杏吧原创

COUNTRIES that want to see how debate over animal experiments is likely to develop should keep an eye on Britain. It has one of the world鈥檚 strictest systems for deciding what can and can鈥檛 be done to living creatures in the name of science. It also has one of the most active animal rights movements, including a nasty criminal fringe that terrorises scientists.

Against this backdrop comes a fresh twist. At a public inquiry in Cambridge next week, animal rights campaigners intend to question the entire scientific rationale behind primate experimentation. Their aim is to stop the University of Cambridge building a neuroscience centre where it wants to conduct brain research on monkeys (see 鈥淎nimal experiments on trial鈥�).

The protestors say that a monkey鈥檚 brain and behaviour are simply too different from ours to yield insights relevant to human brain disease. The scientists say there can be no progress without using monkeys. The truth, inevitably, lies somewhere in between.

It鈥檚 true that the artificial ways in which scientists mimic conditions such as Parkinson鈥檚 and Alzheimer鈥檚 in monkeys create imperfect models of these diseases. Yet at least these animals have frontal lobes, which makes them closer to us than rats. And the reality is that the basic questions that inspire many neuroscientists lead to experiments too invasive to perform on humans. How do individual neurons influence behaviour? Which clumps of neurons are wired to which others? Brain scanning is too crude, so if you want answers you have to insert electrodes into the brain. And scientists do, naturally, want answers.

But does the wider community actually need the answers to such questions? That is the key issue. In many ways, the research is similar to basic anatomy, with the added complication that the subject needs to be alive. It is pretty distressing stuff, and most people 鈥� including this magazine 鈥� would say it should only be sanctioned if strict criteria are met.

The first question is whether there are any alternatives to using monkeys. At present, there often aren鈥檛. Lab-grown cultures of nerve cells are useful only for certain tests, and building good computer models of a working brain is not yet an option. That is not a reason to starve such research of money. Prime Minister Tony Blair has pledged his support for the multimillion-pound Cambridge centre, yet his government can only muster 拢280,000 a year for research into alternatives.

Secondly, if monkey experiments are to take place, they really should have some relevance to tackling human disease 鈥� and the nature of that relevance should be made clear. Today鈥檚 curiosity-driven experiment can, it鈥檚 true, lead to tomorrow鈥檚 medical advance. But to avoid charges of spin and hype, scientists need to be far more explicit about which monkey experiments relate directly to patients and which do not. If it is basic research, likely only to be relevant in the long run, scientists should say so. If the experiments are unlikely ever to lead to treatments, they should be beyond the pale. Either way, exaggerating the medical relevance of animal experiments is unacceptable whether it is for the purposes of PR or gaining grants.

Another trust-building measure would be for scientists to be as honest about the failures of medical research involving animals as they are about the successes. Despite decades of experimentation, for example, animal models have yet to deliver any effective treatment for cocaine addiction. Such admissions would create an atmosphere for open dialogue and help end the culture of secrecy surrounding animal experiments.

Then there are the bodies that oversee government policy on animal research and inspect labs. These tend to be stacked with people strong on research credentials. No doubt they care deeply about animals, but their focus is different from that of an antivivisectionist. If we are serious about improving the welfare of lab animals and driving down the numbers used, let鈥檚 offer avowed opponents of such research a role in setting and enforcing policy?

In Cambridge right now, animal rights activists are happy to paint their opponents as heartless monsters, while neuroscientists dare not show their heads above the parapet for fear of what might happen to them or their families. Openness and dialogue will never stop the extremists, but it could marginalise them. Then we might make some progress.