By Bella Niven
Introduction
Macaques are intelligent and social nonhuman primates who are considered sacred in some of their native regions of Southeast Asia; they are also the most “popular” primate used for testing in research laboratories. Their popularity amongst researchers, specifically for disease and neuroscience experiments, comes from the similar physiology Macaques share with humans. With the unfortunate growing interest in obtaining Macaques for research, captive-breeding and trafficking of wild Macaques has in turn increased. Just this year, a laboratory in the U.S. by the name of Charles River Laboratory purchased 1,000 Macaques labeled as “farmed” when in actuality they had been trafficked from the wild in Cambodia. This trade of Macaques has caused a steep decline in their wild populations. While the exact wild population count for Macaques is unknown, the IUCN reports that Long-Tailed Macaques experienced a 40% population decline from the mid 1980s to 2006, which leads the IUCN to estimate that Long-Tailed Macaques will experience at least a 50% decline in the next three generations. Southern Pig-Tailed Macaques have suffered a population decline of 50% in the past three generations. If the trade of Macaques continues, not only will more Macaques suffer from cruel experiments, but their population numbers will continue to become dangerously low.
Recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has requested that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) review Macaque status and has urged them to officially list Macaques on the Endangered Species List. If a species is added to the USFWS Endangered Species List (ESL), they can receive legal protection from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, a species considered protected by the ESA in turn receives trade regulation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and many acts that could be taken against that species are prohibited, or illegal, activity.
ESA Protection Overview
Under CITES, there are three Appendices a species can fall into; Appendix I is reserved for an officially endangered species, as opposed to a vulnerable or threatened species. When a species being internationally traded has Appendix I status, permits are required for both import and export, making international trade more difficult. In addition to receiving stronger CITES protection, ESA status also makes it illegal to “take” any such species within the United States; to “take” is to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. If Macaques were added to the ESL, this would likely mean that their trade would be restricted and that their usage in laboratories would be reduced. However, there are exceptions to these prohibited acts. For instance, if the species is captive, then some instances of “taking” could be permitted if those instances do not violate the Animal Welfare Act. Additionally, under the ESA, the Secretary may permit any act listed under Section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, meaning an act that would have been a violation of the ESA is no longer considered as such. These exceptions present obstacles for the preservation and protection of Macaques, even if they were officially declared endangered by the ESA.
In 2022, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) added Macaques to their “Red List” and declared them endangered after assessing their populations and threats. The IUCN’s assessment on Macaque status specifically cites Macaque use in laboratories as the major factor to their decline. Although the addition of a species to the IUCN’s Red List is persuasive with regards to trade implications under CITES, IUCN Red List status does not grant a species legal protection in the United States; only acknowledgement from the ESA can grant this. In order for Macaques to be declared officially endangered by USFWS and added to the Endangered Species List, factors such as probability of extinction, geographic range,
and reduction of population size are considered during review. If PETA’s request to USFWS to assess Macaque status successfully leads to the species’ addition to the Endangered Species List, then the primates will be met with enhanced legal protection which could impact their international trade as well as the extent to which they can be used in research laboratories.
CITES Protection
Firstly, with regards to international trade and the ESA, it is generally unlawful to import, export, or re-export an endangered species with Appendix I status. That species can only be traded internationally with an exemption, which requires a permit for both import and export in which certain criteria, concerning transport welfare as well as the danger trade presents to populations, must be satisfied. This legal protection under CITES is incredibly important because the majority of Macaques in U.S. labs have been imported from countries in Southeast Asia, and these CITES obstacles will make it that much more difficult to obtain wild Macaques for research.
Prohibited Acts Under the ESA
Along with CITES protection, an officially endangered species also receives benefits from the ESA in the form of prohibited acts. As previously stated, it is a violation of the ESA to “take” an endangered species, meaning to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. For the purpose of evaluating captive-bred Macaques, the relevant terms are (a) harm and (b) kill. “Harm” refers to an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Macaques used in laboratories are harmed, because the experiments they undergo leave them with physical injuries and mental trauma; ultimately these experiments result in Macaques being killed due to the fact that all subjects are euthanized post-research. Because Macaques that undergo laboratory experiments are harmed, labs must restrict their research to only conservation-targeted research, or research where the benefit to public health or science clearly outweighs the harm done to Macaques. Most experiments at the University of Washington had a 25-50% mortality rate, meaning that not only are all animals eventually euthanized, but many suffer an expected death during the procedure. If Macaques were to be considered endangered, much of the research involving the primates would no longer be available if it results in death.
Despite ESA protections, an entity can unfortunately still participate in these prohibited acts with the acquiring of a permit. Any prohibited act listed under Section 9 of the
ESA could be permitted for a scientific purpose or for propagation of the affected species. In the process of attempting to use an endangered species for research, a lab would most likely first attempt to show that their conduct does not constitute a “take”, because the obtaining of a permit presents obstacles. However, if a lab’s conduct is still deemed a “take”, it is unfortunately possible for laboratories to obtain permits to lawfully “take” that endangered species for science or for propagation of the species.
