Primate Freedom Project - Education, Advocacy, Support Primate Freedom Project - Education, Advocacy, Support
These are life stories of primates held in U.S. primate laboratories. They are based on documents obtained from the labs.
Dover Chimpanzee
Sellers Chimpanzee
3566 Rhesus Macaque
PWc2 Rhesus Macaque
Unknown Rhesus Macaque
13481 Rhesus Macaque
14326 Rhesus Macaque
20213 Rhesus Macaque
20229 Rhesus Macaque D
20233 Rhesus Macaque
20247 Rhesus Macaque
20253 Rhesus Macaque
20346 Rhesus Macaque
23993 Squirrel Monkey
23915 Crab-eating Macaque
23954 Rhesus Macaque
25142 Crab-eating Macaque
24974 Rhesus Macaque
24013 Squirrel Monkey
25157 Crab-eating Macaque
25205 Crab-eating Macaque
25274 Rhesus Macaque
25412 Crab-eating Macaque
27276 Crab-eating Macaque
28100 Crab-eating Macaque
28114 Crab-eating Macaque
30914 Rhesus Macaque
30916 Rhesus Macaque
30983 Rhesus Macaque
31031 Rhesus Macaque
cj0233 Common Marmoset
cj0453 Common Marmoset D
cj0495 Common Marmoset
Piotr Rhesus Macaque
rhaf72 Rhesus Macaque
rhao45 Rhesus Macaque
Rh1890 Rhesus Macaque
R80180 Rhesus Macaque
R87083 Rhesus Macaque
R89124 Rhesus Macaque
R89163 Rhesus Macaque
R90128 Rhesus Macaque
R91040 Rhesus Macaque
R93014 Rhesus Macaque
R95054 Rhesus Macaque D
R95065 Rhesus Macaque D
R95076 Rhesus Macaque D
R96108 Rhesus Macaque
R97041 Rhesus Macaque
R97082 Rhesus Macaque
R95100 Rhesus Macaque
S93052 Rhesus Macaque
Response from Jordana Lenon, public relations manager for WNPRC.
A03068 Rhesus Macaque
A98056 Pig-tailed Macaque
A92025 Baboon
F91396 Pig-tailed Macaque D
J90153 Pig-tailed Macaque
J90266 Pig-tailed Macaque
J90299 Crab-eating Macaque
J91076 Pig-tailed Macaque D
J91386 Pig-tailed Macaque D
J91398 Pig-tailed Macaque D
J92068 Pig-tailed Macaque
J92349 Pig-tailed Macaque D
J92476 Pig-tailed Macaque
censored Vervet
censored Vervet
censored Vervet
MCY24525 Crab-eating Macaque
MCY24540 Crab-eating Macaque
OIPM-007 Crab-eating Macaque
UNC-Chapel Hill
3710 Squirrel Monkey
Ashley Chimpanzee
Karla Chimpanzee
Tyson Chimpanzee
Snoy Chimpanzee
Maurice p1 Maurice p2 Chimpanzee
Hercules Chimpanzee
Jerome Chimpanzee
Ritchie Chimpanzee
Rex Chimpanzee
Topsey Chimpanzee
B.G. Chimpanzee
Dawn Chimpanzee
BamBam Chimpanzee
Dixie Chimpanzee
Ginger Chimpanzee
Kelly Chimpanzee
Lennie Chimpanzee
Kist Chimpanzee
Peg Chimpanzee
Aaron Chimpanzee
Chuck Chimpanzee
James Chimpanzee
Alex Chimpanzee
Muna Chimpanzee
Wally Chimpanzee
#1028 Chimpanzee
Lippy Chimpanzee
#1303 Chimpanzee
#CA0127 Chimpanzee
Shane Chimpanzee
The University of Minnesota
#00FP8 Long-Tailed Macaque
#312E Rhesus Macaque
#9711B Rhesus Macaque
#99IP61 Long-tailed Macaque
The Fauna Foundation
The Fauna Foundation Chimpanzees
Center for Biologics Evaluation
Univ. of Alabama - Birmingham


