It’s an extraordinary thing, this Pro-Test movement that started only a few months and yet has had an enormous nationwide impact on a very difficult subject – the use of animal testing.

On Saturday, the group – fronted as usual by 16-year-old Laurie Pycroft – had their second march through [tag]Oxford[/tag] and even though there were fewer people than the first march, despite it being a beautiful day, there was a real sense of something historic happening.

There was a similar feel at the first march on 26 February, but the sense that time was that this was the first time people had publicly stood up for animal testing. On 3 June, that change had come – wide media attention, GlaxoSmithKline publicly stating its support for animal testing, the prime minister himself signing a petition – and there was instead a collective sense of excitement that the movement had achieved so much in such a short period of time.

At the first march, there was real fear because of the violent tactics and intimidation meted out by animal rights extremists that was held off by collective strength in numbers. Yesterday, people were wandering around Oxford for hours afterwards with Pro-Test T-shirts on. Even Professor John Stein, who is normally extremely anxious having been personally threatened by animal rights extremists, was relaxed and smiling.

There were new speakers – scientists and MPs and an Oxford University representative – and government statements, and a new PA system on a pick-up truck where before there was a small trolley and a megaphone. There were words of condemnation for the animal rights protestors – who at that moment were standing outside the living quarters of the builders working on the animal lab at the centre of the controversy 30 miles away in Moreton-in-Marsh – but at the same time one of the biggest cheers of the day went to Evan Harris when he said it was no longer about the animal rights protestors, the issue had become bigger than that.

The fact that Colin Blakemore – the activists number one target and a man that, The Observer tells us, has “endured assaults by masked terrorists, bombs sent to his children, letters laced with razor blades, a suicide bid by his wife, and more than a decade of attacks and abuse by animal rights campaigners” – felt confident enough to stand on a truck with the animal housing lab behind him and give a speech is a great thing, whether you agree with what he does in his work or not.

Not for the first time – in fact for the fourth time – the Pro-Test speeches contained a good deal of serious thought, as opposed to the hate-filled ranting that Speak’s frontman Mel Broughton has settled into.

The march started around the corner from the usual Broad Street venue, which confused a few people trying to find it. Here’s a rundown of the speakers with pics and MP3s of their speeches. Please note that I was standing next to the truck which had its engine running to juice up the PA system, so that is why the quality isn’t crystal clear. I have cleaned the sound up to dampen down the engine noise, which occasionally lends a kind-of underwater tone to the speakers.

First up was Laurie Pycroft who gave his usual “I can’t believe what this has become” short speech. You have to hand it to this 16-year-old, really. He could so easily have gone off on a teenager angsty rant, and the Pro-Test movement would have died before it even began, but he has taken a very mature public tone and it has enabled everyone else from MPs, ministers, journalists and university representative to get behind the organisation.

Listen:

Then shadow trade secretary Alan Duncan stood up and gave a good address about how the march was about democracy and threw down some withering words at the animal rights protestors. Mr Duncan is the epitome of a MP but he slightly misjudged the public feeling because the crowd wasn’t there on an anti-Speak march.

Listen to his speech here.

Next up, local MP Evan Harris, who has been a public supporter of Pro-Test since almost its inception and is desperately trying to push the debate of animal testing into wider public debate. He has been closely following the whole movement so had a keener grasp of what the march was about, and went on about the bigger picture and pushed again his idea of having pill bottles show that they have been testing on animals in order to stick the realities of life out there. People are still unsure about that, but then he’s a campaigning MP, which is nice to see.

Listen to his speech here.

Then the MC Tom Holder read out messages sent by former home secretary Charles Clarke, and government health minister Andrew Burnham, lending their support to the march.

Listen to Clarke’s statement.
Listen to Burnham’s statement.

Then Professor Ken Fleming – who was at the Pro-Test Town Hall meeting a few weeks ago but came this time as an official representative of the university. He struck a fine line as well in thanking the people therefore – many of them Oxford students – for supporting the university, when alot of the people don’t so much support the university as the right for the university to build the lab without intimidation.

I think what people do need to recognise with the Pro-Test march is that no one really likes the fact that the lab is being built, or that animal experimentation will go on there, but what they did stand for is the fact that animal testing has taken on a negative connotation of such epic proportions thank to animal rights protestors that they are seeking to balance it up. Animal testing is an unpleasant reality and it goes on because there are good reasons for it to go on. But the support stems from the fact that others are misrepresenting the facts and threatening people.

