The Pro-Test protesters at Oxford by Brendan O'Neill

[Guest guest]

Until now, animal rights protesters have made all the noise in a

dispute over a new research lab in Oxford. But this weekend the

city's famed academics are planning to hit back just as loudly, as

pro-testing campaigners hit the streets.

 

According to one Oxford academic, a war is looming over " scientific

freedom " and the " future of progress " , no less. And this Saturday the

battle for and against testing will shift from the city's dreaming

spires to its historic streets.

 

Over the past two years there have been regular protests by anti-

vivisection groups against Oxford University's plans to build an £18m

biomedical research laboratory, at which there will be testing on

animals.

 

The university says the laboratory is essential for scientific

inquiry and for pushing forward medical research and methods.

 

Animal rights groups claim it is unnecessary, that it will be

a " prison " for animals which will be treated extremely cruelly by men

in white coats.

 

Moderate groups such as BUAV urge members to:

Avoid products tested on animals

Run street stalls or put up displays in libraries, schools etc

Door to door leafleting

Write letters to newspapers and to MPs demanding abolition

Gather signatures for petitions

Boycott charities which fund vivisection

Anti-vivisection protesters have continually marched on the half-

built lab, while at the more extreme end, the Animal Liberation Front

(ALF) has issued threats and carried out acts of violence to put

pressure on Oxford University to stop building the lab.

 

ALF has declared all staff and students at Oxford to be " legitimate

targets " and admitted it was behind an arson attack on Hertford

College in 2004.

 

Last year there were eight attacks involving incendiary devices,

linked to protests against the laboratory.

 

These sometimes violent interventions seem to have had an impact. In

2004, a contractor hired to build the lab pulled out following

threats from animal rights activists.

 

Some of the builders currently working on the project wear

balaclavas, lest they be photographed by extremists and possibly

targeted for harassment or assault.

 

And it was recently reported that sections of the lab are being built

at a secret location, to be transported to the increasingly volatile

construction site only when it becomes safe to do so.

 

Now, however, some Oxford students and academics are launching a

fight back in defence of animal research.

 

Angered by the constant disruptions caused by the weekly demos and

the threats of violence - and by having been labelled " legitimate

targets " - they are taking direct action of their own to defend the

building of the South Parks lab.

 

It's not just Oxford targeted, so have Huntingdon and Cambridge

" Medical research involving animals is essential to medical

progress " , says Iain Simpson, spokesman for the new student group Pro-

Test.

 

" And while diseases such as cancer and AIDS continue to kill

millions, we are not just justified in continuing with animal

research, we have a moral responsibility to do so. "

 

Pro-Test was set up by an Oxford student at the start of this year in

response to the constant anti-animal testing protests and in order to

defend " science, reasoned debate and, above all, the welfare of

mankind. "

 

It already seems to be making inroads with the student body. A poll

of Oxford students found that 85% supported animal testing and 65%

thought the launch of Pro-Test a good idea.

 

Pro-Test's first big protest, its maiden demo, takes place on

Saturday, and will coincide with a rally organised by an animal

rights group. Observers are worried that sparks could fly.

 

Mr Simpson says animal research is too important to go undefended,

and argues that students should back it loudly and passionately.

 

What's at stake here is not only medical research, but our belief

in scientific progress itself

 

Lecturer James Panton

" The benefits to mankind from research on animals are vast " , he says,

pointing out that vaccines for chicken pox, cholera, influenza,

measles, mumps, polio, Whooping Cough and various other diseases that

once stalked mankind were developed through testing on animals.

 

Other medications, including insulin, penicillin, painkillers and

chemotherapy, as well as medical devices such as pacemakers,

artificial hearts and valves and artificial hips and knees, were also

made possible by medical research involving animals.

 

" Animal testing is absolutely necessary " , says Mr Simpson. " And yet

there is a popular misconception that these research facilities exist

solely to put shampoo in rabbits' eyes. "

 

Pro-Test is part of a wider effort to defend medical research

involving animals. The Research Defence Society, which has long

defended animal experimentation, is upping the ante, while a group

previously known as Seriously Ill for Medical Research has re-

branded.

 

Made up of patients who support the use of animals in research, it

has been relaunched as Patients' Voice for Medical Advance.

 

Various Oxford academics and political figures have come out in

support of Pro-Test. Its upcoming demo will be addressed by John

Stein, Professor of Physiology at Oxford, and by Evan Harris, MP for

Oxford West and Abingdon.

 

Animal rights protesters take their case to Downing St

James Panton, a lecturer in politics at Lady Margaret Hall college,

Oxford, will also be taking part.

 

" Animal experimentation is not something we should be ashamed or

embarrassed about " , he argues. " The use of animals in research to

develop medicines that save human lives is a moral good. "

 

Mr Panton believes one reason why exasperated students have had to

take matters into their own hands is because figures of authority

have been unwilling publicly and robustly to defend animal research.

 

" The government has been far too half-hearted in its support for the

laboratory. So too have some at Oxford University.

 

" Rather than developing a positive public policy on why the lab is

important, members of the university have avoided speaking out. As a

result, a minority of animal rights activists have been able to

dominate the debate. Now we must turn the tide. "

 

Mr Panton thinks there is more at stake here than animal research

itself.

 

" Some people's discomfort with supporting animal research signifies a

broader discomfort with the goal of pursuing human knowledge and

understanding " , he says.

 

" What's at stake here is not only medical research, but our belief in

scientific progress itself and our belief that we can - and should -

improve humanity's lot. "