Under New Proposal, OHSU Primate Center Would Change Gears. But Some Animal Tests Would Go On.

Animal rights activists declared victory early this year when Oregon Health & Science University said it would negotiate with the feds over a plan to turn the very contentious Oregon National Primate Research Center in Hillsboro into a primate sanctuary.

But nearly six months later, OHSU leaders appear to be putting their weight behind a different idea.

Under a new proposal awaiting approval by the OHSU oversight board, the primate center would still transform significantly. It would seek to become a “national leader” in alternative experimental models to animal-based research. And it would “substantially” reduce its primate population—by limiting new breeding and transferring many monkeys to sanctuaries.

Notably, though, the primate center would continue monkey-based research in areas for which OHSU determines there are no good alternatives elsewhere.

The idea, which is really a plan to make a plan, remains aspirational, but skeptics and supporters alike say it has the makings of a viable path forward.

“This resolution is really hopeful, but it’s not perfect,” says Jennie Olson, a major union president at OHSU who has pushed to keep the medical center from pivoting hard away from primate-based research.

Gov. Tina Kotek, who has called for the closure of the primate center, says she’s on board too. “This proposal to transition the ONPRC into a national leader in nonanimal research models represents a step in the right direction,” the governor said in a written statement. “I believe OHSU’s leadership is poised to consider the right factors—ranging from treatment of animals to supporting the workforce—while staying true to their charge of discovering lifesaving solutions to serious illnesses."

OHSU did not answer questions about what happened to the primate sanctuary idea. The OHSU board had directed medical center leaders in February to negotiate for 180 days with the federal government over a potential transition. That time is now about up, and last week, The Oregonian reported on accounts and an internal email stating that OHSU president Shereef Elnahal had said the sanctuary transition was no longer viable because there was not federal funding to pay for it. An OHSU spokesperson told the paper that the email was not accurate, emphasizing that leaders had not yet made any decisions about whether the sanctuary transition would take place.

The new proposal shows one likely, if tenuous, alternative path. It was posted on the OHSU website in preparation for an upcoming July 27 OHSU board meeting. It is vague on many of the details, asking the board to authorize OHSU leaders to fill out a comprehensive plan down the line.

But if approved, it could mark a new chapter in a yearslong battle over a sprawling laboratory home to several thousand monkeys subjected to a range of scientific experiments. These experiments are pilloried by animal rights groups and other allies as not just inhumane but largely ineffective. Supporters, however, back the center as a fount of lifesaving research.

Representatives for different sides of this debate seemed open to the OHSU proposal Wednesday, but wary of its vagueness.

For example, Olson, the president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 328, said in a phone interview that she is skeptical of a provision stating that maintaining genetic diversity among the primate population would no longer be a major institutional objective. She argues that genetic diversity is a precondition for viable research—including research that might be used to prove the viability of nonanimal models.

One key critic of the center, state Rep. David Gomberg (D-Otis), says he supports the thrust and apparent intent of the resolution.

For example, he is heartened by a provision that suggests OHSU would cease to breed monkeys to sell elsewhere, and feels the proposal sketches a path in which OHSU would no longer have to subsidize a center which, he notes, operates at a significant financial loss.

But he finds the proposal wanting in certain regards.

“It will substantially reduce the primate population, transition to better science, eliminate unnecessary experiments, and provide some predictability for the folks who work there,” he said in a text message. “But I’m disappointed the document does not contain more specificity. There are no timelines. There are no targets for changes in monkey population.”

He adds, “Let’s call this a big step in the right direction. But it won’t entirely satisfy the people who think testing on monkeys is wrong or those who want to see the budget immediately balanced. There will still be work to do.”