV, there is still no effective vaccine for humans.
Figures from 2008 show that out of 85 potential AIDS vaccines that have been tested in 197 human trials, only seven (3.5%) have reached phase III trials, which involve a large group of human volunteers, and, most importantly, none of these were successful.32 In 2013, the US National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases announced that its high-profile clinical trial of an HIV vaccine that had proved effective in non-human primate studies had to be stopped because it failed to show efficacy in humans.33 Despite all the evidence that non- human primates are poor surrogates for studying human AIDS, researchers continue to pursue SIV as a means of understanding the mechanisms of HIV transmission and AIDS development; causing substantial suffering in the process and diverting critical resources away from methods that would be of more benefit to human beings.
What are the alternatives?

The effectiveness of anti-AIDS drugs has been, and continues to be, assessed using infected human cells in vitro.
Based on the ability to inhibit the activity of HIV in infected cells in vitro, not in animals, drugs such as indinavir (Crixivan®) progressed to animal ‘safety’ studies and then human clinical trials.34 Today, human donor colorectal35 and cervical36 tissue can be used as screening tools to determine the effectiveness and toxicity of microbicidal gels in preventing HIV transmission.
The development of sophisticated new technologies has opened the door to learning more A Cruelty Free International science report 15 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 about the mechanisms of disease transmission, progression and drug- drug interactions.
For example, a recently developed genetic engineering technique called CRISPR/Cas9 is being used to target genes in human immune cells to investigate treatments for HIV.37 Another recently developed method uses donated human vaginal tissue to grow a reconstituted human tissue model called EpiVaginalTM, which can be infected with sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.38 Human studies using patients have also provided vital information on how the virus spreads, how AIDS affects the body and how the body can withstand the HIV virus.
Example 3: University of Oxford39 Indian rhesus macaques bred in the UK were used in an experiment aimed at trying to improve the current vaccine development strategy for HIV.

DNA from the HIV virus and proteins were first isolated from human patient blood samples infected with different strains of the virus which were then used to create vaccines.

Fifteen male macaques were sedated and then injected with either the DNA or protein vaccine.
The vaccines were injected into both of their arms, both of their thighs as well as their upper and lower back.

This sedation and injection procedure was repeated every few months for up to a year.

The macaques were also sedated for regular blood sampling to see if they were generating antibodies in response to the vaccines.

One of the vaccines caused swelling and ulcers around the areas that it was injected.
At the end of the experiment the animals were released back into the university’s ‘stock’ to be re-used in future experiments.

The authors admit that this study in macaques only showed a ‘slightly improved’ antibody response in the vaccinated animals, which is not maintained long enough to show significant promise for a vaccine in humans.
Example 4: NIBSC, Hertfordshire40 Researchers wanted to study how the immune systems of young Mauritian long-tailed macaques would respond to a live attenuated vaccine (vaccine made with live virus) for SIV.

Sixteen young macaques were sedated before being injected with the SIV-containing vaccine.

They were subjected to repeat sedation and blood sampling throughout the entire experiment, which went on for up to four months.
All of the macaques were killed at various time points after receiving the vaccine so that the researchers could dissect their spleens, lymph nodes and intestines.

The authors clearly state that live attenuated vaccines for HIV cannot be used in humans due to safety concerns, which raises questions over how useful these studies really are.
The authors go on to admit that because SIV and HIV-1 interact very differently with the immune system, the results from these studies ‘may not directly translate to HIV-1 infection in humans’.

16 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Parkinson’s disease research What is done to the non-human primates?
Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects 1% of the population over 65 years of age.41 Signs include muscle rigidity, tremor and slowing of physical movement, caused by a deficiency in dopamine, one of the brain’s neurotransmitters.

Non-human primates do not appear to naturally develop Parkinson’s disease.

When they are used in this situation, they have to be injected with a neurotoxin called MPTP to create abnormalities that mimic those seen in human sufferers.
After several days of dosing with MPTP, the monkeys become disabled and cannot move properly.

They have to be hand-fed to prevent them from starving to death.

They are then usually dosed with the common treatment for Parkinson’s, levodopa, which, whilst freeing up the body to move, actually causes the debilitating shaking that people associate with the disease.
The Home Office has admitted in a judicial review brought by Cruelty Free International that these experiments are some of the most severe carried out on animals in the UK, with “devastating welfare costs” to the non-human primates used.42 What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in Parkinson’s disease research?

Injecting MPTP into non-human primates does not cause Parkinson’s disease.
Instead, the non-human primates show signs similar to those seen in human patients, but without the same pathological effects in the brain.

In fact, unlike in the human disease, which is progressive and irreversible, the effect of the toxin in non-human primates diminishes over time.
Other fundamental differences from human beings include the absence of Lewy bodies (abnormal proteins in the brain of people with Parkinson’s disease) and differences between males and females in susceptibility.43 It is not surprising, therefore, that decades of non-human primate research have not resulted in any effective treatments for Parkinson’s disease or significant understanding as to its cause.
Instead, much of the research that goes on is done to try to understand why the current drug treatment, levodopa, causes tremors or in studies to try to improve the use of non- human primates as surrogates of the human disease.

What are the alternatives?

Imaging machines that ‘see’ inside the human brain have already been vital in improving our understanding of the disease.
For example, they were used to show that impaired frontal lobe function in human Parkinson’s sufferers is related to low dopamine activity in an area of the brain.44 Another type of brain scanner (diffusion magnetic resonance imaging) has been used to investigate the effect of levodopa in the brains of people with and without Parkinson’s disease.45 Deep brain stimulation, the much touted treatment A Cruelty Free International science report 17 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 for Parkinson’s, was actually based upon a serendipitous discovery in a human patient46 and was only minimally explored in other animals before it was pioneered in humans in the 1970s.
Post-mortem brain tissue has provided important leads to understanding brain regeneration in human beings47 and has provided consistent evidence of biochemical damage being involved with the progression of the disease.48 Example 5: King’s College London49 Marmosets were used to mimic the signs associated with human Parkinson’s disease in an attempt to discover what makes some animals more prone to the shaking associated with treatment.
A toxic chemical, called MPTP, was injected under the skin of 20 marmosets every day for five days to cause damage leading to Parkinson’s disease-like signs.

At the end of this procedure the marmosets were so severely disabled that they had difficulty moving and had to be hand-fed for six to eight weeks in order to survive.

They were then injected with Parkinson’s disease treatment drugs, including levodopa, which causes shaking and were then assessed in various behavioural experiments.
They were then killed so that their brains could be dissected for analysis.

In a recently obtained project licence that authorised this work50, the researchers admit that there are several important differences between the artificially induced condition in marmosets and human Parkinson’s disease that may limit the utility of their research.

Consequently, the study was unable to shed light on why some animals shake and some do not after receiving the same treatment.
Example 6: King’s College London51 To investigate the effects of cholinergic drugs, a treatment that is currently less commonly prescribed in Parkinson’s human patients due to unwanted side effects, four male and four female marmosets were injected with MPTP to damage their brains.

One group was injected with the drug levodopa every day for 26 days while the others were not.
All of the marmosets were then either force-fed or injected with the drugs before being subjected to behavioural tests to assess their levels of disability.

Most of the animals developed severe tremors, difficulty moving, increased salivation and a hunched posture.

Some of the drugs were shown to actually worsen the condition of the animals.

The authors themselves acknowledge that these drugs have previously been assessed in human clinical trials and that there are already drugs available on the market.
They use the fact that there have not been any ‘recent’ studies in humans or animals as a justification for their work.

Just because a study is old does not mean that it is no longer valid.

18 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Defence Research What is done to the non-human primates?
In 1997, the UK government introduced a policy ban on the use of animals for ‘offensive’ weapon research.52 Unfortunately, since then, thousands of animals continue to be killed at government research institutions in the name of ‘defence.’ Porton Down in Salisbury is the UK government’s main defence research institution.

Animals held at Porton Down include non-human primates (marmosets and macaques), pigs, guinea pigs and rodents.
Between 2010 and 2013, over 34,000 animals have been used, including 619 non-human primates.53 Porton Down tests vaccines against biological weapons such as anthrax and plague that may be used in terrorist attacks.

As part of the testing of vaccines, some of the animals will not be given the vaccine and may be subjected to the full effect of the virus; pain and suffering can be substantial.

Even the vaccinated animals may suffer substantially depending on the effectiveness of the vaccine.
What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in defence research?

As with other diseases, differences between human beings and other primates can be significant, rendering any results gained inapplicable to people.

The researchers claim that defence research is vital for saving the lives of soldiers as well as civilians.

In reality, the experiments conducted at Porton Down are often several stages away from being able to directly save human lives.
All too often, the research is conducted in an attempt to create artificial infectious disease in animals so that these individuals can be used in biological warfare experiments.

Not only does this run counter to claims that researchers are trying to reduce their dependence on animals but, accounting for the significant impact of species differences, it would be more productive in the long run, we believe, to develop non-animal methods instead.

What are the alternatives?


Human artificial lymph nodes have been developed and can allow investigation into antibody production.54 For example, the Modular IMmune In Vitro Construct System (MIMIC), created by VaxDesign, is a mini scale model of the human immune system which uses human white blood cells.

This system is dubbed as a ‘clinical trial in a test tube’ as it can predict the dosing and the effectiveness of a vaccine.
Cells from 20–50 donors are used which allows a diverse human population to be represented.55 The use of these human cell-based assays is enabling researchers to quickly test the efficacy of vaccines.
For example a recent study on one such model successfully tested a vaccine for Haemophilus influenzae type B.56 A Cruelty Free International science report 19 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Example 7: Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury57 Marmosets were used as substitutes for humans with haemorrhagic fever (caused by the lethal Marburg virus) in an attempt to test potential vaccines.
Six marmosets were subjected to surgery to implant telemetry (recording) instruments into their abdomens.

They were later anesthetised again in order to place them into a device where they were forced to inhale the Marburg virus for 10 minutes.

All of the animals developed a fever and died (or were killed) up to ten days later from the severe effects of the disease.
The animals displayed signs of extreme suffering before they died, which included bleeding from their eyes and vagina, the development of a rash on their stomachs and legs (caused by bleeding under the skin), flushed red faces, difficulty breathing and a hunched posture.

