(Cth) Extend Restrictions for Scientific Use to all Non-Human Primates
- Ruby Martin, Jonathan Adams, Romy Gunn, Sharon George, Najiha Rashid, Mehvish Mehboob, Jan Piechowski-Jozwiak, Amy Hawking & Melody Su
- 21 hours ago
- 10 min read
Author: Ruby Martin, Jonathan Adams, Romy Gunn, Sharon George, Najiha Rashid, Mehvish Mehboob, Jan Piechowski-Jozwiak, Amy Hawking & Melody Su | Publish date: 3/4/2026
P: Some species of non-human primates can still be used in scientific research.
S: The Minister of Health should call on the National Health, Medical and Research Council (NHMRC) to amend Part A of the Guidelines for the Care and Use of Non-Human Primates (2016) to extend the restrictions on scientific use to all non-human primates.
Problem Identification:
Part A of the NHMRC’s Guidelines for the Care and Use of Non-Human Primates (2016) (the Guidelines) restrict the use of great apes in scientific research. Their use is not permitted if it will have an ‘appreciable negative impact on the animals’. However, no such exceptions apply to other non-human primates (NHPs), such as macaques, marmosets and baboons.
According to Animal-Free Science Advocacy (AFSA), this means ‘other NHPs can still be used for scientific purposes, whereby they may experience the same pain and suffering that great apes are spared’. AFSA stated ‘primate research is particularly contentious, presenting a clear ethical dilemma of using animals with high cognitive abilities, a long lifespan, and well-developed social structures’. Animals Australia have outlined that ‘primate research has failed to deliver the medical breakthroughs it promises’ and that ‘there is a better way’ than NHP testing.
Context:
The Guidelines operate alongside the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, which is incorporated into animal welfare legislation of every Australian state and territory.
NHPs refer to primate species that ‘are the closest animal models to humans regarding genetics, physiology and behavior’. This includes monkeys, lemurs and tarsiers. Great apes refer to a subset of NHPs, including gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos.
According to Oppler et al. (2024), ‘NHPs are often exposed to potentially stressful, aversive medical procedures’ including ‘physical examination, frequent handling for sampling, drug administration, and health management’. AFSA explained that NHPs are commonly used in ‘fields of neurological, cognition, vision research or HIV research’.
In NSW, 644 primates were used between 2019-2023 in scientific procedures. In 2024, VIC used 53 macaques and 66 marmosets. AFSA noted that ‘not all states regularly collect and make the statistics publicly available’.
Arguments:
AFSA maintained the use of NHPs in scientific research ‘causes extreme unnecessary harm and suffering’. Medical researcher Dr Jarrod Bailey stated that ‘the standard of care for the nonhuman primates is often found wanting, or even extremely poor.’ According to AFSA, NHPs are ‘caged, subjected to invasive procedures, and almost always killed once the experiment ends.’ Dr Bailey stated this can include ‘caging for up to 10–13 years… severing spinal nerves, drug infusion into the brain, organ removal… infection with anthrax, and death due either to the experiments or deliberate killing at their end.’ AFSA exposed multiple cases of primate death through Freedom of Information requests. In one case, they reported a female macaque was found ‘in a barrel outside dead in a pool of blood.’ They further stated ‘subjecting such sentient beings [non-human primates] to invasive procedures, confinement and isolation inflicts profound psychological and physical suffering.’
AFSA argued that ‘the protections afforded to great apes in scientific research are ethically inconsistent’. They stated, ‘evidence now shows that other primates possess the advanced cognitive and emotional capacities attributed to great apes’. Padrell et al. (2021) highlighted that all NHPs have ‘highly complex behavioural, cognitive, and socio-emotional lives’. Further, according to the Animal Defenders Office (ADO), how ‘close’ a species is to humans is ‘ethically irrelevant when it comes to the fundamental interest of sentient beings in avoiding harm’.
Friedman et al. (2017) argued that regulated NHP experimentation is ‘essential to learning about the biology, treatment and prevention of diseases and conditions that cause human suffering’. However, Padrell et al. (2021) stated that ‘the majority of invasive studies on animals fail to translate to humans’. Furthering this, Dr Bailey stated that ‘92% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animal tests go on to fail in human trials’. Moreover, according to Carvelho et al. (2019), ‘NHP models have provided disappointing contributions toward human medical advancements’.
According to the Association of Primate Veterinarians, there is ‘no alternative model’ to primate research ‘that can provide answers to fundamental, biomedical questions.’ However, research by the Animal Free Research UK argued that ‘primate research can be replaced with valid techniques that do not use laboratory animals.’ Kim et al. (2019) highlighted alternative methods such as in vitro cell models, that allow for ‘fast experiments, controlled conditions, [and] subsequent reduction of variability between tests’.
Advice/Solution Identification:
RSPCA, AFSA, ADO and Dr Andrew Knight have called for the restrictions on scientific use of primates to be extended to all NHPs. AFSA stated that this could reduce the ‘physical and psychological suffering that can result from experimentation.’