Yerkes National Primate Research Center

1997 NIH Base Grant: $5,662,807
1997 total NIH funding: $14,378,181
1999 NIH Base Grant: $6,265,427
2000 NIH Basegrant: $6,187,662

Meet the Yerkes director: Stuart Zola-Morgan

Yerkes Infamy

The primate colony at Yerkes totals over 3,000 animals, representing 11 species. According to the facility, “They include rhesus, pigtail and stumptail macaques, baboons, sooty mangabeys, capuchins, and squirrel monkeys. Yerkes also is one of the few research centers with chimpanzees, which are currently involved in noninvasive research on social intelligence, evolution, reproduction and conservation. [Implying that none of their chimpanzees are being harmed? Pure propaganda.] All the Yerkes gorillas and bonobos, nearly all of its orangutans, and many of its chimpanzees are on loan to zoological parks.” [from Yerkes's homepage] They also point out that their primate colony is self-supporting, as if breeding monkeys to hurt and kill is somehow more ethical than capturing monkeys to hurt and kill. They claim, “The Center's primate populations are virtually self-sustaining. Each year, births in the rhesus monkey colonies alone total about 300.” This suggests that Yerkes is killing at least 300 rhesus monkeys a year.

Yerkes is infamous for a number of reasons. First, it was the only one of the original seven NIH regional centers where, for over 30 years, apes were imprisoned and experimented on. An eighth center, the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, was recently commissioned; it too has a large chimpanzee population.

Second, Yerkes specializes in forcibly addicting monkeys to illegal drugs.

And third, Yerkes funds studies which prove that chimpanzees and bonobos are capable of communicating with humans with human language and possess a sensitivity and consciousness so like our own that empathic understanding is common between members of each species (human and non-) who are given the time to get to know each other; while at the same time, Yerkes intentionally infects them with malaria and HIV-1 and forces them to live in solitary confinement.

Living Links

Primate vivisectors are unable to make ethical decisions based on their own findings: intense public scrutiny and involvement is warranted. Our silence, in light of current knowledge regarding the minds of monkeys and apes, is akin to the German people's silence during the Holocaust. This is illustrated by Yerkes's Living Links Center. The Center's introduction states “...our institute conducts all of its work with noninvasive techniques that we would not hesitate to apply to human volunteers. Our goals are 1) to reconstruct human evolution, 2) pinpoint the differences and similarities between humans and apes, and 3) educate the public about apes, and promote their well-being and conservation.” The goals are admirable and a casual observer would not easily discern that the Center was a part of Yerkes.

It is a macabre looking-glass world. At Yerkes, researchers work to understand the minds and emotions of monkeys and apes and have published papers and books that point out remarkable similarities, and differences, between the species, humans included. But the very people who know who these animals are, simultaneously remain mute concerning the suffering of the animals in the disease and cocaine labs. Perhaps they whisper together after work or even speak openly among themselves, but they do not speak publicly. Imagine a Southern slave owner operating a college for the study of African intelligence, there really is very little difference; whites used to view all persons of color as inferior; persons with mental and physical handicap were relegated to the basements and circuses for much of history. Now, we simply carry on the tradition. Just as people wonder why more Germans did not speak out, so too will our children wonder about us.

Shielded from Public View

Yerkes uses the fact that its host university, Emory University, is a private college to shield it from public scrutiny. Yerkes has repeatedly refused to provide a census of the monkeys and apes it has on hand to members of the public. Yerkes claims that, being a private institution, they need not answer inquires from the public, that they are exempt from the federal Freedom of Information Act and that the many millions of dollars in taxpayer support they receive does not come with a responsibility to the taxpayer.

As long as Congress agrees, the concerns of the pubic regarding the facility are of no merit.

Animal Care

Yerkes, precisely like every other facility in the nation experimenting on animals, claims that all the animals under its control are well cared for by experts in their fields. They claim, on their website, that:

Around the clock animal care at Yerkes is provided by five clinical veterinarians, seven veterinary technicians, some 60 primate care specialists, and a registered nurse. They are aided by pathologists, experts in reproductive medicine, and behavioral scientists and technicians who specialize in environmental enrichment for captive primates.

A look at what actually goes on in the Yerkes labs will make short shrift of the notion that the animals at Yerkes are “well cared for.”