Another group of ten marmosets were infected with the virus and killed at specific time-points to study the progression of the disease.

At the end of the experiment, all of the marmosets were dissected for further investigation.
The virus is normally transmitted through contact with the blood or excrement of infected individuals and not via inhalation.

Despite the unimaginable suffering the marmosets were forced to endure, an ‘LD50’ to determine what dose of the virus would kill 50% of the animals, could not be determined.

LD50 values are notoriously unreliable and can differ significantly between species.
Example 8: Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury58 Twelve pig tailed macaques were imported from China for a study designed to investigate how the BCG vaccine works to protect against TB infection.

Six of the animals were injected with the vaccine.

Almost five months later, the six vaccinated macaques and the six unvaccinated macaques used as the control were sedated before being placed inside chambers where they were made to inhale the TB-causing bacteria.
The macaques were then monitored over six months during which they were subjected to blood sampling as well as examination under sedation.

Three of the unvaccinated animals developed active TB disease and had to be killed early.

All of the surviving animals were killed at the end of the study so that their tissues could be dissected for analysis.

Similar studies looking at the activation of genes in human patients have been carried out which do not suffer from species differences.
For example, one of the key biomarkers that has been previously identified in human TB was not found in the non-human primate form of the disease.

20 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Brain and behaviour research What is done to the non-human primates?
Non-human primates are frequently used in brain and behaviour experiments because of their perceived similarity to people.

It is claimed that these experiments are conducted to gain an understanding of the mechanisms within the brain that relate to functions such as memory, learning, vision and hearing.

The tests the animals are forced to endure in these experiments are some of the most severe.
Monkeys are typically subjected to surgery to implant electrodes into their brains, electromagnetic coils into their eyes and posts cemented into their skulls so they can be restrained during experiments.

Alternatively they may be subjected to surgeries to damage part of their brains.

They are then subjected to lengthy, repeated behavioural testing, often while they are hungry or thirsty in order to ensure they will be ‘motivated’ to perform for food or drink rewards.
Individuals may be kept for years and used in multiple experiments.

What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in brain and behaviour research?

Due to the many differences between the human and non-human primate brain, the results gained may have little to no relevance to the human situation.

Monkey brains are not simply smaller versions of the human brain.
Some of the most dramatic differences between human beings and other primates are in the number, location and role of different types of brain cells and fibres.

Human patients with certain brain lesions and non- human primates in which these lesions were artificially created have been shown to display markedly different behaviour.59 These experiments are often claimed to be done to gain a wider understanding of the mechanisms of the human brain, cognition and mental health.
However, there is no clear link between exploratory research in non-human primates and any successful clinical therapies for humans.

What are the alternatives?

Brain scanning methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) allow researchers to ‘see’ what happens in the human brain while volunteers willingly do similar (often more advanced) tasks being demanded of the monkeys but harmlessly.
For example, one recent study investigated decision-making by scanning the brains of human volunteers whilst they played poker.60 Another study looked at memory by asking volunteers who were given a menu of 13 strange food combinations, such as beetroot custard, to imagine how they would taste and say whether or not they would eat them.
The volunteers underwent fMRI scanning whilst they retrieved memories of certain foods that they had previously tasted to make their decisions.61 A Cruelty Free International science report 21 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Example 9: University of Oxford62 To study an area of the brain that is thought to be associated with uncertainty during decision-making, 13 macaques were forced to perform a difficult learning task on a computer monitor that was placed in front of their cages.
The macaques were presented with three images of varying shape and colour which they had to match with a ‘test’ image.

Through a process of trial and error, they had to work out whether they were supposed to match images of the same shape or colour.

The macaques completed 300 of these trials a day for 15 days and were given a single food pellet as a reward for a correct answer.

They may have been food deprived in order to ‘motivate’ them to perform the task for food.
They were then subjected to surgery in which a section of their brain was sucked out.

They were then forced to repeat the learning task.

The researchers admit that there are significant differences in the brain structures of humans and macaques.

They also mention that similar investigations have already been carried out in human volunteers with congenital brain defects.
Example 10: University College London63 To study how the brain controls movement, 11 macaques were subjected to major surgery to implant recording electrodes into various areas of their brains, including the one that controls hand movement.

Head-holding devices were also implanted in their skulls so that their heads could be rigidly held in place in a restraint device (called a ‘primate chair’).
After surgery, the non-human primates were restrained in the ‘chairs’ while recordings were taken from their brains.

The non-human primates were then anesthetised so that their nerves could be electrically stimulated for a series of further recordings before they were killed.

Harmless human experiments can be performed that apply both magnetic and electrical stimulation to specific parts of the brain to see which parts disrupt hand movements in volunteers.
If human experiments are possible, why are non-human primates being used?

The authors admit that although they were able to identify a large number of neurons responsible for movement control, they still have no idea how they actually work.
22 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Example 11: Newcastle University64 Macaques and marmosets were used in an experiment to determine if non-human primates are able to understand certain aspects of human language.
Artificial grammars were used, which mimic certain aspects of human language in a much simpler form that some animals can recognise and learn.

Thirteen macaques and four marmosets were used in one experiment where spoken words were played to the animals from a sound recorder.

