 Report of a panel chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson
An independent review of the outcome of publicly funded, non-human primate research has reported its findings and recommendations. Of the research programmes conducted over a 10 year period (Jan 1997- Dec 2006), 1 in 9 yielded no clear scientific, medical or social benefit.
The expert panel noted “highly invasive and long-term NHP research often carries a high welfare cost” and urged the use of alternative methods and less invasive methods including imaging technologies like MRI scans, noting that “funders should take steps towards encouraging alternatives.”
Naturewatch welcomes the review and recommendations in relation to non-human primate welfare and we are very keen to see Funding Councils implement the following without delay.
- Recommendation 2 "Funders should take steps towards encouraging alternatives."
- Recommendation 3 "Funders should encourage data-sharing and should consider creating or supporting online repositories for digitised data, which may be freely available to researchers."
- Recommendation 6 "Researchers using NHPs have a moral obligation to publish results – even if negative – in order to prevent work being repeated unnecessarily." Naturewatch urges the funding councils to make publication of results both negative and positive a condition of funding.
- Recommendation 5 "In defining research grants and conditions, funders should take particular care to encourage and where appropriate require, the active dissemination of 3Rs improvements through the international community, and ensure that appropriate monitoring and enforcement procedures are in place to encourage full compliance with all aspects of the Responsibility guidance."
- Recommendation 9 "The panel noted that all NHP research, regardless of where it is conducted, should comply with the Responsibility guidance and NC3Rs guidelines Primate accommodation, care and use, and that the NC3Rs had visited laboratories in the UK and overseas to give advice and to monitor compliance."
The importance of reporting negative as well as positive outcomes in NHP research can’t be stressed enough. Making this information available to the research community can prevent duplication of procedures and needless suffering. And yet currently this is not a requirement. The inadequacies of reporting NHP procedures raises several other issues.
In compiling the report the expert panel experienced some difficulty in retrieving reports of some NHP studies. In light of this, Recommendation 14 of the report, suggested the Home Office “reconsider its advice to research workers to destroy records after five years.”
The Home Office response to a question raised by Martin Horwood MP on behalf of Naturewatch. (Hansard. 13th October 2011) passed off responsibility to the institutes involved, saying The Home Office “does not give any such advice.”
Read relevant excerpt from Hansard here.
Perhaps the Home Office should offer advice that records must be available after the initial 5 year period, and moreover be made available to the wider research community!
We are still awaiting a response to the question raised regarding the welfare of Non-Human Primates used in procedures overseas, funded by the UK – watch this space!” |