Back to Browse Journals » Medicolegal and Bioethics » Volume 1

An analysis of the Bateson Review of research using nonhuman primates

Authors Greek R, Hansen LA, Menache A

Published Date December 2011 Volume 2011:1 Pages 3—22

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MB.S25938

Published 6 December 2011

Ray Greek1, Lawrence A Hansen2, Andre Menache1
1Americans for Medical Advancement, Goleta, 2Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

Abstract: An analysis of the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research in the UK, the Review of Research Using Non-Human Primates (the "Bateson Review") was released in 2011. The review was applauded, to varying degrees, by most of the stakeholders in the controversy over using nonhuman primates in biomedical research. However, there has not been a scientific analysis of the review. In this paper, the Bateson Review is examined for both methodology and the science relevant to the use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research. The relevant science includes complexity theory, evolutionary biology, genetics, empirical evidence regarding the reliability of interspecies extrapolation, and the value of basic biomedical research in general in making discoveries that lead to human treatments. The authors of this paper conclude that the Bateson Review does not meet the criteria for a scientific assessment, in part, because it fails to consider the current science that impacts on the practice of using animals, in general, and nonhuman primates, specifically, in biomedical research. This lack of scientific consideration has legal and ethical ramifications. Since the Bateson Review fails as a scientific evaluation, the ethical and legal recommendations that are based on science are also suspect.

Keywords:
medicine, complex, evolution, ethics, primate, research

Download Article [PDF] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Readers of this article also read:

Design and in vivo evaluation of oxycodone once-a-day controlled-release tablets

Kim JY, Lee SH, Park CW, Rhee YS, Kim DW, Park J, Lee M, Seo JW, Park ES

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2015, 9:695-706

Published Date: 30 January 2015

Progressive osseous heteroplasia: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis

Pignolo RJ, Ramaswamy G, Fong JT, Shore EM, Kaplan FS

The Application of Clinical Genetics 2015, 8:37-48

Published Date: 30 January 2015

Diabetes reversal via gene transfer: building on successes in animal models

Gerace D, Martiniello-Wilks R, Simpson AM

Research and Reports in Endocrine Disorders 2015, 5:15-29

Published Date: 29 January 2015

Effects of Arthro-7® in relieving symptoms of osteoarthritis with mild to moderate arthralgia [Corrigendum]

Xie Q, Zhou T, Yen L, Shariff M, Nguyen T, Kami K, Gu P, Liang L, Rao J, Shi R

Nutrition and Dietary Supplements 2013, 5:7-8

Published Date: 16 May 2013

Corrigendum

Mizoguchi T, Ozaki M, Unoki K, Dake Y, Eto T, Arai M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1717-1718

Published Date: 26 October 2012

Erratum

Marusza W, Mlynarczyk G, Olszanski R, Netsvyetayeva I, Obrowski M, Iannitti T, Palmieri B

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4119-4120

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Corrigendum: Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision

Espandar L, Sikder S, Moshirfar M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2011, 5:159-160

Published Date: 6 February 2011

Erratum

RA Kurt, K Gündüz

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:981-982

Published Date: 6 September 2010