Acceptability of preclinical research on nonhuman primates in reproductive medicine: the patient perspective

The attitude of patients with reproductive disorders regarding the use of nonhuman primates (NHPs) in preclinical reproductive research and its determinants was examined. A survey was conducted on 299 patients with fertility problems and/or endometriosis in a European fertility center (RR = 80%). The main outcome measure was the attitude toward reproductive research on NHPs. In total, 70.6% accept and 29.4% reject NHP research. Factors significantly positively related to acceptance are confidence in researchers and previous pregnancy. Factors significantly negatively related to acceptance include having a pet, membership of a nature organization, vegetarian, and having lived abroad. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first on patients’ perspective on NHP research. The majority of the patients accept reproductive research on NHPs. Trust in researchers was the most important positively related factor; therefore, researchers are advised to actively try to gain the trust of patients and the public. Similar content being viewed by others

D’Hooghe TM, Kyama CM, Chai D, et al. ‘Nonhuman primate models for translational research in endometriosis’. Reprod Sci. 2009;16(2):152–161. Schatten GP. Safeguarding ART. Nature Cell Biol. 2002;4(suppl):s19–s22. Winston RM, Hardy K. Are we ignoring potential dangers of IVF and related treatments? Nature Cell Biol. 2002;4(suppl):s14–s18. D’Hooghe TM, Hill JA, Mwenda JM. A critical review of the use and application of the baboon as a model for research in women’s reproductive health. Gynaecol Obstet Invest. 2004;57(1):1–60. Nyachieo A, Spiessens C, Mwenda JM, Debrock S, D’Hooghe TM. Improving ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF in baboons: lessons from humans and rhesus monkeys. Anim Reprod Sci. 2009;110(3–4):187–206. Vandevoort CA, Baughman WL, Stouffler RL. Comparison of different regimens of human gonadotropins for superovulation of rhesus monkeys: ovulatory response and subsequent luteal function. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1989;6(2):85–91. Thomson JA, Kalishman J, Golos TG, et al. ‘Isolation of a primate embryonic stem cell line’. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(17):7844–7848. Stouffer RL, Zellinski-Wooten MB. Overriding follicle selection in controlled ovarian stimulation protocols: quality vs quantity. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004;2:32. Nyachieo A, Chai DC, Deprest J, Mwenda JM, D’Hooghe T. The baboon as a research model for the study of endometrial biology, uterine receptivity and embryo implantation. Gynaecol Obstet Invest. 2007;64(3):149–155. Nyachieo A, Spiessens C, Chai DC, Mwenda JM, D’Hooghe TM. Menstrual cycle synchronization, ovarian stimulation, and in vitro fertilization in olive baboons (Papio anubis): a prospective randomized study’. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):602–610. D’Hooghe TM. Clinical relevance of the baboon as a model for the study of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(4):613–625. www.arkive.org, accessed August 9, 2010. Taylor RN, Lundeen SG, Guidice LC. Emerging role of genomics in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(4):694–698. Gibbons A. Which our genes make us human? Science. 1998;281(5382):1432–1434. Goodman M. ‘The genomic record of humankind’s evolutionary roots’. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64(1):31–39. ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0543:EN:NOT, accessed August 9, 2010. Conn PM, Parker J. Animal rights: reaching the public. Science. 1988;282(5393):1417. Cressey D. Proposed animal research reforms spark concern in Europe. Nat Med. 2008;14(12):1293. ‘Laboratory research: limit animal testing without hampering scientific progress say MEPs.’ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/032-54955-124-05-19-904-20090504IPR54954-04-05-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm, accessed August 9, 2010. Bosteels J, Weyers S, Puttemans P, et al. The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(1):1–11. Paternot G, Devroe J, Debrock S, D’Hooghe T, Spiessens C. Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7(1):105–105. Beullens K, Billiet J, Loosveldt G. The effect of the elapsed time between the initial refusal and conversion contact on conversion success: evidence from the 2nd round of the European Social Survey. Qual Quant. Prepublished June 2, 2009; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/511135-009-9257-4. 2009 Loosveldt G, Carton A, Billiet J. Assessment of survey data quality: a pragmatic approach focused on interviewer tasks. Int J Market Res. 2004;46(1):65–82. Delezie E, Verbeke W, De Tavernier J, Decuypere E. Consumers’ preferences toward techniques for improving manual catching of poultry. Poultry Sci. 2006;85(11):2019–2027. Aerts S, Lips D, Spencer S, Decuypere E, De Tavernier J. A new framework for the assessment of animal welfare: Integrating existing knowledge from a practical ethics perspective. J Agri Environ Ethics. 2006;19(1):67–76. Pifer L, Schimizu K, Pifer R. Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Soc Anim. 1994;2(2):95–113. Aldhous P, Coghlan A, Copley J. Animal experiments-where do you draw the line?: let the people speak. New Sci. 1999;22:26–31. Williams VM, Dacre IT, Elliott M. Public attitudes in New Zealand towards the use of animals for research, testing and teaching purposes. N Z Vet J. 2007;55(2):61–68. Lamberg L. Researchers urged to tell public how animal studies benefit human health. JAMA. 1999;282(7):619–621. Williams N. More people accept animal research. Curr Biol. 2006;16(1):R2. Hagelin J, Hau J, Carlsson HE. Undergraduate university students’ views of the use of animals in biomedical research. Acad Med. 1999;74(10):1135–1137. Eldridge JJ, GlucK JP. Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics Behav. 1996;6(3):239–256. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Dancet, E.A.F., Spiessens, C., Vangenechten, R. et al. Acceptability of Preclinical Research on Nonhuman Primates in Reproductive Medicine: The Patient Perspective. Reprod. Sci. 18, 70–78 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719110380277 Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719110380277