The Bainbridge, Georgia site raises ethical questions in research

First, researchers have claimed for years that testing for NHPs was the key to curing Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and a host of other ailments. “Give us the monkeys and we’ll give you the medicine.” Those promises did not last. The inability to fulfill these predictions is complex and questionable. What is not up for debate, however, is the truth that NHPs are not human. They are not just slightly incomplete people. If you want to know how a proposed drug will affect a human, you need to look at human-relevant testing models. Modern science is developing just that.

Recent technological developments such as human organs-on-chip, organoids, computer modeling and 3D bioprinting open the way for scientists to use human-derived data to predict human health impacts. None of these cases involve the use of NHPs and none involve harm to humans. These are not pie-in-the-sky fantasies. A recent study showed that a liver chip, which uses human cells to mimic a human liver, accurately predicted human toxicity for eight drugs that previously had no toxic effects in animals. These advances in non-animal technologies are growing exponentially and will certainly reduce the need for NHPs in the future, making facilities like those proposed in South Georgia obsolete.

Second, recent changes in drug testing legislation no longer require animal testing to be conducted before a potential drug is tested in humans. Current law ensures that human safety remains paramount, but that non-animal test data can provide a sufficient basis for the FDA to authorize human testing without testing on animals.