Christopher J. Morris/AP
Protesters make their mark at an Animal Transportation Association meeting in Vancouver on 18 March.
Each year, thousands of macaques and other monkeys are flown into Europe and North America to supply academic and industrial research labs — more than 18,000 to the United States in 2011 alone. But in a campaign that could affect scientists across the West, the few major air carriers that still transport non-human primates are coming under unprecedented pressure to halt the practice.
One key route under threat is from China, which last year shipped more than 70% of the research primates sent to the United States (see ‘Up in the air’). On 14 March, animal breeders in China met with officials of China Southern Airlines to implore them to resume flights into Los Angeles International Airport, the largest US port of entry for research primates. Last August, China Southern cancelled a shipment from Guangzhou of 80 crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis) destined for Los Angeles, after a social media, e-mail and telephone campaign by pressure group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), based in Norfolk, Virginia. China Southern has not flown research primates into Los Angeles since then.
“This was part of our larger campaign to disrupt the flow of primates to US labs,” says Justin Goodman, associate director of the laboratory investigations department at PETA in Washington DC. The group complains that imports are supplementing an already-burgeoning primate population in US labs (see ‘Frequent flyers’).
Two other airlines are also in the public spotlight. Air France faces mounting pressure as the last major European carrier to transport research primates. And Air Canada is petitioning the Canadian Transportation Agency, the body that regulates Canadian air carriers, for the required permission to refuse to transport research primates in the future. With news breaking last week that ferry companies have entirely ceased transporting all research animals — including sophisticated mouse disease models — into the United Kingdom, researchers fear that this is the start of a larger trend.
Michael Hsu, president of animal-breeding company Shared Enterprises in Richlandtown, Pennsylvania, says that activism is affecting companies such as his, which maintains a macaque breeding colony in Shanghai and relies on flights into Los Angeles to get its animals to its clients. China Southern, he says, was easily the biggest carrier serving Los Angeles airport. The other Chinese carriers serving the United States — Air China and China Eastern — have lower capacity, creating a bottleneck for breeders lining up to ship animals. The situation, says Hsu, “is causing a big backlog. It’s costing us money. We’ve been producing these animals for these markets, and if we can’t ship them, it’s very difficult for us to sustain them.”
Breeding the animals in the United States instead would be problematic: infrastructure and labour costs are much higher than they are in Asia, and colonies are much more likely to become the targets of animal activists. And moving the animals by sea is a non-starter because of the deleterious effects of the six-week trans-Pacific journey on the animals’ health.
Martin Paré, an associate professor at the Centre for Neuroscience Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, worries not only about his own access to primates, but about a slippery-slope effect. “If Air Canada was permitted to stop transporting non-human primates, what would be next? Stopping all animal transportation for research, which is what’s happening in the UK?”
Many airlines, including Lufthansa, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, already refuse to carry research primates. In fact, the China Southern shutdown at Los Angeles resulted in part from PETA putting pressure on Lufthansa, which unloads planes for China Southern at the airport. Activists pointed out to Lufthansa that unloading research primates for the Chinese carrier was at odds with its policy on the transport of non-human primates. Within 24 hours, the China Southern macaque shipment was cancelled. Goodman speculates that “Lufthansa was anticipating a really bad PR situation”. Lufthansa says that it cannot comment on matters involving another carrier.
At the time that it merged with United Airlines in 2010, Continental Airlines was the last remaining US carrier that still transported research primates. United is preparing to publish a policy for the merged airline later this year.
“Nearly every major airline rejects the transport of primates to laboratories,” says Goodman. “The handful that are still doing it are facing more intense opposition and scrutiny than they ever have before. Because it’s not in their best interest to continue doing so, I am sure that they will stop.”
Severed links
The next several months could prove crucial. After last week’s meeting, China Southern is still deciding whether it will resume transporting research primates through Los Angeles. If Air Canada’s petition to stop shipping primates is successful, Canadian researchers would be inconvenienced, but not entirely cut off — around 1,700 non-human primates were imported from the United States last year, mostly driven across the border. The Public Health Agency of Canada and Queen’s University are challenging the airline’s move, and a decision from the transportation agency is expected later this year.
“The research that Queen’s University performs has significant benefits for the health and welfare of Canadians,” says Steven Liss, the university’s vice-principal for research. He adds that the humane treatment of the animals is “always” the university’s priority. “Air travel is simply the fastest and least stressful way of transporting them.”
Air France issued a statement last September declaring that “nothing allows the airline to decide on the merits of the use of animals in biomedical research”, which it called “important and scientifically justified”. Nonetheless, after it was bombarded with PETA-orchestrated e-mails, phone calls and Facebook postings, the airline cancelled a scheduled 1 February shipment from Mauritius of 60 monkeys bound for a private laboratory in Everett, Washington.
The apparent success of the public campaign has alarmed breeders, importers and biomedical researchers. “It’s unfortunate that some airlines have chosen to capitulate to a small number of individuals with an agenda who aren’t truly representative of the general public,” says Matthew Bailey, vice-president of the National Association for Biomedical Research in Washington DC, a trade organization that lobbies on lab-animal policy for drug firms and research universities.
“More and more scientists will go elsewhere to do primate research.”
Tipu Aziz, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Oxford, UK, has used macaques to study Parkinson’s disease. He believes that restricting transport of animals will not have the desired effect. “My gut feeling is that more and more scientists will go elsewhere to do primate research,” he says. “I have no qualms about going abroad to do my work. There are quite a few countries that have good facilities: there are centres in India, Singapore, Malaysia, China.”
Others say that the drug industry — a major user of research primates — may also be inclined to relocate activities if the flight barrier becomes insurmountable.
