The NIH has been narrowing the scope of primate research for some time. Several years ago, they announced they'll no longer fund invasive chimp work. There are regular scandals about the conditions or experimentation on primates that crop up every couple of years.
As far as "research outcome value," unfortunately this is notoriously difficult to quantify for all aspects of the research enterprise. Most of the metrics typically used are abysmal for any serious utilitarian analysis (e.g. publication count, references to those publications, patents approved, funding raised, etc.). And you would not be surprised to hear stories very similar to this one quietly passed around in both academic and industry contexts, where consequences are few if any. It makes many people uncomfortable, but the power dynamics are such that they continue so long as they continue to support career advancement and continue to be approved by IRBs and funding agencies. That's not to justify what's being reported here-- far from it. If anything, I would support a broad ban on primate experimentation with few exceptions.
As far as "research outcome value," unfortunately this is notoriously difficult to quantify for all aspects of the research enterprise. Most of the metrics typically used are abysmal for any serious utilitarian analysis (e.g. publication count, references to those publications, patents approved, funding raised, etc.). And you would not be surprised to hear stories very similar to this one quietly passed around in both academic and industry contexts, where consequences are few if any. It makes many people uncomfortable, but the power dynamics are such that they continue so long as they continue to support career advancement and continue to be approved by IRBs and funding agencies. That's not to justify what's being reported here-- far from it. If anything, I would support a broad ban on primate experimentation with few exceptions.