Precedent:
The Netherlands and the UK have voiced their intention to phase out public funding for primate research (Netherlands) and reduce primate use in research (UK). Additionally, Austria requires strict justification for the use of NHPs in research. However, if Australia were to extend restrictions for scientific use to all NHPs, it would be world-leading, to the best of the authors’ knowledge.
Public Support:
Broad support for further restrictions on the use of animals for scientific testing:
RSPCA - Opposed breeding/using non-human primates in labs and called for stronger national oversight (including regular inspections), transparency and a transition away from NHP research.
Animal Liberation - Supported tighter regulation through mandatory CCTV, stronger public accountability and reporting, and a formal plan to reduce and ultimately transition away from animal experimentation.
NSW Young Lawyers - Supported stronger restrictions by reducing secrecy via mandatory public disclosure of animal research details and strengthening independent scrutiny/accountability (not self-regulation).
This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.
News Coverage:
ABC News - “Call to end experiments on caged monkeys bred at Monash University facility”. The article reported that monkeys including marmosets and macaques are bred and used in experiments at Monash University’s Animal Research Platform in the Latrobe Valley, prompting calls from animal welfare advocates for greater transparency about conditions and the nature of the research. By: Bec Symons and Mim Hook | Fri 21 March 2025 - Read the article here.
The Guardian - “Are crabs animals and should we experiment on monkeys? Major review of Australia’s research code to mull tough questions.” The article reported that Australia commenced a significant review of its national animal research code to consider ethical and scientific issues, including how animals like primates and others are treated in research under the current framework. By: Petra Stock | Wed 7 January 2026 - Read the article here.
The Independent (UK) - “David Attenborough calls for end to ‘cruel’ brain tests on primates by neuroscientists.” The article reported that Sir David Attenborough and other scientists publicly criticised certain neuroscience experiments on primates as cruel and urged an end to such practices, highlighting ethical concerns about how these animals are treated in research. By: Ted Jeory & Jon Stone | Wed 7 September 2016 - Read the article here.
Vox - “Is animal testing effective? The limits of lab monkey experiments, explained.” The article reported on debates surrounding the effectiveness and ethical implications of using laboratory monkeys in scientific research, noting questions about the scientific value and broader consequences of such experiments. By: Garet Lahvis | Sun 30 July 2023 - Read the article here.
The Conversation - “Can we ethically justify harming animals for research?” The article reported on ethical perspectives about animal research, exploring arguments about whether the harm inflicted on animals in scientific experiments can be justified and what moral frameworks are relevant to that debate. By: Julian Koplin | Tues 20 December 2022 - Read the article here.
Where to go to learn more:
Principles and Guidelines for the Care and Use of Non-Human Primates for Scientific Purposes | National Health and Medical Research Council - This national framework and guidance document outlined the ethical and welfare requirements governing the breeding, housing, care and use of non-human primates in scientific research in Australia. View the document here.
Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes | National Health and Medical Research Council - This national framework issued by the NHMRC sets out ethical, humane and responsible standards for the use, care and management of animals in scientific research in Australia. Read the national framework here.
Ending Primate Experiments | Animal-Free Science Advocacy - This article explained how hundreds of primates in Australia were confined, subjected to invasive experiments, and largely killed. The article highlighted the ethical and regulatory failures that allowed such suffering, and called for public pressure to end primate experiments. Read the article here.
Non-Human Primate Experimentation Briefing | Animal-Free Science Advocacy - This article summarised concerns about non‑human primate experimentation in Australia, and argued for replacing such research with non‑animal methods and stronger protections. Read the article here.
Human Perspective:
Sam, a recent PhD graduate, was elated to start a research role at a university’s National Medical Research Centre. He was going to work with scientists he admired for years, on research that was always described as life-saving. However, on their first day, excitement came with a knot in his stomach. Sam had expected the work to be confronting, but not this confronting. He reassured himself that if the work contributed to medical advances and helped people, the discomfort was part of the job. Besides, the protocols were approved, and on paper, everything complied. However, as weeks turned into months, Sam couldn’t shake what he was seeing. The animals weren’t just “subjects” – they were alert, social and frightened. Seeing primates with partially opened skulls, restrained and with tubes sticking out of them, disturbed Sam deeply. It was made worse when he learnt that so many results didn’t line up with humans; in fact, most didn’t line up at all. The suffering felt real, and the promised benefit started to feel distant and uncertain. One afternoon, Sam found a dead lemur inside a bin, drenched in its own blood. A few weeks later, a female macaque was found to be dead only when placed on the surgery table. Sam immediately went into a state of panic and froze. He was overwhelmed by a sickening thought: If this can happen here, what else happens that no one ever sees? Sam quit soon after, not because he stopped believing in medicine, but because he stopped believing that animal experimentation could be justified with this new evidence coming to light.
To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.
Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement:
N/A
Support
If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com.