“Comparative Behavioral Pharmacology of Cocaine and the Selective Dopamine Uptake Inhibitor RTI-113 in the Squirrel Monkey” was published in the journal Pharmacology and Experimental Theraputics [Vol. 292, Issue 2, 521-529, February 2000]. The authors are Leonard L. Howell, Paul W. Czoty, Michael J. Kuhar and F. Ivy Carrol. All the authors, except F. Ivy Carol, are Yerkes/Emory University scientists.

In their paper, the researchers are quite clear regarding what they did to the monkeys they used in their experiments. They explain this in the "Materials and Methods" section of their paper.

Subjects. Sixteen adult male squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) weighing 820 to 1350 g served as subjects. Between daily sessions, subjects lived in individual cages and had access to food (Harlan Teklad Diet, fresh fruit and vegetables) and water. Nine subjects were surgically prepared with a chronically indwelling venous catheter for i.v. administration of drugs. While anesthetized with ketamine hydrochloride (10.0 mg/kg, supplement to effect) and diazepam (0.1 mg/kg), polyvinyl chloride tubing (0.38 mm i.d., 0.75 mm o.d.) was inserted via the left or right femoral or external jugular vein with sterile surgical technique. The catheter was filled with heparinized saline (20 U/0.2 ml saline) and sealed with a stainless steel obturator when not in use. A nylon-mesh jacket protected the externalized end of the catheter. All animal-use procedures were in strict accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Emory University.

There are a couple of points that should be called to the reader's attention regarding this passage.

1. The squirrel monkeys were housed individually. Squirrel monkeys naturally live in large social groups. This is common knowledge. Consider the Emory University Policy on Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman Primates (Revised April, 2001).

Social housing is the primary strategy for the nonhuman primates at Yerkes/Emory and will continue to be promoted as an appropriate means of providing enrichment when it is compatible with ongoing and anticipated research protocols, animals' health and general well-being. [p.1]

One could suppose that the nine monkeys with the surgically implanted chronically indwelling venous catheters for i.v. administration of drugs might be monkeys exempted by the above statement concerning compatibility with ongoing research protocols. Maybe other monkeys would attempt to pull the tubes from their necks and thighs. But the point of placing the monkeys in the nylon mesh jackets is exactly to block access to the tubes. If a monkey was unable to access the catheter in his neck or thigh due to the protective jacket, it remains to be seen how a cage mate might be able to do so.

The Emory University Policy on Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman Primates (Revised April, 2001) states:

Protected contact is a feasible means for providing social contact to animals that otherwise could have none. While the behavioral, clinical, and physiological effects of full socialization have been studied extensively, there is little information on the effect of protected contact socialization (i.e. with grooming panels between caging). However, there is some evidence that protected contact housing confers behavioral benefits similar (Baker 1999) to what is observed under conditions of full-access social housing. [p. 2].

It remains to be seen why these monkeys were not afforded even "protected contact." And what of the other seven monkeys? The paper is not clear regarding the way they were used and mentions nothing concerning their housing.

2. "All animal-use procedures were in strict accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Emory University."

It needs to be stated and stated again: no oversight body -- neither the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, nor the National Institutes of Health, and certainly not the researcher-staffed Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Emory University -- saw anything wrong, from an ethical or moral perspective, with this experiment. What was done to the monkeys was just fine.

3. It must be inferred that the monkeys were considered to be "materials."

Returning to the paper:

