Skip to main content

Your gift will be MATCHED to support PCRM’s animal-free clinical research. Ends 7/10 at midnight. | GIVE NOW

  1. Good Science Digest

  2. Jun 25, 2025

Physicians Committee Presses the NIH to Phase Out Primates in Infectious Disease Research

little monkey in cage
Photo: Getty Images

Infectious disease research is the most common use of nonhuman primates at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Animal experiments, including those involving monkeys, often fail to accurately reflect human biology and disease, and they are poor predictors of how drugs will perform in terms of efficacy, safety, and toxicity in humans. In response, experts from the Physicians Committee submitted a public comment urging the advisory council of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to phase out the use of monkeys and promote a transition to human-based methods in infectious disease research. 

The use of animals, and particularly nonhuman primates, has burdened vaccine and immunotherapy development, resulting in low clinical success rates.1,2 This is at least in part due to species-specific differences in infectious susceptibilities and immune response resulting from variable gene complement and expression. In contrast, studies employing models based on human cell lines have led to breakthroughs in identifying genes and biomarkers, with subsequent, immediate, and important applications in clinical trials.3,4 Cutting-edge, human-based methods—such as organoids, tissue chips, and advanced computational models—leverage human cells, tissues, and data to more precisely replicate human-specific biological processes.  

These human-based technologies are already being adopted to replace animal use in a growing number of research and testing applications. Recognizing their transformative potential, the NIH announced a landmark initiative on April 29, 2025, committing to prioritize the development and use of human-based research methods and to accelerate the shift away from animal experimentation in the pursuit of improved human health outcomes. 

Based on these shortcomings of primate use in infectious disease research, and in line with the NIH’s new initiative, the Physicians Committee submitted a written comment to the advisory council of the NIAID requesting them to: 

  1. Prioritize the development and use of human-based methods for infectious disease research; and

  2. Phase out the use of nonhuman primates in infectious disease research.  

To support the transition away from the use of primates and toward human-based research methods, we recommended that NIAID establish new funding opportunities focused on human-based approaches. We also urged the institute to collaborate closely with the forthcoming Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application (ORIVA) to advance the development, validation, and implementation of human-based methods in infectious disease research. 

Research focused on human-based investigations and models can revolutionize infectious disease research and overcome existing barriers caused by the continued use of primates and other animals. The Physicians Committee will continue working with the NIH and its constituent Institutes to help them realize these goals. 

References

  1. Bertagnolli M. Statement on catalyzing the development of novel alternative methods. The National Institutes of Health. Published February 1, 2024. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-catalyzing-development-novel-alternatives-methods

  2. National Institutes of Health. NIH to prioritize human-based research technologies. Published April 29, 2025. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-prioritize-human-based-research-technologies

  3. National Institutes of Health. NIH to prioritize human-based research technologies. Published April 29, 2025. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-prioritize-human-based-research-technologies

  4. Leenaars CHC, Kouwenaar C, Stafleu FR, et al. Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):223. doi:10.1186/s12967-019-1976-2 

More on Ethical Science