Quick Take
Over 100,000 monkeys are used in U.S. biomedical research and endure severe suffering with little benefit to human health, argue Santa Cruz wildlife veterinarian Emily Talkington and attorney Mikalah Singer. They call on Congress to halt funding for primate research and support the National Institutes of Health’s new initiative promoting human-based alternatives like organoids and tissue chips. They point to innovative engineering work at UC Santa Cruz to grow brain organoids from human cells and stress that research on primates is cruel. Modern methods offer more ethical and effective paths to medical progress, they write.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
If you ever travel through Southeast Asia, you may be fortunate enough to see macaque monkeys jumping from branch to branch through the forest. You may hear them vocalize between one another, warning of a trespasser in their midst. If you’re lucky, you may even catch a glimpse of a mother carrying her newborn infant on her chest.
As beautiful and wild as that scene is, the lives of too many macaques — the most commonly used primate in biomedical research — are sterile and depressing.
I (Emily Talkington) am a Santa Cruz-based wildlife veterinarian specializing in nonhuman primates, and I (Mikalah Singer) am an attorney and science policy specialist at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The use of primates in medical research raises profound ethical and scientific issues. That’s why we were pleased with a recently announced, groundbreaking initiative by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which aims to “expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research.
Unfortunately, proponents of primate use in research—including authors of a recent National Academies study, as well as private entities with a financial stake in their continued use—seek expansion. We argue that Congress must block further funding for primate research and support the NIH in taking steps to phase it out.
We have seen the direct effect that research labs have on animals.
In 2018, I (Talkington) observed and collected noninvasive fecal and urine samples for cortisol (stress hormone) detection in a group of wild long-tailed macaques in East Malaysia. I subsequently learned that all the macaques had been captured and placed into breeding colonies or sent to the United States for biomedical research. This included a mother and baby I had named Pinky and Jenny who won my heart with their tender bond.
The behavioral and health research I conducted was performed to determine if a newly established ecotourism group, which had proven an important form of financial gain for the locals in the region, affected the macaques’ stress levels. The macaques were taken before I could get conclusive results.
Social and familial bonding in macaque groups are important for their longevity and health. But such bonding is not allowed in laboratory settings. Macaques have established social hierarchies and maintain relationships via grooming and playing. Without these natural behaviors, they become stressed. Transport and separation in laboratories affect the primates – which is just one of many reasons that deeply affects how well the testing translates to human disease.
These once-free animals were subjected to terrifying transit and brought to their new lives in cold metal cages and unknown locations of concrete biomedical research laboratory facilities. Unfortunately, lack of transparency makes it difficult to ascertain which biomedical laboratory the monkeys are transported to. Their natural existence and autonomy get replaced with captive breeding plans and invasive, painful and deadly procedures. They go from individuals with a life story to a number at a laboratory.
This is a reality faced by thousands of monkeys used in research at academic institutions, private companies and federal laboratories, including at the California National Primate Research Center at UC Davis — one of seven such centers in the United States that comprise a network of research institutions and receive federal funding.
Life in captivity and experimental conditions causes these animals to suffer pain and traumatic stress. Many show abnormal, repetitive and self-soothing behavior indicative of psychological damage, including vocalizing, pacing, self-mutilation, referred aggression, swaying, rocking, unnatural postures, licking and biting cage bars, head twirling, plucking hair and digit sucking. Some may also experience irreversible physical damage due to years in a laboratory.
Most nonhuman primates used in laboratory research are killed or die, but a select few who survive may be sent to a sanctuary. Life in a sanctuary isn’t always rainbows and butterflies, though. Sanctuaries are expensive to operate, and many animals are rendered chronically ill from laboratory conditions for the remainder of their lives, suffering from untreatable viral infections, immunosuppression, and shortened lifespans.
I (Emily Talkington) currently work as an independent contractor for 20 of these rescue organizations around the globe, and I regularly see these terrible effects.
Nonhuman primate researchers often cite the animals’ similarities to humans as a reason for their use. But this research is largely inadequate and ignores the widely acknowledged biological differences that lead to difficult and rare translation to human biology and clinical benefit. For example, basic neuroscience principles regularly fail to translate from nonhuman primates to humans, and new therapies for brain disorders and vaccines for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C see exceedingly high attrition rates despite safe and effective preclinical tests in primates.
Maintaining the current state of primate research is a dead end for these animals and for the patients awaiting better treatments. Expanding it is unconscionable.
Luckily for both science and the monkeys, superior nonanimal approaches are increasingly available. Methods like organoids and tissue chips use human cells, tissues and data to replicate critical features of human biology and disease, avoiding species-specific translational barriers and advancing therapeutic development.
Researchers are already replacing the use of animals in many applications, and because they are derived directly from humans, they can capture human diversity and patient specificity to promote health equity and precision medicine in ways that are impossible to do using animals. For example, engineers at UC Santa Cruz build powerful automation techniques to grow brain organoids from human cells under precise conditions for replicating key structures and functions of the human brain. Meanwhile, Genentech’s Complex in vitro Systems Laboratory employs nonanimal methods to improve preclinical inclusivity and clinical predictiveness.
These innovative nonanimal approaches are embraced by more and more scientists each year, including the NIH.
On April 29, the agency announced an initiative to expand research using these approaches while reducing animal use, acknowledging their potential “to accelerate innovation, improve health care outcomes and deliver life-changing treatments,” including for diseases, like Alzheimer’s, that have been plagued by clinical trial failures.
Federal agencies receive spending budgets through congressional appropriations each year. Recently, Congress provided funding for more nonhuman primate research infrastructure: $30 million in fiscal year 2024, and although it was not included in the final continuing resolution, the Senate sought another $30 million in fiscal year 2025.
Congress will soon be deciding fiscal year 2026 appropriations, and we urge U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff to support human-based research and reject any increased funding for expanding primate use.
Continuing to invest in primate research while producing no clinical benefit is unethical and a waste of government spending. Pinky, Jenny and the more than 100,000 others like them are worthy of freedom.
Rather than condemning these primates to a life of cruel and unnecessary experiments, we need to get serious about investing in better human-based science.
Santa Cruz residents have long supported showing compassion to animals, and with UC Santa Cruz at the forefront of biological research, the city is already home to groundbreaking, noninvasive scientific advances. Shifting national research standards away from primate experimentation aligns with the innovative and ethical science that Santa Cruzans value.
Santa Cruz residents can play a powerful role by urging their representatives in Congress to block increased funding for primate research infrastructure.
Emily Talkington is an independent domestic and wildlife veterinarian specializing in nonhuman primates and other endangered species both free-living in their natural environment and those kept in post-laboratory captivity. She is an independent contractor who works with more than 20 rescue centers. She is a Santa Cruz-based member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Mikalah Singer is an attorney and science policy specialist at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a Washington, D.C.,-based national nonprofit promoting preventive medicine, conducting clinical research and encouraging higher standardsfor ethics and effectiveness in research and medical training.