Apparatus. During experimental sessions, subjects were seated comfortably in a Plexiglas chair within a sound-attenuating enclosure. Illumination was provided by either of two pairs of 7-W a.c. colored lights (red and white) mounted on the front wall of the chair just above eye level. A response lever (E21-03; Coulbourn Instruments, Allentown, PA) mounted on the wall facing the monkey registered a response and operated a feedback relay when depressed with a downward force of >0.2 N. In experiments with a stimulus-termination schedule, the subject's tail was held motionless in a small stock, and two brass plates rested on a shaved portion near the end. Electrode cream (The Lumiscope Co., Inc., Edison, NJ) applied to the tail minimized changes in impedance between the tail and the brass plates when a 4-mA electric stimulus of 200-ms duration was delivered. In drug-discrimination experiments, the subjects faced two retractable response levers (E-23-07; Coulbourn Instruments) placed 10 cm apart horizontally. Food pellets (190-mg sucrose pellets with fruit punch flavor; P.J. Noyes Co., Lancaster, NH) were delivered individually into a tray positioned between the levers. In drug self-administration experiments, the distal end of the venous catheter was connected via polyvinyl chloride tubing to a motor-driven syringe located outside the test chamber. The syringe was driven by a 100-V a.c. motor that was controlled by electronic circuitry to yield a precise injection volume of 0.2 ml. Microcomputers controlled experimental events and recorded and stored data. Continuous white noise and an exhaust fan masked extraneous sounds during all sessions, and subjects were tested 5 days per week.

Stimulus-Termination Schedule. Monkeys S-87, S-91, S-93, S-98, S-111, S-115, and S-122 were trained under a fixed-interval (FI) 300-s schedule of stimulus termination (Morse and Kelleher, 1966) with a 3-s limited hold. A red light illuminated the experimental chamber during the FI and, after 300 s elapsed, the animal had 3 s to press the lever and terminate the light that was associated with an impending electric stimulus. When the animal pressed the lever during the limited hold, a white light was illuminated for 2 s, followed by a 60-s timeout during which the chamber was darkened and responses had no scheduled consequences. In the absence of a response during the 3-s limited hold, a 4-mA stimulus was delivered once for 200 ms followed by a 60-s timeout. A daily session comprised 13 consecutive FI 300-s components, each followed by a 60-s timeout. Complete dose-effect curves were established for RTI-113 (0.03-1.0 mg/kg), cocaine (0.03-3.0 mg/kg), and GBR 12909 (0.03-3.0 mg/kg) by injecting graded doses i.v. during the 60-s timeout that preceded FI components 2, 5, 8, and 11. The time course of effects of RTI-113 (0.1 mg/kg), cocaine (0.3 mg/kg), and GBR 12909 (1.0 mg/kg) was determined by injecting a single dose i.m. 5 s before a session comprising 20 consecutive FI 300-s components. Typically, drug experiments were conducted on Tuesday and Friday, and saline (control) was administered on Thursday. Each drug dose was studied at least twice in each monkey.

Let's try to put this in understandable terms -- without all the pseudoscientific gibberish the Yerkes scientists have dressed it in:

The monkeys were trapped in a chair-like restraint device inside a plastic box. The notion that they were seated comfortably is a subjective bit of conscience-salving self-protection by the scientists. Their tail was shaved and clamped between two metal plates so that the monkeys could be shocked. A light in front of them came on and they had three seconds to pull a lever to keep from being shocked. Then, one of three different drugs was injected through the tube that had been sewn into their body, and the light came on again. This was repeated thirteen times a day for five days a week. (The researchers rested over the weekend.) The point of all of this was to see how much of the drug it took for the monkey to not be able to press the lever in time to avoid the shock.

This is what's termed Science by Yerkes. This is how animals are "well cared for" at Yerkes. Cocaine is a cash-cow for Yerkes.

Similar experiment have been on-going at Yerkes for a long time. In fact, the restraint device -- the chair in the plastic box -- was designed by a Yerkes cocaine researcher name Larry Byrd whom the researchers above cite when describing the restraint apparatus: Byrd L. D. (1979) The behavioral effects of cocaine: Rate dependency or rate constancy. European Journal of Pharmacology 56: 355-362.

As if this cruel nonsense were not enough to impel citizens to force the closure of this modern Auswitz, consider a few of the other experiment occurring there:

A. A. Anasari <> was studying the differences of SIV progression in two species of monkeys. He noted no difference in disease progression. He received $317,552 for this study. He has moved on to cocaine and SIV; he is studying the effects of cocaine exposure on the vasculature of monkeys infected with SIV.

James T. Winslow <> states, “[We] will examine the interaction of decreased central serotonin with the effects of acute alcohol administration, the incidence of excessive alcohol self-administration in a free-choice ethanol self-administration paradigm . . .[in] juvenile [rhesus] monkeys reared in peer groups with mother reared monkeys who are either intact or have been depleted of brain serotonin following administration of neurotoxic doses of MDMA.” Winslow is affiliated with Living Links.