The animals were video-taped throughout the experiment so that their behavioural responses to the sounds could be recorded.
In the second experiment, three male macaques were restrained in primate ‘chairs’ positioned 60cm away from a computer monitor with audio speakers.

They were completely immobilised by their heads (possibly using a previously surgically implanted head post) so that an infra-red eye tracker could measure the responses of their eyes.

The animals had to focus on the computer screen and listen to sounds coming from the speakers in order to receive a juice reward.
It is likely, therefore, that they were deprived of water in order to perform these tasks.

This study had no direct importance for human health and was conducted for no apparent reason other than to satisfy the curiosity of the researchers.

Non-human primates have their own ways of communicating with each other and have no use for human language.
A Cruelty Free International science report 23 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Neurological disorders research What is done to the non-human primates?

As well as Parkinson’s disease, there are many other neurological disorders that neuroscientists are keen to attempt to recreate and study in non-human primates.
These include mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, brain or spinal cord damage, sleep disorders such as narcolepsy, and several others.

As with more fundamental studies on the brain and behaviour, this research inflicts some of the most severe suffering on the animals.
To mimic these disorders, parts of the brain and nervous system of the monkeys are often surgically destroyed in order to artificially create the desired outcomes such as paralysis and depression, before attempting to ‘cure’ them with new treatments.

What are the problems with the use of non-human primates in neurological disease research?

Artificially creating these disorders in non-human primates does not reflect the realities or complexity of these neurological conditions in humans.
Many of these experiments are quite crude and fail to take into account the wide range of causative factors, which could include environmental influences, lifestyle-related causes, genetics and physical injuries, all of which cannot possibly be accurately recreated in another animal.

These complicated disorders affect different people in different ways and there are many physical and emotional symptoms that cannot be measured or clearly detected in animals as they are unable to explain how they feel.
Despite claims that such research is helping to produce ‘breakthrough’ cures for these disorders, there is little evidence this is true and any results must be confirmed in people in the end anyway.

What are the alternatives?

Consenting human volunteers, both healthy and those suffering from neurological disorders, can be studied using innovative but ethical methods to gain insight into these conditions and even to study the effects of potential treatments.
For example, in one study patients suffering from depression volunteered to take an antidepressant drug for eight weeks before participating in brain imaging experiments to look for signs of improvement.65 During the imaging studies, the patients were asked to look at photos of people with sad facial expressions while their brain activity was recorded.
In another experiment, patients with panic disorder and healthy volunteers wore gas masks so they could breathe in 5% carbon dioxide for a short period.66 Carbon dioxide is thought to induce anxiety in patients with panic disorder.
Blood samples were taken throughout 24 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 the experiments and volunteers were asked to describe their feelings.

Other studies use patients who have suffered accidental brain damage or deliberate brain damage as part of their treatment.
These studies are seen as the ‘gold standard’ against which all other studies are compared.
For example, significant understanding of the human brain was derived from a study in which patients, who had undergone temporal lobectomy for epilepsy, performed a symbol recognition and learning test whilst being scanned.67 ‘Brain-machine interfaces’, which are robotic devices that are controlled by the brain, have already been successfully tested in paralysed human patients to help them move again so it is not clear why monkeys continue to be used.68 Example 12: Newcastle University69 Macaques were used to study paralysis and the potential for developing neural prosthetics in humans.
Two female macaques were forced to co- operate in a reach-and-grasp task after having been deprived of food.

They were required to pull and hold a lever in order to obtain a food reward.

The animals were then subjected to three separate surgeries, each one month apart in which electrodes and other recording devices were implanted into their brains, hands, forearm muscles and spines.
A paralysing chemical called muscimol was then injected into a specific area of their brain to cause temporary paralysis in their hands.

The animals were then forced to attempt to try the reach-and-grasp task with their paralysed hands while measurements were made from the surgically implanted recording devices.
The scientists involved in these tests admit that the method of inducing paralysis they used “does not model the long-term effects of cortical or spinal cord injury [in humans], including plastic changes leading to reorganization of cortical function, up-regulation of spinal reflexes or spasticity”.

Despite these limitations, they still went on to make ambitious claims in the media that their ‘breakthrough’ treatment would be able restore movement in paralysed patients within the next few years.
Realistically however, based on issues with stability as mentioned in their published article, they are still a very long way off using this technology as a cure.

Cruelty Free International publicly challenged the overstated claims made by the university at the time and highlighted the extent of extreme animal suffering associated with the research (see page 30).
A Cruelty Free International science report 25 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Example 13: University of Cambridge70 In an attempt to mimic human anxiety disorders, researchers surgically implanted recording devices into the abdomens and arteries of 27 marmosets.

The marmosets were then trapped inside a clear box and blasted with periods of loud noise (120dB).
120dB is equivalent to a sandblaster or thunderclap and at around 120 dB, for humans, the sensation of hearing is replaced by that of pain.

This experiment was repeated every day for up to 30 days until the marmosets reliably became anxious when they heard the cue that indicated the loud noise was about to start.

Next, a box containing a rubber snake resembling a cobra was placed inside the marmosets’ cages and their reactions were recorded.
Some of the anxious marmosets tried to keep as far away as possible from the snake, some were too scared to move and others made frightened ‘alarm calls’.

