Experimental use of nonhuman primates is not a simple problem.

To the Editor:

The recent Nature Medicine editorial on the use of nonhuman primates in research1 presented some of the many sound scientific arguments for why such studies continue to be an essential component of medical research. The article also discussed some aspects of the ethical dilemma surrounding this work: such experiments may be scientifically justified, but is it 'right' that we do them?

On this issue, the editorial concluded that "the solid scientific case that can be made to support the use of monkeys and apes in research must take precedence over ethical arguments until the latter can be settled for good." This position is somewhat unrealistic—the history of both this debate and many others in medical ethics tells us that such a resolution is unlikely. Even if a resolution is reached within the scientific community, it may be more difficult to achieve one amongst the wider public, who, after all, are the principal stakeholders.

Furthermore, adopting such a position may give rise to a reality or at least a perception in which scientists are distanced from the ethical arguments. This is problematic, because the pivotal point for decisions over whether or not to use animals in research is a cost-benefit analysis, where the 'cost' is principally couched in terms of probable animal suffering. Ethical issues are therefore involved in decision making at every stage of the research process, from grant applications to local ethical review committees and specific experimental designs. Most importantly, as scientists, we must continue to have an active and vociferous presence in this debate. It is not that the scientific case should take precedence over 'unsettled' ethical arguments; rather, the scientific case must remain an inextricable part of the ongoing ethical debate.