 |
 |
Q&A: The Cambridge Monkey Testing Lab Cambridge University has abandoned plans to build a new laboratory which would have conducted experiments on monkeys. Mark Henderson, left, Science Correspondent, reports on the battle between scientists and activists. Why has lab been abandoned? It is all a matter of cost. Cambridge University has taken five years to secure planning permission, because of the objections of animal rights groups. During this period, the costs have risen from £24 million to £32 million, owing to inflation, security demands and new animal welfare regulations. The added costs of protecting staff against animal rights terrorists, and policing demonstrations, could also run to more than £1 million a year. Extremists have previously targeted contractors and insurers, and might be expected to do so again, making the project even more costly to complete. Cambridge also has a large financial deficit, and decided it could no longer afford to press ahead. Who are the winners and losers of this decision? The animal rights lobby is claiming a victory, and it is true that they have prevented this centre from being built. They have not, however, won the argument. Scientists remain convinced that animal experiments are necessary, and a recent MORI poll for the Coalition for Medical Progress found that 90 per cent of the public agrees. In the longer term, however, the activists may lose out, as this decision will increase pressure for new legislation to clamp down on violent protests and on harassment of scientists, support staff and contractors. Another group of potential winners are foreign universities, particularly in the US. Much of the research earmarked for Cambridge may now go to these centres, and they may also be able to poach top British experts. The clearest loser is Cambridge University, but the whole scientific community feels slighted -- particularly in the light of the recent honours row in which Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, was denied a knighthood in view of his "controversial" work on vivisection. What will happen now? The Huntingdon Road centre will not now be built, but the MRC and the Wellcome Trust remain committed to funding the research that would have been done there. They are likely to change tack and support smaller scale facilities, possibly attached to existing labs. However, another option, to build the centre on a secure site such as the Ministry of Defence research laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire, is no longer under consideration. What would the laboratory have been for? It would have been a state-of-the-art neuroscience centre. In order to replicate the effects of drugs and surgical procedures on the human brain, it requires facilities for testing on primates -- in particular rhesus macaque monkeys and marmosets, which have nervous systems very similar to those of human beings. While neuroscientists try to avoid animal experiments wherever possible, so little is known about the wiring of the human brain that it is presently very difficult to model its workings by computer. As a result, primate experiments remain a regrettable necessity. How would the monkeys have been treated? Normally, in animal experiments, all the animals involved are put down at the end of the procedure, both to end any suffering they have experienced and to allow scientists to conduct a post-mortem that shows the effects of the drug that was under investigation. No precise details of proposed experiments are available, as these would have been published only when scientists applied for licences once the centre was built. What is the research supposed to help? Scientists would have used the laboratory to investigate a wide range of diseases of the brain and nervous system. These include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, depression, autism, Huntington's disease, stroke, brain injury, multiple sclerosis, paralysis and drug addiction. What are the arguments for and against the lab and animal experiments? While Britain has many of the world's leading neuroscientists, it lacks a large, modern laboratory where they can work: most of the leading neuroscience research centres of this sort are in the US, and the Government considers the Cambridge project as one of "national importance", as the prospect of cures for devastating conditions such as Alzheimer's depend on it. Another argument for a centre is that Britain has the strongest and tightest regulatory system for animal experiments anywhere in the world. If the centre is not going to be built here, the experiments it is designed for will still be done, but abroad, probably in the US or the Far East, where standards are nothing like so high. Animal rights activists argue that experiments on any animals are unethical, and they are particularly critical of primate research because of the advanced nature of their nervous systems, and their consequent capacity for pain and distress. Some also argue that the experiments are unnecessary, although mainstream scientists do not accept this. Many local residents, and Cambridgeshire police, also objected to the project on the grounds it would attract protests that would cause traffic chaos and disrupt public order. What kind of safeguards would the lab have had to follow? All research must conform to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which requires triple-licensing of all experiments. A centre, research programme, and individual scientists involved must all hold an appropriate licence. Licences are granted only if potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals and if it is impossible to do the research without animals. Primate use is allowed only when other species are not suitable, the minimum number of animals must be used, and suffering must be kept to a minimum by use of anaesthetics if this can be done without jeopardising the experiment. The system is enforced by a team of Home Office inspectors, all of whom are either doctors or vets, who visit each laboratory an average of 11 times every year. Is Cambridge an area of expertise for animal experiments? Yes. The University already has several licences for animal experiments, and the Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) private laboratory is nearby. The proximity of HLS is one of the reasons the original planning application fell, as police were concerned that the short distance between the two labs would make flying protests inevitable. SOURCE: Times Online, UK http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-493512,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn