Overcoming barriers to accurate communication of the trade in live non-human primates: Counter response to Chaber et al. 2024

To be effective and cost-efficient, policy decisions must be based on sound science. In their response to our commentary [1,2], Chaber et al. augment the inaccuracies we identified in their assessment and reporting of wildlife trade data, thereby perpetuating misinformation about the patterns of international trade in live macaques. Accountability and correction are expected when errors are identified. The authors stated that, “…while handling and interpretation errors are possible, we feel researchers cannot be blamed for incorrectly interpreting data sourced from official channels which is expected to be accurate and reliable” [2]. We regard scientific integrity as a core tenet of the scientific community, which inherently places “the burden of proof” on researchers across all scientific fields to validate data quality as well as to convey the limits of data interpretation and application.

Researchers working with wildlife trade data need to understand that, in the United States and likely every other country, these data are not expressly collected, curated, and reported for the purpose of scientific inquiry. The legal authorities directing data uptake and storage have law enforcement goals. CITES wildlife trade data are not collected with scientific rigor and should not be assumed to be “accurate and reliable” simply because they are collected through official channels. Data collection methods are highly variable across time both within and among individual countries. The data are submitted by Parties to CITES absent standardized interpretation of reporting requirements. If quality control checks are undertaken at all, they are usually cursory due to limits on governmental budgets and staffing. For these reasons, “good enough” may be the realistic standard employed to reach the law enforcement goals. Researchers need to understand how these wildlife trade data are generated and managed as well as take responsibility for their analysis, interpretation, and communication.

Although the authors implied their findings were not affected by the errors and anomalies that we identified in their methods and data interpretation, this is not entirely correct. For instance, their description of all live macaque exports from Cambodia in 2018 as “indirect trade” is inaccurate [3]. Instead, CITES Trade Database records show direct trade (reported by importers) for 98.4% of the 9610 live Macaca fascicularis recorded for that year [4]. The exception was 150 animals exported to the United States by China that had been bred in captivity in Cambodia. Rectifying this detail completely changes the patterns described for the international transport of these animals. The interpretation described by Warne et al. [3] indicated that multiple undocumented countries had been involved in the supply chains, however, this is not supported by the data they referenced. Chaber et al. [2] asserted that they considered all trade reported by both the exporters and importers in their original study, but their doing so should have prevented this type of interpretation error. This is the same type of error also highlighted in our commentary – that the absence of reported exports by China does not alone indicate that trade halted [1], and therefore should not have been expressed as “…China discontinuing their macaque exports” [3].

Wildlife trade records made available through the CITES Trade Database change unpredictably as new data are added and prior data are corrected and updated. Although these changes are not always obvious, it is our responsibility as data users to acknowledge this fundamental characteristic of the dataset and address the implications for data handling and interpretation. We note that the precise CITES Trade Database query that we used to construct our commentary on 22 August 2023, which was identical to the query described in Warne et al. [3], showed quite different results when the inquiry was performed again on 7 December 2023 in preparation of this present article. This variable is clearly accounted for by trade in live macaques reported by the United States for 2020. Our initial data query in August 2023 produced results that did not show reported imports of any live macaques, but our more recent query in December 2023 produced results showing that the import of 24,526 live macaques had been reported.

It is challenging to navigate this ever-changing landscape of datapoints when performing a study based on a single time-delimited download query from the CITES Trade Database. Warne et al. [3] together with our findings have demonstrated this phenomenon through the differing results produced by identical queries performed at different moments in time. This is the fundamental nature of the system that exists and the contextual backdrop against which wildlife trade studies must be performed. For this reason, the older set of CITES Trade Database records downloaded by Warne et al. [3] on 6 October 2022 should no longer be treated as valid by Chaber et al. [2] because the authors' subsequent data query on 1 January 2023 showed significant updates, as did the query we performed in December 2023. Differences between datasets downloaded before and after new data have been made available are normal trademarks of staggered data reporting allowed under the provisions of CITES but continue to be referred to as “discrepancies” by Chaber et al. [2] in a manner that inuendoes monkey business.

It is imperative to clearly communicate the distinction between genuine trade data discrepancies and mere incongruities observed among CITES wildlife trade records to prevent feeding misguided assumptions, prioritizations, and outcomes. One of the most common types of discrepancies occurs when the quantity of live macaques reported by the importing Party is greater than the quantity reported by the exporting Party. This was the observation we described by comparing CITES Trade Database import records reported by the United States with corresponding export records submitted by China. In contrast, an incongruity occurs when an identical data query is performed at two different points in time and different results are produced because new data have been added or previously entered data have been corrected. This type of incongruity is a primary “discrepancy” described by Warne et al. [3] and reiterated by Chaber et al. [2] among data reported by the United States, whereas it should have instead been regarded as a data update. The use of erroneous terminology to describe wildlife trade data risks steering policy and management attention towards problems that do not actually exist.

The CITES Trade Database indicates continued exportation of live macaques from China to the United States in 2019, and recent updates now show that this activity persisted through at least 2020 [4]. We acknowledge that these records may be imperfect and subject to change, just as any data reported by Parties in their CITES Annual Reports. Still, as described in our commentary [1], available data clearly indicate that this trade activity was not discontinued, in contrast to statements published by Warne et al. [3]. Although the trade originating from Cambodia did increase significantly, it is important to accurately characterize the trade in live macaques from all origins as these species warrant conservation, biological invasion, and public health concerns. Continued vigilance for edits and updates to records of trade submitted by all Parties to CITES is necessary to help identify and mitigate potential harms associated with this activity. Furthermore, wildlife trade data collectors, curators, and users need to institute data integrity as a standard operating principle.

Declaration of competing interest

All authors declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Data availability

No novel data were created for the preparation of this manuscript.