HOWZAT

In the run-up to the 1997 election, Labour was happy to accept a £1m donation from the animal rights lobby. It said it was “the only party to trust on the issue of animal welfare”. Yet at the same time it was also wooing drug companies such as Pfizer and Novartis, which are part of a multi-billion-pound industry that requires, under present laws on the safety of medicines, animal testing.

Labour’s attempt to face both ways was bound to end in tears. Activists claim animal experimentation is cruel, ineffective, diverts funds from more important research, and has become obsolete due to scientific advances. Many want a complete ban on testing.

But scientists and industry argue that animal testing is necessary, especially in areas such as vaccine development and research into Alzheimer’s disease. They believe that in some situations there is no viable alternative.

Tipu Aziz, a consultant neurosurgeon at the Radcliffe Infirmary at Oxford and a leading researcher into Parkinson’s disease, said: “Everything we learn about the brain is based on animal research. We know which parts of the brain to avoid in surgery, and which parts provide which functions. Fourteen years ago we did studies on six or seven monkeys that have allowed 30,000 Parkinson’s sufferers around the world to benefit from implants. That is quite a trade-off.”

Among people who have benefited from medical developments pioneered on animals is Diane Gracey, 63, of Cambridge. She was diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis in 1998 and uses the drug naltrexone, which was tested on animals, to control her symptoms. “We cannot have people stand in the way of finding cures for common and horrible diseases like cystic fibrosis and Alzheimer’s,” she said.

When Labour’s promised royal commission failed to materialise, the activists grew disillusioned. Some concluded that direct action, not political argument, was the best option.

Robert Cogswell, co-founder of an activist group called Speak, which says it does not engage in illegal protests, said: “It is hardly surprising that people are taking the law into their own hands. We will not condemn people for those actions, because we feel it is coming out of the actions of the government.”

He said activists would “focus on the weak point, and will exploit those weak points” rather than “throwing themselves against the walls of the government”.

Among those perceived as soft targets by extremists is a senior director of a company researching cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. On condition of anonymity, he described his ordeal last week.

He has suffered a bomb hoax that shut the London street in which he lives, and letters threatening to infect him with HIV. His neighbours have received letters claiming he is a paedophile, and the walls of his home have been daubed with the slogan “Puppy killer”.

“My frustration is with the government,” he said. “This has been going on for five years, and the government has continued to tell us it is supportive. But that has not resulted in a decrease in the levels of intimidation.”

After years of violent protests, one company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, transferred its headquarters to America, despite receiving government help. In January a planned research laboratory in Cambridge was cancelled. Last month the main contractor helping to build a laboratory in Oxford pulled out after being attacked.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Foxy Knoxy snared by her lust and her lies
• Britain is the land of the shrinking family
• Zac Goldsmith: Not such a green god