Neuroscientist Margaret Livingstone's paper, "Triggers of Maternal Love," went almost unnoticed when it was published in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (PNAS) in September.
But, once shared on social networks, the study received a shower of criticism and 250 scientists signed a letter asking the journal to retract it.
Associations defending animal rights have recalled the past work of Margaret Livingstone, who notably temporarily sutured the eyelids of baby monkeys to study the impact on their cognitive faculties.
"We can't ask monkeys for their consent, but we can stop using, publishing and, in this case, actively promoting cruel methods that we know cause extreme suffering," wrote Catherine Hobaiter, primatologist from the Scottish University of St Andrews.
The scientist, co-author of the letter to PNAS, explained to AFP that she was waiting for a response from the journal before making further comments.
Harvard and Margaret Livingstone, for their part, strongly defended the study.
Her findings "may help scientists understand maternal bonding in humans," which could help better support women after a miscarriage or stillbirth, the medical school said. of Harvard in a statement.
In a separate text, Margaret Livingstone said she had "joined the ranks of scientists targeted and demonized by opponents of animal research, who want to ban life-saving research on all animals".
She specified that she had not initially sought to study the maternal link, making this discovery within the framework of another research.
Argument to which critics respond that the researcher still intentionally separated mothers from their children, and that her observations on the comfort derived from soft toys do not advance science.
Alzheimer's
Such work regularly attracts the ire of associations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), hostile to any form of animal testing.
But, significantly, this controversy has provoked strong reactions within the scientific community, said Alan McElligott, researcher at the municipal university of Hong Kong.
Margaret Livingstone seems to have reproduced a study conducted by Harry Harlow, a famous American psychologist, he told AFP.
His work, seen as revolutionary in the middle of the 20th century, could also have contributed to the rise of the movement for the animal cause.
For some scientists interviewed, the case is representative of a larger problem in animal research: questionable studies continue to be published in prestigious journals.
Alan McElligott cited a much-criticized 2020 paper that touted the effectiveness of certain traps in capturing jaguars and pumas for scientific study.
More recently, experiments on marmosets involving surgical operations have also created controversy.
The team from the University of Amherst Massachusetts behind this work said that studying these little monkeys, whose cognitive abilities decline at the end of life, is essential to better understand Alzheimer's disease in humans. man.
But for the opposing camp, the results are rarely applicable from one species to another.
Hens with golden eggs
When it comes to drug trials on animals, the tide is clearly turning.
In September, the US Senate passed a law to end the requirement for animal testing before any human trial for experimental drugs.
The vast majority of drugs that pass animal tests do not pass human trials, while new technologies make it possible to avoid this step.
Opponents say large grants to universities and institutes -- $15 billion a year, according to the White Coat Waste Project -- perpetuate a system in which animals are seen as laboratory resources.
"Those who do animal experiments are the goose of these institutions, because they bring in more money," said primatologist Lisa Engel-Jones, who now works for Peta.
“There is a financial incentive to continue what we are doing and try to publish as many articles as possible,” added Emily Trunnell, a neuroscientist who has conducted experiments on rodents and also works for Peta.
Most scientists don't share Peta's stance on stopping such experiments altogether, preferring a more measured approach to reducing the use of animal testing.
© 2022 AFP