Nell Barrie
posted 20 March 2006

'This is the weirdest protest I've ever been on,' one marcher told me as we shuffled along Mansfield road to the sound of 'What do we want? The Oxford lab! When do we want it? Now!' It was a weird protest, because finally the 'silent majority' was making its voice heard. Students, academics, Oxford residents and others from further afield had congregated in the heart of the university to show their support for the Oxford lab, for animal testing, and for science and scientists in general. The march was organised by the group Pro-Test, a student-led organisation that 'stand[s] for science, reasoned debate and, above all, the welfare of mankind'. Around a thousand people gathered to show their support, and there was a real feeling that finally reason was triumphing over the tired and illogical arguments of the animal rights protesters that have been an irritating fixture in Oxford for so long.

The anti-lab protesters gather on South Parks Road outside the site where the lab is being built every Thursday afternoon. Usually there's only 10 or 20 of them. I asked some of them what they thought of the recent spate of 'secondary action', including the intimidation tactics used towards the lab's previous building contractor. John Curtin, a protester with a history of illegal action, told me that direct action was the most effective way for the protesters to achieve their aims. I asked him if he thought illegal action was alienating the public from the protesters' cause, and he said that he wasn't interested in 'pandering to public opinion'. This is a bizarre attitude for a protester - surely their aim should be to convince as many people as possible of their point of view? Curtin said that 'social movements are always led by a tiny minority who believe they are right' - but a movement's not going to get anywhere if its supporters remain a tiny minority. On the other hand, maybe that's where the terror tactics comes in. Scaring the previous building contractors away from the Oxford site certainly seemed to work.

But it seems that more and more members of the public and of the university are refusing to be intimidated by threats of violence. The Animal Liberation Front's Bite Back website recently published a statement saying 'we must target professors, teachers, heads, students, investors, partners, supporters and ANYONE that dares to deal in any part of the University in any way. There is no time for debate and there is no time for protest, this is make or break time and from now on, ANYTHING GOES.' As a former science student at Oxford, this didn't exactly make me sympathetic to the animal rights protesters' cause. We live in a democratic society and everyone has the right to their own opinions, but when the opinions of the few are forced upon those who disagree, it's time to make your voice heard. This IS the time for debate. One student at the march told me 'this is the only protest I've ever been vaguely interested in taking part in,' and he probably was partly inspired to attend by the threats from the ALF. In this sense the animal rights protesters have hampered their own cause - by making these aggressive views public they have shown their true colours.

Those who attended the march seemed wholeheartedly in favour of the advance of science. It wasn't just about students and academics standing up for 'their' university. Professor Tipu Aziz, a neuroscientist at Oxford's Radcliffe Infirmary, said that the march heralded the 'return of democracy and the end of animal rights terrorism'. This might be a little optimistic, but a thousand-strong crowd shouting their support for animal testing is certainly a heavy blow to the animal rights protesters. Kristina Cook, a DPhil chemistry student at Oxford, told the crowd, 'We are here to celebrate progress and the pursuit of knowledge, we are here to support scientists and doctors. Research will not be stopped.' Cheers drowned out the sound of the nearby march organised by SPEAK, campaigners against the Oxford lab. James Panton, a politics lecturer from Lady Margaret Hall, said, 'We have to start developing a culture that is supportive of scientists', something which Oxford University itself has been rather backward about. Tom Holden, an Oxford student member of Pro-Test who played a major part in organising the march, told me that the University hasn't helped Pro-Test at all, and that he wishes they'd be more supportive. Pro-Test members said they'd even had a hard time finding somewhere to make their banners, so wary are the colleges of supporting such a controversial cause.

Luckily it seems the public are willing to do what the university won't, and take a stand against the intimidation. One of the chants ran 'No more threats, no more fear, animal testing wanted here!' and well expressed the attitude of the marchers. Dr Simon Festing, head of the Research Defence Society (RDS), a group that represents medical researchers in the public debate about animal testing, was also present at the march. He told me that animal testing is 'unduly controversial' and that many institutions are 'keeping their heads down'. The RDS has been promoting animal testing and encouraging universities to publicise their side of the argument, but it seems it takes a small group of determined students to organise a public demonstration of support for animal testing. There was no violence, despite the march being organised on the same day as the animal rights protesters' monthly demonstration. One student told me she was glad that the two were taking place on the same day, because 'for once both sides of the argument are being presented'. And this is exactly what this particular debate needs. Animal rights protesters say that animal testing has never accomplished anything. Arguments that are so obviously false shouldn't be allowed to stand, and on Saturday they were challenged. Tom Holden said that the march went 'better than I had hoped' and that it was 'so nice to see something other than apathy'. The defence of democracy and science is a worthy cause, and one that more people should be willing to stand up for. Next time let's make it 5,000 people, and really give the animal rights protesters something to think about. As one of the Pro-Test organisers said, 'there's an argument to be had. Let's win it!'