Arguments Against Using Nonhuman Primates in Research

Most 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.