They were then forced to perform a learning task for food rewards to study the effect of anxiety on memory and learning.

One of the marmosets “died of unexpected causes” during the experiment but it is not stated what happened to the others.
The purpose of the experiment was to see if the marmosets could be used as substitutes for humans in order to learn more about how changes in the brain can lead to the development of anxiety disorders.

This seems counterproductive since the best way to learn about a human disorder is to study humans.

The authors themselves admit that there are already ‘well documented’ studies of anxiety in humans, including those that exploit fear of snakes.
Example 14: University of Cambridge71 In an attempt to mimic risky decision making associated with gambling in humans, two rhesus macaques were subjected to surgery to have head- holding devices implanted into their skulls.

They were then restrained in primate ‘chairs,’ positioned 30cm away from a computer screen, with their heads rigidly held in place.
The non-human primates were forced to cooperate in the experimental set up and then to participate in what the researchers referred to as a ‘gambling task’ to receive blackcurrant juice rewards, which indicates that they had been deprived of water to ‘motivate’ them.

The non-human primates were forced to take part in thousands of these trials over a period of several weeks.

This study had no direct importance for human health and is another example of curiosity driven animal research.
Previous experiments have already been carried out using human volunteers to investigate how and why humans make risky decisions.
26 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Research on non-human primates carried out overseas Worryingly, UK researchers are also outsourcing research to countries such as China and the USA, where welfare regulations covering animals in laboratories are even more limited.
This may be because researchers are not confident of being granted a licence to cause severe suffering to non-human primates in the UK.

The much lower cost of obtaining and housing non-human primates in countries like China is also a probable incentive.
It is unacceptable that UK establishments claiming to uphold high standards for animal welfare should facilitate such cruel experiments on non-human primates overseas, especially since many institutions have signed up to an agreement to ensure that their researchers work to UK standards when carrying out animal research in other countries.72 • In 2013, Cruelty Free International went undercover in Kenya to investigate animal experiments carried out on wild baboons at the Institute of Primate Research in Nairobi in affiliation with researchers from Newcastle University.
The baboons were held in poor conditions; some had been kept for years in solitary confinement in small, barren cages.

The experiments, which were carried out to study brain disorders, involved invasive brain surgery.

The baboons’ heads were placed into a frame and held in place whilst researchers drilled open their skull and removed parts of their brain.

The animals were kept alive under anaesthetic for many hours while tests were carried out, before they were killed.
Using wild-caught non-human primates was banned in the UK in 1995 but shockingly the researchers bypassed UK law and travelled to Kenya to carry out the experiments.

Within weeks of the investigation being made public and receiving widespread media coverage and support, Newcastle University announced that it would end the involvement of its researchers in the controversial research on wild-caught baboons.
• Scientists from the University of Belfast have worked in partnership with researchers at the Tulane National Primate Research Center in the USA to develop antiviral vaginal rings that can be used by women to prevent the transmission of HIV during sex.
In one study, these rings were inserted into the vaginas of female macaques for 28 days while blood and vaginal fluid samples were repeatedly taken to assess the safety of the device.73 In another study, SIV was injected into the vaginas of macaques wearing the rings to see if they could prevent infection.74 Condoms have already proven to be effective barriers to HIV infection as well as other sexually transmitted infections.
A Cruelty Free International science report 27 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 • Motac Neuroscience, a Manchester-based company, uses a non- human primate breeding and testing facility at the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) in China.75 Rhesus and long-tailed macaques are being used in experiments to study Parkinson’s76 and Alzheimer’s77 diseases, which often involve food deprivation, repeat behavioural testing, brain injections and drug tests.
According to one European non-executive director of Motac Neuroscience, “European labs do not have enough non-human primates for my work”.78 • Researchers from the University of Oxford have been working with the US Navy to develop a vaccine for malaria.
In a recent experiment, owl monkeys were injected with a vaccine before being ‘challenged’ with the malaria-causing parasite.79 Almost all of the animals in the unvaccinated ‘control’ group required life-saving treatment to control the levels of parasites in their blood and prevent anaemia.

• Researchers from the psychology department at the University of Lincoln have joined forces with researchers at Beijing Normal University in China to study social interactions in non-human primates.
In a recent study, rhesus macaques were subjected to social isolation, head restraint and water deprivation while being forced to look at images of animals interacting in both negative (e.g.

fighting) and positive (e.g.

cuddling) ways.
In the same paper, the same experiment was conducted in human volunteers at the University of Lincoln to determine if non-human primates view social interaction in the same way that humans do.80 28 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Lack of transparency regarding research on non-human primates The UK Government and research industry repeatedly claim that the UK has some of the highest welfare standards in the world for animals in laboratories, yet a veil of secrecy and lack of transparency hides animal research from public view.
Cruelty Free International has been campaigning for many years to end the secrecy surrounding animal experiments imposed by Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which restricts publication of the details of what happens to animals in experiments and thereby inhibits an informed and serious public debate.
Information which is deemed personally or commercially sensitive is not being sought; however, the public has a right to know what is being done to animals who are suffering in laboratories, often funded, directly or indirectly, by their tax contributions.

