Oregon's Primate Center Sparks Fierce Battle Over Science and Ethics

BEAVERTON, OR – April 29, 2026 – A coalition of scientists and healthcare professionals launched a high-stakes public relations campaign this week to save the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) from closure, escalating a tense conflict that pits the facility's supporters against a powerful alliance of animal rights advocates and state political leaders.

Oregon Voices for Biomedical Research (OVBR), a nonprofit advocacy group, rolled out its "Save Science Oregon" initiative with messages on billboards, public transit, and social media. The campaign aims to counter what it calls "anti-science politics" and prevent the shutdown of a facility it describes as a vital scientific and economic engine for the state. The move thrusts a complex and emotional debate over animal research, ethics, and economic impact directly into the public square.

The Political Battleground

The campaign is a direct response to mounting political pressure on Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), which operates the center. Governor Tina Kotek has been a prominent voice calling for the facility's closure, publicly stating her belief that OHSU should follow the lead of institutions like Harvard University, which closed its primate center in 2013. The governor has urged OHSU to develop a plan to "shutter the primate center in a humane and responsible manner" after fulfilling current research obligations.

This executive pressure is amplified in the state legislature. A trio of Democratic state representatives—David Gomberg, Farrah Chaichi, and Courtney Neron—have actively campaigned for the center's closure. In March 2025, they urged the review board overseeing OHSU's proposed acquisition of Legacy Health to consider public demands for ONPRC's closure as a condition for the merger's approval. Representative Gomberg has been a long-time critic, sponsoring a 2023 bill that increased transparency requirements for the center's primate population and welfare incidents.

Economic and Scientific Stakes

At the heart of the "Save Science Oregon" campaign are the significant economic and scientific contributions of the ONPRC. OVBR's press release claims the center generates an estimated $250 million in regional economic activity, secures approximately $100 million in annual federal research funding, and employs over 470 professionals.

While these figures form the cornerstone of the campaign's economic argument, official data presents a more nuanced picture. Federal records indicate the center received $56 million from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in fiscal year 2024, a substantial figure but less than the $100 million cited by the advocacy group. Employment numbers also vary, with a recent OHSU-commissioned study listing 267 full-time employees, a figure lower than both OVBR's claim and some previous media reports.

Scientifically, the center's output is formidable. The claim of over 514 peer-reviewed publications in the last five years is supported by OHSU board documents. Supporters point to ONPRC's role in developing vaccines for COVID-19, polio, and measles, as well as its ongoing research into Alzheimer's, reproductive health, and diabetes. "The life-saving research performed at ONPRC... cannot currently be fully replaced by artificial intelligence or non-animal studies," OVBR stated in its announcement.

The Ethical Crucible

Opposing the center are national organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which argue that the scientific gains come at an unacceptable ethical cost. These groups have filed federal complaints with the USDA and NIH, alleging numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the Beaverton facility. Allegations include deficient veterinary care, unsanitary conditions, and psychological distress, citing specific incidents such as a monkey's death from sepsis and primates housed in rusty, undersized cages.

Beyond welfare concerns, these groups challenge the scientific necessity of the research itself. They describe experiments—such as inducing alcohol consumption through starvation or separating infant monkeys from their mothers for fear studies—as both cruel and scientifically redundant. PCRM contends that modern, human-based research methods like organ-on-a-chip technology and advanced computational models are more effective and ethical. Just this month, PETA and PCRM filed a new complaint alleging that OHSU's animal experimentation oversight committee is illegally stacked with members tied to the primate center, compromising its independence.

OHSU's Tightrope Walk

Caught in the middle, OHSU's leadership is navigating a treacherous path. While consistently defending the importance and ethical conduct of the research at ONPRC, the university's board has also taken a significant step toward placating its critics. In February, the board unanimously passed a resolution to begin negotiations with the NIH to transition the center toward a potential closure and conversion into a primate sanctuary, acknowledging that "science evolves" and citing a federal shift toward novel research methods.

This decision came after the board reviewed a commissioned report from the Huron Consulting Group, which detailed the staggering costs of any closure scenario. The report estimated that an eight-year phased closure would cost at least $118 million, while an immediate shutdown would cost $241 million. Converting the facility to a sanctuary was projected to cost between $220 million and $291 million. Ironically, the report found the cheapest option, at $50 million to $70 million over eight years, would be to keep the center open at a smaller scale.

A National Precedent?

The fate of the Oregon facility is being watched closely on a national level. ONPRC is one of just seven such federally funded centers in the United States, and its closure could set a powerful precedent. The debate in Oregon reflects a broader national trend, with federal agencies like the NIH and FDA signaling a desire to reduce reliance on animal experiments in favor of human-based approaches.

Advocates for closure frequently point to Harvard University's 2015 shuttering of its primate center as a model to be emulated. The "Save Science Oregon" campaign, however, argues that such a move in Oregon could create a domino effect, threatening the entire national infrastructure for critical biomedical research. As OVBR stated, they are "standing up not just for the ONPRC, but also for the six sister National Primate Research Centers that may soon face similar threats." The outcome of this intensifying battle in Oregon will likely have profound implications for the future of medical research across the country.