You can hear Mr Fleming’s speech here.

Then Holder read an extract from an article written by Lord Robert Winston the week before in The Guardian. Winston couldn’t be there in person as it was the Sabbath, Holder said, which not a soul believed. There simply weren’t enough TV cameras for Winston to grant his presence.

Then Niki Shisler – who has also been supporting Pro-Test since almost day one – gave her usual speech about how the issue of animal testing concerns everyone. Listen to it
here.

And finally one of the Pro-Test committee and medical writer, Alison Eden, gave an interesting speech about how it was our duty to stand up for scientists. Sadly, since the MC slipped up and said Shisler was the last speaker, I was already away from the speakers with the mic turned off when she started speaking so I have no recording of it.

Then the march set off. Down Parks Road, Catte St, into Radcliffe Square, and then down the left-hand side of the High St, back along Longwall Street, Holywell Street, then Parks Road, South Parks road and then stop close to then unfinished lab for another set of speeches.

What was immediately noticeable was the far lower police presence than usual. There were also far fewer senior police officials. Presumably they were either have a weekend off or were at Moreton-in-March keeping an eye on [tag]Speak[/tag].

I also wore a wry smile when Tom Holder got carried away again when it came to the media. A line of Pro-Test marshalls walked in front of the procession – for what reason I’m not entirely sure – with linked hands. This annoyed the photographers (myself included) because it meant you couldn’t get any good shots of the MPs, Laurie and the banner at the head of the march. So the photographers simply reached over the line, but this caused some shoving, at which point the old hands threatened just to walk away.

Cue Alan Duncan – ever the politician and very keen on getting a photo in the papers for giving up his Saturday – immediately stopping and lining up for a photo in Radcliffe Square. But the photographers had wandered off. Then some brief panicking by all concerned before the photographers were “let in”. It was all a bit daft especially since the real photo opp was with the Radcliffe Camera in the background at the exit to the square. The celebs paused, everyone snapped off a dozen shots a-piece and it was all done.

I find people’s odd relationship with the media hilarious. Real love-hate. And everyone faces the same dilemma: they try to control the media, but at the same time are desperate for their attention. Of course, as a journalist, you are at the end of this all the time and grow comfortable with it, which is precisely where the abject disregard for rules and the peculiar confidence that worries people comes from.

Anyway, at the lab site, the speeches started up again with Colin Blakemore, who is the animal rights activists number one target and a man who has had to put up with the most appalling intimidation. He looked weary but his message was defiant, claiming Pro-Test had caused “the most remarkable change in public opinion ever in this country”.

Listen to the speech here.

Then Professor Peter McNaughton, from Cambridge University, who also gave a good speech about the realities of animal testing and marvelled at the number of young people there and how they were the future.

Listen to his speech.

And then Iain Simpson – one of Pro-Test’s main organisers – whose rhetoric is good but his delivery is a bit Arthur Scargill. He’s a nice bloke but he needs to calm down if he gives speeches.

Have a listen.

And then a roll-call of people to thank which was actually when the feeling of history in the making became almost palpable. The large number of people that had come together and defied the difficulty of the subject, and the very high risk of threats and intimidation from the animal rights protestors. A real sense of people having stood up for their rights and it having worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

I still have significant reservations about animal testing – and I suspect that the reason that Oxford University won’t allow the cameras into its animal testing labs is because the images simply will be shocking to the wider public – but I was very glad to have been there standing in the June sun as a small group of intelligent and dedicated people showed just what was possible with some hard work and courage.

There is an ongoing battle between animals rights groups and the University of Oxford over a new building being built in the heart of town. It’s been going on since the plans were announced in 2004 and has got increasingly ill-tempered.

The animal rights people managed to end construction a similar building in Cambridge and so, smelling victory, have gone all out to pressure Oxford into abandoning its plans as well.

It has led to some tough protests, court orders, dozens of claims, counter-claims and articles and some heavy duty intimidation and threatening of Oxford University staff and the contractors on the building. One of the consistent points has been regular protests and marches in town – of which there was another one on Saturday.

I actually guessed it while walking into town when I saw no less than 10 police officers on one stretch of road. Anyway, I had my camera with me and so decided to check it out.

Whose right?

I’ve given the animal rights question some thought – admittedly sparked by the protests that started in Oxford nearly two years ago – and have come to the conclusion that it’s pretty much a dead issue.