Undercover investigations carried out by Cruelty Free International in UK laboratories have shown the stark contrast between claims made by the Government and industry and the cruel reality experienced by animals in laboratories.
Time and time again, these investigations have uncovered poor standards, a lack of enforcement of legislation and a failure to minimise suffering.

A pledge made in 2014 by a Home Office Minister to reform section 24 is yet to be implemented.

In 2012, a group of companies, universities and academic bodies across the UK signed a Declaration on Openness on Animal Research and agreed on the publication of a Concordat to be more open in their use of animals in experiments.
However, despite claims from the animal research industry that it is committed to greater openness, only carefully managed and controlled public relations exercises have been forthcoming.

The public continues to be kept in the dark about the reality of life – and death – for animals in UK laboratories.

• Every year the Home Office publishes abstracts that contain information from project licences granted in the UK.
According to the Home Office, these abstracts are intended to “help put the debate on the use of animals in research and testing on a much better informed footing”.81 However, a recent analysis by Cruelty Free International of 119 abstracts from projects licensed in 2013 found that 18% gave no discernible explanation of the intervention being applied to the animals in the adverse effects section and only 55% gave partial explanation (i.e.

key techniques were omitted).


89% of abstracts gave no information on frequency of the intervention (e.g.

number of surgeries or injections) and 86% gave no indication of the duration for which animals would be tested.
Although 70% gave the expected level of severity of aspects of the project (mild, moderate, severe) as requested, 20% did not describe in any way the adverse effects the animals may experience.82 How is the public supposed to have an informed debate about animal experiments and the levels of suffering involved when they are not being told the full story?
A Cruelty Free International science report 29 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 • In 2014, scientists from King’s College London invited a journalist from the Mirror newspaper into their laboratory in an attempt to ‘lift some of the secrecy’ regarding their work on marmosets to study Parkinson’s disease.
Upon publication of this story, Cruelty Free International sent a request to King’s College (under the Freedom of Information Act) for the project licence authorising the research but the university initially refused the request.
Following a challenge, it subsequently agreed to share a redacted version of the project licence.83 The details on the project licence showed that both the newspaper article and the Home Office abstract of the work being carried out at King’s College greatly underplayed the severity of the research.
According to the summary, the marmosets only suffered from minor signs of Parkinson’s disease and were able to ‘care for themselves’ after being injected with the neurotoxin MPTP – a chemical which damages portions of the non-human primates’ brains to induce signs associated with Parkinson’s disease.
In reality the full licence permits the researchers to cause ‘substantial suffering’ to 250 marmosets who could have their brains damaged to the point where they are unable to move properly and have to be hand-fed to prevent them starving to death.
The marmosets could also be subjected to other stressful tests including brain surgery, behavioural tests, injections of drugs and frequent blood sampling for at least six years before they are killed or re-used in other experiments (see ‘Example 5: King’s College London’ on page 13).

• In 2014, Cruelty Free International challenged an announcement made by Newcastle University of a ‘scientific breakthrough’ following its work with macaques.
The researchers claimed that their work could result in stroke victims and people with spinal cord injuries regaining some movement within the next five years.84 However, like many other ‘breakthrough’ stories, the researchers failed to present the full picture of animal suffering and the relative (un)importance of their work, undermining the contribution of key studies in humans.
Following a Freedom of Information request by Cruelty Free International to the university, a copy of the project licence was obtained.
In spite of the university’s claims to be reporting the news in response to the ‘Concordat on Openness in Animal Research’, both the publication and the media story had completely underestimated the extent of suffering inflicted on the non-human primates as a result of being temporarily paralysed, restrained, deprived of food and water, kept in cages on their own and subjected to multiple invasive brain surgeries before being killed and dissected (see ‘Example 12: Newcastle University’ on page 20).
30 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Conclusions This report on recent published research involving non-human primates in the UK highlights a number of important concerns: • Extremely distressing, invasive and harmful experiments are being conducted on non-human primates despite the ‘special protection’ afforded to them under EU and UK legislation • Non-human primates are still being used in experiments that appear frivolous or superfluous • Non-human primates are being used where alternative approaches would better address the same, or very similar, more human-relevant questions.
Recommendations It is still far too easy for researchers to obtain permission to use non-human primates in experiments, despite the so-called special protection.

The only measure that would properly protect non-human primates from harm and exploitation is an outright ban on their use in experiments.
A Cruelty Free International science report 31 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 References and resources 1Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2013.

London: The Stationery Office (2013): https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327854/spanimals13.pdf.

2As reference 1, above.

3As reference 1, above.


4Parliamentary question answer 19 April 2012: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-04-19a.103363.h and Parliamentary question answer 27 June 2011 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-06- 27a.61352.h.

5As reference 1, above.

6Cruelty Free International analysis of the Home Office Reports (see reference 1) from the years 2000 to 2010 inclusive.

7http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/files/download/082dbcc5429d1f4a0142d704a9a51c71.do.
8Attitudes to animal research in 2014 – A report by Ipsos MORI for the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/publications/1695/Attitudes-to-animal-research-in-2014.aspx.

9Consolidated version of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, updated in 2014 https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/308593/ConsolidatedASPA1Jan2013.pdf.

10Freedom of Information Request to AHVLA on 23rd July 2014.

Ref: ATIC0361.
Ref: ATIC0361.

