Recapping the NIH workshop on NHPs

model or a non-primate model. That became very clear in all the talks,” he says. But “necessity” was a lingering question. “There was an attempt to raise the question of whether it is necessary to continue doing primate research, shouldn’t we just use tissue cultures or computers, or other animal models and skip the primates?” says Haigwood. “The answer to that question is, in my view, a resounding ‘no.’ But not everyone in the room felt that way.” Larry Carbone, a veterinarian and IACUC official from the University of California San Francisco, would like to continue the discussion. “The lesson we’ve learned [from past research] was, you know sometimes rodents aren’t enough. Sometimes you really should be studying monkeys. But how do I know that’s still true?” he notes. “What are the questions we should be asking?” The oversight session could have probed a little more beyond the status quo as well, he says. The goals for the day were sound, but he hopes for more in-depth follow-up, perhaps akin National Primate Research Center. “The discussions across those boundaries are important. And I think the fact that NIH assembled this meeting and had scientists invested in this research, veterinarians that are experts in taking care of these animals, people that are experts in the regulation of this research and the bioethicists that consider the ethical framework for this research, that were all in that room and all discussing these issues, I think that was a very positive experience.” Morrison attended as an advocate of the translational importance of non-human primate research. Current science, rather than historical work, was the focus of the morning session. His fellow director, Nancy Haigwood of the Oregon National Primate Research Center, presented on the use of non-human primates in infectious disease research; other topics covered included regenerative medicine and treatments for Parkinson’s disease. “It was wonderful to see the positive effects of science. So many good examples of scientific progress, and so much more to come. I think that was a highpoint of the workshop for sure,” Haigwood says. With their physiological and anatomical similarities to humans, non-human primates are valuable models for biomedical research. But given those similarities, particular attention must be paid to their welfare and ensuring their ethical use. The afternoon of the workshop was dedicated to that oversight, with descriptions of current regulatory and welfare requirements from veterinarians and representatives of regulatory agencies and IACUCs. Those presentations, says Morrison, “showed very clearly the extent of the regulation that is in place for non-human primate research, and the dramatic improvements in the welfare of captive non-human primates over the last several decades.” Morrison considers non-human primates essential for research, a sentiment he thinks was generally shared among participants. “You simply can’t do these studies and “How can we do better?” With just shy of 62,000 non-human primates used in US research in 2015, according to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, it’s an important question and was a point of discussion among the participants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) workshop titled “Ensuring the Continued Responsible Oversight of Research with Non-human Primates.” Held on September 7, 2016, its summary report was released on December 28; a video recording of the workshop is also available online. Though the immediate prompt for the workshop was a congressional directive, non-human primate research had become a contentious subject in the Washington, D C area in the preceding months (Nature 28 January 2015; doi:10.1038/ nature.2015.16814). Just northwest of the city, a NIH lab in Poolesville, Maryland, had attracted the attention of animal rights activists, who ran an aggressive ad campaign against a project studying the effects of maternal separation in young non-human primates. Though NIH Director Francis Collins reported that the agency found no major issues with that research, the congressional representatives who asked for the investigation of the Poolesville lab included language in the 2016 appropriations bill requesting that the NIH conduct a larger review of its non-human primate research. The agency chose a workshop format, says Carrie Wolinetz, Associate Director for Science Policy at NIH. The goal, she explains, was not to come up with specific recommendations but rather to convene experts in different fields to thoroughly review the state of the science involving non-human primates and the oversight of that research. Attendees included scientists, veterinarians, regulatory officials, and a handful of bioethicists; public comment was solicited prior to the workshop.