“Let’s say [the activists] get their wish and no animal comes into the United States,” Hsu argues. “Merck is not going to say: ‘Okay, fine.’ They are going to go to other countries where animal care might not be as good, and start doing research there.”
Still, expert observers say that the pressure on the airlines is significant. “The public tide is turning against the use of non-human primates in general, and researchers must either find alternatives or convince the public there is a compelling reason to continue such research,” says Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which is home to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. If scientists don’t make a louder, more persuasive public case, he says, “more companies — not only in transportation — will choose the side of animal-rights advocates”.
- Journal name:
- Nature
- Volume:
- 483,
- Pages:
- 381–382
- Date published:
- ()
- DOI:
- doi:10.1038/483381a


The ultimate idea that must be considered here is empathy. The dilemma on animal testing for the betterment of mankind through research must be approached form a truly transparent and unbiased perspective, so that we may ask the question "on what grounds can we claim the right to take another life form (be it mouse or man)?" I am all for the advancement of science, however completely opposed to the idea that another must suffer to refine our ideas and scientific models.
My approach comes from a place of empathy, not biased opinion, as I simply ask myself, "How would I like it to be torn away from my family in the wild, (if I was even lucky enough to be born in a natural environment as opposed to being bred in a facility/lab) imprisoned in cage for however long as well as being hauled by various forms of transport in completely unnatural and terrifying, unfamiliar environments". Of course, these are the easy parts of the whole journey that I'd experience if I was a 'lab rat'. Next comes the absolutely deplorable and horrific testing that goes on in some institutes. Of course I cannot speak for all, as I'm sure many institutions carry out their testing with as much care and regard as possible, but this would be of minimal comfort to a macaque or any other lab animal receiving completely unnatural chemicals intravenously/being forcibly restrained in a tube to inhale noxious and deadly gases/experience shock or other pain stimulus to examine psychological behaviours – to name a few.
As I live and breathe and know what it is to be a sentient organism I guarantee that any self-respecting scientist, astronaut or cab driver (to qualify a small portion of the 'general public') would denounce animal testing for scientific research or whatever reason if they were subject to the very same conditions. It is an absolute pity that we consider this justifiable and 'in the name of science', that we consider ourselves worthy of torment on anything because our idea of ourselves is that we are 'intelligent' creatures, so much so that we have gone on through history to become the dominant species of our planet. But only ignorance would consider dominance synonymous with intelligence. Ask yourself how intelligent must we really be as a collective society to accept the world's conditions as they are now, and expect that this can go on for much longer? I'm sure that one day, eventually, 'in the name of science' will encompass compassion for sentience, rather than being used as an end to justify its means.
Oh and, to all those who say that animal testing should be democratically decided upon, and that activist groups such as PETA are attacking these matters through biased concerns, let's not forget that PETA would be nothing without its volunteer 'general public' members. It's just that they're more in the loop about what goes on beneath the veil, to the extent that their concerns are vehemently and rightfully demonstrated.
I think these moves are undemocratic, as one of these previous commentators has said ultimately it's up for the public to decide if they want animal research. For this reason there needs to be open debate. Anti-vivisectionists are playing dirty by attacking weak links like airlines. The scientific community need to get the message across to the public that we do as much as we can to reduce, refine and replace animal experimentation. Hopefully people will see sense and not be swayed by the misinformation of anti-vivisectionists.
If you are UK based you can sign a petition to get this matter reviewed in parliament (anonymous)
http://www.tinyurl.com/saveresearch
I think "Human Good" does not necessarily mean that the rest of the ecosystem is going to benefit from it. Rather, it turns out that the real picture is quite the opposite. Most of what we do for "human good" is actually harming the rest of the ecosystem (eg – drilling for oil, fracking for coal, deforestation for agriculture, etc.). And a lot of this stems from Abrahamic religious belief that humans are the best creation of God, and hence, we have taken it for granted that this ecosystem exists to serve us and what not (although I realize that this argument could go both ways). And because we think we are so high and mighty, we refuse to test on our own till they have been cleared for use in other animals.
In the case of using animals for experimentation, specifically in the medical field, I would like to put it bluntly – scientists are torturing animals JUST SO the same PETA people and their supporters can enjoy a disease-free, long life and other associated benefits. I do agree that yes, there are cases when lab animals were poorly treated and regulations were not maintained (eg – the UNC case, as shown in the PETA website). But what the PETA failed to inform the public and their supporters was that these instances are the exceptions and not the norm. I agree with the opinion that scientists should come out and speak on the behalf of animal experimentation.
Why are PETA and other activists so successful in these protests? Because their thesis is that animals are deserving of the same respect as humans, presumably because they feel the same pain and experience the same emotions that human ethics is based in.
Animal researchers can't argue the premise of this thesis. Their argument is that yes, it's true, we imprison, experiment on, and kill animals; but it's for human good. And, further, we try to be 'humane' in carrying out these activities. It's not surprising that people who are sympathetic to animal suffering are not convinced entirely by this argument. It's a classic ethical dilemma: should someone else suffer so that you, or your loved one, can suffer less?
So, I don't think that 'counter protests' of the sort proposed in these articles would be very effective. This article begs the question: how does the public really feel about this work? Americans who are supportive of public science, and socialist ideals of the 'public good' - those who would be recruited for such counter protests – are precisely those who claim disgust at industrial agriculture, mistreatment and misery of livestock, endangered species threatened by human activities, etc. When faced with the dilemma of animal research, which side do they fall on?
As for Kurlansky's comment, it is in fact pertinent: why are humans not allowed to volunteer their suffering in exchange for the public good?
Perhaps PETA would prefer our researchers to use human primates instead; perhaps they are willing to volunteer
Paul Kurlansky, MD
Director of Research
Florida Heart Research Institute