'Complex diseases require the full research picture.'
BPRC is relieved following the vote in the Dutch House of Representatives on the amendment by Queeny-Aimée Rajkowski (VVD). The amendment prevents funding for biomedical research from being restricted exclusively to animal-free methods. For Jan Langermans, deputy director at BPRC and professor of laboratory animal welfare at Utrecht University, this feels like an important step back toward realism. “We’re really pleased with this,” he says. “It ensures that we can continue essential research into serious diseases.”
He continues: “We conduct research while at the same time ensuring that the welfare of the animals we use is safeguarded as well as possible.”
According to Langermans, it is not about choosing for or against alternative research methods, but about what is currently feasible. “We fully share the ambition to replace animal research. But you also have to be honest about where we stand today. There are still hardly any alternative methods that can study these kinds of complex diseases in the same way.”
Major societal diseases
At BPRC, research focuses on major diseases with significant societal impact. “We work on infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, influenza and COVID, but also on neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s”, Langermans explains.
These types of diseases cannot yet be captured in a petri dish. “They involve complex interactions throughout the entire body, the immune system and the brain. Everything is interconnected. That cannot yet be replicated in vitro.”
That is precisely why non-human primates are sometimes used in biomedical research. “Because in key aspects they resemble humans, especially when it comes to the immune system and the brain. Other animal models provide less reliable information.”
According to him, this is not an easy choice. “It is, and remains, a sensitive issue — also for us. You see these animals, you relate to them. But I also see patients. People who are seriously ill or dying. And then I think: we have to find solutions for them.”
Shock and relief
The relief about the current vote is considerable, partly because things seemed to be heading in a different direction earlier. Langermans clearly remembers his reaction when an amendment by the Party for the Animals — passed by a single vote last summer — was adopted. It stipulated that BPRC’s research funding could in future only be used for animal-free research.
“I was truly shocked”, he says. “That an institute which has played such an important role — for example during the COVID pandemic, when vaccines were tested here — could end up in such a difficult position by a margin of just one vote.”
What also affected him is that, in his view, the debate is often one-sided. “People see the monkey, and I understand that. But they don’t always see what that research delivers for patients. That’s the side we need to keep explaining and showing better.”
More than just science
According to Langermans, there is another dimension. If this type of research disappears from the Netherlands, it will not stop — it will move elsewhere. “I don’t believe it will disappear”, he says. “But I do know it will shift to countries where animal welfare is less well safeguarded than here in Europe. That means losing control over how that research is conducted.”
It would also affect the Netherlands’ position as a knowledge-based economy. “You lose important scientific expertise. Innovations will take place elsewhere, while you still need them here for patients. That makes you dependent on other countries.”
A unique position
According to Langermans, BPRC is well positioned to conduct this research responsibly. “We have our own breeding colony, which makes us independent and allows us to keep animals under controlled, high-quality conditions”, he says.
Around one thousand monkeys live on site in social groups, in spacious enclosures with ample opportunities for play and climbing. “We know their background, their health, their genetics. That allows us to carefully follow research over time and better understand what is happening.”
In addition, material from animals that die is used for follow-up research through various biobanks. “This way, we gain as much knowledge as possible from as few animals as possible. And researchers worldwide can learn from it without having to use new animals.”
Realism and progress
Looking ahead, Langermans expects alternative research methods to continue growing, but not to replace everything in the near future. “Honestly, I don’t think I will live to see the moment when research into serious diseases can be done entirely without animals”, he says. “But we will need fewer and fewer animals. And that’s what we work on every day.”
He sees the parliamentary vote as support for that course. “Keep investing in alternatives, but also maintain room for research that is still necessary today. That is not a contradiction — that is how progress works.”
He sums it up simply: “If it can be done without animals, we do it without animals. But where it cannot, you shouldn’t close that door.”
