Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 10 September 2008 | Nature 455, 145 (2008) | doi:10.1038/455145a
News
French university under fire for culling macaques
Death of research monkeys slammed as morally wrong.
Primate scientists are criticizing a decision at the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg, France, to kill a research colony of Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) last month because the animals were infected with the herpes B virus.
The monkeys, at the Centre of Primatology, had never shown symptoms of disease, and scientists critical of the move say that the culling was scientifically and morally unjustified.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is shocking. The University administration is clearly making this decision to kill these animals because of economics. To say that Herpes B infection is the reason they need to be culled is A SHAM. The University had to sneak in and kill the animals. Macaques monkeys are widely used in research and it is common knowledge that macaques monkeys carry Herpes B virus. It is as common as cold sores in humans. Thee monkeys are NOT sick. The danger of human exposure has not changed. This is morally unacceptable. Not allowing the the humans who worked closely with and cared for these animals to have the opportunity to say good-bye is also deplorable. This story is very similar to The Ohio State Primate Cognition Project. The Ohio State forcibly took the chimpanzees and monkeys from the Project and Dr. Sarah Boysen and sent them to a sanctuary in Texas. These animals were like family to Dr. Boysen and the caretakers. Bernard Thierry, I am so sorry for your loss.
Unacceptable, deplorable, regrettable, shameful. We use them, we kill them, we throw them away. Just like disposable lab material. Why it does not surprise me?.
I've met these animals myself. They were condemned to spend their final years in a small enclosure despite the researchers knowing perfectly well how to take adequate precautions with them. These animals changed our understanding of what it means to be a primate. Surely the people that worked with them could have signed statements affirming their knowledge of the situation and waiving any legal claims against the facilities. This action is reminiscent of the removal of Sally Boyson's Chimpanzees in the night. Can primate work really be so fraught with legal implications that institutions become completely immoral? When scientists say some point is non-negotiable, does that justify institutions taking unilateral action? Is a scientist's moral conviction worth nothing?
I am reading this in shock and deep sadness. I have also met these animals, and the insights gained from the studies carried out by B. Thierry and colleagues have made very substantial contributions to the field. Tonkean macaques are among the least known macaques in the wild, and there is no other behavioral colony comparable to this one. Many macaque species are B-virus carriers and macaques at all times should be treated with universal precautions. What set these animals apart and made them especially dangerous? To all those who worked with the animals in this colony over the years, you have my most sincere condolences. To the university administration, I challenge you to discuss your decision in the light of day with a broad constituency to see if your actions are reasonable and defensible- there are other animals in the care of the university and are there plans to similarly and unilaterally cull them as well?
Culling primates that have outlived their grant support is unfortunately a common practice, though perhaps less so for colonies used in ethological research like this one. The economic factors motivating this practice (both in biomedical as well as ethological research) is founded on the fact that allocation of retirement funds for non-terminal primate studies is not generally factored in grant awards (at least for non-ape species), leaving facilities with primates who have outlived their scientific or economic utility. It is important that these considerations be added to grant applications, and I would be very supportive of measures taken in the future to make this a standard. That said, even without funding allocations for retirement. there are ALWAYS OPTIONS to finding quality post-research retirement for primates and it is never necessary or justified to euthanize a healthy colony as was done here. There are a number of quality sanctuaries in the U.S. and Europe that understand that Herpes B is endemic to nearly all primate colonies and that the risk of human transmission is extremely small if the proper precautions are taken. Most of these facilities are interested only in the welfare of the animals and not in bringing negative attention to donating facilities. If given enough notice and preparation it is generally possible to secure retirement regardless of the funds available at the start of the process (or lack there of). It can be daunting for facility managers to look into sanctuaries if it is their the first time doing so, and sometimes it's hard to know who to trust. As always, I encourage anyone with surplus post-research primates used in biomedical or ethological studies to read my LPN article on sanctuaries and certainly to contact me at U.Penn with any questions. I'll be happy to point you in the right direction and maintain your facility's anonymity if desired. Seeing these guys live out their lives in a secure and enrichment environment more than compensates for the effort it takes to give them this opportunity.
This decision should have been indeed difficult to take. As far as human health is threatened, we can understand that people legally responsible need to take all measures to avoid accidents. The risk of B-virus exposure is considered as unacceptable by many institutes or governments authorities within the world. It sounds prejudicial that this article does not present the point of view of virologists, doctors or vet surgeons but only of behaviorists who are not competent about biological hazards and zoonosis.
The implication that behaviorists who work with macaques are ignorant of the risks is unfounded and prejudicial. The concept that all accidents can be prevented is also naive. In the United States, those who work with non-human primates under an IACUC approved protocol are required to undergo specific annual training that addresses the risks posed to personnel, and in particular the risks associated with macaques due to Hep B-virus. I rather doubt that France lacks similar training requirements. If one wished to "take all measures to avoid accidents", then all NHP colonies would be eliminated; many pathogens can be transmitted between human and non-human primates. Should ALL research on pathogens be suspended in the name of safety? A far better practice is to educate those who work with hazards and ensure that all workers are aware of the proper procedures to follow after exposure to potentially infectious material, whether the source be macaque saliva or a spilled culture flask.