Anti-vivisectionists declared victory yesterday as Cambridge University announced that it had shelved plans to build a controversial multi-million pound neuroscience laboratory. The university has denied any suggestion, however, that it had yielded to pressure from animal rights extremists, citing financial difficulties instead.
The projected cost of the laboratory has risen from £24m to £32m in the past six years (including the cost of additional security to guard against protesters) and, combined with a £9.2m deficit in the university's finances, the university council decided to abandon the project at a meeting on Monday.
In a statement issued yesterday, Tony Minson, the university's pro-vice chancellor, said: "This has not been an easy decision to reach but ultimately we have a responsibility to our students and staff not to take financial risks of this magnitude, and we believe that although regrettable, this is the right course of action."
The university had discussed its problems with funding agencies and the government and reported that, though it had received words of support, it had not been given extra cash to keep the project afloat. Professor Minson conceded that he had not expected the government to simply underwrite the project with a blank cheque, and that the university had come to live with the inevitable in recent months.
Animal rights campaigners, who have opposed the project since it was conceived in 1997, welcomed the announcement.
"Any decision to avoid the use of primates in experiments is to be welcomed," said a statement by the RSPCA. "The biological similarity of non-human primates to humans is the reason why they are used in research, but this same similarity means that they are likely to have an awareness of pain and distress that is similar to our own."
Medical researchers were concerned. "This is a serious blow for British medical research," said Mark Matfield, director of the Research Defence Society, a pro-animal research lobby. "These delays and security concerns were caused by orchestrated threats and intimidation. 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."
The proposed neuroscience laboratory at Cambridge has been at the centre of controversy for six years. It was designed to pool all research conducted on non-human primates at the university as well as to bring in new researchers. Described as a centre of national importance, support came from the highest echelons of government: Tony Blair publicly stated his support for the laboratory at a speech to the Royal Society in 2002.
Scientists themselves argued that research on primates is the only option for finding cures for neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, as well as the development of vaccines for malaria and Aids. More specifically, primate brains are the only ones that have frontal lobes similar to those of humans. These control the higher cognitive functions and are only poorly developed in other animals.
"Primates are, of course, special, and we strive to minimise their use," said Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council. "But studies involving primates have been crucial for our understanding of brain function, and have underpinned the development of brain scanning methods in people."
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 lab should not be built on the grounds that it was not of national importance. Last November, however, the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, overruled the recommendations and granted the university the required planning application.
The university had already secured the projected £24m cost from a mixture of public and private sources. It argued that several factors had contributed to a rise in costs of £8m since the start of the project: inflation; heightened standards in Home Office regulations regarding the use of animals in research; and extra security expenses. In addition, Prof Minson estimated there would be £1m more required in annual running costs.
Not everyone believes Cambridge's story. "The university's claim that their change of heart is due to spiralling security costs is plain nonsense," said a representative of Animal Aid. "Both Cambridge and their supporters asserted during the inquiry that security was not a problem, and security did not feature in the planning inspector's report."
