(Science|Business) France expands primate breeding centre in name of scientific sovereignty

For the original publication, please click here.

France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) plans to triple the capacity of its Provence breeding site for primates used in scientific experiments, in response to evolving regulatory, animal welfare and national sovereignty needs. However, it faces stiff opposition from animal rights groups, which have already taken it to court for failing to release documents on its use of primates.

Established in 1978, the Rousset primatology station is one of the three public facilities in France that breed monkeys for research purposes. The site, which collaborates with research organisations and universities such as the Pasteur Institute and Aix-Marseille University, can house up to 600 primates. These include olive and Guinea baboons, common marmosets and rhesus monkeys.

By 2035, the CNRS expects the new national primatology centre to host maximum 1,800 primates, backed by €31 million in public funds. This represents a significant increase for a country that already uses more primates in research than any of its neighbours: a total of 3,021 primates in 2022, or 52% of the EU total, according to European Commission data.

“In 20 years, the number of animals used for research purposes in France has decreased,” a spokesperson for the CNRS said. “This trend continues, but some research still requires, at this stage of knowledge, the use of animals to study complex pathologies.”

They added that expanding the Rousset primatology station was not intended to increase the number of animal-based research studies in the country, but to ensure that its academic research needs are met.

Shortage and sovereignty

In the aftermath of the pandemic, the cost of certain primates for research surged to more than €30,000 each, inducing a shortage that the French government sought to tackle by raising its production capacities for species deemed a “strategic resource.”

“The Covid-19 crisis revealed Europe’s dependence on foreign countries, particularly China, for the primates needed for the development of vaccines and treatments,” the CNRS said. “This national primatology centre project aims to guarantee that France has an independent and controlled capacity for breeding primates for use in public research laboratories. The goal is to ensure enhanced breeding capacity in France, thereby reducing imports.”

The CNRS will also be able to relocate part of its existing breeding operations to improve animal health quality and traceability and comply with European housing standards. “In France, public research needs remain stable; this project aims to address them in an autonomous and responsible manner, without increasing the need for using animals,” its spokesperson said.

The argument also has a European dimension. “Expanding the CNRS station should be seen as reinforcing European biomedical research, by securing the possibility to do research and develop treatment within Europe, and reducing dependency on other nations,” said Emmanuel Procyk, senior researcher at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and chair of EU-Simia, a network of scientists and institutions working on primate research.

“Also, developing a breeding station means having total control on the origin of animals, on the quality of the breeding conditions and care for animals, and avoiding air transportation,” he told Science|Business. “So, in all these aspects, the expansion of the CNRS station is not at all at odds with the EU policy nor with the progress of science in general.”

Outdated practices

Nevertheless, the project has been heavily criticised by animal rights groups, who see the use of primate in research as anachronistic. “In the time of artificial intelligence and technological boom, it is not possible to keep investing in sites and tests which cause suffering to animals,” said Claire Dulière, who leads the campaign against testing at animal rights group One Voice. “We are not against research, we want it to evolve with societal expectations,” she said. 

This year, One Voice scored a legal victory after taking the CNRS and Aix-Marseille University to court for failing to share documents relating to the treatment of primates in two other facilities near Rousset, the Mediterranean Primate Research Centre and La Timone Institute of Neurosciences. The association first requested the documents in 2023, and twice went to court before they began to hand them over. The institutions were issued a €3,500 fine for dragging their heels.

The Rousset plan has also attracted attention in the European Parliament. “I have a hard time understanding the motivations of the CNRS, whether from a scientific or an ethical point of view,” Tilly Metz, a Green group MEP from Luxembourg and long-time animal rights campaigner, told Science|Business. “It goes against the tide,” she said. “Resorting to animal testing, it’s conducting outdated research, which [. . .] is neither scientifically efficient nor economically viable, as well as [being] time-consuming.”

Meanwhile, she added, the project is “regressing and damaging” France’s image at a time when the country is trying to attract top-level researchers, including those disaffected by the hostile political environment in the United States.

Both Metz and Dulière see France lagging behind other states in moving away from animal experimentation.

In April, the US National Institutes of Health announced plans to prioritise alternative methods to using animals in research, in line with an initiative from the US Food and Drug Administration. That same month, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin said that he would revive a ban on animal toxicity testing. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were reported to have instructed scientists to end all their monkey research.

Back on this side of the Atlantic, the EU started work on reducing animal use in science in the 1980s, but progress has been slow. The Commission banned animal testing for cosmetics in 2013 and is expected to publish a roadmap to phase out animal testing for chemical safety assessments by the first quarter of 2026. Individual EU governments have gone further, for example with the Dutch National Growth Fund granting €124.5 million for the creation of a Centre for Animal-Free Biomedical Translation in Utrecht.

Alternative methods

Metz would like to see a greater focus on alternatives, with more support for their development and training for researchers on their use. There should also be support for transitional measures to allow a phase-out of animal experiments.

The CNRS is involved in the development of alternative methods, such as digital “in silico” models, organ-on-chip systems, organoids and other cell culture approaches. “However, at this stage, these non-animal models are not yet able to fully replace living models for certain complex pathologies,” its spokesperson said, citing as examples issues relating to immune systems, to aging and to brain diseases. 

Procyk also recognised EU-wide efforts to develop non-animal methods. “It is very clear that biological science and medicine progress with the use of a combination of models and research in humans. It is not only to ‘test products’ but to understand biology, diseases and develop new treatments. And this is how we get to replace animals as soon as scientifically possible,” he said.

However, “there are still lots of unknowns in biology and in understanding the development of diseases, aspects for which animals remain crucial for research,” he added, especially when primates share biological features with humans that cannot be found in other species or in in vitro or in silico models.

“The future [primatology] centre aligns with a trajectory of continuous progress: reducing the use of animals whenever possible, and raising them under better conditions when it remains necessary,” the CNRS spokesperson said.