Magazine R141 The announcement last month by Cambridge University of its decision not to go ahead with a planned new primate research centre has added to recent worries amongst the research community about the official support for animal experiments. As Cambridge pro-vice chancellor Tony Minson admitted, the decision not to go ahead with the primate center on the city’s Huntingdon Road was greeted as a triumph by animal rights protesters who have waged a long and sometimes violent campaign against nearby Huntingdon Life Sciences, a firm using animals for experimentation. Britain’s leading medical charity, the Wellcome Trust, reacted with anger to the university’s decision, which was made in the light of escalating security costs. The trust, which spends more than £400 million a year on biomedical research, said the decision was ‘unfortunate’ and would ‘severely’ hamper pioneering work on diseases of the brain, including stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Meanwhile the university and the Medical Research Council said they were trying to come up with alternative plans to continue work in brain science. Cambridge’s move is embarrassing for government ministers, especially deputy prime minister John Prescott, who went to great lengths to back the project. Planning permission for the laboratory was rejected twice by South Cambridgeshire District Council on the grounds that protests by animal rights campaigners outside the facility would snarl up traffic and could become a nuisance to local residents. A subsequent public inquiry also recommended that the primate laboratory should not be built on the grounds that it was not of national importance. Last November, however, John Prescott, overruled the recommendations and granted the Feature Laboratory blow for research plans Cancellation of a proposal to build a new primate research centre for neuroscience research near Cambridge has raised some concerns in Britain about the future of key support for animal experiments. Nigel Williams reports. Full stop: A new centre for primate neuroscience research at Cambridge University has been shelved because of cost. Many worry that the amount of security needed to protect it from animal rights activists was partly responsible for the decision. (Picture: Science Photo Library.)
Transcript
MagazineR141
The announcement last month byCambridge University of itsdecision not to go ahead with aplanned new primate researchcentre has added to recentworries amongst the researchcommunity about the officialsupport for animal experiments.
As Cambridge pro-vicechancellor Tony Minson admitted,the decision not to go ahead withthe primate center on the city’sHuntingdon Road was greeted asa triumph by animal rightsprotesters who have waged along and sometimes violentcampaign against nearbyHuntingdon Life Sciences, a firm
using animals forexperimentation.
Britain’s leading medical charity,the Wellcome Trust, reacted withanger to the university’s decision,which was made in the light ofescalating security costs. Thetrust, which spends more than£400 million a year on biomedicalresearch, said the decision was‘unfortunate’ and would ‘severely’hamper pioneering work ondiseases of the brain, includingstroke, Alzheimer’s disease andParkinson’s disease.
Meanwhile the university andthe Medical Research Council saidthey were trying to come up with
alternative plans to continue workin brain science.
Cambridge’s move isembarrassing for governmentministers, especially deputy primeminister John Prescott, who wentto great lengths to back theproject. Planning permission forthe laboratory was rejected twiceby South Cambridgeshire DistrictCouncil on the grounds thatprotests by animal rightscampaigners outside the facilitywould snarl up traffic and couldbecome a nuisance to localresidents. A subsequent publicinquiry also recommended thatthe primate laboratory should notbe built on the grounds that it wasnot of national importance. LastNovember, however, JohnPrescott, overruled therecommendations and granted the
Feature
Laboratory blow for research plans
Cancellation of a proposal to build a new primate research centre forneuroscience research near Cambridge has raised some concerns inBritain about the future of key support for animal experiments. Nigel Williams reports.
Full stop: A new centre for primate neuroscience research at Cambridge University has been shelved because of cost. Many worrythat the amount of security needed to protect it from animal rights activists was partly responsible for the decision. (Picture: SciencePhoto Library.)
university the requested planningapplication.
The cost of the Cambridgecentre rose from £24 million to£32 million, with the prospect ofongoing security spending likelyto be necessary at a high level.
The Wellcome Trust said the£22 million earmarked for theproject would now return to thetrust’s general science fundingpot. “We are still supportinganimal research and neuroscienceresearch but we have no plans tofund a new laboratory,” said aspokesperson.
Mark Walport, director of thetrust, said research usingprimates would continue to beessential to conquer manydiseases. “We no longer see thevictims of polio in iron lungsbecause primate research allowedthe development of successfulvaccines. Without facilities suchas those planned for theCambridge University site thiskind of medical pioneering workwould be severely hampered.”
“It is unfortunate CambridgeUniversity has been forced tomake this decision but animalresearch will have to continueuntil we can find alternativeapproaches.”
Colin Blakemore, chiefexecutive of the Medical ResearchCouncil and an outspokendefender of animal experimentssaid: “We must make sure thatpressure and threats from a tinyminority of protestors do not
impede research that is vital in thehunt for treatments and cures forterrible illnesses.”
“The public is squarely behindthe need to use animals inresearch to find new treatmentsfor currently incurable conditions.A recent MORI survey found thatnine out of ten people support theneed to use animals in medicalresearch,” he said.
Blakemore added: “Weunderstand and accept thatescalating costs of this much-needed facility have forced theuniversity to make this difficultdecision. The MRC already fundsa significant programme ofresearch in neuroscience andmental health at Cambridge. Weare working with our partners inCambridge and at the WellcomeTrust to explore how we mighthelp the university to continue tostrengthen its world-class positionin the vital area of brain science.”
Minson said the university hadmade the decision for financialreasons. “What was anacceptable risk five years ago isno longer the case. This has notbeen an easy decision to reachbut ultimately, we have aresponsibility to our students andstaff not to take financial risks ofthis magnitude, and we believethat although regrettable, this isthe right course of action.”
But the decision is still seen bymany as a success for the animalrights lobby and follows recentrevelations that Blakemore was
passed over for a knighthoodbecause of his public defence ofanimal research. Leaked minutesfrom the civil service committeethat draws up the honours list,published in the Sunday Times,indicated that ProfessorBlakemore had been passed overfor a knighthood because of fearsof a backlash from the animalrights lobby.
Senior scientists from theBiosciences Federation, anorganization of various lifescience interests formed just over12 months ago was angered bythese revelations. They wrote tothe prime minister, Tony Blair,urging him to make a strongpublic statement reiterating hissupport for responsible animalexperimentation.
The prime minister’s reply lastmonth said that the government’ssupport for scientific animalresearch was stated verysuccinctly by science minister,Lord Sainsbury, last year. Theprime minister then went on toquote Lord Sainsbury’s speech,saying that he concurred. But hefailed to add a statement ofsupport of his own. Instead,attached to the typed letter was ahandwritten note from Mr Blair. Itsaid “As you know, I am verysupportive of the scientificcommunity on these issues but Ican’t help what’s in the press!”Members of the federation weresurprised by this comment as intheir view media coverage hadbeen widely supportive of animalexperiments for medical research.
Mark Matfield, director of theResearch Defence Society, whichrepresents the interests ofmedical researchers working withlaboratory animals, believes thatthe Cambridge decision may be avictory for animal rights “but it isbad news for medical research inthe UK.” He believes it is now timefor the government to get toughwith extremists. “That is what isneeded to protect our medicalresearch and medicalresearchers,” he said.
“There are many legitimategroups that campaign for animalwelfare. There are even groupsthat campaign against any animaluse. But these groups campaignwithin the law,” he said.
Current Biology Vol 14 No 4R142
Mixed message: The British prime minister, Tony Blair, added a hand-written note tothe end of a letter to the Biosciences Federation but confused researchers followingtheir plea for him to personally endorse animal experiments in medical research.
