research articles in primates

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

The Benefits and Challenges of Conducting Primate Research in Different Settings

Associated data.

Not applicable.

Simple Summary

Primates have been used in research for the past hundred years as a window into our shared evolutionary history, to learn more about their unique behavioral and psychological processes, and as models for human behavior and diseases. Today, primate research takes place in laboratories, zoos, sanctuaries, and the wild. Research settings that most closely resemble primates’ natural habitats provide the best insights into their lives, produce more valid results, and reduce potential negative impacts on their well-being. This paper provides a novel overview of current non-invasive psychological research, and explores the benefits and challenges of conducting research with primates in different settings. It also suggests ways to help improve primate research to mitigate some scientific and ethical concerns.

Internationally, primate research takes place in laboratories, zoos, sanctuaries, and the wild. All of these settings present unique advantages and challenges in terms of methodology, translatability, animal welfare, and ethics. In this novel commentary, we explore the scientific and ethical benefits and drawbacks of conducting non-invasive psychological research with primates in each setting. We also suggest ways to overcome some of the barriers. We argue that while there may be greater experimental control in laboratory-based research, settings that more closely mirror primates’ natural habitats are generally better suited to meet their specialized needs. More naturalistic research settings, including field studies, may also circumvent some ethical concerns associated with research in captivity, and yield more ecologically valid data.

1. Introduction

Nonhuman primates (hereafter referred to as primates) share a close phylogenetic relationship with humans, resulting in developmental, behavioral, and psychological similarities. Primates have been used in research for the past hundred years to learn more about their unique behavioral and psychological processes, and as models for human behavior and diseases because of our shared evolutionary history [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].

Today, primate research takes place in various settings that each present unique advantages and limitations in terms of methodology, translatability, animal welfare, and ethics [ 1 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Research environments that most closely resemble primates’ wild living conditions are considered to be best suited for evaluating their natural psychological processes [ 1 , 2 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].

In this article, we review the benefits and challenges of conducting non-invasive psychological research in laboratories, zoological parks (hereafter referred to as zoos), sanctuaries, and the wild. We argue that while there may be greater experimental control in laboratory-based research, non-laboratory settings are better suited to meet the specialized needs of primates, may yield more ecologically valid data, and are less ethically problematic.

2. Laboratory-Based Research

Historically, laboratories have been preferred by many primate researchers because they offer the benefit of a high degree of experimental control. The primates most often used in laboratory research are macaques ( Macaca ) [ 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]; however, baboons ( Papio ), chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ), squirrel monkeys ( Saimiri ), vervet monkeys ( Chlorocebus ), and marmosets ( Callithrix ) are also used [ 6 ].

In 2019, the most recent year data were available, there were 68,000 primates used in research in the U.S. [ 22 ]. There were approximately 8000 primates used in research facilities in the European Union (E.U.) [ 19 ]. In China, 28,000 primates were reportedly used in laboratory research [ 23 ]. Due to current reporting systems, it is impossible to determine exactly how many primates were used in non-invasive versus invasive research.

While some primates in laboratories are wild-caught, most are commercially-bred offspring of wild-caught monkeys or live in breeding colonies at research facilities [ 6 , 9 , 24 , 25 ]. Recently, restrictions on the breeding and use of primates in laboratories have been proposed and implemented in various countries [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. In laboratories, primates may live in outdoor corrals consisting of over 100 animals of mixed age and sex groups, in smaller social groups with access to indoor–outdoor enclosures, or may be singly housed in indoor cages if required for the experimental protocol [ 7 , 29 , 30 ].

Most of the current non-invasive psychological research in laboratories focuses on cognition, social behavior, and improving the welfare of their captive-living primates [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 24 ]. A recent systematic review analyzed over 1000 articles on primate cognition published in the past 15 years [ 4 ]. It found that 44% of them were authored by individuals at research centers and universities [ 4 ]. Contemporary cognitive research focuses on attention, metacognition, communication, numerical cognition, perception, illusions, episodic and prospective memory, theory of mind, and self-control [ 2 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Researchers are also interested in comparative cognition, or how evolutionary pressures have resulted in similarities and differences across primate species [ 11 , 33 , 34 ]. Others have focused on the establishment of social bonds, prosociality, inequity aversion, fairness, empathy, cooperation, and competition [ 1 , 7 , 33 ].

Although the topics listed above are no doubt important areas of research, several characteristics of primate research in laboratories may confound the data [ 1 , 2 , 15 , 17 ]. These factors include routine housing, husbandry, and experimental conditions.

With regard to routine housing, the strictly controlled laboratory environments do not mirror the complexity of the physical or social environments that primates have evolved in [ 2 , 4 , 9 , 16 , 17 , 32 ]. This includes constrained social relationships, a lack of sufficient environmental or cognitive enrichment, and many of the natural stressors they would encounter in the wild, such as selecting a mate or evading predators [ 9 , 17 ]. The ecological pressures that shape the physiological and psychological development of primates in laboratories are markedly different from the pressures faced in the wild, and therefore may result in different behavioral outcomes [ 2 , 17 ].

In an attempt to improve laboratory conditions, researchers may use structural, passive, or active sensory enrichment [ 35 ]. Some researchers argue that experimentation itself can act as a form of enrichment for laboratory-living primates [ 36 ]. Even “enriched” environments, however, are often insufficiently complex. This can result in primates’ inability to engage in species-typical behaviors, and may lead to boredom and the performance of stereotypical and abnormal behaviors [ 2 , 7 , 17 , 36 ]. Abnormal behaviors are behaviors not typically observed in the wild, or occur with greater frequency and intensity in captivity [ 36 , 37 ]. Researchers have argued that the presence of abnormal behaviors may not be indicative of current compromised welfare. They have suggested that instead they may be socially learned [ 36 ]. Conversely, the absence of abnormal behaviors does not imply good welfare [ 36 ]. If primates are to be kept in captivity, then it is important to conduct research on which behaviors are good indicators of negative welfare, and how to minimize and treat these behaviors [ 36 ]. The mere presence of these abnormal behaviors, however, may confound results and influence validity, reliability, and replicability [ 2 , 17 , 38 ].

One way to potentially reduce the effects abnormal behaviors have on research findings is to use “Natural Laboratory Complexes”. This is where primates can live in large social groups and move freely between indoor and outdoor enclosures. These more natural laboratory environments may allow for observing richer, more naturalistic behaviors while maintaining some level of experimental control [ 16 ], and reduce the expression of abnormal behaviors [ 36 ].

Even the “best” laboratory environments are unable to replicate the rich environmental and social lives of primates in the wild. For example, Šlipogor et al. [ 39 ] investigated personality structures in wild and captive populations of marmosets. They found that the wild monkeys’ personality structure included additional dimensions beyond those in captivity. They suggest that different living conditions yield different social settings that can affect the behavioral outcomes being assessed [ 32 ]. This raises scientific concerns about making “population-to-species generalizations” when using any captive populations [ 2 ].

In addition to impoverished environments affecting outcomes, another challenge of conducting laboratory research is that primates in laboratories often participate in a number of different studies throughout their lifetime [ 9 ]. Repeated use can result in confounding variables influencing their performance on different cognitive or behavioral tasks [ 11 , 14 ]. Humans and habituation to experimental stimuli can also greatly influence experimental outcomes [ 2 , 17 , 32 ]. For example, captive orangutans ( Pongo ) living in social groups interacted with experimental objects differently, and had different outcomes on cognitive tasks, than their solitary wild counterparts [ 32 ]. Others have criticized laboratory-based cognition experiments for investigating what an animal can do , but not what they have evolved to do, or may typically do in the wild [ 2 , 34 ].

Laboratory-based psychological studies are not only problematic from a research validity standpoint, but also from an ethical standpoint. For example, most primates are euthanized when no longer needed, though there are efforts underway to retire animals to sanctuaries whenever possible [ 40 ].

Laboratory primate use also has implications for the stability of wild populations [ 41 ]. In 2022, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (I.U.C.N.) listed the long-tailed macaque ( Macaca fascicularis ) as “endangered” for the first time, in part because of their exploitation for research purposes [ 42 ]. Additionally, the growing costs of keeping primates in laboratories make alternative research settings increasingly desirable [ 16 ].

For all of the previously described reasons, non-laboratory-based primate research is gaining traction [ 43 ]. The more naturalistic environments and larger social groups in zoos may avert some of the welfare and validity concerns of laboratories [ 44 ]. The increased attention research in zoos has been garnering makes this topic particularly timely [ 10 , 23 ].

3. Research in Zoos

Zoos, by definition, are places where animals live in captivity and are put on display for public exhibition [ 45 , 46 ]. Estimates state that over 700 million people visit zoos each year [ 47 ], with the majority stating their primary purpose is to have an outing or be entertained [ 47 , 48 , 49 ]. In the past few decades, zoos have tried to shift their image away from places of entertainment to centers for conservation, education, and research [ 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ].

There are approximately 5500 primates living in North American zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (A.Z.A.), including lemurs, New and Old-World monkeys, and great apes [ 23 ]. While the exact number of primates in E.U. zoos is unknown, according to a 2021 European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (E.A.Z.A.) report, there are more than 1700 great apes and 2000 squirrel monkeys, in addition to a variety of other primates, in E.A.Z.A. facilities [ 55 ]. Primates are the most-studied taxa in zoos [ 10 , 56 ], with apes comprising approximately two-thirds of all of the primate subjects studied [ 23 ].

One benefit of zoo-based research is that primates in zoos often live in species-typical social groupings and semi-naturalistic environments designed to mimic their wild habitats. This includes access to the outdoors, climbing structures, and natural substrate [ 23 , 57 ]. This maintains some degree of ecological validity for research on captive primates [ 56 ]. Given that it is still a highly controlled captive environment, it may allow for a higher degree of experimental control than sanctuaries or the wild [ 57 ]. Another benefit of conducting research at zoos is that they provide “taxonomic diversity” which is beneficial for comparative purposes [ 23 , 44 , 52 , 57 , 58 ].

Historically, a challenge of conducting zoo-based primate research was that zoos were primarily interested in studies on welfare, husbandry, nutrition, and veterinary practices [ 10 , 59 ]. Large-scale research on psychological processes seemed unfeasible given a lack of dedicated, knowledgeable zoo staff, as well as monetary constraints [ 56 ]. Researchers also assumed certain logistical and statistical limitations would arise with testing primate cognition in social settings, such as reduced sample sizes and difficulty identifying individual responses [ 52 , 60 ]. These ideas have been increasingly challenged with zoos operating as viable research settings for basic and applied research with primates. Researchers have demonstrated they are capable of maintaining relatively high experimental control in zoos [ 4 , 23 , 44 , 52 , 57 ].

This increase in psychological research at zoos is due in part to increases in research-center–zoo partnerships. Some notable examples include the University of St. Andrews and Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Leipzig Zoo in Germany, and Georgia State University, Emory University, and Zoo Atlanta in the U.S. [ 4 ]. Additionally, some zoos in the U.S. have created their own research centers, including the Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, IL, USA, or the “Think Tank” at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington, DC, USA. [ 4 ]. Indeed, a recent analysis found that 25% of publications on primate cognition in the past 15 years have come from zoos [ 4 ]. This research includes investigations of short-term memory [ 11 ], theory of mind, cognitive bias [ 61 ], categorization, and metacognition [ 57 ]. Others have investigated the social transmission of behaviors [ 13 ], personality [ 56 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ], cooperation [ 2 ], and within-group dynamics through social network analyses [ 59 , 66 ].

Although “physical” tasks continue to be used to test cognition in zoos [ 4 ], technological advances have changed the way primate research is conducted via the use of computer touchscreens, eye-tracking devices, and automated behavioral monitoring systems [ 23 , 57 , 59 , 67 ]. One benefit of using technology such as touch-screens in zoos is that it may allow for the primates to choose when to participate in studies. This is not necessarily the case in laboratories, where they are often kept captive for the sole purpose of conducting research. Despite this form of data collection facilitating research with acquiescent primates, some argue it creates concerns about the scientific validity of such studies, as mentioned above [ 44 ]. Are researchers assessing primates’ abilities, or merely assessing potential capabilities [ 57 ]?

One challenge of conducting research in zoos is that small sample sizes may make the generalizability of results difficult [ 56 ]. One way to counteract this is to collect data from multiple social groups at different zoos, using standardized ethograms or electronic data-collection applications [ 44 , 56 , 59 ]. For example, ZooMonitor is an application designed by the Lincoln Park Zoo to record animal behavioral data. This allows for more reliable data collection across sites, and is available to zoos at little to no cost [ 68 ]. WelfareTrak ® , a welfare-monitoring tool that allows caregivers to complete online weekly surveys about animal welfare [ 69 ], may help increase the standardization of research questionnaires when assessing the behavior and personality of zoo-living primates [ 56 ]. Replicating studies across zoo sites is also a good way to validate experimental findings.

Another challenge of conducting research in zoos is the potential impact that experimental methods may have on the primates’ welfare. For example, some authors argue that conducting research in zoos can act as a form of enrichment and increase primates’ welfare, particularly when they voluntarily participate in studies [ 23 , 57 , 67 , 70 ]. Other authors report mixed results, ranging from positive to negative [ 4 , 47 ]. This may include frustration caused by unsuccessful completion of a computerized task which can result in negative affect expressed as self-directed behaviors [ 71 , 72 ].

Another concern is the fluctuating crowd sizes and varying noise levels related to the constant presence of visitors. Some authors argue visitors have a positive impact, acting as a form of enrichment. Other researchers argue that visitors have a neutral or negative influence [ 56 , 67 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ]. For example, researchers have found that high percentages of primates in zoos, including chimpanzees, gorillas ( Gorilla ), gibbons ( Hylobates syndactylus ), orangutans, and a number of monkey species, are negatively affected by visitors. This includes having increased cortisol levels, aggression, fear, and engaging in more stereotypical and abnormal behaviors. They may also exhibit a decrease in species-specific behaviors [ 56 , 73 , 74 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91 ].

A recent study comparing abnormal behaviors in chimpanzees in laboratories, zoos, and sanctuaries found chimpanzees in zoos were actually more likely to engage in abnormal behaviors than those in other settings [ 75 ]. The authors found that the individuals came from a variety of different sources (e.g., zoo-born, wild-caught, laboratories), had different early rearing experiences, and lived in various social and environmental conditions prior to relocation to the zoo. This makes causation of their abnormal behaviors difficult to attribute. Regardless of the cause, the relatively high presence of abnormal behaviors in zoo-living chimpanzees is ethically problematic, may compromise the interpretation of the data and results, and is therefore a challenge of conducting research in that setting [ 2 ].

Another welfare concern is that zoos often restrict primates’ movement so they can be easily viewed in enclosures that are much smaller than the space used by their wild counterparts [ 75 , 81 ]. Researchers have argued that it is not the size of the space available, but the complexity that impacts primate welfare [ 81 , 92 ]. Studies have found that the introduction of visual barriers, providing the primates opportunities for control over their environment, and allowing them to retreat from visitors, can reduce negative effects associated with visitor presence, including decreased aggression and abnormal behaviors [ 86 ]. Some zoos have also implemented positive reinforcement training and environmental enrichment to enhance the performance of naturalistic behaviors and decrease the performance of abnormal or stereotypic behaviors [ 51 ].

As explained above, there are many benefits and challenges of conducting research in zoos. One way that zoos and laboratories are similar is that they both highly manage the lives of their primates. This includes when they can access different aspects of their enclosures, the size of the space, and their diet [ 81 ]. Primates in the wild spend a large percentage of their time foraging for food. In captivity, they are regularly provided with food, some of which may be unnatural to their diet, including monkey chow [ 81 ]. Using unpredictable feeding schedules, and scattering food around their enclosures, however, can help promote foraging behavior [ 81 ]. Zoos also house multiple species of animals within a close proximity, including predators and prey, which can result in increased stress [ 81 ]. This is often not the case in laboratories or sanctuaries, where single species are housed.

While zoos have made great strides in increasing their capacity for research, and researchers have developed ways to avoid some of the potential scientific challenges of working in that setting, there are still many researchers and members of the public who have ethical and welfare concerns about zoos [ 47 , 49 , 53 ]. Primate sanctuaries are an alternative environment that has seen an increase in psychological research in the past decade.

4. Research in Sanctuaries

While laboratories and zoos breed or acquire primates for the purpose of using them for research or to keep on display, sanctuaries play a critically important role in housing primates who are no longer wanted or needed from other settings. Sanctuaries in range countries provide life-long care for wild primates who have been orphaned, abandoned, or who would be unable to survive on their own in the wild [ 10 , 93 ]. In the U.S. and E.U., sanctuaries provide homes for primates who were former pets, used in entertainment, or released from research [ 10 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 ]. Many sanctuaries only house one species of primates, reducing some of the stressors primates in zoos may experience being housed next to predators [ 10 ].

Sanctuaries also differ from laboratories and zoos in that they do not buy, sell, trade, or breed primates [ 94 , 98 ]. They are environments that prioritize the well-being of their residents above other potential interests, including research. Therefore, most sanctuaries and accrediting bodies have strict standards for what kinds of research activities can be conducted [ 94 , 98 ]. They often prohibit anything which could compromise the individuals’ well-being or would interfere with their daily activities [ 10 ]. Other sanctuaries might not allow any research to be conducted given early potential trauma their primates may have experienced [ 4 ]. Sanctuaries that do allow research may restrict activities to surveys or purely observational studies on applied behavior, cognition, culture, and welfare [ 10 , 100 , 101 ]. In the past few years, however, there has been increased interest by sanctuaries in allowing a wider variety of research activities [ 102 ].

There is a rich array of research occurring at primate sanctuaries [ 10 ], which demonstrates that researchers have been able to overcome some of the challenges associated with restrictive research requirements. Recent studies in sanctuaries include research on social networks, dominance hierarchies, social learning [ 103 ], communication, play behavior, cooperation, helping behavior, altruism, perspective taking [ 10 ], social dynamics [ 96 ], and social interactions [ 4 ]. Others have investigated friendship and trust [ 104 ], personality [ 65 , 95 , 96 , 105 ], welfare [ 10 ], psychological health, and mood and anxiety disorders [ 93 , 100 , 101 ]. A recent analysis found that 6% of studies on primate cognition published in the past 15 years have been conducted in sanctuaries [ 4 ]. This includes research on problem solving, tool use, reasoning, theory of mind, [ 106 ], short-term memory [ 11 ], long-term memory [ 107 ], attention [ 108 ], spatial memory, thinking, learning, perception, and emotion [ 10 ]. With regards to experimental apparatuses, cognitive researchers in sanctuaries tend to use tools, puzzle boxes, and manipulatable objects, more so than touch screens [ 4 , 10 , 105 ]. The wide array of topics listed above demonstrates that sanctuaries have found ways to allow robust research to occur with their primates without compromising their mission.

Some benefits of working with sanctuaries include that they tend to have much larger populations of primate species than laboratories or zoos, with more naturalistic social and physical environments [ 4 , 10 , 102 , 109 , 110 ]. They also greatly restrict public access, reducing any negative impacts large crowds of visitors may have on the primates. This makes it possible to study more naturalistic behaviors than other captive settings, and may provide greater ecological validity [ 4 , 10 ].

There are additional logistical challenges for researchers in sanctuaries that may not be encountered in laboratories or zoos. For example, for the benefit of animal welfare, sanctuary enclosures are not designed for easy public viewing; therefore, primates may occupy parts of their enclosure where they cannot be seen. Using technology such as ZooMonitor or cameras placed around the enclosures can help ease data collection [ 10 , 110 ]. An additional challenge is that sanctuaries typically do not have the infrastructure or staff capable of conducting research, because of a lack of time, formal research training, or money, given most are funded by private donations [ 10 , 110 ]. One way to circumvent some of these challenges is to form research partnerships, such as that between the Lincoln Park Zoo and ChimpHaven in Louisiana, or Fundació Mona and the University of Girona in Spain, to facilitate rigorous research programs, using both onsite observations and analysis of data from cameras off site [ 10 , 99 , 102 , 110 , 111 ]. These partnerships provide opportunities to study primates in semi-naturalistic environments, and any fees the sanctuaries may charge the researchers can go to caring for primates.

Another potential challenge of conducting research at sanctuaries is that atypical early histories may serve as a confounding factor in any psychological studies. These factors may include being captured in the wild, atypical rearing conditions, a lack of interactions with conspecifics, or repeated use in biomedical research before being relocated to a sanctuary [ 75 ]. These primates may have experienced psychological or physical trauma [ 112 ]. The increased stress from these adverse experiences can also result in changes in brain morphology [ 113 ] and the performance of abnormal behaviors, such as hair-plucking, coprophagy, regurgitation, and reingestion [ 1 , 36 , 75 , 100 ]. This is similar to a limitation of conducting research with zoo-living primates. Engaging in abnormal behaviors in sanctuaries may not be indicative of current compromised welfare, but may carry over from previous experiences [ 75 ]. Importantly, research has shown that increased time in sanctuaries results in the decreased performance of abnormal or aberrant behaviors, decreased vigilance, and increased relaxation and socialization [ 100 , 114 ]. One suggestion for working with primates in sanctuaries may be to allow for an acclimation period to their new life prior to conducting studies with them.

Regardless of the setting, we must acknowledge that laboratories, zoos, and sanctuaries are all forms of captivity that are highly managed, but with varying degrees of restrictions in terms of social groups, enclosure size, and complexity. As a result, these sites may still negatively affect primates’ welfare, including restricting autonomy [ 112 ], freedom of choice [ 115 ], the diversity of dynamic social groups [ 32 ], and the natural stressors encountered in the wild [ 17 ]. Additionally, primates in all of these settings are forced to interact with humans. This can lead to “enculturation effects” resulting in changes in their behavior and cognitive performance on experimental tasks [ 5 , 32 ].

As researchers, we must ask ourselves: is conducting research for the sake of our curiosity worth any potential harm to the populations we are studying, even if the harms are unintended or non-obvious [ 2 ]? If we acknowledge that no form of captivity can replicate the richness of their natural habitats and lives, but still have important psychological, behavioral, or welfare-based research we wish to pursue, then working in primate sanctuaries may be the most ethical option. If we are interested in understanding primates’ natural psychological processes and behaviors without the confounding factors that come from captivity, then conducting field research may be the best way to mitigate these potential problems.

5. Research in the Wild

In order to best understand the complex abilities and lives of primates, scientists may want to study these processes in wild populations that developed under the ecological pressures and rich social dynamics they have evolved in [ 5 , 17 ]. Wild primate populations are much larger than those in captivity, consisting of multi-male, multi-female social groups, representing all ages and developmental stages [ 5 , 113 ]. Their more diverse social situations and habitats allow researchers to study a wider array of behaviors in populations that have not been used in repeated experiments [ 113 ]. It also provides researchers with more information about the evolutionary origins of their abilities required for survival [ 4 , 5 , 11 , 32 ].

Studying primates in situ is also particularly important given that as of 2015, approximately 497 primate species and 698 taxa are considered threatened [ 116 ], most wild primate species are under-documented, and they face the rapid decline of their habitat [ 117 ]. Conducting more research with them in the wild can provide us with greater information about their behavior, habitat needs, and life history which can help improve conservation efforts. It can also help us enrich the habitats of those living in captivity [ 16 ]. Further, field studies are necessary to provide external validity for some research performed in captivity, including in comparative cognition [ 113 ].

Recent field studies have focused on communication, social knowledge, social cognition [ 5 ], social networks, self-awareness, deception, [ 118 ], dominance [ 1 , 4 , 15 , 118 ], and personality [ 119 ]. Field researchers have also studied coordination, cooperation, and play behaviors [ 13 ], in addition to more traditional cognition, such as learning [ 120 ] and tool development and use [ 118 ].

Cognitive research in the field tends to be more observational in nature, focusing on what animals know and its adaptive value, rather than what they might be capable of doing [ 4 , 15 ]. However, there has been increased interest in the use of experimentation in the wild. This allows for experimental manipulation while retaining ecological validity [ 5 , 120 ]. This research includes studying problem solving with puzzle boxes, social learning [ 5 , 15 ], associative learning [ 120 ], communication, and cooperation [ 5 ]. This research may even be accomplished through computerized touch systems where individuals living in social groups can voluntarily visit throughout their day, in combination with live-stream videos [ 16 ]. It is important that experimental introductions do not alter the culture of the group being studied. Most researchers who work with primates in the wild would agree that interactions, interventions, and disturbances by humans should be minimized to ensure the primates’ welfare and follow codes of best practice established by primatological societies [ 16 , 121 ].

One challenge of field research is that there may be small sample sizes of participants, given neophobia for experimental objects or hesitancy to approach humans [ 120 ]. If the primates are not motivated to participate by food rewards, they cannot be coerced to do so, unlike in captivity [ 113 ]. Additionally, there is reduced experimental control, which can restrict the kind of research being conducted.

A benefit of conducting research with primates in their natural habitats is that it can lead to new directions for researchers to investigate [ 57 ]. Moreover, as others have argued, while experiments have traditionally been thought of as the “gold standard”, researchers can never control all possible confounding variables [ 17 , 113 ]. Consequently, we should think of observational research and experimental studies as sitting on a continuum [ 113 ]. Indeed, Janmaat [ 113 ] provides a framework for studying cognition in the field using chimpanzees as her target primate species.

There are still ethical concerns regarding field research. Primarily, they relate to interactions between humans and primates, increasing the potential for disease transmission and habituation [ 12 , 113 , 120 , 121 ]. The provisioning of wild populations is controversial [ 5 ], and can result in increased human and nonhuman primate conflict [ 122 ]. Human presence may also inadvertently impact primates’ ranging patterns and intra- and intergroup dynamics [ 121 ]. When conducting field studies, researchers should avoid surprising their subjects and alert them to their presence with nonthreatening species-specific behaviors before and during any habituation process [ 121 ].

One way to reduce interactions with humans is using electronics, remote sensors, camera traps, and audio triangulation to study primates in the wild [ 16 , 113 , 123 ]. While the financial cost of traveling to field sites or setting up technology to study their behavior remotely may appear prohibitive, it might actually cost less than using primates in laboratories. Research facilities incur significant costs from breeding, transportation, housing, husbandry, and staff salaries [ 16 ]. If data are collected in the wild and shared electronically, it can also increase collaborations between individuals at different institutions working on a variety of primate research projects, and the cost of experimental apparatuses may be distributed [ 16 ]. Despite the logistical challenges and potential lack of experimental control, field research seems the best option to conduct ethical, ecologically valid, non-invasive psychological research on primates who are socially situated [ 4 , 16 , 57 ].

6. Conclusions

As discussed above, primate research takes place in various settings around the world, including in laboratories, zoos, sanctuaries, and the wild. Each of these settings has different advantages and disadvantages for researchers, including ease or difficulty of data collection, level of experimental control, generalizability, and validity of results. Equally important, each setting offers different levels of social and environmental complexity, and interference by and interaction with humans, which has implications for primates’ welfare. To our knowledge, this is the first article comparing the benefits and challenges of primate research in all possible settings. It is our opinion that research settings that most closely mirror primates’ natural habitats are generally better suited to meet their specialized needs, may circumvent some ethical concerns associated with research in captivity, and yield more ecologically valid data.

Much of the research cited here has revealed important insights into primates’ psychological needs and abilities. Understanding this should therefore prompt increased scrutiny of how research with them in captivity or the wild might impact their well-being [ 2 , 9 , 16 , 25 ]. For instance, given ethical and scientific concerns, stricter criteria have been imposed for housing and using chimpanzees in non-invasive and invasive research [ 124 , 125 ], while greater restrictions on primate use generally have been proposed by others [ 9 , 25 , 126 ]. In the U.S. and E.U. the concept of the “3 Rs” (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) is an important principle that guides research with animals in laboratories [ 2 , 127 ]. The “3 Rs” should be applied to primate research in all settings [ 128 ]. Reducing the numbers of primates could be accomplished with increased collaborations with researchers across sites. Primate research could be refined using technology for monitoring behavior. More recently, a fourth R, Retirement, has been introduced [ 40 , 129 ]. Retiring, instead of euthanizing, healthy primates no longer needed in laboratories is the ethical thing to do, and could result in increased subjects for continued non-invasive psychological research in sanctuaries.

Increased public awareness about the welfare of animals in zoos might also one day lead to a future where fewer primates are kept in those captive conditions, similar to concerns that have prompted reevaluation of breeding and using orcas in sea parks [ 49 , 130 ].

Given the dwindling wild populations of primates, and the rapid decline of their habitats, research in sanctuaries and field studies may become the only viable option for certain research in coming decades. Therefore, it is important that we continue to develop novel ways to conduct non-invasive psychological research on primates in non-laboratory settings that provide the highest-quality data while helping protect and promote their wellbeing. Future investigations could examine trends in where primate research is conducted and how specific kinds of primate studies could be improved by moving to a non-laboratory setting.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Justin Goodman for reviewing and providing feedback on a draft of the manuscript prior to submission.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.L.-G.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.M.L.-G. and B.V.-S.; Writing—Review & Editing, S.M.L.-G. and B.V.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Using Primates in Captivity: Research, Conservation, and Education

• First Online: 02 February 2023

Cite this chapter

• Mark J. Prescott 3  

902 Accesses

Nonhuman primates (henceforth, primates) are among the most extensively studied animal species on the planet. In this chapter I provide a brief overview of the reasons why primatology is a popular and thriving science, why primates are valuable research subjects, the scientific disciplines in which they are used, and the species and numbers involved. Globally, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 primates are used in research every year, the majority (an estimated two-thirds) being long-tailed and rhesus macaques used mainly for pharmaceutical development, neuroscience, and infectious disease studies. I give examples of what primates may experience as part of their involvement in regulated and unregulated scientific procedures and outline how the associated ethical and welfare issues are typically addressed. Although primate research projects are conducted in a variety of settings, special attention is given in this chapter to laboratory- and zoo-based research. The role of zoos in primate conservation and education is also discussed. I conclude with some broad principles for good practice in the design, conduct, and reporting of primate research, aimed principally at students and early career scientists. Adoption of high scientific and ethical standards is important for continued funding and public support for primate research, and for garnering maximum value from it.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Academy of Medical Sciences/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council/Medical Research Council/Wellcome Trust (2015) Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practise. In: The Academy of Medical Sciences, Symposium report. Academy of Medical Sciences. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/38189-56531416e2949.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Animal Procedures Committee (2002) The use of primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986): analysis of current trends with particular reference to regulatory toxicology. London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118994/primates.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Association of Primate Veterinarians (2017) Education and resources. https://www.primatevets.org/education%2D%2Dresources . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2016) A toolkit to engage in field conservation: created by the AZA Field Conservation Committee, Edition 2.0

Google Scholar  

Bailey J (2022) Arguments against using nonhuman primates in research. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 547–574

Baker KC (2016) Survey of 2014 behavioral management programs for laboratory primates in the United States. Am J Primatol 78(7):780–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22543

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker KR, Farmer HL (2022) The welfare of primates in zoo. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 79–96

Bate ST, Clark RA (2014) The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Bateson P, Johansen-Berg H, Jones DK, et al. (2011) Review of research using non-human primates: report of a panel chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS. London

Bayne KAL, Morris TH (2012) Laws, regulations and policies relating to the care and use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research. In: Abee C, Mansfield K, Tardif S, Morris T (eds) Nonhuman primates in biomedical research: biology and management, 2nd edn, vol 1. Academic Press, London, pp 35–56

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bayne K, Hau J, Morris T (2022) The welfare impact of regulations, policies, guidelines and directives and nonhuman primate welfare. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 629–646

Bennett BT (2016) Association of primate veterinarians 2014 nonhuman primate housing survey. JAALAS 55(2):172–174

BIAZA (2013) Handbook of zoo research, guidelines for conducting research in zoos. http://www.biaza.org.uk/uploads/Research/BIAZA%20Handbook%20of%20Zoo%20Research%202014%20FINAL.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Bowler MT, Buchanan-Smith HM, Whiten A (2012) Assessing public engagement with science in a university primate research centre in a national zoo. PLoS One 7(4):e34505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034505

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Boyd Group (2002) The use of non-human primates in research and testing. The British Psychological Society, Leicester

Brønstad A, Newcomer CE, Decelle T et al (2016) Current concepts of harm–benefit analysis of animal experiments–report from the AALAS–FELASA working group on harm–benefit analysis - Part 1. Lab Anim 50(1S):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677216642398

Brown S, Flecknell PA, Jackson I, et al (2013) Independent investigation into animal research at Imperial College London. http://brownreport.info/ . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Buchanan-Smith HM, Hardie SM, Caceres C, Prescott MJ (2000) Distribution and forest utilization of Saguinus and other primates of the Pando Department, Northern Bolivia. Int J Primatol 21:353–379. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005483601403

Buchanan-Smith HM, Tasker L, Ash H, Graham ML (2022) Welfare of primates in laboratories: opportunities for improvement. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 97–120

Buckley LA, Chapman KL, Burns-Naas LA et al (2011) Considerations regarding nonhuman primate use in safety assessment of biopharmaceuticals. Int J Toxicol 30(5):583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581811415875

Burm SM, Prins J-B, Langermans J, Bajramovic JJ (2014) Alternative methods for the use of non-human primates in biomedical research. ALTEX-Altern Anim Ex 31(4):520–529. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1406231

CAMARADES/NC3Rs (2017) Systematic review facility. https://syrf.org.uk/ Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Carlsson H, Schapiro SJ, Farah I, Hau J (2004) Use of primates in research: a global overview. Am J Primatol 63(4):225–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20054

Chapman KL, Andrews L, Bajramovic JJ et al (2012) The design of chronic toxicology studies of monoclonal antibodies: implications for the reduction in use of non-human primates. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 62(2):347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.016

Chapman KL, Bayne KAL, Couch J et al (2015) Opportunities for implementing the 3Rs in drug development and safety assessment studies using nonhuman primates. In: Bluemel J (ed) The nonhuman primate in nonclinical drug development and safety assessment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 281–301

Clemence M, Leaman J (2016) Public attitudes to animal research in 2016. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute/Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-public-attitudes-to-animal-research-2016.pdf Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Coleman K (2011) Caring for nonhuman primates in biomedical research facilities: scientific, moral and emotional considerations. Am J Primatol 73(3):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20855

Coleman K, Robertson ND, Bethea CL (2011) Long-term ovariectomy alters social and anxious behaviors in semi-free ranging Japanese macaques. Behav Brain Res 225(1):317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.07.046

Coleman K, Timmel G, Prongay K, Baker KC (2022) Common husbandry, housing, and animal care practices. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 317–348

Cyranoski D (2016) Monkey kingdom. Nature 532(7599):300–302. https://doi.org/10.1038/532300a

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2012) Zoos expert committee handbook, November 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69611/pb13815-zoos-expert-committee-handbook1.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Eastwood D, Findlay L, Poole S et al (2010) Monoclonal antibody TGN1412 trial failure explained by species differences in CD28 expression on CD4+ effector memory T-cells. Br J Pharmacol 161(3):512–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00922.x

Estrada A, Garber PA, Rylands AB et al (2017) Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Sci Adv 3(1):e1600946. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600946

European Commission (2006) Results of questionnaire for the general public on the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/results_citizens.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

European Commission (2010) Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes OJL276/33. Official Journal of the European Union L276:33. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:en:PDF . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

European Commission (2015) EU Zoos directive. Good practices document. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/EU_Zoos_Directive_Good_Practices.pdf . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Expert Working Group on Severity Classification Criteria (2009) Expert working group on severity classification of scientific procedures performed on animals, Final Report. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/report_ewg.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Farmer HL, Baker KR, Cabana F (2022) Housing and husbandry for primates in zoos. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 349–368

Fedigan LM (2010) Ethical issues faced by field primatologists: asking the relevant questions. Am J Primatol 72(9):754–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20814

Ferreira RG, Ruiz-Miranda C, Sita S, Sánchez-López S, Pissinatti A, Corte S, Jerusalinsky L, Wagner PG, Maas C (2022) Primates under human care in developing countries: examples from Latin America. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 145–170

Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6):e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

Gippoliti S (2006) Applied primatology in zoos: History and prospects in the field of wildlife conservation, public awareness and animal welfare. Primate Rep 73:57–71

Graham ML, Prescott MJ (2015) The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease. Eur J Pharmacol 759:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.040

Graham ML, Rieke EF, Mutch LA et al (2012) Successful implementation of cooperative handling eliminates the need for restraint in a complex non-human primate disease model. J Med Primatol 41(2):89–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0684.2011.00525.x

Gruen L, Fleury E (2022) Animal welfare, animal rights, and a sanctuary ethos. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 613–628

Gruen L, Fultz A, Pruetz J (2013) Ethical issues in African great ape field studies. ILAR J 54(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilt016

Hagelin J (2004) Use of live nonhuman primates in research in Asia. J Postgrad Med 50(4):253–256

CAS   Google Scholar  

Hagelin J (2005) Use of nonhuman primates in research in Sweden: 25 year longitudinal survey. ALTEX-Altern Anim Ex 22(1):13–18

Hardie SM, Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (2003) Ten years of mixed-species troops at Belfast Zoological Gardens. Primate Rep 65:21–38

Home Office (2015) The harm-benefit analysis process: new project licence applications. Advice Note: 05/2015. Animals in Science Regulation Unit, Home Office, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487914/Harm_Benefit_Analysis__2_.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Home Office (2016) Annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals Great Britain 2015. The Stationery Office, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/537708/scientific-procedures-living-animals-2015.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Hopper LM, Shender MA, Ross SR (2016) Behavioral research as physical enrichment for captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biol 35(4):293–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21297

Hosey G (2005) How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Appl Anim Behav Sci 90(2):107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.015

Hosey G (2022) The history of primates in zoos. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 3–30

Hosey G, Melfi V, Pankhurst S (2013) Zoo animals: behaviour, management, and welfare, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (2015) Reproducibility issues in research with animals and animal models: Workshop in brief. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/download/21835 . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

International Union for Conservation of Nature (2021) The IUCN red list of threatened species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Irvine C, Egan KJ, Shubber Z et al (2015) Efficacy of HIV postexposure prophylaxis: systematic review and meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Clin Infect Dis 60(Suppl 3):S165–S169. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ069

Janson CH, Brosnan SF (2013) Experiments in primatology: from the lab to the field and back again. In: Sterling EJ, Bynum N, Blair ME (eds) Primate ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–194

Jennings M, Prescott MJ (2009) Refinements in husbandry, care and common procedures for non-human primates. Lab Anim 43(1S):1–47. https://doi.org/10.1258/la.2008.007143

Jolly A (1985) The evolution of primate behavior: a survey of the primate order traces the progressive development of intelligence as a way of life. Am Sci 73(3):230–239

Kaiser J (2015) NIH to end all support for chimpanzee research. Science November 1. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nih-end-all-support-chimpanzee-research . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Kerwin A (2006) Overcoming the barriers to the retirement of Old and New World monkeys from research facilities. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 9(4):337–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0904_9

Kierulff MCM, Ruiz-Miranda CR, Oliveira PP et al (2012) The golden lion tamarin Leontopithecus rosalia : a conservation success story. Int Zoo Yearb 46(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2012.00170.x

Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E et al (2009) Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 4(11):e7824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007824

Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC et al (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8(6):e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412

King T, Chamberlan C, Courage A (2012) Assessing initial reintroduction success in long-lived primates by quantifying survival, reproduction, and dispersal parameters: Western lowland gorillas ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ) in Congo and Gabon. Int J Primatol 33:134–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-011-9563-2

King T, Chamberlan C, Courage A (2014) Assessing reintroduction success in long-lived primates through population viability analysis: Western lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla in Central Africa. Oryx 48(2):294–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001391

Kipling R (1894) The jungle book. Macmillan and Co., London

Kleiman DG (1985) Criteria for the evaluation of zoo research projects. Zoo Biol 4(2):93–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430040202

Kreger MD, Mench JA (1995) Visitor—animal interactions at the zoo. Anthrozoös 8(3):143–158. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279395787156301

Laber K, Newcomer CE, Decelle T et al (2016) Recommendations for addressing harm–benefit analysis and implementation in ethical evaluation – Report from the AALAS–FELASA working group on harm–benefit analysis – Part 2. Lab Anim 50(1S):21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677216642397

Lankau EW, Turner PV, Mullan RJ, Galland GG (2014) Use of nonhuman primates in research in North America. Lab Anim Sci 53(3):278–282

Lexchin J, LA B, Djulbegovi B, et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167

Living Links (2021) Publications. https://living-links.org/about/publications/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Martin P, Bateson P (2007) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Matsuzawa T (2007) Comparative cognitive development. Dev Sci 10(1):97–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00570.x

McCann C, Buchanan-Smith HM, Jones-Engel L, et al (2007) IPS International guidelines for the acquisition, care and breeding of nonhuman primates, 2nd edn. Primate Care Committee, International Primatological Society. http://www.internationalprimatologicalsociety.org/docs/ips_international_guidelines_for_the_acquisition_care_and_breeding_of_nonhuman_primates_second_edition_2007.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

McMillan JL, Bloomsmith MA, Prescott MJ (2017) An international survey of approaches to chair restraint of nonhuman primates. Comp Med 67(5):442–451

Minteer BA, Collins JP (2013) Ecological ethics in captivity: balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR J 54(1):41–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilt009

Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M (2015) Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi Biodiversity Target 1. Conserv Biol 29(2):537–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12383

National Institutes of Health (2016) Rigor and reproducibility. https://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Nature (2018) Challenges in irreproducible research. https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

NC3Rs (2006) Non-human primate accommodation, care and use, 1st edition. NC3Rs, London. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/non-human-primate-accommodation-care-and-use. Accessed 16 Feb 2017

NC3Rs (2010) The welfare of non-human primates. https://nc3rs.org.uk/welfare-non-human-primates . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

NC3Rs (2015) The Macaque Website. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/macaques/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

NC3Rs (2016) Experimental design assistant. https://eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

NC3Rs (2020) ARRIVE guidelines. https://arriveguidelines.org/. Accessed 16 Jun 2021

NC3Rs/AMRC/BBSRC/Defra/EPSRC/MRC/NERC/Wellcome Trust (2008) Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research: expectations of the major research councils and charitable funding bodies. NC3Rs, London. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/responsibility-use-animals-bioscience-research. Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A et al (2020a) The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410

Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S et al (2020b) Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411

Petticrew M, Davey Smith G (2012) The monkey puzzle: a systematic review of studies of stress, social hierarchies, and heart disease in monkeys. PLoS One 7(3):e27939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027939

Phillips KA, Bales KL, Capitanio JP et al (2014) Why primate models matter. Am J Primatol 76(9):801–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22281

Pickard J, Buchanan-Smith HM, Dennis MB, et al (2013) Review of the assessment of cumulative severity and lifetime experience in non-human primates used in neuroscience research. London

Plowman AB (2008) BIAZA statistics guidelines: toward a common application of statistical tests for zoo research. Zoo Biol 27(3):226–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20184

Poole T (1997) Happy animals make good science. Lab Anim 31(2):116–124. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367797780600198

Prescott MJ (2006) Finding new homes for ex-laboratory and surplus zoo primates. Lab Prim Newsl 45:5–8. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/lpn45-3.html#homing

Prescott MJ (2010) Ethics of primate use. Adv Sci Res 5(1):11–22. https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-5-11-2010

Prescott MJ (2016) Online resources for improving the care and use of non-human primates in research. Prim Biol 3(2):33–40. https://doi.org/10.5194/pb-3-33-2016

Prescott MJ (2017) The three Rs. In: The international encyclopedia of primatology. Wiley, London, pp 1–5

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (1999) Intra- and inter-specific social learning of a novel food task in two species of tamarin. Int J Comp Psychol 12(2):71–92

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (2002) Predation sensitive foraging in captive tamarins. In: Miller LE (ed) Eat or be eaten: predator sensitive foraging among primates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44–57

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (2003) Training nonhuman primates using positive reinforcement techniques. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 6(3):157–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0603_01

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (2004) Cage sizes for tamarins in the laboratory. Anim Welf 13(2):151–158

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM (2007) Training laboratory-housed non-human primates, part I: A UK survey. Anim Welf 16(1):21–26

Prescott MJ, Jennings M (2004) Ethical and welfare implications of the acquisition and transport of non-human primates for use in research and testing. ATLA-Altern Lab Anim 32(S1):323–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403201s53

Prescott MJ, Buchanan-Smith HM, Smith AC (2005) Social interaction with non-averse group-mates modifies a learned food aversion in single- and mixed-species groups of tamarins ( Saguinus fuscicollis and S. labiatus ). Am J Primatol 65(4):313–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20118

Prescott MJ, Brown VJ, Flecknell PA et al (2010) Refinement of the use of food and fluid control as motivational tools for macaques used in behavioural neuroscience research: report of a Working Group of the NC3Rs. J Neurosci Methods 193(2):167–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.09.003

Prior H, Bottomley A, Champéroux P et al (2016) Social housing of non-rodents during cardiovascular recordings in safety pharmacology and toxicology studies. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 81:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vascn.2016.03.004

Quigley M (2007) Non-human primates: the appropriate subjects of biomedical research? J Med Ethics 33(11):655–658. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.020784

Regan T (1996) Are zoos morally defensible? In: Norton BG (ed) Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 38–51

Reinhardt V (2004) Common husbandry-related variables in biomedical research with animals. Lab Anim 38(3):213–235. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367704323133600

Rennie AE, Buchanan-Smith HM (2006a) Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part III: Refinement of procedures. Anim Welf 15(3):239–261

Rennie AE, Buchanan-Smith HM (2006b) Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part II: Housing, husbandry and acquisition. Anim Welf 15(3):215–238

Rennie AE, Buchanan-Smith HM (2006c) Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part I: The influence of humans. Anim Welf 15(3):203–213

Research Councils UK (2015) Updated RCUK guidance for funding applications involving animal research

Riley EP, MacKinnon KC, Fernandez-Duque E, et al (2014) Code of best practices for field primatology. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2889.1847

Ross SR, Wagner KE, Schapiro SJ, Hau J (2010) Ape behavior in two alternating environments: comparing exhibit and short-term holding areas. Am J Primatol 72(11):951–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20857

Rossi J (2009) Nonhuman primate research: the wrong way to understand needs and necessity. Am J Bioethics 9(5):21–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160902788728

Schnell CR, Gerber P (1997) Training and remote monitoring of cardiovascular parameters in non-human primates. Prim Rep 49:61–70

Scientific Committee on Health Environmental and Emerging Risks (2017) Preliminary Opinion on the need for non-human primates in biomedical research, production and testing of products and devices (update 2017). https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_o_004.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Setchell JM, Curtis DJ (2011) Field and laboratory methods in primatology: a practical guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Smith AC, Surridge AK, Prescott MJ et al (2012) Effect of colour vision status on insect prey capture efficiency of captive and wild tamarins ( Saguinus spp .). Anim Behav 83(2):479–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.023

t’Hart BA, Laman JD, Kap YS (2022) An unexpected symbiosis of animal welfare and clinical relevance in a refined nonhuman primate model of human autoimmune disease. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 591–612

Talbot CF, Reamer LA, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Brosnan SF (2022) Meeting cognitive, behavioral, and social needs of primates in captivity. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 267–302

Tasker L (2012) Linking welfare and quality of scientific output in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ) used for regulatory toxicology. PhD thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/9801/1/Lou%20Tasker%20Thesis%202012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2017

Turner PV (2022) The history of chimpanzees in biomedical research. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 31–56

University of Stirling, Primate Society of Great Britain, NC3Rs (2011) Common marmoset care. www.marmosetcare.com. Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, ffrench-Constant C et al (2010) Improving the translational hit of experimental treatments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 16(9):1044–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510379612

von Roten FC (2013) Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Underst Sci 22(6):691–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511428045

Walker MD, Nelson JK, Bernal JC (2007) Toxicology (primates). In: Gad S (ed) Animal models in toxicology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 797–799

Waller BM, Peirce K, Mitchell H, Micheletta J (2012) Evidence of public engagement with science: visitor learning at a zoo-housed primate research centre. PLoS One 7(9):e44680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044680

Weatheall D, Goodfellow P, Harris J, et al (2015) The use of non-human primates in research: a working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall. 2006. London

Whitehouse J, Micheletta J, Powell LE et al (2013) The impact of cognitive testing on the welfare of group housed primates. PLoS One 8(11):e78308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078308

Whittaker M, Laule G (2012) Training techniques to enhance the care and welfare of nonhuman primates. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 15(3):445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvex.2012.06.004

Wolfe-Coote S (2005) The laboratory primate. Academic, London

Wolfensohn S (2022) Humane end points and end of life in primates used in laboratories. In: Robinson LM, Weiss A (eds) Nonhuman primate welfare: from history, science, and ethics to practice. Springer, Cham, pp 369–386

Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center (2017) Publications. http://wkprc.eva.mpg.de/english/files/public.htm . Accessed 16 Jun 2021

Zhang XL, Pang W, Hu XT et al (2014) Experimental primates and non-human primate (NHP) models of human diseases in China: current status and progress. Dongwuxue Yanjiu 35(6):447–464. https://doi.org/10.13918/j.issn.2095-8137.2014.6.447

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Nathalie Percie du Sert, NC3Rs for helpful comments on this chapter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, UK

Mark J. Prescott

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Prescott .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Wolf Science Center, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Lauren M. Robinson

School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Alexander Weiss

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Prescott, M.J. (2023). Using Primates in Captivity: Research, Conservation, and Education. In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82708-3_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82708-3_3

Published : 02 February 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-82707-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-82708-3

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Articles on Primates

Displaying 1 - 20 of 95 articles.

Africa is full of bats, but their fossils are scarce – why these rare records matter

Mariëtte Pretorius , University of the Witwatersrand

Duckbill dinosaur discovery in Morocco – expert unpacks the mystery of how they got there

Nicholas R. Longrich , University of Bath

Chimpanzees stayed in an ‘invisible cage’ after zoo enclosure was enlarged – South African study

Luke Mangaliso Duncan , University of Warwick

It’s a myth that male animals are usually larger than females – new study

Louise Gentle , Nottingham Trent University

Defying expectations, disabled Japanese macaques survive by adjusting their behaviours and receiving support

Sarah E. Turner , Concordia University ; Brogan M. Stewart , Concordia University ; Jack Creeggan , Concordia University ; Megan M. Joyce , Concordia University ; Mikaela Gerwing , Concordia University , and Stephanie Eccles , Concordia University

Our ancient primate ancestors had an appetite for soft fruits – and their diet shaped human evolution

Carolina Loch , University of Otago ; Ian Towle , Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH) , and Matthew Robert Borths , Duke University

Why monkeys attack people – a primate expert explains

Tracie McKinney , University of South Wales

Giant ‘kings of apes’ once roamed southern China. We solved the mystery of their extinction

Kira Westaway , Macquarie University ; Marian Bailey , Southern Cross University ; Renaud Joannes-Boyau , Southern Cross University ; Simon Haberle , Australian National University , and Yingqi Zhang , Chinese Academy of Sciences

Chimpanzees are not pets, no matter what social media tells you

Jake Brooker , Durham University

Male rhesus macaques often have sex with each other – a trait they have inherited in part from their parents

Jackson Clive , Imperial College London ; Ewan Flintham , Université de Lausanne , and Vincent Savolainen , Imperial College London

Why we’re searching for the evolutionary origins of masturbation – and the results so far

Matilda Brindle , UCL

Baboon bonds: new study reveals that friendships make up for a bad start in life

Elizabeth Lange , State University of New York Oswego

Thriving in the face of adversity: Resilient gorillas reveal clues about overcoming childhood misfortune

Stacy Rosenbaum , University of Michigan and Robin Morrison , University of Exeter

Bonobos and chimps: what our closest relatives tell us about humans

Jose Yong , Northumbria University, Newcastle

Roads and power lines put primates in danger: South African data adds to the real picture

Birthe (Bibi) Linden , University of Venda and Wendy Collinson , University of Venda

Three surprising reasons human actions threaten endangered primates

Tracie McKinney , University of South Wales ; Michelle Rodrigues , Marquette University , and Sian Waters , Durham University

Primates colonised the Arctic during a period of ancient global warming – their fate offers a lesson as climate change speeds up

Jason Gilchrist , Edinburgh Napier University

Expanding Alzheimer’s research with primates could overcome the problem with treatments that show promise in mice but don’t help humans

Agnès Lacreuse , UMass Amherst ; Allyson J. Bennett , University of Wisconsin-Madison , and Amanda M. Dettmer , Yale University

Revelations from 17-million - year-old ape teeth could lead to new insights on early human evolution

Tanya M. Smith , Griffith University and Daniel Green , Columbia University

What is it about the human brain that makes us smarter than other animals? New research gives intriguing answer

Emmanuel A Stamatakis , University of Cambridge ; Andrea Luppi , University of Cambridge , and David Menon , University of Cambridge

Related Topics

• Animal behaviour
• Chimpanzees
• Conservation
• Human evolution
• Non-human primates

Top contributors

Associate professor, University of South Australia

Lecturer in Wildlife Conservation, Liverpool John Moores University

Asso. Professor in Anthropology, University College London, UCL

Senior Lecturer in Biological Anthropology, University of South Wales

Senior Researcher in Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of the Witwatersrand

Senior Lecturer in Zoology, Bangor University

University of Hull

Associate Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Anglia Ruskin University

Professor of Natural Sciences, UCL

Professor of Primate Biology, Liverpool John Moores University

PhD Researcher, Plymouth Marjon University

Associate Professor, Liverpool John Moores University

Professor of Anthropology, Durham University

Lecturer in the School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University

Associate Researcher, Department of Anthropology, UCL

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Male Bonobos, Close Human Relatives Long Thought to Be Peaceful, Are Actually Quite Aggressive, Study Suggests

The new research found bonobos were three times more likely than chimpanzees to commit an act of physical aggression

Christian Thorsberg

April 15, 2024

Adorable but Deadly Fluff Balls, Better Known as Pygmy Slow Lorises, Born at the Smithsonian's National Zoo

The two babies are part of an endangered species whose unbearable cuteness has made them a target for wildlife traffickers

April 8, 2024

For Most Mammal Species, Males Actually Aren't Larger Than Females, Study Finds

New research upends a long-held theory that male mammals tend to be bigger than their female counterparts

Will Sullivan

March 14, 2024

Why Don’t Humans Have Tails? An Old Genetic Mutation Could Explain Why Monkeys, but Not Apes, Have the Extra Appendage

Scientists have pinpointed a genetic change that might have led the ancestors of humans to lose their tails

Corryn Wetzel; Updated by Carlyn Kranking

Updated: March 6, 2024 | Originally Published: September 7, 2021

See 15 Otherworldly Images From the Underwater Photographer of the Year Awards

A hunting monkey, 'kissing' scorpionfish and playful dolphins feature in just a few of the 130 striking photographs distinguished with honors in the competition

February 23, 2024

Great Apes Love to Tease, Poke and Pester, Suggesting the Urge to Annoy Is Millions of Years Old

The desire to get a rise out of others is a 13-million-year-old trait humans and great apes share with a common ancestor, new research suggests

February 15, 2024

What Caused the Mysterious Extinction of 'Giganto,' the World's Largest Ape?

The massive primates were unable to shift their diet to keep pace with a changing climate, according to a new study, forcing them to eat less nutritious bark and twigs

Ella Weaver

January 11, 2024

Early Primates May Have Feasted on Soft, Sweet Fruits

An analysis of more than 400 fossilized teeth suggests the creatures weren't eating many seeds, nuts or other hard foods

January 8, 2024

See 25 Breathtaking Images From the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Contest

Representing some of the world's best nature photography, the pictures are being put to a popular vote for the People's Choice Award

Carlyn Kranking

January 5, 2024

Scientists Created a Monkey With Two Different Sets of DNA

So-called "chimeric" monkeys could help scientists understand human diseases and aid in conservation efforts, but the research raises ethical questions

Margaret Osborne

November 21, 2023

Like Humans, Some Bonobos Cooperate With Outsiders

We might not be the only primates to display helpful behavior toward members of a different social group, a new study suggests

November 17, 2023

While Some Chimps Go Low, Others Go High to Avoid a Dangerous Fight

Primate groups climb to elevation to scout out rivals and steer clear of clashes

Brian Handwerk

November 2, 2023

Wild Female Chimpanzees Go Through Menopause, Study Finds

Until now, menopause had not been documented in wild, non-human animals, except for a few species of toothed whales

October 30, 2023

Nile Crocodiles Recognize and React to the Sound of Crying Babies

The reptiles may be aware that primate infants are in trouble—and an easy meal

August 8, 2023

Why a Trail of Life-Size Gorilla Sculptures Popped Up in London

The statues seek to raise awareness of wildlife conservation efforts in Africa

Julia Binswanger

July 21, 2023

Orangutans Can Beatbox, Just Like Humans

The primates can simultaneously make sounds with their mouth and throat, a finding that may shed light on the evolution of human speech

June 29, 2023

What the Largest-Ever Study of Primate DNA Reveals About Ourselves

The findings cover not only conservation and primate evolution, but also human health and diseases

June 15, 2023

Male Primate Masturbation May Have Evolved to Prevent STIs

The behavior originated some 40 million years ago to improve breeding success and protect against pathogens, according to a new study

June 9, 2023

Scientists Create 'Synthetic Embryos' From Monkey Cells

By studying lab-grown stem cells, scientists hope to shed light on miscarriages and birth defects

June 1, 2023

See the Endangered Gorilla Born at the National Zoo

The baby western lowland gorilla is the zoo's first since 2018

May 30, 2023

• Next ›

• Technical Help
• CE/CME Help
• Billing Help
• Sales Inquiries

Exploring Primate Insights as Part of the 2024 NIH Lecture Series

Join the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the NIH Director’s Wednesday Afternoon Lecture Series (WALS) on May 1, 2024, for a captivating lecture, Understanding the Human Condition Through the Lens of Other Primates . Dr. Jenny Tung will dive into the profound connections between our human experiences and the lives of other primates. Drawing on her groundbreaking research with rhesus macaques and wild baboons, Dr. Tung will explore how early life adversity, social status, and affiliative ties shape our health and lifespans. Discover the evolutionary roots of social determinants of health and gain insights into pathways linking early experiences to later outcomes. Dr. Tung will also discuss resilience mechanisms and the potential for buffering against adversity in primate societies.

About Jenny Tung

Dr. Jenny Tung is the Director of the Department of Primate Behavior and Evolution at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA) and a Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology and Biology at Duke University. Her pioneering research focuses on the interplay between behavior, social structure, genes, and health outcomes across the life course.

WALS is the premier lecture program at the NIH, featuring renowned biomedical and behavioral research speakers. WALS aims to provide NIH researchers with the latest insights and advancements in the field, fostering collaboration and innovation.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the human condition through the lens of other primates. This lecture promises to be enlightening and thought-provoking. For more information and to access the livestream, visit the NIH event page.

Please note that an external entity hosts this event.

• Free Live Webinar – Service Dog 101: Everything You Need to Know
• OHRP’s 50th Anniversary of the National Research Act Commemoration Event
• Join the U.S. SBA for the America’s Seed Fund Road Tour: South 2024
• OLAW Webinar on Using Animals Species in Agricultural Research

Privacy Overview

Automated machine learning robot unlocks new potential for genetics research

This technology will save labs time and money while enabling large-scale experiments.

University of Minnesota Twin Cities researchers have constructed a robot that uses machine learning to fully automate a complicated microinjection process used in genetic research.

In their experiments, the researchers were able to use this automated robot to manipulate the genetics of multicellular organisms, including fruit fly and zebrafish embryos. The technology will save labs time and money while enabling them to more easily conduct new, large-scale genetic experiments that were not possible previously using manual techniques

The research is featured on the cover of the April 2024 issue of GENETICS , a peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journal. The work was co-led by two University of Minnesota mechanical engineering graduate students Andrew Alegria and Amey Joshi. The team is also working to commercialize this technology to make it widely available through the University of Minnesota start-up company, Objective Biotechnology.

Microinjection is a method for introducing cells, genetic material, or other agents directly into embryos, cells, or tissues using a very fine pipette. The researchers have trained the robot to detect embryos that are one-hundredth the size of a grain of rice. After detection, the machine can calculate a path and automate the process of the injections.

"This new process is more robust and reproducible than manual injections," said Suhasa Kodandaramaiah, a University of Minnesota mechanical engineering associate professor and senior author of the study. "With this model, individual laboratories will be able to think of new experiments that you couldn't do without this type of technology."

Typically, this type of research requires highly skilled technicians to perform the microinjection, which many laboratories do not have. This new technology could expand the ability to perform large experiments in labs, while reducing time and costs.

"This is very exciting for the world of genetics. Writing and reading DNA have drastically improved in recent years, but having this technology will increase our ability to perform large-scale genetic experiments in a wide range of organisms," said Daryl Gohl, a co-author of the study, the group leader of the University of Minnesota Genomics Center's Innovation Lab and research assistant professor in the Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development.

Not only can this technology be used in genetic experiments, but it can also help to preserve endangered species through cryopreservation, a preservation technique conducted at ultra-low temperatures.

"You can use this robot to inject nanoparticles into cells and tissues that helps in cryopreservation and in the process of rewarming afterwards," Kodandaramaiah explained.

Other team members highlighted other applications for the technology that could have even more impact.

"We hope that this technology could eventually be used for in vitro fertilization, where you could detect those eggs on the microscale level," said Andrew Alegria, co-lead author on the paper and University of Minnesota mechanical engineering graduate research assistant in the Biosensing and Biorobotics Lab.

• Medical Devices
• Personalized Medicine
• Medical Imaging
• Educational Technology
• Artificial Intelligence
• Robot calibration
• Computational neuroscience
• Industrial robot
• Molecular biology
• Weight machine
• Computer vision

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Minnesota . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Andrew D Alegria, Amey S Joshi, Jorge Blanco Mendana, Kanav Khosla, Kieran T Smith, Benjamin Auch, Margaret Donovan, John Bischof, Daryl M Gohl, Suhasa B Kodandaramaiah. High-throughput genetic manipulation of multicellular organisms using a machine-vision guided embryonic microinjection robot . GENETICS , 2024; 226 (4) DOI: 10.1093/genetics/iyae025

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• New Circuit Boards Can Be Repeatedly Recycled
• Collisions of Neutron Stars and Black Holes
• Advance in Heart Regenerative Therapy
• Bioluminescence in Animals 540 Million Years Ago
• Profound Link Between Diet and Brain Health
• Loneliness Runs Deep Among Parents
• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: Why People Really Buy Upcycled Products

• Sara Caprioli,
• Christoph Fuchs,
• Bram Van den Bergh

Creativity is more of a selling point than sustainability.

Researchers who analyzed consumer feedback from Etsy discovered that what consumers value most about upcycled products is not their sustainability but their creativity. Their findings offer some guidelines for companies who hope to design and successfully market upcycled products: 1) Designers should consider using components from other industries to enhance the appeal of their products and encourage cross-industry collaboration; 2) Product designers and managers should identify new uses for product components; 3) Marketers should emphasize creativity, as well as sustainability, in their messaging about upcycled products; and 4) Companies can boost the appeal of new products by emphasizing design elements that remind consumers of upcycled products.

Upcycling — the creation of new products by reusing one or more components from ones — is having a moment.

• SC Sara Caprioli is a postdoctoral researcher at the TUM School of Management in Germany. Her work focuses on the effects of creativity and artificial intelligence on human behavior.
• CF Christoph Fuchs is a professor of marketing at the University of Vienna in Austria. His research is situated at the interface of marketing, technology, and human behavior.
• BB Bram Van den Bergh is professor of marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. His research focuses on decision making and persuasion.

Partner Center

• Share full article

Yellowstone’s Wolves: A Debate Over Their Role in the Park’s Ecosystem

New research questions the long-held theory that reintroduction of such a predator caused a trophic cascade, spawning renewal of vegetation and spurring biodiversity.

Yellowstone’s ecological transformation through the reintroduction of wolves has become a case study for how to correct out-of-balance ecosystems. But new research challenges that notion. Credit... Elizabeth Boehm/Danita Delimont, via Alamy

Supported by

By Jim Robbins

• April 23, 2024

In 1995, 14 wolves were delivered by truck and sled to the heart of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, where the animal had long been absent. Others followed.

Since then, a story has grown up, based on early research, that as the wolves increased in number, they hunted the park’s elk herds, significantly reducing them by about half from 17,000.

The wolves’ return and predatory dominance was believed to have had a widespread effect known as a trophic cascade, by decreasing grazing and restoring and expanding forests, grasses and other wildlife. It supposedly even changed the course of rivers as streamside vegetation returned.

Yellowstone’s dramatic transformation through the reintroduction of wolves has become a global parable for how to correct out-of-balance ecosystems.

In recent years, however, new research has walked that story back. Yes, stands of aspen and willows are thriving again — in some places. But decades of damage from elk herds’ grazing and trampling so thoroughly changed the landscape that large areas remain scarred and may not recover for a long time, if ever.

Wolf packs, in other words, are not magic bullets for restoring ecosystems.

“I would say it’s exaggerated, greatly exaggerated,” said Thomas Hobbs, a professor of natural resource ecology at Colorado State University and the lead author of a long-term study that adds new fuel to the debate over whether Yellowstone experienced a trophic cascade.

“You could argue a trophic trickle maybe,” said Daniel Stahler, the park’s lead wolf biologist who has studied the phenomenon. “Not a trophic cascade.”

Not only is the park’s recovery far less robust than first thought, but the story as it has been told is more complex, Dr. Hobbs said.

But the legend of the wolves’ influence on the park persists.

“How in the world does this lovely story — and it is a beautiful story — come to be seen as fact?” Dr. Hobbs wondered. A chapter of a book tried to answer that, concluding that a video called “ How Wolves Change Rivers ,” which has received tens of millions of views, contributed mightily to the tale.

The ecological record is complicated by the fact that, as elk declined, the number of bison increased substantially, continuing some of the same patterns, like heavy grazing in some places. Moreover, Yellowstone is growing warmer and drier with climate change.

Large numbers of elk in the north of the park had caused significant ecological changes — vegetation disappeared, trampled streams led to extensive erosion, and invasive plant species took hold. Riparian vegetation, or the grasses, the trees and the shrubs along riverbanks and streams, provides a critical habitat for birds, insects and other species to flourish and to maintain biodiversity in the park.

Once elk numbers dwindled, willows and aspens returned along rivers and streams and flourished. The beaver, an engineer of ecosystems, reappeared, using the dense new growth of willows for both food and construction materials. Colonies built new dams, creating ponds that enhanced stream habitats for birds, fish, grizzlies and other bears as well as promoting the growth of more willows and spring vegetation.

But wolves were only one piece of a larger picture, argue Dr. Hobbs and other skeptics of a full-blown trophic cascade at Yellowstone. Grizzly bears and humans played a role, too. For eight years after wolves re-entered the park, hunters killed more elk than the wolves did.

“The other members of the predator guild increased, and human harvest outside of the park has been clearly shown to be responsible for the decline in elk numbers the first 10 years after the wolves were introduced,” Dr. Hobbs said.

The changes attributed to the presence of stalking wolves, some research showed, weren’t only the result of fewer elk, but of a change in elk behavior called “the ecology of fear.” Scientists suggested that the big ungulates could no longer safely hang out along river or stream banks and eat everything in sight. They became extremely cautious, hiding in places where they could be vigilant. That allowed a return of vegetation in those places.

Dr. Hobbs and others contend that subsequent research has not borne that theory out.

Another overlooked factor is that around the same time wolves were returning, 129 beavers were reintroduced by the U.S. Forest Service onto streams north of the park. So it wasn’t just wolf predation on elk and the subsequent return of wolves that enabled an increase in beavers, experts say.

Some researchers say the so-called trophic cascade and rebirth of streamside ecosystems would have been far more robust if it weren’t for the park’s growing bison herd. The bison population is at an all-time high — the most recent count last summer found nearly 5,000 animals. Much larger than elk, bison are less likely to be vulnerable to wolves, which numbered 124 this winter.

The park’s bison, some researchers say, are overgrazing and otherwise seriously damaging the ecosystems — allowing the spread of invasive species and trampling and destroying native plants.

The heavily grazed landscape is why, critics say, some 4,000 bison, also a record, left Yellowstone for Montana in the winter of 2023-24, when an unusually heavy snow buried forage. Because some bison harbor a disease, called brucellosis, that state officials say could infect cattle, they are not welcome outside the park’s borders. (There are no documented cases of transmission between bison and cattle.)

Montana officials say killing animals that may carry disease as they leave the park is the only way to stem the flow. During a hunt that began in the winter of 2023, Native Americans from tribes around the region took part. All told, hunters killed about 1,085 bison; 88 more were shipped to slaughter and 282 were transferred to tribes. This year, just a few animals have left the park.

The Park Service is expected to release a bison management plan in the coming months. It is considering three options: to allow for 3,500 to 5,000 animals, 3,500 to 6,000, or a more natural population that could reach 7,000.

Richard Keigley, who was a research ecologist for the federal Geological Survey in the 1990s, has become an outspoken critic of the park’s bison management.

“They have created this juggernaut where we’ve got thousands of bison and the public believes this is the way things always were,” he said. “The bison that are there now have destroyed and degraded their primary ranges. People have to realize there’s something wrong in Yellowstone.”

Dr. Keigley said the bison population in the park fluctuated in the early years of the park, with about 229 animals in 1967. It has grown steadily since and peaked last year at 5,900.

“There is a hyperabundant bison population in our first national park,” said Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus of forest ecosystems at Oregon State University who has studied Yellowstone riparian areas for 20 years. He pointed to deteriorating conditions along the Lamar River from bison overgrazing.

“They are hammering it,” Mr. Beschta said. “The Lamar ranks right up there with the worst cattle allotments I’ve seen in the American West. Willows can’t grow. Cottonwoods can’t grow.”

A warmer and drier climate, he said, is making matters worse.

Such opinions, however, are not settled science. Some park experts believe that the presence of thousands of bison enhances park habitats because of something called the Green Wave Hypothesis.

Chris Geremia, a park biologist, is an author of a paper that makes the case that a large numbers of bison can stimulate plant growth by grazing grasses to the length of a suburban lawn. “By creating these grazing lawns bison and other herbivores — grasshoppers, elk — these lawns are sustaining more nutritious food for these animals,” he said.

Dr. Geremia contends that a tiny portion — perhaps one-tenth of one percent — of the park may be devoid of some plants. “The other 99.9 percent of those habitats exists in all different levels of willow, aspen and cottonwood,” he said.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a conservation organization, favors a bison population of 4,000 to 6,000 animals. Shana Drimal, who heads the group’s bison conservation program, said that park officials needed to monitor closely changing conditions like climate, drought and bison movement to ensure the ecosystems wouldn’t become further degraded.

Several scientists propose allowing the bison to migrate to the buffer zones beyond the park’s borders, where they are naturally inclined to travel. But it remains controversial because of the threat of disease.

“The only solution is to provide suitable winter range outside the park where they should be tolerated,” said Robert Crabtree, a chief scientist for the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center, a nonprofit. “When they migrate outside the park now it’s to habitat they evolved to prefer — and instead we kill them and ship them away.”

Advertisement

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Helping women get better sleep by calming the relentless 'to-do lists' in their heads

Yuki Noguchi

Katie Krimitsos is among the majority of American women who have trouble getting healthy sleep, according to a new Gallup survey. Krimitsos launched a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women to offer some help. Natalie Champa Jennings/Natalie Jennings, courtesy of Katie Krimitsos hide caption

Katie Krimitsos is among the majority of American women who have trouble getting healthy sleep, according to a new Gallup survey. Krimitsos launched a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women to offer some help.

When Katie Krimitsos lies awake watching sleepless hours tick by, it's almost always because her mind is wrestling with a mental checklist of things she has to do. In high school, that was made up of homework, tests or a big upcoming sports game.

"I would be wide awake, just my brain completely spinning in chaos until two in the morning," says Krimitsos.

There were periods in adulthood, too, when sleep wouldn't come easily, like when she started a podcasting company in Tampa, or nursed her first daughter eight years ago. "I was already very used to the grainy eyes," she says.

Now 43, Krimitsos says in recent years she found that mounting worries brought those sleepless spells more often. Her mind would spin through "a million, gazillion" details of running a company and a family: paying the electric bill, making dinner and dentist appointments, monitoring the pets' food supply or her parents' health checkups. This checklist never, ever shrank, despite her best efforts, and perpetually chased away her sleep.

"So we feel like there are these enormous boulders that we are carrying on our shoulders that we walk into the bedroom with," she says. "And that's what we're laying down with."

By "we," Krimitsos means herself and the many other women she talks to or works with who complain of fatigue.

Women are one of the most sleep-troubled demographics, according to a recent Gallup survey that found sleep patterns of Americans deteriorating rapidly over the past decade.

"When you look in particular at adult women under the age of 50, that's the group where we're seeing the most steep movement in terms of their rate of sleeping less or feeling less satisfied with their sleep and also their rate of stress," says Gallup senior researcher Sarah Fioroni.

Overall, Americans' sleep is at an all time low, in terms of both quantity and quality.

A majority – 57% – now say they could use more sleep, which is a big jump from a decade ago. It's an acceleration of an ongoing trend, according to the survey. In 1942, 59% of Americans said that they slept 8 hours or more; today, that applies to only 26% of Americans. One in five people, also an all-time high, now sleep fewer than 5 hours a day.

Popular myths about sleep, debunked

"If you have poor sleep, then it's all things bad," says Gina Marie Mathew, a post-doctoral sleep researcher at Stony Brook Medicine in New York. The Gallup survey did not cite reasons for the rapid decline, but Mathew says her research shows that smartphones keep us — and especially teenagers — up later.

She says sleep, as well as diet and exercise, is considered one of the three pillars of health. Yet American culture devalues rest.

"In terms of structural and policy change, we need to recognize that a lot of these systems that are in place are not conducive to women in particular getting enough sleep or getting the sleep that they need," she says, arguing things like paid family leave and flexible work hours might help women sleep more, and better.

No one person can change a culture that discourages sleep. But when faced with her own sleeplessness, Tampa mom Katie Krimitsos started a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women , a soothing series of episodes in which she acknowledges and tries to calm the stresses typical of many women.

Shots - Health News

Many grouchy, error-prone workers just need more sleep.

That podcast alone averages about a million unique listeners a month, and is one of 20 podcasts produced by Krimitsos's firm, Women's Meditation Network.

"Seven of those 20 podcasts are dedicated to sleep in some way, and they make up for 50% of my listenership," Krimitsos notes. "So yeah, it's the biggest pain point."

Krimitsos says she thinks women bear the burdens of a pace of life that keeps accelerating. "Our interpretation of how fast life should be and what we should 'accomplish' or have or do has exponentially increased," she says.

She only started sleeping better, she says, when she deliberately cut back on activities and commitments, both for herself and her two kids. "I feel more satisfied at the end of the day. I feel more fulfilled and I feel more willing to allow things that are not complete to let go."

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Research Highlight
• Published: 04 April 2024

Social neuroscience

Natural primate neurobiology

• Jake Rogers 1  

Nature Reviews Neuroscience ( 2024 ) Cite this article

246 Accesses

Metrics details

• Cooperation
• Neural encoding

Many of the natural behaviours of primates that sustain their dynamic social relationships are not captured in artificial laboratory tasks. Testard et al. addressed this issue by assessing neural activity in unrestrained socially interacting rhesus macaques, identifying cortical signatures of several key natural and co-operative behaviours.

The authors combined ethological analysis and computer vision with wireless neural recordings from two cortical areas that are presumed to be involved in the hierarchical processing of social information: area TEO, known to be involved in visual processing and the ventral lateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC), known to be involved in cognitive processing. This allowed them to capture social behavioural dynamics during natural behaviour and the underlying neural signatures of hundreds of neurons.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

176,64 € per year

only 14,72 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Original article

Testard, C. et al. Neural signatures of natural behaviour in socializing macaques. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07178-6 (2024)

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nature Reviews Neuroscience http://www.nature.com/nrn/

Jake Rogers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jake Rogers .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rogers, J. Natural primate neurobiology. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00816-y

Download citation

Published : 04 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00816-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.