Research bodies disappointed by decision to cancel primate research laboratory
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Research organisations in the United Kingdom expressed concern about the future of neuroscience research requiring primate experimentation after the University of Cambridge announced last week that it had decided not to proceed with plans for a neuroscience research centre.
The University of Cambridge said that it would not continue with plans for a primate research centre because protests by animal rights campaigners had increased the costs of maintaining security.
Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "We must make sure that pressure and threats from a tiny minority of protestors do not impede research that is vital in the hunt for treatments and cures for terrible illnesses."
He pointed out that a recent MORI survey showed that 90% of the general public accepted research involving animals as long as it was for medical research purposes, investigating life threatening diseases, and that there was no unnecessary suffering for animals and no alternative non-animal research methods.
"To see plans for a major research facility being abandoned梚n part due to animal rights activists梚s a real shock. However, we will find ways of keeping the scientific research going," he said.
Professor Blakemore suggested that plans to build a centre just for primate research might not have been the best approach, as it was bound to become a target for protestors. "Research centres should be designed to answer scientific questions. Primate research is a small, but essential, component of research that people turn to only when there is no other way to answer a particular question," he explained, suggesting that primate research should ideally be carried out alongside other methods of scientific inquiry.
The Wellcome Trust reported that the ￡22m ($40m; �32m) that it had allotted to the research centre would return to the trust抯 general science research fund. However, Mark Walport, director of the trust, said that research using primates would continue to be essential to conquer many diseases.
The decision by the University of Cambridge followed a six year dispute about plans to develop a neuroscience research laboratory that was designed to bring together all research carried out in non-human primates at the university. Planning permission for the laboratory was twice rejected by the local district council on the grounds that protests by animal rights campaigners outside the facility would cause traffic problems and disturb local residents.
The proposed site was close to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract research company that tests pharmaceutical and agrochemical products on animals, which had previously been targeted by militant animal rights activists.
A public inquiry recommended that the laboratory should not be built梠n the grounds that it was not considered to be of national importance. However, the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, overruled these decisions and granted the university the required planning permission in November 2003.
Explaining the university抯 decision last week, Professor Tony Minson, pro-vice chancellor for the University of Cambridge, said: "The animal rights groups will of course claim this as a victory, but in our view they have won no arguments whatsoever. We still believe this work to be of significant national importance, and we are already exploring with the medical research funding agencies other ways of continuing this work."
The Research Defence Society, an organisation that represents medical researchers, concluded: "The government needs to bring in tougher legislation to tackle extremist campaigns. Otherwise they will remain a threat to all medical science that depends on animal research."
A Home Office committee is exploring other measures to curtail strategies adopted by animal rights groups include making it an imprisonable offence to intimidate a person because he or she is involved in animal research. Other measures would be directed at those who try to intimidate financial backers and suppliers of laboratories and research centres.
But research organisations point out that the Antisocial Behaviour Act, which received Royal Assent in November 2003, could be used to stop disruptive demonstrations, such as those that took place outside the laboratories of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The Act, which came into force in January and February this year, includes powers "to disperse groups in designated areas suffering persistent and seri
ous anti-social behaviour" and will extend powers to deal with aggravated trespass.(London Susan Mayor)
The University of Cambridge said that it would not continue with plans for a primate research centre because protests by animal rights campaigners had increased the costs of maintaining security.
Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "We must make sure that pressure and threats from a tiny minority of protestors do not impede research that is vital in the hunt for treatments and cures for terrible illnesses."
He pointed out that a recent MORI survey showed that 90% of the general public accepted research involving animals as long as it was for medical research purposes, investigating life threatening diseases, and that there was no unnecessary suffering for animals and no alternative non-animal research methods.
"To see plans for a major research facility being abandoned梚n part due to animal rights activists梚s a real shock. However, we will find ways of keeping the scientific research going," he said.
Professor Blakemore suggested that plans to build a centre just for primate research might not have been the best approach, as it was bound to become a target for protestors. "Research centres should be designed to answer scientific questions. Primate research is a small, but essential, component of research that people turn to only when there is no other way to answer a particular question," he explained, suggesting that primate research should ideally be carried out alongside other methods of scientific inquiry.
The Wellcome Trust reported that the ￡22m ($40m; �32m) that it had allotted to the research centre would return to the trust抯 general science research fund. However, Mark Walport, director of the trust, said that research using primates would continue to be essential to conquer many diseases.
The decision by the University of Cambridge followed a six year dispute about plans to develop a neuroscience research laboratory that was designed to bring together all research carried out in non-human primates at the university. Planning permission for the laboratory was twice rejected by the local district council on the grounds that protests by animal rights campaigners outside the facility would cause traffic problems and disturb local residents.
The proposed site was close to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract research company that tests pharmaceutical and agrochemical products on animals, which had previously been targeted by militant animal rights activists.
A public inquiry recommended that the laboratory should not be built梠n the grounds that it was not considered to be of national importance. However, the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, overruled these decisions and granted the university the required planning permission in November 2003.
Explaining the university抯 decision last week, Professor Tony Minson, pro-vice chancellor for the University of Cambridge, said: "The animal rights groups will of course claim this as a victory, but in our view they have won no arguments whatsoever. We still believe this work to be of significant national importance, and we are already exploring with the medical research funding agencies other ways of continuing this work."
The Research Defence Society, an organisation that represents medical researchers, concluded: "The government needs to bring in tougher legislation to tackle extremist campaigns. Otherwise they will remain a threat to all medical science that depends on animal research."
A Home Office committee is exploring other measures to curtail strategies adopted by animal rights groups include making it an imprisonable offence to intimidate a person because he or she is involved in animal research. Other measures would be directed at those who try to intimidate financial backers and suppliers of laboratories and research centres.
But research organisations point out that the Antisocial Behaviour Act, which received Royal Assent in November 2003, could be used to stop disruptive demonstrations, such as those that took place outside the laboratories of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The Act, which came into force in January and February this year, includes powers "to disperse groups in designated areas suffering persistent and seri
ous anti-social behaviour" and will extend powers to deal with aggravated trespass.(London Susan Mayor)