In a stark and controversial move, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed formal complaints on April 22, 2025, targeting Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) alongside federal agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. The complaints demand the immediate cessation of a highly invasive reproductive research study involving nonhuman primates at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC). This study, which has garnered $525,000 in NIH funding and is scheduled to proceed until August 2027, probes the impact of chronic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exposure on male reproductive parameters, including testicular volume, sperm integrity, and overall fertility.
This ongoing experiment introduces THC to primates who are subjected to stringent restraint protocols. Notably, semen collection is performed via electroejaculation, an intrusive method used repeatedly—up to 18 times within a 70-day period. Electroejaculation involves delivering electrical stimuli to the reproductive organs to induce ejaculation, a process that raises serious ethical and welfare concerns. The PCRM’s complaints underline that this procedure subjects these highly intelligent and social animals to undue distress and pain, a condition arguably incompatible with federal mandates governing animal research.
Janine McCarthy, MPH, the Science Policy Program Manager for PCRM, vehemently criticized the study for breaching both scientific and ethical norms. She emphasized that inflicting repeated physical restraint and electroejaculation on nonhuman primates lacks scientific justification, given that current human clinical studies already offer insights into the reproductive risks associated with THC. According to McCarthy, the suffering endured by these animals under the pretext of research is indefensible, shining a spotlight on antiquated and inhumane approaches that fail to prioritize animal well-being.
The complaints assert that the study contravenes the Animal Welfare Act, which explicitly requires minimizing pain and distress in research animals to only what is scientifically unavoidable. Moreover, PCRM highlights violations of the Public Health Service Policy, which insists on considering alternative research models that replace animal use wherever feasible. This study appears to neglect these crucial regulatory frameworks, underscoring the urgent need to reevaluate the scientific and ethical basis of such experiments.
This revelation arrives amid OHSU’s ongoing attempt to merge with Legacy Health, a development drawing critical scrutiny due to OHSU’s troubled track record. The primate research center at Beaverton, where the study is conducted, is one of only seven such facilities remaining in the United States. Its history is marred by more than 30 documented Animal Welfare Act violations between 2014 and 2022, exposing systemic failures in ensuring humane treatment of research animals. Instances cited include injecting pregnant monkeys with nicotine to induce developmental damage, and an incident in 2020 where an employee accidentally caused the deaths of two monkeys by scalding them in a washing system.
In a more recent 2023 episode, a 2-day-old monkey was crushed by a sliding glass door and required euthanasia, events that have compounded public outrage and regulatory concerns. Amid these controversies, the Physicians Committee has persistently advocated for the closure of OHSU’s primate research operations, leveraging public and regulatory pressures to halt ethically dubious practices. The organization hailed a Community Review Board’s unanimous vote rejecting the merger, emphasizing the need for stringent oversight.
Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek has echoed these concerns, urging OHSU leadership in March 2025 to develop a plan to shutter the primate research center. Her intervention signals mounting political will to end invasive animal experimentation at the facility, aligning with broader societal shifts toward humane scientific methodologies. Public sentiment reflects this trend; a September 2024 survey conducted by PCRM and Morning Consult revealed that over 85% of more than 2,000 respondents advocate for phasing out animal-based research in favor of superior alternative methods.
Contemporary biomedical science increasingly favors these alternatives, employing advanced human-relevant technologies such as tissue chips, organoids, computational biology models, and high-throughput screening. These innovative approaches provide robust platforms for studying disease mechanisms, drug interactions, and toxicology, all while circumventing the ethical and translational pitfalls of animal experimentation. Their rising prominence challenges the scientific necessity of primate studies like the ongoing THC fertility experiment at OHSU.
The persistence of outdated, invasive animal experimentation not only raises moral questions but also undermines scientific rigor. Human-specific models often yield more directly applicable data than animal analogs, whose physiological and genetic differences can skew research outcomes. Consequently, critics argue that continuing to fund and conduct such studies diverts vital resources from cutting-edge platforms essential for advancing personalized and precision medicine.
In response to these mounting criticisms, Janine McCarthy reiterated the urgency for research frameworks that prioritize both scientific validity and ethical responsibility. She stressed that the current reproductive study at OHSU exemplifies a failure on both fronts—a relic of an era when animal suffering was tolerated in the name of science. McCarthy called for a decisive pivot towards modern research paradigms that respect the intrinsic value of intelligent animals and harness the power of human-centered science.
The convergence of regulatory scrutiny, public outcry, and political support for reform marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding animal experimentation. The complaints lodged by PCRM serve not only as a formal challenge to OHSU’s practices but as a broader indictment of systemic issues within primate research in America. They underscore the necessity for institutions to align their research practices with contemporary ethical standards and scientific advancements.
As this saga unfolds, the scientific community and regulatory bodies will face critical choices about the future of animal research. The interrogation of OHSU’s study practices may well catalyze a watershed shift towards embracing humane, innovative methodologies that better serve both science and society. For now, the spotlight firmly rests on OHSU, its federal regulators, and the enduring question of how best to balance the pursuit of knowledge with compassion for living beings.
—
Subject of Research: Animals
Article Title: [Not specified in source material]
News Publication Date: April 22, 2025
Web References:
– Oregon Health & Science University complaint letter: https://pcrm.widen.net/s/lxqq7zxjgb/pcrm-letter-to-ohsu-re-thc-nhp-experiments_april-22-2025
– United States Department of Agriculture and NIH complaint letter: https://pcrm.widen.net/s/t2bdqjvrhv/onprc-aphis-and-olaw-complaint_april-22-2025
– Physicians Committee/Morning Consult survey: https://pcrm.widen.net/s/qzfxtfh7bw/animal-testing-survey
– OHSU USDA oversight history: https://www.ohsu.edu/onprc/usda-oversight-onprc
Keywords:
Animal experimentation, Medical research facilities, Public health
Tags: animal welfare in scientific studieschronic THC exposure effectscontroversial primate research studyelectroejaculation in primatesethical concerns in animal researchfederal regulations on animal experimentationinvasive reproductive research methodsNIH funding for animal researchnonhuman primates reproductive studyOregon Health & Science UniversityPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicinereproductive health research ethics