Disclaimers
Please review all FORE disclaimers here.
Reference list:
Animal Defenders Office. (2022, April 11). Submission No. 245 to the Portfolio Committee No. 2 – Health: Inquiry into the use of primates and other animals in medical research in New South Wales (Submission). Parliament of New South Wales. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/78173/0245%20Animal%20Defenders%20Office.pdf
Animal-Free Science Advocacy. (2025). Non-human primate experimentation briefing (Feb. 2025). https://animalfreescienceadvocacy.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-Briefing-Primate-Experimentation-AFSA-web.pdf
Animal-Free Science Advocacy. (2025, April 25). Monash University monkey research raises alarming ethical concerns. https://animalfreescienceadvocacy.org.au/monash-university-monkey-research-raises-alarming-ethical-concerns/
Animal-Free Science Advocacy. (n.d.). Statistics of animal use in research & teaching in Australia. https://animalfreescienceadvocacy.org.au/statistics-of-animal-use/
Animal Welfare Victoria. (2025, December). 2024 statistics of animal use in research and teaching in Victoria. Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1179526/2024-Statistics-of-animal-use-in-research-and-teaching.pdf
Animals Australia. (2015, April 24). 7 facts about primate experiments in Australia. https://animalsaustralia.org/our-work/animal-testing/7-secrets-about-primate-experiments-in-australia/
Association of Primate Veterinarians. (2022, April 9). Submission No. 243 to the Portfolio Committee No. 2 – Health: Inquiry into the use of primates and other animals in medical research in New South Wales (Submission). Parliament of New South Wales. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/78155/0243%20Association%20of%20Primate%20Veterinarians%20%28APV%29.pdf
Bailey, J. (2023). Arguments against using nonhuman primates in research. In L. M. Robinson & A. Weiss (Eds.), Nonhuman primate welfare: From history, science, and ethics to practice (pp. 559–588). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-82708-3_23
Biology Insights. (2025, August 5). What are non human primates? Characteristics & groups. https://biologyinsights.com/what-are-non-human-primates-characteristics-groups/
Carvalho, C., Gaspar, A., Knight, A., & Vicente, L. (2019). Ethical and scientific pitfalls concerning laboratory research with non-human primates, and possible solutions. Animals, 9(1), 12. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/1/12#Ethical_Research_with_NHPs
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Home Office & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2025, November 11). Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/replacing-animals-in-science-strategy/replacing-animals-in-science-a-strategy-to-support-the-development-validation-and-uptake-of-alternative-methods
Friedman, H., Ator, N., Haigwood, N., Newsome, W., Allan, J. S., Golos, T. G., Kordower, J. H., Shade, R. E., Goldberg, M. E., Bailey, M. R., & Bianchi, P. (2017). The critical role of nonhuman primates in medical research. Pathogens and Immunity, 2(3), 352–365. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5636196/
Gordon, N., & Langley, G. (Eds.). (2015). Replacing primates in medical research (Expert report by Dr Hadwen Trust / FRAME / St Andrew Animal Fund) [PDF]. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Citation979.pdf
Harding, J. D. (2017). Nonhuman primates and translational research: Progress, opportunities, and challenges. ILAR Journal, 58(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilx033
Kim, T.-W., Che, J.-H., & Yun, J.-W. (2019). Use of stem cells as alternative methods to animal experimentation in predictive toxicology. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 105, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.03.016
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2016). Principles and guidelines for the care and use of non-human primates for scientific purposes. Australian Government. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/principles-and-guidelines-care-and-use-non-human-primates-scientific-purposes
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2021). Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (8th ed.). https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-purposes
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (2025). NSW 2023 animal use in research statistics. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1603919/NSW-2023-Animal-Use-in-Research-Statistics.pdf
NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee. (2022, March 31). Submission on the inquiry into the use of primates and other animals in medical research in New South Wales. The Law Society of New South Wales. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/220331%20Submission%20on%20the%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20use%20of%20Primates%20and%20other%20Animals%20in%20Medical%20Research%20in%20New%20South%20Wales_0.pdf
Oppler, S. H., Palmer, S. D., Phu, S. N., & Graham, M. L. (2024). The role of behavioral management in enhancing clinical care and efficiency, minimizing social disruption, and promoting welfare in captive primates. Veterinary Sciences, 11(9), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11090401
Padrell, M., Llorente, M., & Amici, F. (2021). Invasive research on non human primates—Time to turn the page. Animals, 11(10), 2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102999
RSPCA Australia. (2020, December 5). RSPCA Policy D5: Animals in research. RSPCA Knowledgebase. https://kb.rspca.org.au/categories/rspca-policy/d-animals-in-research-and-teaching/rspca-policy-d5-animals-in-research
Tolliday, B. (2019, January 8). Dutch Parliament passes motion to phase out non human primate research. European Animal Research Association (EARA). https://www.eara.eu/post/dutch-parliament-passes-motion-to-phase-out-non-human-primate-research