Members from across the University have expressed their concerns with the conduct of the School of Biological Sciences (SBS) and their recommendation to stop the veterinary medicine course during a discussion chaired by the deputy vice-chancellor this week (13/01).

The discussion was organised after the SBS voted 11 to zero to recommend ceasing the course, with two abstentions, on the basis that “there was no viable long-term solution” for the “sustainable delivery of clinical services” within the Vet School.

The University’s General Board is expected to make a decision about the recommendation within the next two months.

Contributions in the discussion came from heads of departments, senior tutors, Vet School academics, as well as vet students. Most of the contributions urged the General Board not to accept the recommendation, and criticised the SBS’s conduct in delivering news of it.

Prof Mark Holmes, the head of the Department of Veterinary Medicine, said he had “serious concerns over the evidence and the processes” that led to the SBS’s recommendation. These concerns included that Holmes was “excluded” from much of the SBS’s discussions about their recommendation and their vote.

Holmes also raised concerns that “the options considered all included the substantial costs of a new building” which “were imposed on us by the University who made no provision for the accommodation of our department before applying for planning permission to repurpose our site”.

He added: “The recommendation to close the course, the only one we run, is effectively a recommendation to close the department. We cannot undertake clinical veterinary research without a hospital.”

Defending the decision, Prof Jon Simons, head of the SBS, provided a statement for the discussion, saying: “I sincerely regret that it has not been possible to identify a viable alternative solution to the profound challenges facing the Vet School.” He claimed that there were “significant challenges over quality of education provision” as well as financial issues, with the Vet School “losing over £1 million a year”.

Simons explained that he had chaired a working group, “which included four senior Vet School staff and other colleagues,” to evaluate a range of options for “the future of clinical services delivery”. The professor said that the SBS had an “in-depth and structured discussion” about all of these options, but it ultimately concluded that “closing the course was the only responsible way forward”.

Holmes responded to Simons’ claims about the Vet School’s finances by saying that they were “largely untrue” and “just an excuse” to stop the course.

Rudi Bruijn-Yard, a veterinary medicine (vet med) student and president of Cambridge University Veterinary Society, raised the student society’s grievances with the SBS, accusing them of adopting a “dismissive and totalitarian approach” by “completely blindsiding our veterinary department”.

He added that the “hypocrisy is astonishing” for the SBS to claim that the vet course had to be closed due to financial challenges when the University has recently completed construction on the £300 million Ray Dolby Centre, which neighbours the vet department.

Bruijn-Yard also warned that the impact of SBS’ recommendation on the mental health of vet med students was “immeasurable”.

Another common concern, raised by senior tutors and admissions tutors, was that the SBS’ communication of the information had been “chaotic”. Prof Toni Williams, Girton’s senior tutor, said that poor communication had led to “unforeseen risks and costs” for colleges as they were “unable to give reliable information” to current and applying vet med students.

Williams was particularly critical of the fact that information had not been shared with admissions tutors, and was instead sent to applicants during the interview period directly. Williams called the SBS’ methods of communicating their recommendation “searingly cruel” as well as “inconsistent and unhelpful”.

Dr Seb Falk, the senior admissions tutor at Girton, said that candidates were sent an email giving them the options of continuing their application, switching to a different course, substituting Cambridge for another university, or withdrawing altogether. He claimed that the timing of this communication was “guaranteed to upset applicants and likely to cause many to withdraw their applications”.

Falk also said that colleges will be required to send successful applicants an email declaring their “intention” to give them an offer rather than a conventional acceptance letter. According to Falk, colleges were given less than a week to decide whether they wanted to admit any vets this year at all.

Further contributions in the discussion came from two members of the local RSPCA, who stressed the role of the hospital in providing veterinary care to financially disadvantaged people in Cambridge. They raised the possibility that, without the Vet School, more clients would be forced to euthanise their pets.

The shadow minister for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Niel Hudson, who trained at the Vet School, spoke about the importance of the course for addressing food and biological security threats to the UK. Meanwhile, Prof James Wood, a former head of the vet department, argued that Cambridge vet graduates have a “disproportionately beneficial impact on society” as they are more likely to pursue scientific careers.

Matthew Copeman, the Undergraduate President of Cambridge Students’ Union, accused the recommendation of ignoring the Student Protection Plan that the University published in September, which claimed that the risk of courses closing for financial reasons was “low”. He argued that ending the veterinary course would set a dangerous precedent for other departments.