Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
remained an open question. That a number of them proved
to have facilities and programs worthy of accreditation by
AAALAC was a good indicator that some were certainly
capable of doing so.
scheduled flights, setting a precedent that was soon widely
adopted elsewhere. Compounding the problem, some
airports also refused to even be transit points for such
shipments. Eventually, there were only a few international
air carriers that provided such services, the major one
among them being China Airlines. Such restrictions had the
effect of forcing more reliance on alternatives such as
ground transportation and even air charters. In addition to
proving more costly and perhaps less dependable, these
changes negatively impacted end users in more remote
locations, another factor probably contributing to the
centralization of nonhuman primate resources near larger
airports and population centers. On the beneficial side, the
restrictions probably resulted in greater security and
isolation of shipments, which was becoming an important
consideration with SPF animals.
Regulation and Review
While the likelihood of further legislation in the USA
affecting the care and use of nonhuman primates seemed
small, how the existing regulations were applied continued
to evolve. In particular, with the positive backing of regu-
latory authorities and institutional officials looking on,
institutional animal care and use committees became much
more assertive and effective in their oversight role. Clinical
veterinarians, earlier single voices in the effort, increas-
ingly found the committees to be strong and welcome allies
in assuring and improving animal welfare. The requirement
for addressing psychological well being and environmental
enrichment was probably the single greatest and most
costly area of change. This requirement was commonly
viewed as mandating social housing and the result was
a revolutionary changeover in the way animals, particularly
single caged animals, were held. In some cases, the
changeover required extensive alteration and renovation of
physical facilities in addition to large outlays for new
equipment that probably was beyond the means of
a number of institutions. This undoubtedly resulted in the
continuation of a trend already underway since the 1990s
(Bowden and Johnson-Delaney, l996) of closure of smaller
facilities and concentration of nonhuman primate holdings
in fewer specialized, larger centers.
In contrast to the USA, animal rights advocacy and
opposition to the use of animals in research, especially
nonhuman primates, had always been more active in
Europe and contributed to an ever-present possibility of
more restrictive legislation being adopted. Awell-balanced
case was made again by an expert panel in the UK (
Medical
Research Council, 2006
) for the continuing need to use
nonhuman primates in biomedical research and testing at
about the same time the European Parliament passed
a resolution by a wide majority urging the European Union
(EU) to curtail the use of nonhuman primates in research.
Although chimpanzees were no longer used anywhere in
the EU, formally banning all use of great apes, using only
captive bred monkeys, and setting a timetable to end the use
of all nonhuman primates in biomedical research were
among provisions called for in the resolution (European
Parliament Rule 116, April 2007).
Animal Extremism and its Effects
The impact of animal welfare legislation, tighter regulatory
and institutional controls and review, accreditation, and
local adoption of more effective security measures prob-
ably all helped to prevent the recurrence of incidents like
those, both involving monkeys that occurred with the Silver
Spring Monkeys and the University of Pennsylvania's Head
Injury Lab. However, biomedical research remained the
most popular target of animal rightists in the USA, with
institutions and investigators using nonhuman primates in
their research being singled out for particular attention
(
Miller, 2007
). Continuing opposition to the use of animals
in research was manifest in a significant increase in the
number of intimidating or violent acts committed against
researchers, a story that has been well documented by
Conn
and Parker (2008)
. The situation was similar to that in
Europe, where animal researchers for many years had been
subject to such intimidation. While the federal Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act became law in the USA in 2006 to
help combat such intimidation and institutions took on
a more active role in protecting their researchers, there was
little doubt that concerns with such activity would be
enough to discourage some researchers and, perhaps more
importantly, young graduate students, postdoctoral
research fellows, and veterinarians from pursuing careers
associated with work involving nonhuman primates. The
NIH's NCRR in 2007 started providing support specifically
for the post-doctoral training of veterinarians in response to
the recruitment problems in this career area that its grantees
were experiencing (G. McGinnis, personal communication,
2007).
Transportation
In the wake of the outbreak of Ebola/Reston virus in
monkeys in 1990, domestic air carriers in the USA no
longer accepted shipments of nonhuman primates on
Chimpanzees
By the year 2000, research using chimpanzees declined to
only a few institutions and it became clear that the end of
