View some of the BUAV's
undercover evidence video »

Warning: this film contains
upsetting scenes of animal suffering

The BUAV's brave investigator witnessed the following procedures and 'care' of marmoset monkeys:

• Multiple surgical operations — involving cutting their skulls with an electric saw — to deliberately brain damage the monkey, inducing a stroke
• Physical effects of the operations included partial paralysis, tremors, epileptic fits, pain, vomiting and loss of appetite
• Some monkeys received no pain relief after operations to their brains
• Monkeys were never monitored through the night, even immediately after brain-damaging surgery
• Monkeys were left unattended overnight and found dead in the morning
• Monkeys were deprived of water for long periods, confined in boxes and forced to undergo tasks they found stressful

This is because we say the Government acted unlawfully on two grounds:

1. Severity of Suffering:

   Under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Government must weigh up the cost (to the animal) versus the benefit (to research) before it licenses animal experiments. It then assigns a severity limit of either 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' to the procedure.

   The marmoset brain experiments detailed above were licensed by the Government as 'moderate'. However, the BUAV evidence clearly shows that monkeys were experiencing (and would have been expected to experience) 'substantial' suffering as a result of the invasive brain experiments undertaken.

   It emerged during the course of the case that the Government only gives a 'substantial' tag to the most severe experiments. Little wonder that Home Office statistics show year after year that only 2% of projects get a substantial rating. The BUAV believes that the Home Office's approach not only misleads Parliament and the public, but that it is unlawful.

2. Care Arrangements:

   Under the law, the Government must be satisfied that the care arrangements in place for animals undergoing experiments should ensure that suffering is kept to a minimum at all times.

   However, our evidence proves that care arrangements for the Cambridge marmosets were completely inadequate to the needs of the animals.

   The Home Office would easily have been able to foresee the level of suffering the monkeys would experience as a result of the invasive brain experiments when they granted the licence to Cambridge University. The Home Office was therefore negligent in not demanding a greater level of pre and post-operative care.

The Government was found guilty of turning a blind eye to substantial suffering of animals in Home Office licensed experiments and consequently misleading the public over the extent of animal suffering in UK laboratories.

The Judgment should mean a greater number of licenses will not be granted, as correctly categorised 'substantial' procedures will not pass the key cost (to the animal): benefit (to research) test.

It is also likely to mean that the percentage of licences categorised as 'substantial' will be perhaps considerably higher, and therefore offer the public a more accurate picture of the extent of animal suffering that goes on in UK Government licensed experiments.

The BUAV's Chief Executive, Michelle Thew said, "We have proven that the Government misleads the public and Parliament about the severity of animal experiments licensed in the UK.

The Government can no longer pretend it has the strictest regulation of animal experiments in the world. This case demonstrates it has ridden roughshod over the public's trust in this matter.

Now we hope taxpayers - the vast majority of whom are opposed to animal suffering in laboratories - will be given more accurate information about the animal experiments they fund."

We need the world to see the reality of the animal testing industry. You can help by forwarding this web page to your friends »

Alternatively, if you would like to become a BUAV Campaigner or make a donation to support our work, please click here.