{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025407166123778503, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003257328990228013, 'mean_word_length': 5.295081967213115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Non-human primate research: whither now?

The recent report of a working group, chaired by Professor Sir David Weatherall, on the use of non-human primates in research1 has engendered little interest from doctors. This is regrettable because not only does the report address the scientific, moral and emotional issues, it presents views on research audit, medical ethics and public opinion, all of which are of direct concern to the profession. 
 
The report was sponsored by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust. Its central goal was ‘to examine the scientific case for the use of non-human primates for research into the prevention or treatment of disease, or for fundamental research that has the long-term potential of achieving the same end’. The working group's deliberations were informed by evidence from 31 organizations and 64 individuals, most of whom were academic scientists, and it paid particular attention to the fields of communicable disease and neuroscience. The report's findings were targeted at ‘policy-makers in government, research funders, universities, scientific societies and relevant professional and regulatory bodies, as well as all other interested parties’. Its recommendations on sharing and publication of research findings, audit, development of alternatives and improving animal welfare will be perceived as well-founded, whereas its arguments for the scientific and moral justification of such research may be seen as contentious.