http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=7073

Primate testing on the rise at McGill
Animal Resources Centre director cites increase in research funding
By Jennifer Markowitz
The McGill Daily
37f4c4.jpg

Behind the locked doors of the 14th floor of the Macintyre Medical Building lies the headquarters for McGill’s nonhuman primate testing.
Nadja Popovich / The McGill Daily
The number of nonhuman primates used in McGill’s research projects has grown by nearly 4,000 per cent between 2003 and 2006.

According to reports from the University obtained through a freedom of information request, McGill used 919 nonhuman primates in 2006 – up from 24 in 2003, 268 in 2004, and 664 in 2005.

The McGill group Students for Transparency in Animals Research and Testing (START), an offshoot of the SSMU club Animal Liberties, requested the information upon catching wind of McGill’s extensive animal use several years ago.

“We can’t have a debate on animal research unless we know what is going on,” said Dave Howden, U0 Arts student and a member of START.

After submitting three information requests since January 2006, START received McGill’s Animal Use Reports for 2003 to 2006 last week.

According to Howden, the administration was “less than forthcoming” in providing the documents.

“I don’t think that they want people to know what’s going on because [animal testing] is an ethical issue that will cause problems if it is brought to the attention of others,” Howden said.

“If [the extent of animal testing] was widely known, then there would be changes.”

While the majority of the primates at McGill were involved in experiments that cause minimal discomfort, in 2006, 14 nonhuman primates underwent Category D invasiveness, which involves “moderate to severe” discomfort.


While recognizing the benefits of animal research, Howden questioned the ethics and necessity of the testing.

“If animals are like us, why is it okay to perform tests on them and not humans? But if they are not like us, then why do we test so heavily on them and relate the results back to humans?” Howden asked.

Jim Gourdon, Director of McGill’s Animal Resources Centre, justified McGill’s animal research and asserted that the fine line dividing humans and nonhuman primates is what makes primates appropriate study subjects.

“It’s confusing,” Gourdon said. “If we look at scientific facts, humans are animals. Biologically, we came from the evolutionary process. That doesn’t mean that we’re not different. We know some tests are not as good, but so many are. What we find using animals often correlates with human processes.”



He stressed that because of a distant connection between nonhuman animals and humans, the discrepancies that researchers discover are often more informative than the similarities.

McGill seeks alternative methods of research, including using skin cultures, in-vitro cells, and testing on invertebrates, but Gourdon asserted that for some studies, animal use is essential.

“How [else] would we study the brain in humans? Or infectious disease? Who would volunteer for that?” Gourdon said.

More funding, more testing

According to the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), a committee that oversees the care and use of animals in research, Canada used 4,363 nonhuman primates for research in 2006. McGill’s use comprised nearly one-fifth of these tests.

The CCAC reports that the total number of animals used in science in Canada in 2006 was 2.54-million. Ten years earlier the total was 1.95-million.

Research funding derives primarily from grants, the vast majority from federal agencies and provincial projects. According to Gourdon, the Faculty of Medicine receives over 60 per cent of the research funding at McGill.

McGill technically adheres to the CCAC’s “3 R’s” mandate – reduction, replacement, and refinement – to reduce the number of nonhuman animals used in research projects.

But McGill’s Animal Care Ethics Committee evaluates the justification for animal use in every research proposal, meaning their assessment includes the relevance of a specific species and the number of animals tested. Since McGill has accepted more research projects, the number of animals used per study may be lower, but the overall number has still increased.

“If there are more people, there is more funding, and then more research,” Gourdon said.

Howden said that the government had a hand in encouraging animal testing.

“The government perpetuates the funding. We know there are alternatives, but they continue animal testing because of the inertia of the industry,” Howden said.

Most of McGill’s studies involving animals contribute to the biomedical sciences; all of the University’s research with nonhuman primates is for the study of a “fundamental nature in sciences relating to essential structure or function.”

Gourdon explained that because the animals are used in research, they are offered the best diets and are kept in prime conditions, which vary appropriately according to species. McGill breeds and houses many of the research subjects.

He said testing will endure at McGill, and perhaps even increase.

“We keep studying because there is so much more we still need to know about processes,” Gourdon said.

“But you decide. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.”

SSMU supports increased transparency in McGill’s animal testing practices, following a GA motion that undergraduates passed in November.