Wandering Adventure Party

The future of one of Europe’s largest nonhuman primate research centers is hanging in the balance. On 3 July, just before its summer recess, the Dutch House of Representatives voted to end monkey studies at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC), located in this suburb of The Hague, by 2030. The amendment would not necessarily shutter BPRC, which holds about 950 monkeys of three species. But it stipulates that a growing share of its €12.5 million annual subsidy—reaching 100% by 2030—would go to animal-free research or the development of alternatives.

The narrow 76-74 victory for animal rights activists surprised many of the primate center’s supporters and has spurred an intense lobbying campaign on its behalf. An open letter by representatives of seven Dutch and European biomedical groups warns that the move is “far-reaching, ill-considered, and harmful to public health.”

The proposal seems unlikely to clear the smaller Dutch Senate, where it will be discussed on 9 September. But some Dutch scientists say the House vote shows that shifting political winds can rapidly erode lawmakers’ support for animal experimentation. The push to end monkey studies at BPRC—contained in an amendment to a broader budget bill—came from the Party for the Animals, which only has three seats in the House. But it was backed by the radical-right Party for Freedom, which won 37 seats in a 2024 election victory and is expected to make gains in the Senate in 2027 as well.

Critics of primate research applaud the move and say it’s a chance for the Netherlands to set an example. U.S. agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have recently led the way in the transition away from animal experimentation, notes Jarrod Bailey, director of medical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which promotes alternatives to animal research. “There’s an opportunity here that I would like to see the Netherlands take, on behalf of Europe, and show how progressive science can be,” he says.

In March, Joanna Sadler, an organic chemist at the University of Edinburgh, received an unusual email. It promised £35,000 to advance her research—no strings attached. The offer came from a program at Imperial College London that had developed an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to spot promising climate-related research that was close to commercialization.

Sadler’s work on engineering bacteria to convert disposable cutlery into acetone—an industrial solvent currently derived from fossil fuels—had made the cut. At first, Sadler didn’t really understand what the email was. But after meeting with members from Imperial’s Climate Solutions Catalyst (CSC) team, she realized it was legitimate and decided to take them up on the offer.

As AI continues to improve, universities, public funding agencies, and venture capitalists are all considering how machines could be used to identify breakthrough research. In addition to speeding up grant reviews, some researchers say the technology could help level the playing field for researchers who may be hesitant to seek out commercialization opportunities. But others warn that relying on AI for funding decisions could introduce biases and compromise confidentiality.