Some of us have been watching with interest a court challenge relating to primate research in Switzerland. A few months ago, researchers appealed to the Zurich administrative court against a decision from the Swiss Health Department not to approve a basic research project to be done in macaque monkeys.

But according to the Scientific American magazine, in a surprise ruling, the court upheld the original verdict, citing in part the macaque’s evolutionary proximity to humans and its cognitive abilities. Long-term objectives and uncertain applications are unacceptable, the court ruled.

Not surprisingly, we don’t support the decision. It is baffling because there is no clear distinction between basic and applied research, except at the ends of the spectrum. It is widely appreciated that much basic research can lead to medical advances, and that much applied research can shed light on basic biological functions.

Whilst the research institute is appealing the decision, the final outcome will also be baffling, since its impact more widely is not known. Switzerland is an exceptional case. It is renowned for having held a number of referenda on animal experiments, all of which have gone in favour of continued research using animals, but which have led to pressure to tighten regulations.

Ultimately, there is no reason that the European Union, which is reviewing its own laws on animal experiments, should be unduly swayed by this decision. It is up to the Swiss to decide how their own laws work.