Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptability of Preclinical Research on Nonhuman Primates in Reproductive Medicine: The Patient Perspective

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D’Hooghe TM, Kyama CM, Chai D, et al. ‘Nonhuman primate models for translational research in endometriosis’. Reprod Sci. 2009;16(2):152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schatten GP. Safeguarding ART. Nature Cell Biol. 2002;4(suppl):s19–s22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Winston RM, Hardy K. Are we ignoring potential dangers of IVF and related treatments? Nature Cell Biol. 2002;4(suppl):s14–s18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stouffer RL, Zellinski-Wooten MB. Overriding follicle selection in controlled ovarian stimulation protocols: quality vs quantity. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004;2:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Hooghe TM. Clinical relevance of the baboon as a model for the study of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(4):613–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. www.arkive.org, accessed August 9, 2010.

  13. Taylor RN, Lundeen SG, Guidice LC. Emerging role of genomics in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(4):694–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gibbons A. Which our genes make us human? Science. 1998;281(5382):1432–1434.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodman M. ‘The genomic record of humankind’s evolutionary roots’. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64(1):31–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. ‘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.

  17. Conn PM, Parker J. Animal rights: reaching the public. Science. 1988;282(5393):1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cressey D. Proposed animal research reforms spark concern in Europe. Nat Med. 2008;14(12):1293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. ‘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.

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pifer L, Schimizu K, Pifer R. Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Soc Anim. 1994;2(2):95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Aldhous P, Coghlan A, Copley J. Animal experiments-where do you draw the line?: let the people speak. New Sci. 1999;22:26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lamberg L. Researchers urged to tell public how animal studies benefit human health. JAMA. 1999;282(7):619–621.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Williams N. More people accept animal research. Curr Biol. 2006;16(1):R2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eldridge JJ, GlucK JP. Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics Behav. 1996;6(3):239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuven University Fertility Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 47, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Eline A. F. Dancet MSc, Carl Spiessens PhD, Myriam Welkenhuysen MSc & Thomas M. D’Hooghe PhD

  2. Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium

    Rebecca Vangenechten MSc

  3. Centre for Sociological Research, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium

    Jaak Billiet PhD

  4. Centre for Research on Theological Ethics, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium

    Johan De Tavernier PhD

  5. Institute of Primate Research, Nairobi, Kenya

    Thomas M. D’Hooghe PhD

  6. Gynecology and Obstetric Investigation, Basel, Leuven, Belgium

    Thomas M. D’Hooghe PhD

Authors
  1. Eline A. F. Dancet MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl Spiessens PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Vangenechten MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaak Billiet PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johan De Tavernier PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Myriam Welkenhuysen MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas M. D’Hooghe PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas M. D’Hooghe PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719110380277

Keywords

Search

Navigation