Sir

Ulrike Gross, in her Correspondence 'Public opinion and the ethics of primate brain research' (Nature 456, 443; 2008), says that monkey brain research similar to that conducted by Andreas Kreiter has been 'prohibited' in Zurich. This is not the case.

As reported in your News story 'Swiss court bans work on macaque brains' (Nature 453, 833; 2008), the Veterinary Office of the Canton of Zurich did grant licences for experiments involving macaques, but their decision was successfully challenged by some members of an advisory committee. These include the chair of the committee, Klaus Peter Rippe, who also chairs the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology that reported on the dignity of plants (Nature 453, 824; 2008).

The same Zurich advisory committee did not object to the granting of licences to other Zurich groups that used similar methods to Kreiter's. There is therefore no objection in principle to experiments with monkeys in Zurich.

The issue at present centres on the balance of cost and benefit, particularly on whether fundamental research is less valuable than applied research even when the former has long-term potential for contributing to human health and welfare. The Zurich case is currently under consideration by the Swiss Federal Court.

Gross says that the monkeys in Zurich are suffering. They are not, as the protocols of unannounced inspection visits by members of the cantonal Veterinary Office advisory committee affirm.

She also says, “Even a prominent scientist such as Andreas Kreiter must justify his use of animals”. In Europe there are many levels at which such justification is required: the research institutions, the funding organizations, the licensing authorities (where her interests are usually represented), and the journals where the research is peer reviewed. In our society, science is the activity that is probably subject to the widest scrutiny and review by both experts and laypeople alike.