The fact is that, in a similar way to militant feminism, the battle has been won. There are now very strict laws and rules regulating animal experimentation in this country. The animal rights protests of the past did that, and it’s a good thing.

All the arguments, pros and cons have been delved into, torn apart and patched together again and it is still the case the animal experimentation is incredibly useful for certain types of scientific work. We don’t have smoking beagles any more. Instead we have serious and important research into debilitating disease.

Not that the situation is ideal. It is still dreadful that we need to experiment on animals, that we haven’t found better and cheaper methods that don’t require living creatures. But that’s life. There will always be people that feel much more strongly than most on the issue – and good, because they will be motivated enough to keep an eye on the situation and make sure it doesn’t give way to past problems.

Likewise, I’m a big fan of protests, even if they can be a royal pain if you’re disrupted (which I was – I was over an hour late for my brother’s birthday party in part thanks to the delay getting out of Oxford). Protests mean people learn how to organise, and they learn how intricate and bureaucratic systems of government work. And they educate people, bring issues to the forefront, and they show the general public that not everyone is being complacent, that you *can* stand up and be counted if something bothers you enough.

But what concerns me about the animal rights people at the moment is that for many, it isn’t animal rights at all that they are fighting for. It’s the fact that they enjoying breaking rules and creating tension. There simply is no justification for hounding and threatening people – and that is exactly what the militant edges do – and enjoy doing.

They have no right to make building workers fear for their own safety. They are only building concrete offices. There is a nasty streak running through the animal rights protest and their actions are drawing the sort of people that only want to create trouble.

It is this that is creating a vicious circle between protestors and police. Protestors are frustrated and seek to find someone to blame. The police are often at the end of it. The police are also invariably less than charming, which gets protestors backs up.

But those protestors complaining and fussing about police harassment are living in fairyland. They have been given the right by the courts to hold regular protests in an extremely busy city centre, and the police, while not exactly chatty, aren’t threatening them. They’d know about it if they were.

They want freedom of speech, they have freedom of speech. The police are obliged to make sure things don’t get out of hand, and if they fear they will, they are curt and sometimes aggressive. It’s crowd control and it works.

What struck me was how disorganised and relatively unintelligent the protestors were in making their protest. If they feel the police are being overly controlling, why not change tactics?

Why all gather in one spot where they can be shunted around? Why not post your plans and then change them at the last minute. Why not pick out three leader types and get them to lead three different marches – appearing behind the police where they thought they’d blocked off a road. And where are the inspiring speakers? Where are community leaders? Where’s the leaflet handing out the day before? Where are the media-savvy opportunities?

The fact that they weren’t there demonstrates to me at least that the fire is out on the animal rights issue and all that remain are well-meaning people that would probably achieve more by lobbying individuals in power; and pseudo-rebels who only want to live the fantasy of being on the run.

I think it should be pointed out as well that we *know* of human beings being arrested, jailed, tortured and abused in recent years – in this country and outside, our citizens and other countries’ citizens. Where are the human rights marches?

The issues

But that aside, what of the story and the facts?

On the front of the leaflet handed out by “Speak” at the protest is a cat with God-knows-what attached to its head. It grabs the attention, but what’s important is to find out how credible Speak is.

Protest groups will always complain bitterly that their perspective is misrepresented, especially in the media, and that whoever they are criticising is getting away with hiding things. The sad truth though is that the protestors are invariably more guilty of misrepresenting what people say and do to their own ends.

As such, it is very easy to check out a group’s credibility by investigating their claims and reviewing their materials.

Underneath the cat picture is a single quote. It comes from a pretty significant source: Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

He is quoted as saying: “The animal testing regime… is utterly futile.”

NICE is an important organisation. It effectively decides on what people are allowed to do and not to do with drugs in the UK. That’s not to say it isn’t occasionally mired in controversy, with health professionals sometimesaccusing it of having got it all wrong and misunderstood the situation.

But what of the quote? It’s the ellipsis you have to be worried about. There can be a whole world of qualification removed with those three little dots. So I did a bit of research. This quote has become a stock one used by the animal rights movement. But where does it come from?

Well, from a meeting at Chatham House in September 2003. Chatham is famous for its “Chatham House rules” where the meeting can be reported but who said what cannot be. The philosophy is that it encourages free debate. Mr Rawlins was there to talk to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as regulators, patient groups and so on about the challenges of drug creation in the future.

