01809nas a2200169   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260005000043100001800093700002300111700002000134245005800154856004900212300001200261520134400273020002201617       2023                            d  c2023bSpringer International PublishingaCham1 aJarrod Bailey1 aLauren M. Robinson1 aAlexander Weiss00aArguments Against Using Nonhuman Primates in Research  uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82708-3_23  a559-5883 aMost people oppose using nonhuman primates for research from an ethical standpoint because it can cause pain and suffering to the subjects and usually leads to their death. Some accept it, often reluctantly, because they believe it is only conducted when necessary, and that it results in medical progress, and therefore human benefit. Here, I outline an argument that nonhuman primate experiments are unnecessary, misleading, are mostly counter-productive due to wide-ranging biological differences between species; and that there are other humane and superior alternatives that researchers could, and should, be making much more use of instead. Nonhuman primate experiments have failed in many areas, including drug testing, and research into HIV/AIDS, neurological function, and diseases such as Parkinson’s, stroke, and others. Yet, they persist, possibly due to convention, habit, and/or vested interests, and humans pay the price with failed attempts at understanding human diseases and finding treatments for them, while the nonhuman primates pay the price in laboratories. A more critical appreciation of the harms and benefits involved, which are greater and lesser, respectively, than commonly portrayed, would expedite an overdue shift away from nonhuman primate experiments that would benefit all primates—including humans.  a978-3-030-82708-3