Primate research has long been subject to heightened political scrutiny in the Netherlands, with some Members of Parliament consistently calling for the closure of EARA member the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC). The BPRC receives funding from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and operates under a formal agreement with the Ministry that places strict limits on its activities. Under this arrangement, the Ministry determines, for example, the maximum number of animal procedures that may be conducted and the maximum size of the centre’s breeding colony.
Non-human primate (NHP) research in the Netherlands has already been reduced significantly in recent years under the agreement between the Ministry and the BPRC. This included a reduction in breeding colony size from 1,437 to around 1,000 and a reduction in the number of procedures from 200-250 to 120-150 per year by 2025. This agreement was made after the Dutch government stated their ambition to become a forerunner in the transition to animal-free innovation. The BPRC accomplished these targets early, by reducing externally financed research projects.
Investigation into potential phase-out
At the end of 2022, the Dutch Parliament requested that the government investigate whether research with NHPs could be further reduced. The Ministry, at the end of 2023, commissioned a committee to investigate ways to reduce NHP experiments without compromising research that is strictly necessary for combatting life-threatening disease and outbreaks of infectious diseases affecting public health. Additionally, the committee was asked to provide an analysis of four possible scenarios: 1) a complete phase-out, 2) a reduction, 3) a continuation, and 4) an increase of NHP research in the Netherlands.
The committee published their results in March 2025, stating that NHP research remains crucial in drug development and regulation. The committee commented that not all researchers agree with the indispensability of NHPs in research and the translational value and included various ways in which New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) can replace, reduce and refine NHP research, but also acknowledged the fact that NAMs and animal experiments measure different variables and thus one-to-one replacement was currently not feasible.
The committee concluded that a complete ban on NHP research would be impossible to implement under the current ethical and legal (European) framework, at least as long as NAMs are insufficiently available.
The report said that the Netherlands is a significant contributor to NHP research globally – ranking eighth in terms of the number of published studies involving NHPs – as well as within the EU – contributing to 63% of all published studies involving NHPs in 2021.
Losing this currently strong position is highlighted as a potentially important loss in a phase-out or reduction-scenario with the risk of losing high-quality research and competence, as good researchers could decide to move abroad. The report also describes a phase out or reduction in Dutch NHP research as a setback in European autonomy when it comes to, for example, vaccine development.
Minister Eppo Bruins welcomed the outcomes of the investigation and in a letter to Parliament concluded that research at BPRC should be maintained according to current agreements. In his letter, he states, “I believe it is up to the Dutch researchers and competent authorities themselves to determine which research involving NHPs is truly necessary, following a thorough evaluation. More generally, I am very reluctant to make political decisions about which research should or should not take place in the Netherlands.”
Budget amendment threatening NHP research at the BPRC
Not much later, in July 2025, the Dutch Parliament has adopted a controversial amendment to the 2025 budget of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), which could effectively end government funding for primate research at the BPRC by 2030.
Tabled by the Party for the Animals (PvdD) and the extreme-right Party for Freedom (PVV), the amendment proposes a phased reallocation of the OCW subsidy, increasing the portion that must be spent on alternatives to animal research each year. By 2030, the entire subsidy would be earmarked for alternatives, leaving no funds available for primate research. The motion passed by a narrow margin – 76 votes in favour and 74 against on Thursday 3 July, a vote that was rushed in order to take place before summer recess without any preceding debate on the matter.
This left the Senate with minimal time for scrutiny as the vote on the budget was scheduled to take place on Tuesday 8 July. Additionally, the Senate is not allowed to vote on the amendment specifically, as it is only allowed to vote on the budget as a whole. All of this happened while neither Parliament nor the Senate held a debate on this matter.
Efforts by EARA and others to urge senators to reject the budget as long as the amendment remained in place did delay the vote in favour of further scrutiny but could not prevent the senators from voting for the budget in October 2025. This meant that, from 2026, the BPRC would have had to allocate 40% of its government subsidy to alternative methods, with an additional 20% added each year thereafter.
New Parliament secures NHP research funding
The installation of a new Parliament after the previous government had fallen in 2025, paved the way for an overturn on the amendment. In March 2026, a majority of Dutch MPs voted in favour of a new amendment that asked to remove the earmarking, meaning the BPRC would be free to spend their budget based on scientific necessity and availability of appropriate alternative methods. This revised approach maintains the Netherlands’ ambition to advance animal-free innovation, while recognising that animal research remains necessary in specific areas of biomedical research.
The Dutch Parliament’s decision to reverse the earmarking represents a significant and welcome course correction. The original amendment was based on the assumption that funding constraints alone could drive the replacement of non-human primates use without sufficient regard for scientific feasibility or timelines.
This latest vote acknowledges both the progress already being made in developing alternatives and the continued necessity of animal research in addressing complex biomedical challenges. Importantly, it restores the principle that funding allocation should be guided by scientific need rather than predetermined political targets.
The votes also highlight a division that is seen more often, between the political left and right, with almost every left-wing party voting to defund primate research both last year as well as in this recent vote and most parties on the right voting against defunding.
This political realignment sits within a broader historical and political context that is worth acknowledging. Across much of the twentieth century, parties of the left were among the strongest advocates for scientific progress and technological innovation, viewing both as essential tools for improving public health and social welfare. Conservative traditions, by contrast, tended to counsel caution against rapid change. In contemporary debates around animal research, that historical alignment has disappeared. Scepticism toward animal research is today more commonly associated with self-proclaimed progressive and green political movements, creating a tension between that scepticism and those movements' broader commitments to medical and scientific progress.
Continued support for primate research that will be reviewed in 2030
In July 2026, the Dutch government confirmed that funding for NHP research at the BPRC will continue under the existing subsidy agreement, while increasing investment in the development of animal-free research methods.
The Minister said the Netherlands cannot currently do without NHP research if it is to avoid compromising research into life-threatening diseases and infectious diseases that threaten public health. The letter also states that recent geopolitical developments have reinforced the importance of maintaining national research capacity, including expertise and infrastructure for NHP research.
The government reiterated its preference for using primates bred at the BPRC rather than importing animals from third countries, citing the centre's high animal welfare standards and the scientific advantages of maintaining a dedicated breeding colony.
Finally, the government announced that it will commission a further study in 2030 to examine additional opportunities to reduce the number of NHP procedures carried out in the Netherlands.