His main point was that a rethink was needed as drug were becoming too expensive. And he did say the animal study regime was “utterly futile”. Unfortunately I have been able to find only one contemporary source though – The Daily Telegraph. And it leaves mention of this quote until the very last sentence. It is also not as equivocal as it sounds:

“Patients must be more involved in regulatory decisions, he said. ‘The population is going to have to realise there is a trade-off between absolute safety and the development of new drugs.’ The animal study regime, which could take up to six years, was ‘utterly futile’. The industry must do more research on how to conduct efficient clinical trials.”

There isn’t a full transcript on the Chatham House website unfortunately, so this is all we have to go on. It is weak.

Allegations

The Speak leaflet makes its allegations on the back of the leaflet. It claims that Oxford University “hides a nasty secret”. And that is: “Behind the beautiful architecture and dreaming spires lies suffering and death in the university labs. Countless thousands of animals are destined to be the latest victims of arrogance and scientific fraud inside the walls of this new facility.”

Emotive language aside – what is this “scientific fraud”? The leaflet has seven points.

1. That the university originally said there would be no experiments at the new lab being built
2. That it then contradicted this statement by saying it would
3. That in the labs, kittens had one eye sewn up and part of their brains removed, and that three monkeys with artificially produced brain damage were experimented on
4. That one professor said the monkeys led “the life of Riley” but in one experiment had required “intensive nursing” to keep them alive
5. That the university sought an injunction to prevent a “legal and peaceful campaign” against the new lab
6. That the university failed to attend a public meeting at the town hall, despite being invited
7. That a leading professor was investigated for cruelty for refusing to allow a monkey to be put down because it was an “asset”

Having read these seven points, I’m pretty sure they’re all true, albeit heavily angled. Dates are given for each point and in two cases, specific publications referred to.

And, having done some digging, I’ve discovered that strictly speaking they are all true. But they have been bent, and elements purposefully missed out. Point by point:

1. I can’t find the exact quote listed by Speak in which the university said “no experiments would be carried out”. But it is true that the original planning application (02/02371/FUL) said it was to be only an “animal holding centre”. You can see the bare bones of that application here – but unfortunately a pdf of the application itself has been removed.
2. Speak says on 16 March, the university said the facility would be used to experiment on animals. Again, I can’t find an official source. But it seems perfectly feasible. The university does continue to stress that the facility fundamental purpose is for housing animals, and not for tests on them.
3. I can’t find the article quoted in Nature, but the monkey experiments are true, and were written up in Brain Research Bulletin 61 (2003). You can read the abstract and buy it if you want. The point though is that Oxford University did not damage the monkeys themselves, merely did experiments on them. It should also be noted that the university pointed out that a major part of the protestors’ ads around this time were incorrect. They stated that two monkeys were being held, when in fact they had been put down years before.
4. The professor was John Stein, and an interview with him appeared in the Oxford Mail in August 2004. He said: “We can record from the brain absolutely painlessly. It causes them no pain or stress… They have a life of Riley compared to animals in the wild.” His counter-argument was: “For the sacrifice of a very small number of animals there’s a huge benefit to humanity. We all worry about the ethics, but as long as our experiments are done with no pain, they are justifiable.”As for his research, there is no indication which paper it was, and I’m not going to search all of Prof Stein’s papers to find it either. But presumably Speak has been through each one with a fine-toothed comb. I suspect the quote is true, but, again, angled and bent.
5. The “Draconia” injunction. This is perfectly true and you can read the whole thing at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/order10-11-04.pdf [pdf]. Again though, the situation has been mispainted. The contractors building the facility had pulled out after being threatened personally and as a business. Oxford University sought a 100-yard ban on protestors. This was rejected. Instead, the size of the protests were limited to 50 people and any more would have to apply to the police. I think the court made a good decision, balancing the interests of both sides.
6. The university didn’t really fail to turn up to the Town Hall meeting. It never said it was going to go. It was set up by the protestors and the university declined. It said: “We will participate in any event if we receive a reasonable invitation.” That has yet to be put to the test.
7. You can read The Times story in question (Oxford inquiry on abuse of monkey). The case was dropped, the delay in the vet’s recommendation and the monkey being put down was 90 minutes, and the explanation was: “Staff had detected illness in an animal being used in biomedical research. Vets diagnosed an infection and the animal was treated with antibiotics but did not respond quickly, so euthanasia was recommended.”

If you want to know more, the BBC and Guardian both have sub-sites set up to cover the thorny question of animal experiments. There is also a publication called LabAnimal that should be reviewed.

More useful links here:

Oxford University site explaining its side
Speak’s website