Francis J. Novembre <> seems to feel that referring to chimpanzees by their serial number rather than by their name will make his Mengele-like experiments sound scientific and less criminal. He reported: "At the time that C499 developed illness, blood was transfused from this animal to an uninfected animal, C455, to further examine the pathogenesis of virus infection." Novembre was avoiding saying that before Jerom (C499 ) died, he was paralyzed with a drug so that some of his blood could be taken. Then his blood was forcibly injected into Nathan (C455) to see if he would also become hideously sick and die in a similar manner.

Liars or Ignoramuses?

And, Yerkes simply lies. Or, maybe only ignoramuses work there. In either event, they repeatedly make false statements. From the Yerkes website:

What Do Animal Rights Activists Do To Actually Help Animals?

Despite the fact that an estimated 7 to 18 million animals annually face euthanasia in pounds, animal rights groups do not contribute to shelters, pounds, or humane societies any of the millions of dollars they collect each year. The money is spent instead on staging media events, vandalism and destruction of property, cross-country travel to protests, posting bail, attorney fees, and filing legal claims. None of the activist groups runs an animal facility or sanctuary, though sanctuaries are sorely needed.

Some national animal rights organizations do, in fact, support and operate sanctuaries. In Defense of Animals operates Project Hope in Mississippi. Approximately one hundred and fifty dogs, cats, horses, pigs, chickens, and other animals have found refuge there. Black Beauty Ranch, run by the Fund for Animals is a fourteen hundred acre haven for rescued animals. Many sanctuaries, such as Farm Sanctuary, are operated by people who do see themselves as activists. Why doesn't Yerkes know of these facilities? Are they just lying, or simply ignoramuses?

But maybe Yerkes, due to its focus on primates, is unaware of what is occurring in the animal activist community regarding cows, horses, sheep, dogs, cats, and animals other than monkeys and apes. But then, why don't they know that the Animal Protection Institute operates the Texas Snow Monkey Sanctuary? Why don't they know that the International Primate Protection League operates a gibbon sanctuary in South Carolina? Why don't they know that In Defense of Animals operates a chimpanzee rescue center in Cameroon, Africa?

Maybe they do know about these facilities. Maybe Yerkes is simply so used to lying to the public about what it is accomplishing and about what they really do to animals in the labs, that lying about those who are criticizing their behavior comes as naturally to them as addicting baby monkeys to cocaine and alcohol.

Also from the Yerkes website:


Yerkes supports and follows the guidelines that have been established by the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Department of Agriculture), the Public Health Service Policy on the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animals Care (considered the "gold standard" for humane and sanitary lab animal care) and Emory's own Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Yerkes is visited regularly by these groups and all animal protocols, programs and facilities must regularly pass rigorous inspection. These rules and policies govern all aspects of the use of animals in any given study. Interestingly, the guidelines for conducting research on animals are considerably more stringent than those for research on humans.

No oversight body -- neither the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, nor the National Institutes of Health, nor the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animals Care (claimed to be the "gold standard" for humane and sanitary lab animal care by the labs themselves) and certainly not the researcher-staffed Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Emory University sees anything wrong, from an ethical or moral perspective, with the experiments at Yerkes. What is being done to the monkeys and chimpanzees is just fine.

A Citizenry of Fools?

And finally, Yerkes says: "Interestingly, the guidelines for conducting research on animals are considerably more stringent than those for research on humans." This presupposes that either those reading this garbage have absolutely no idea what is happening inside Yerkes, or else, that those reading this garbage are so stupid that they will actually believe that the rules allowing scientists to strap monkeys into chairs inside plastic boxes and shock them repeatedly are more stringent than the rules protecting human research subjects.

For the record: Yerkes is not an anomaly. Yerkes is the norm. It is the average primate lab. The only thing that keeps these monstrosities in operation is your silence.


Primate Freedom Project
P.O. Box 1623
Fayetteville, GA. 30214
Tel: 770.719.5348


Home Page | Our Mission | News
What Are Primate Freedom Tags | Order Tag
Primate Research Centers | Resources