To acquire a permit to take an endangered animal under 50 CFR § 17.22 using the justification of scientific purpose, the applicant must elaborate upon the institution that will “use” the animal, whether the animal(s) was wild or captive-born, and why the applicant is justified in obtaining a permit (this section would likely detail the importance of the animal research to science). In addition to this criteria, the following six factors will also be considered: (1) whether the proposed activity for which the permit is necessary justifies changing the status of the wildlife, (2) the direct or indirect effect the issuing of the permit would have on wild populations, (3) whether the issuing of the permit would conflict with a known program for the survival of a wild population from which the animal(s) might be taken, (4) whether the purpose of the activity for which the permit is necessary is likely to reduce the threat of extinction, (5) the opinions of scientists or relevant organizations on the matters present in the application, and (6) whether the resources available to the applicant appear adequate to allow for the applicant to successfully accomplish the activities detailed in the permit application. When reading through these factors, it is significant to understand that these factors are not criteria but rather points to consider, and laboratories can easily make it sound like their research could someday benefit Macaques. Unfortunately, upon producing answers to these broad questions about the research, the applicant could be granted a permit to “take” an endangered species without violating the ESA.
As for propagation of the species, this justification could apply to both labs as well as breeding facilities. Although breeding facilities function to serve the interests of laboratories, it is possible that these facilities could justify their continuance as furthering Macaque conservation by providing propagation of the affected species. One specific Macaque breeding facility that is particularly well known is the University of Washington’s breeding colony, which sits on the land of the Salt-River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona. This facility is known for allowing toxic waste to spew onto tribal land, as well as for allowing its Macaque populations to catch, and die, of valley fever.
Generally, propagation of a species manifests itself in breeding and rehabilitative programs; essentially, the species being propagated is intended to be returned to the wild for conservation purposes. However, as with zoos, some facilities are allowed to obtain permits to breed endangered species because the facility houses a pool of individuals from which animals could potentially be rehabilitated from (which, as activists know, is unlikely). Even more interestingly, some facilities are given permits so as to discourage the illegal trafficking of endangered species and support regulated breeding efforts. This view is a potentially harmful one for Macaques in particular, because authorities wish to prevent the current and rising trafficking of wild Macaques and granting permits to facilities within the United States might seem to discourage that trafficking. Although trafficking should certainly not be encouraged, these breeding facilities are also deficient in oversight and animal welfare. Yet, even if the captive-breeding of Macaques (at the Arizona facility, for example) was favored to obtain wild Macaques, a laboratory’s ability to use Macaques in research would be heavily impacted by the ESA.
When all Chimpanzees, including captive Chimpanzees, were declared endangered by USFWS in 2015, laboratory research on Chimpanzees was not wholly barred (federal permits were required). However, the National Institute of Health (NIH) responded by stating that it would no longer be maintaining its colony of Chimpanzees for biomedical research which seemingly ended Chimpanzee use in labs. The protection of Macaques under the ESA could lead the NIH to similarly retire Macaques from lab research. However, even if the NIH does not respond similarly to Macaques, the extent to which a laboratory can use an endangered species is much more restricted.
Overall, if the research is proposed as critical to an advancement of science, human health, or the propagation of the primates, then a permit might be given, which would allow a laboratory or breeding facility to lawfully “take” an endangered species. However, just as with harm, the threshold that enables researchers to harm or kill Macaques would be even higher.
Public vs Private Laboratories
The ability to use Macaques if they were protected by the ESA is additionally impacted by whether a lab is public or private. Public laboratories are funded by taxpayer money, whereas private laboratories are funded by private donors; the funding an institution has may influence their ability to test on Macaques. If a party wants to “take” an animal even after that animal is considered endangered, there is an avenue for that party to obtain an exemption. In order for that party to apply to the Secretary for an exemption, the applicant must specify steps the applicant is taking to minimize and mitigate those impacts and the funding available to implement those steps. Essentially, if the applicant obtains an exemption, they themselves must dedicate resources to the conservation of the endangered species at issue. This economic mitigation is commonly referred to as “pay to play”, where facilities that are able can pay a price to continue to exploit endangered species.
It might be said that because public labs use taxpayer money, the usage of that money is restrictive; it seems unlikely that U.S. taxpayers would appreciate their money going towards foreign conservation so that scientists can continue to take endangered species from their native homes for experiments. However, it might also be difficult for a private lab to continue to import wild Macaques when their funding is generally lower than that of a public lab. These obstacles for both public and private labs could likely mean that if Macaques were endangered, labs would cease to obtain Macaques from the wild. Laboratory research on Macaques would not be wholly banned; however, researchers would need to overcome more obstacles to use Macaques, and the research could not involve Macaques being harmed or killed. The addition of Macaques to the ESL would mean a restricted ability to trade the primates internationally, as well as a reduced capacity to experiment on them.
Macaques have been vastly and gravely impacted by the biomedical industry; they have been taken from their native homes, torn away from their families, experimented on, and killed. This has not only caused mass suffering, but a substantial plummeting of Macaque populations. It is crucial for both Macaque conservation and animal welfare that Macaques are protected by the ESA. Although there are exemptions present in the ESA, the addition of Macaques to the ESL by USFWS would still greatly enhance their legal protections with regards to taking, transporting, and using Macaques for research, and this status should certainly be fought for. During their decision making process, USFWS will consider public concern: click here to help support the addition of Macaques to the ESA. It is vital we all make it known to USFWS that Macaque conservation depends on this decision!
Discussion about this post