The case for revising our laws on animal experimentation.

Subsequent to World War II, a dramatic increase occurred in the utilizationof nonhuman primates in biomedical and psychological research and industry. Atthe same time field studies on the ecological and social behavior of naturalpopulations of primates also increased, making possible more realistic assessmentsof both the behavioral potentiality of primate populations and their conservationstatus. In spite of the growing body of information indicating the endangered orthreatened status of most species, many laboratory workers and planning agenciescontinue to regard primates as renewable resources, even seeking to bypass protec-tive legislation in habitat countries to obtain them. As a consequence, insufficientfinancial support has been made available for the development of breeding col-onies for research programs which may be essential. However, much utilization ofprimates is open to question. The appropriateness of primates as models, thenumbers of animals used in experiments, and the redundancy of experimentationfrequently are given little consideration. Likewise, field data on the biological andsocial requirements of primates have been consistently ignored in housing andother aspects of care, thereby calling into question the results of much research.The lack of restraint on the utilization of primates (and other animals) in researchmay ultimately be a consequence of the man/nature dichotomy embedded in tradi-tional interpretations of judea-Christian thought. A symposium devoted to the examination of scientific and philosophical is-sues surrounding the use of primates other than humans in biomedical researchand testing is warranted for at least two reasons.(1) Much of the use of primates in biomedical research is justified on thegrounds that they are "essential" because of their taxonomic closeness tohumans. Such an attitude may have the effect of diverting researchers from theuse of more appropriate models and may even impede the development ofalternatives to the use of primates and other live animals. The decision to use aprimate as an experimental model or for testing must be recognized as entirely ahuman decision, not something inherent in the fact of evolution. *Dr. Eudey is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557 andCo-chairwoman of the International Primate Protection League, P.O. Drawer X, Summerville, SC 29483.This paper was prepared for and presented at the Institute for the Study of Animal Problems sym-posium on Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Programs, 15 October 1980, San Francisco, California.Previously published symposium papers: j.R. Held, Breeding and Use of Nonhuman Primates in theUSA; A.N. Rowan, Scientific Issues and Regulation of Primate Use (lnt 1 Stud Anim Prob 2(1), 1981). /NT 1 STUD ANIM PROB 2(2} 198196