Lessons Learned: Challenges in Applying Current Constraints on Research on Chimpanzees to Other Animals
In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Necessity of the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, was charged with determining the scientific necessity of the chimpanzee as a human model for biomedical and behavioral research. In his article, committee chair Jeffrey Kahn states that despite this charge, the issue of necessity simply could not be completely separated from ethics. Ethical considerations informed all of the central recommendations of the committee, from their insistence that chimps be housed in “ethologically appropriate environments” to their acknowledgement that chimps have the cognitive capacity to express their willingness (and unwillingness) to submit to research procedures.
The National Institutes of Health in the United States convened an important committee and gave it a heavy – if somewhat peculiar – task. Dubbed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Necessity of the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, it was charged with determining the scientific necessity of the chimpanzee as a human model for biomedical and behavioral research only. The committee, made up of basic and applied scientists, veterinarians, a primatologist, an anthropologist, and a member of the disease advocacy community, were not supposed to consider the ethics or cost of keeping chimps for research, nor were they supposed to consider how research might benefit chimps themselves. Instead, they were given the charge of focusing on human outcomes only.
In his article, committee chair Jeffrey Kahn states that despite this charge, the issue of necessity simply could not be completely separated from ethics. Ethical considerations informed all of the central recommendations of the committee, from their insistence that chimps be housed in “ethologically appropriate environments” to their acknowledgement that chimps have the cognitive capacity to express their willingness (and unwillingness) to submit to research procedures, the committee recognized that when it comes to the necessity of chimp research, ethical factors loom large in the background of every question.
In 2013, the New Iberia Research Center and the NIH announced that they would apply IOM committee guidelines, and thus retire the vast majority of the chimpanzees housed there to sanctuaries. Kahn traces this decision directly from the work of the IOM committee, a diverse group of stakeholders with vastly different interests, who all agreed on a baseline level of ethical considerations in their concept of “necessity.” Kahn states that the effect the IOM committee’s work could have on policies relating to other lab animals “remains to be seen”. Still, it’s clear that the journey from laboratory to sanctuary made by the New Iberia chimps offers a glimmer of hope that, with the right policy framework, lab animals’ lives have the potential to be changed for the better, permanently.
Original Abstract:
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Necessity of the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research made a series of recommendations that, as of an announcement on June 26, 2013, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is turning into implemented guidelines. Many advocates, including some researchers and scholars, have suggested that the Committee’s recommendations could be applied successfully to other animal species. This article examines, from my perspective as the IOM Committee’s chair, some of the most important features of the Committee’s work, addresses whether chimpanzees represent a special or unique case for the purpose of research policy, and suggests an approach for evaluating the applicability of the Committee’s recommendations for other animal species used in research. I first present my perspective on the features of the Committee’s work that influenced its approach and conclusions. I then argue that despite the fact that chimpanzees represent a somewhat unique case for restricted research use, their case still offers important lessons for policy regarding the use of other species. Finally, I offer some observations regarding the recommendations and implications of the report from the NIH Working Group charged with crafting guidelines for implementing the IOM Committee’s recommendations.