11As reference 1, above.

12As reference 1, above.

13European Union Committee Sub-committee D (Environment and Agriculture), Inquiry into the Revision of the Directive on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes: Summary of evidence submitted by the Animal Procedures Committee http://apc.homeoffice.gov.uk/reference/apc_response_house_of_lords.pdf.
14Cruelty Free International Reports: Mauritius: The trade in primates for research (2010); Cambodia: The trade in primates for research (2008); Monkey Business in Vietnam (2006).

15Home Office Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Breeding and Supplying Establishments 1995.

16A study of behavioural responses of non-human primates to air transport and re-housing.

Lab Anim 38, 119-132.

2004.

17As reference 1, above.


18ICH Guideline on Detection Of Toxicity To Reproduction For Medicinal Products & Toxicity To Male Fertility S5(R2) 2005.

19MR Group Inc.

Annual R&D General Metrics Study Highlights New Success Rate and Cycle Time Data CHICAGO, Illinois, August 8, 2012. https://kmrgroup.com/PressReleases/2012_08_08%20KMR%20PBF%20Success%20 Rate%20&%20Cycle%20Time%20Press%20Release.pdf.

20NC3Rs/ABPI strategy.

See NC3Rs website: http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=322&pid=207.
21Less is more: the human microdosing concept.

Drug Discov Today 10, 449-451.

2005.

32 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 22ICH Guidance on nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals M3 (R2).

2009.

23Functional human tissue assays.

Drug Discov Today 12, 382–388.

2007.


24Biopta wins £575,000 drug-testing boost.

The Scotsman, 20 November 2004.

25Drug trial horror – the official interim report.

New Scientist, 5 April 2006.

26Monoclonal antibody TGN1412 trial failure explained by species differences in CD28 expression on CD4+ effector memory T-cells.

Br J Pharmacol 161, 512-526.

2010.

27ACAT-selective and nonselective DGAT1 inhibition: adrenocortical effects – a cross-species comparison.

Toxicol Pathol, 41: 941-950.

2013.


28Changes in immune cell populations in the periphery and liver of GBV-B-infected and covalescent tamarins (Saguinis labiatus).

Virus Res, 179: 93-101.

2014.

29http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/ 30SIVmac Pathogenesis in Rhesus Macaques of Chinese and Indian Origin Compared with Primary HIV Infections in Humans.

AIDS 16, 1489-1496.

2002.

31The Primate Connection.

Nature 466, 15 July 2010, S5.

32An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research.
Alt Lab Anim 36, 381-428.2008.

33Another HIV vaccine failure: where to next?

Nature Medicine, 19: 1576-1577.

2013.

34L-735,524: an orally bioavailable human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor.

Proc Natl Acad Sci 91, 4096-100.

1994.

35Colorectal Mucus Binds DC-SIGN and Inhibits HIV-1 Trans-Infection of CD4+ T-Lymphocytes.

PLoS One, 10(3): e122020.

2015.

36Productive HIV-1 infection of human cervical tissue ex vivo is associated with the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle.
Mucosal Immunology, doi: 10.1038/mi.2013.2.

2013.

37Harnessing the CRISPR/Cas9 system to disrupt latent HIV-1 provirus.

Nature Scientific Reports, 3 (2510), doi:10.1038/srep02510.

2013.

38Development of an in vitro alternative assay method for vaginal irritation.

Toxicol 279: 130-138.

2011.

39Comparison of neutralizing antibody responses elicited from highly diverse polyvalent heterotrimeric HIV-1 gp140 cocktail immunogens versus a monovalent counterpart in rhesus macaques.
PLoS One, doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0114709.

2014.

40Early biodistribution and persistence of a protective live attenuated SIV vaccine elicits localised innate responses in multiple lymphoid tissues.

PLoS One, 9 (8): e104390.

2014.

41New animal models of Parkinson’s disease.

Movement Disorders, 26(7): 1198-1204.

2010.

42(BUAV) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1964 (Admin) and [2008] EWCA civ 870.
43Animal models of Parkinson’s disease: limits and relevance to neuroprotection studies.

Movement Disorders, 1: 61-70.

2013.

A Cruelty Free International science report 33 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 44Positron emission tomography shows that impaired frontal lobe functioning in Parkinson’s disease is related to dopaminergic hypofunction in the caudate nucleus.
Neurosci Lett 311, 81-84.

2001.

45Idiopathic Parkinson disease effect of levodopa on apparent diffusion coefficient value of the brain.

Acad Radiol 18, 70-73.

2011.

46Ligation of the anterior choroidal artery for involuntary movements: parkinsonism.

Psychiatr Q 27, 317-319.

1953.

47Unique astrocyte ribbon in adult human brain contains neural stem cells but lacks chain migration.

Nature 427, 740-744.

2004.

48Molecular pathways of neurodegeneration in Parkinson’s Disease.

Science 302, 819-822.


2003.

49Proteomic analysis of striatum from MPTP-treated marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) with L-DOPA induced dyskinesia of differing severity.

J Mol Neurosci, 52: 302-312.

2014.

50Project licence obtained by the BUAV in Nov 2014 following an FOIA request.

