What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkeys, and then you test it in humans and realise that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years.
- Dr Mark Feinberg, leading AIDS researcher

…the testing of vaccines and drugs in more animals will not be helpful if in the end these animals do not closely resemble humans. Even a vaccine that has 100% efficacy in [non-human primates]… might still be ineffective in humans. Conversely, a proficient vaccine developed in humans might never show benefit in the animal models.
- Nath BM et al at the University of Pennsylvania

That antiviv tactic that we know so well has struck again… both of these scientist’s words have been taken completely out of context.

Dr Mark Feinberg is indeed a “leading AIDS researcher” but far from being an opponent of the use of monkeys, he uses them in his own research.  Dr Feinberg’s personal website describes his research interests as:

investigations of the comparative outcomes of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infection in non-human primate species that represent the natural hosts (such as sooty mangabey monkeys), and non-natural hosts (such as rhesus macaques and humans) for SIV infection.

And the purpose of this research is “to develop a safe, effective and affordable vaccine to prevent HIV infection” – something that the majority of people feel is a worthy cause.

Pro-Test recently contacted Dr Feinberg about this quote: he said that his words had been “taken completely out of context” and did not represent his views. He also stated that,

Important research efforts that will save millions of human lives depend on insights that can only be gained from studies involving non-human primates, and there is no alternative model in a number of important instances for the testing of the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and vaccines.

Time for one of my favourite Scottish colloquialisms: ‘get that up yer’, BUAV!

How about that second quote attributed to Nath BM et al?  It comes from an article titled The chimpanzee and other non-human-primate models in HIV-1 vaccine research, from the journal Trends in Microbiology Vol 8, Issue 9, pages 426-431, and is a review on the usefulness of chimpanzees and other primates into HIV research.  BUAV took their (mis)quote from the conclusion of the article:

This is the conclusion in full – the words quoted by BUAV are in bold; other sentences I feel are pertinent have been underlined:

In conclusion, primates have provided a great deal of information that has significantly advanced vaccine design. Chimpanzees have provided some benefits for researchers studying both HIV pathogenesis and some of the earlier proposed vaccine modalities. However, the minor advantages the chimpanzee model can provide to HIV research have resulted in scientists predominantly utilizing the rhesus primate models. Of even greater importance, the testing of vaccines and drugs in more animals will not be helpful if in the end these animals do not closely resemble humans. Even a vaccine that has 100% efficacy in all three challenge models discussed here might still be ineffective in humans. Conversely, a proficient vaccine developed in humans might never show benefit in the animal models. Earlier experiences in vaccine development have stressed the need for great caution when beginning human clinical trials. Immunization with a formalin-inactivated vaccine for respiratory syncytium virus infection induced immune responses in primates but exacerbated disease in children. Indeed, a great deal of study is still necessary before we can elucidate just how accurately either the chimpanzee or the rhesus macaque models will compare with humans and HIV-1 infection.
(p. 430) (1)

Hmm.  It seem obvious that BUAV lifted three sentences in isolation from the rest of the paragraph so as to falsely give the impression that the review concludes that primates are not useful to HIV/AIDS research… Even though the opening part of the para states exactly the opposite. (2)

Just to put the icing on the cake, here’s a few more quotes from the exact same article:

The use of animal models has been invaluable for studying the pathogenesis of numerous infectious diseases as well as for testing the efficacy of experimental prophylactic and therapeutic vaccine and/or drug regimens… (p. 426)

Although these animal models cannot flawlessly mimic human infection and disease pathogenesis, they are nonetheless important for research; for example, dogs are acceptable models for testing treatments for human hemophilia… (p. 426)

Non-human primates are excellent models for human disease because they exhibit remarkable similarities to humans in virtually every aspect of their anatomy, physiology and endocrinology… (p. 426)

These results, in conjunction with their close genetic relationship to humans, indicate that the chimpanzee is an important model for HIV research… (p. 427)

The SIV infection (Fig. 1b) of rhesus macaques has also demonstrated its usefulness as a model for HIV-1 owing to the similarities to HIV-1-mediated human disease… (p. 428)

With over 40 million people infected with HIV across the world and 8,000 people dying of AIDS every day, it is disgusting that BUAV would resort to such dishonest – and socially irresponsible – tactics in order to mislead the public about the nature of research into this devastating disease.

I hope that in future Alexei Sayle, Helen Chamberlain, Heather Small and Jenny Seagrove will check the accuracy of BUAV’s claims before agreeing to act as spokespersons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For an explanation of why the “formalin-inactivated vaccine for respiratory syncytium virus infection ... exacerbated disease in children” please see the RDS website, antibody therapy for bronchiolitis
(2) Sensibly, the authors have included a few words of caution about aspects of the research process, after all, uncritical reliance on any sort of research is foolhardy.