Human Immunodeficiency Virus (AIDS) is well known as one of the premier health crises of our time. The classic approach to the study of infectious disease is to infect a non-human animal, study the course of the disease in this 'model' and, once its 'natural' course has been well defined, use this model to develop vaccines and treatments. When the HIV virus was first discovered, there was a flurry of activity to find a non-human animal that could be infected and that might develop a similar disease. Early efforts in dogs, monkeys and rodents were unsuccessful. Some human viruses, for example, Hepatitis B, will only grow in humans and their closest relative, the chimpanzee. Interestingly, Hep B does not make the chimps sick, so they can be used to screen vaccines without even exposing them to ill health. So it is a logical next step to try to infect chimps. Proponents hope that chimps will successfully incubate the virus. If they get sick from it, it will help us study the basic viral biology, and to investigate different treatment possibilities. If they do not get sick, they can still be used to investigate techniques, especially vaccines, to block infection from occurring. If they do get seriously ill, they could be humanely euthanized once we've fully defined the course of the uninterrupted illness in this species. If they never get ill, they might always be carriers for human infection, but they could live out their lives in comfort in captivity, possibly even breeding more chimps for research (assuming minimal chimp-to-chimp transmission). Opponents say that chimps are too fully human in too many ways to subject them to this devastating disease. Some argue that this infection is a disease of human vice, making it particularly immoral to infect innocent animals. Furthermore, chimps are an endangered species, and their numbers would quickly be depleted by this use, despite captive-breeding programs. Some opponents are against any animal experimentation, while others point out that similar viruses of sheep, monkeys and cats are sufficient in enough relevant ways to serve as better natural models. Some facts, as far as I know them are that: 1) A few chimps have been infected, but none have yet gotten sick. However, the incubation period in humans can be over a decade from infection to the onset of illness. Perhaps they are a perfect replica? 2) Most of the important work to date has been done with cells and viruses in vitro, not whole animal studies.

Issues:

1) If chimps were not an endangered species, would their similarity to humans give them special status?

2) If chimps were not so human-like, should their endangered species status make them exempt from research projects?

3) Is AIDS a disease of human vice (How about alcoholism or cigarette-related respiratory conditions or gunshot?) If it does make sense to class diseases as problems of human vice, should we spare animals from involvement in research on such diseases?

 4) With all the sophisticated cell biology that allows us to study cell-virus interactions directly, are animal studies obsolete?

5) Do we owe anything special to animals that have been 'retired' from such research? Keeping a chimp in comfort through its retirement could cost well over $20,000 a year.