Licence relates to research current at the time of the request; dates and licence number were redacted.
51Cholinergic manipulation of motor disability and L-DOPAinduced dyskinesia in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6- tetrahydropyridine (MPTP)-treated common marmosets.

J Neural Transmission, 121: 163-169.

2014.

52Chapter 2, Annex 1Cost/benefit Assessment a Note by the Chief Inspector.

In: Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997.

London: The Stationery Office.

53Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question ‘Animal Experiments’ asked by Mr Kevan Jones, 22nd July 2014.
54In vitro systems to characterize the immune response to HIV-1 and HIV-1 vaccine candidates: NIAID Workshop Report, Bethesda, August 4, 2010.

Vaccine 29, 4647-4653.

2011.

55Sanofi Pasteur VaxDesign Corporation (2011) MIMIC Technology.

Available at: http://www.vaxdesign.com/mimic- technology (Accessed 1st June 2011).

56Response of MUTZ-3 dendritic cells to the different components of the Haemophilus influenzae type B conjugate vaccine: Towards an in vitro assay for vaccine immunogenicity.
Vaccine 29: 5114-21.

2011.

57Experimental respiratory Marburg virus haemorrhagic fever infection in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).

International Journal of Experimental Pathology, 94: 154-168.

2013.

58Evidence for a role for interleukin-17, Th17 cells and iron homeostasis in protective immunity against tuberculosis in cynomolgus macaques.

PLoS One, 9: e88149.

2014.


59The effect of dopamine depletion from the caudate nucleus of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) on tests of prefrontal cognitive function.

Behav Neurosci 114, 3-17.

2000.

60A distinct role of the temporal-parietal junction in predicting socially guided decisions.

Science, 337: 109-111.

2012.

61Online evaluation of novel choices by simultaneous representation of multiple memories.

Nature Neuroscience, 16: 1492-1498.

2013.


62Responses to static visual images in macaque lateral geniculate nucleus: Implications for adaption, negative afterimages and visual fading.

J Neurosci 29, 8996-9001.

2009.

63Comparison of spatial integration and surround suppression characteristics in spiking activity and the local field potential in macaque V1.

Eur J Neurosci 28, 447-459.

2008.


34 The use of non-human primates in the UK Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 64Auditory artificial grammar learning in macaque and marmoset monkeys.

J Neurosci 33: 18825-18835.

2013.

65Brain imaging correlates of depressive symptom severity and predictors of symptom improvement after antidepressant treatment.

Soc Biol Psych 62: 407-414.

2007.


66Effect of acute tryptophan depletion on CO2-induced anxiety in patients with panic disorder and normal volunteers.

Br J Psych 176: 182-188.

2000.

67Visual paired-associate learning: in search of material-specific effects in adult patients who have undergone temporal lobectomy.

Epilepsy Behav 20, 326-30.

2011.

68Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia.

Nature 442: 164-171.

2006.


69Closed-loop control of spinal stimulation to restore hand function after paralysis.

Front Neurosci 8:87.

2014.

70Individual differences in behavioural and cardiovascular reactivity to emotive stimuli and their relationship to cognitive flexibility in a primate model of trait anxiety.

Front Behav Neurosci, 8: Article 137.

2014.

71Economic choices reveal probability distortion in macaque monkeys.

J Neurosci 35: 3146-3154.

2015.

72NC3Rs.


Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research: Expectations of the major research council and charitable funding bodies.

2014.

73Pharmacokinetics of a CCR5 inhibitor in rhesus macaques following vaginal, rectal and oral application.

J Antimicrob Chemo 69: 1325-1329.

2014.

74Partial protection against multiple RT-SHIV162P3 vaginal challenge of rhesus macaques by a silicone elastomer vaginal ring releasing the NNRTI MC1220.
J Antimicrobl Chemo, 68: 394-403.

2013.

75See Motac’s page in “France in China - Technology and Innovation - 2nd edition”, http://www.ambafrance-cn.org/ La-France-en-Chine-Technologie-et-Innovation-2eme-edition 02/03/2015.

76Levodopa improves motor deficits but can further disrupt cognition in a macaque Parkinson model.

Movement Dis 28: 663-667.

2013.

77Effects of memantine and galantamine on cognitive performance in aged rhesus macaques.

Neurobiol Aging 34: 1126-1132.

2013.


78Monkey research in China: developing a natural resource.

Cell 129: 1033-1036.

2007.

79A PfRH5-Based Vaccine Is Efficacious against Heterologous Strain Blood-Stage Plasmodium falciparum Infection in Aotus Monkeys.

Cell & Host Microbe, 17: 130-139.

2015.

80Social interactions through the eyes of macaques and humans.

PLoS One, 8(2): e56437.

2013.

81https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testing-using-animals.
82Unpublished data conducted in June 2014, available upon request.

83As reference 50, above.

84Newcastle University press release.

Paralysed hand able to move again, 19th May 2014. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ press.office/press.release/item/paralysed-hand-able-to-move-again.
A Cruelty Free International science report 35 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5 Cruelty Free International 16a Crane Grove London N7 8NN United Kingdom T: +44 (0) 20 7700 4888 F: +44 (0) 20 7700 0252 E: info@CrueltyFreeInternational.org www.CrueltyFreeInternational.org Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research)Bill 2015Submission 48 - Attachment 5