An influential panel evaluating the scientific value of invasive medical research on chimpanzees may be stacked in favor of the controversial practice, say animal advocates.

Although the Institutes of Medicine’s research review panel no longer has vocal supporters of medical research on chimpanzees, the Humane Society says remaining members won’t likely challenge the status quo.

“There are two different issues with Institutes of Medicine panels: Does anyone have conflicts of interest, and does anyone have bias?” said Kathleen Conlee, a senior director at the Humane Society. “Clearly, there are people on there who are biased in favor of animal research. We believe there should be someone there to balance the bias.”

The Institutes of Medicine, or IOM, is an independent group that provides scientific advice to the public, often assembling expert panels to review timely or controversial issues. In January, following a high-profile fight over the National Institute of Health’s plans to return 186 retired chimpanzees to research, the NIH asked for the IOM’s counsel.

The IOM panel won’t consider ethical issues, on which the United States is an outlier: The U.S. and Gabon are the only countries to officially support invasive research on chimpanzees, which many scientists say have a near-human ability to think and feel and should be treated accordingly. Instead, the IOM will consider only whether chimpanzees are useful models of disease virulence and treatment. Approximately 730 chimpanzees are currently maintained at least in part by the U.S. government, and about 300 more are held in captivity privately.

Late in May, after criticism from the Humane Society, two members of the IOM panel stepped down. One was Leticia Medina, a veterinarian at Abbott Laboratories, which has used chimpanzees in hepatitis C research. Another was Alan Leshner, the executive director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which officially supports medical research on chimpanzees. Another member, University of California health science overseer John Stobo, also recused himself, though the reasons are not known.

But while those departures may avoid obvious conflicts of interest, they don’t address possible bias among the remaining members, said Conlee.

As demonstrated by the AAAS position and a recent Nature editorial, there’s pressure in the research community to continue invasive chimpanzee research. Remaining panel members might be sensitive to that pressure. More tangibly, two members — Wake Forest University pathologist Jay Kaplan and University of Texas virologist Frederick Murphy — have conducted disease research on monkeys.

The panel also lacks expertise on alternatives to chimpanzee medical research, Conlee said. According to the IOM panel’s official description, “The committee will explore contemporary and anticipated future alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research,” yet nobody on the panel has considerable experience with same.

“It’s one of the things they’re supposed to investigate, and it’s not represented,” said Conlee.

Institutes of Medicine media relations officer Christine Stencel said the committee “reflects the necessary range of expertise,” and will be “inviting and considering a range of diverse perspectives.”

“We believe they have the necessary expertise to approach this from an open-minded perspective,” said Stencel.

The IOM panel’s next meeting will be held sometime in August. In the meantime, members of the public are encouraged to comment.

Image: Chi King/Flickr.

See Also: