I rise to second the opinion of neurologist and university professor Cory Miller, published here on NRO, opposing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s apparent intention to end all research on primates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Miller writes:

Reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plans to end research involving monkeys — a move framed as modernization — strikes at the heart of America’s biomedical capacity at the very moment global competitors are expanding theirs.

This is the latest step in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to phase out animal research in the U.S., an ideologically driven effort that sidesteps scientific evidence by exploiting our understandable desire to reduce animal suffering. And make no mistake, ending research with monkeys is not the end goal. It is only the beginning.

Yes, we should reduce animal testing as much as is practicable. But we should use alternatives, as Miller puts it, as a “complement” to animal studies, not a total replacement. Sure, using animals to test cosmetics and the like can probably be eliminated safely. And by all means, use cell lines, AI computer programs, and other alternatives as much as possible to reduce animal use, consistent with protecting human safety.

But there is no question that scientific and medical advances depend on what I call the “grim good” of animal research. Think about it. At some point, new drugs can’t be vetted for safety without testing them on a living organism. Basic biological research remains necessary. Many animal lives have been lost in that way, but their deaths saved the lives of many humans. And when these animal studies were ignored, humans paid the ultimate price, as Jesse Gelsinger did when gene therapy researchers failed to disclose to him before he consented to being a human subject that testing in primates had resulted in the animals’ deaths.

Primate research remains necessary for developing and testing cutting-edge medical techniques before these are used in human patients. For example, experimental brain implants have been invented that can aid people with crippling physical disabilities to gain the ability to interact with the world. Before being used in humans, these experiments involved primates. Here’s how Miller describes it:

Research with monkeys has enabled breakthroughs that define modern medicine, from cancer immunotherapies to monoclonal antibodies and the neuroscience that underpins treatments for Parkinson’s disease, depression, addiction, and chronic pain. Monkeys, such as cynomolgus and rhesus macaques, are used not because they are convenient, but because their immune systems, metabolism, and physiology most closely mirror those of humans, making them uniquely suited for optimizing treatments and identifying safety risks before experimental therapies are tested in people.

Should these experiments not have been done? And if they had not, would it have been ethical to experiment on humans before gaining the knowledge that primate experimentation provided?

It seems to me that we have three choices:

1. Experiment on humans without prior animal studies. That would inevitably result in some human deaths that could otherwise have been avoided.
2. Stop cutting-edge research that requires the use of a living test subjects. That would stifle medical breakthroughs, the development of new medicines, and the alleviation of future suffering in people and animals.
3. Continue to experiment on animals for the betterment of people and animals, while working diligently to reduce the use of animals subjects in experiments consistent with human betterment.

I choose number 3.

One last point: The Nuremberg Code and other human rights documents require that scientific tests be first done in animals before shifting to human studies.

I know this is an emotional issue. But, in the end, we need to think rather than feel. Human betterment depends on it.