Use of animals for scientific purposes: CNRS at the heart of controversy

By Raphaël Lepilleur.

Synthesis No. 2676, Published on 04/06/2026

– Photo: Cynomolgus macaque, main primate used in the future research center. Credits: Basile Morin, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

“Producing 1,800 primates for research in France”: portrayed as a necessity, the CNRS project seems to follow a strict framework. However, the Ethical Committee’s opinion goes beyond the project, highlighting the system’s limitations: persistent opacity, incomplete dissemination of results, insufficient alternatives, and structural contradictions. The debate between scientific research and sustainable experimentation organization takes place primarily behind closed doors.

The selected document is an opinion from the CNRS Ethical Committee (COMETS), requested by the organization’s management to assess animal use for scientific purposes. This input comes amid tensions surrounding these practices and focuses on two levels: a general framework and a specific case, the primate center project in Rousset (Bouches-du-Rhône), aiming to breed around 1,800 primates for research by 2032.

The COMETS analysis was conducted by a working group including several members, such as Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo. Notably, the document mentions her dissenting position (p. 41-42 of the document). While agreeing with general recommendations, she opposes the center project, arguing that France excessively uses primates. This disagreement reveals internal tensions on the matter, especially coming from a recognized figure in the research field.

In essence, the COMETS situates its analysis within the European framework, which it claims to accept “in principle.” This framework doesn’t ban animal experimentation but requires strict conditions: scientific justification, demonstrated necessity, assessment of benefits versus harm, and adherence to the “3R” rule – Replace, Reduce, Refine, aiming to minimize animal pain and stress.

The project of a National Primate Center embodies these tensions. Officially addressing a logistical issue – primate supply deterioration due to halted imports and rising costs – France opts for local production for better control, traceability, cost stability, and improved animal welfare conditions. However, creating an infrastructure able to breed up to 1,800 primates raises questions about perpetuating such practices.

Courtier-Orgogozo contests this approach, suggesting that current capacities suffice, and extra needs could be met through occasional imports. She stresses that France, one of Europe’s main primate users, doesn’t demonstrate superior scientific outcomes despite the increased usage.

Amid the globalized research system, the relevance of this international comparison is questioned. The circulation of knowledge across countries leads to varied approaches to experimentation. France’s position – whether lagging behind or pioneering certain practices – raises debates about scientific autonomy and ethical considerations.

Ultimately, the necessity question remains crucial. Examples of primate research practices, like implanting electrodes or inducing illnesses to replicate human diseases, underscore the need for transparency and ethical scrutiny. Courtier-Orgogozo emphasizes that primates, given their cognitive and emotional capacities, warrant special attention due to their proximity to humans and sensitivity to captivity.

The debate goes beyond mere activism, touching upon choices that concern society at large.