Yesterday (7 February) MPs debated an e-petition calling to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act, as being excluded form it leaves them exposed to unnecessary suffering. Among animals used for laboratory testing across the UK there are dogs – most of them Beagles; a petition to ban animal testing was previously debated in October last year.
The petition reads, “A recent exposé showed harrowing footage of the factory farming of laboratory dogs in the UK. Experiments on such dogs, and other animals, are today widely reported to be entirely failing the search for human treatments and cures.
“Current science from multiple fields proves that animal-based research and testing is not viable. The Government should therefore change the law to include laboratory animals under the protection of the Animal Welfare Act, to prevent their unnecessary suffering.”
“THE USE OF ANIMALS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REMAINS A VITAL TOOL IN IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS WORK BOTH IN HEALTH AND DISEASE”
A response to the petition published in August 2021 argues that “animal use for research remains important and The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) provides specific protection for these animals”.
“There is an explicit exclusion under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), to provide for the legitimate conduct of procedures on ‘protected animals’ for scientific or educational purposes that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work both in health and disease.
“Such use is crucial for the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for both humans and animals, and for the protection of our environment.”
It added, “Without the testing of potential medicines on animals the development, registration and marketing of new, safe, and effective medicines would not be possible. The animal species for animal testing of potential medicines are specifically chosen to give as much human relevant information as possible and to avoid species specific reactions which would not predict human effects.
“Many products which would not be safe or effective in humans are detected through animal testing thus avoiding harm to humans. Potential medicines fail in development for many reasons but the fact that medicines are stopped in development for reasons other than unsatisfactory animal testing does not mean that the testing is not essential.”
After reaching the target of 100,000 signature, the petition was debated by MPs. As the debate started, protestors gathered outside the Parliament.
” THE OUTDATED 1986 ANIMALS (SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES) ACT EXISTS TO PERMIT HORRIFIC EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS, THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE BANNED IF THESE ANIMALS WERE INCLUDED IN THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT”
The petition was launched by Peter Egan, actor and animal welfare campaigner. He said, “I’m delighted my petition is being debated by MPs today. The outdated 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act exists to permit horrific experiments on animals, that would otherwise be banned if these animals were included in the Animal Welfare Act.
“Outdated laws, called the ‘3Rs’ – established in 1959 for ‘humane experimental technique on animals’ – have long been surpassed by the 2003 Human Genome Project, bringing advances in evolutionary biology and genetics which have significantly increased our understanding on why animal testing is so widely reported to be failing the search for human treatments and cures.”
During debate, Dr Ben Spencer MP said, “I wish – I think we all wish – that we did not need animal research. And of course, when it takes place, we want to avoid all animal suffering if at all possible. I do not think anyone in this room wants animals to suffer. But the sad truth is that we need animal research. There are situations in which it is essential and in which its likely benefit is clear.”
He added, “I am sure that there are lots of specific examples – including the harrowing examples I heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk – where, at face value, I might wonder, ‘How on earth can that be justified?’
“The argument is more about how the ASPA operates as opposed to whether it should or should not exist. That system should be properly enforced and enable proper scrutiny of decisions based on the cost-benefit analysis for specific research programmes.”
Dr Spencer also argued for the use of animal models in laboratory testing to tackle diseases among animals as well as humans.
“THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO ADVANCE SCIENCE, BUT TO END THE CRUEL PRACTICE OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION”
In response, MP Rachael Maskell said, “The Animal Welfare Act is now an ageing piece of legislation. We need to ensure that it is brought into the modern age, so that we are not talking behind the curtain about animal experimentation in cages, but bringing into the light what is happening, ensuring that we have animal welfare at heart while reducing the unnecessary cull of and cruelty to animals. The animals clearly suffer in such experimentation.
“I therefore echo the calls to gather a scientific council to accelerate the pace of work on the new sciences, to open the eyes of Government and others to showcase Toggle showing location of what can be done without animals being part of the experimental pathway. This is a great opportunity not only to advance science, but to end the cruel practice of animal experimentation.”
A total of 105 cross-party MPs have now signed Parliament EDM 175. Tabled by Dr. Lisa Cameron MP, this EDM calls for “a rigorous public scientific hearing to stop false claims about human medicine which continue to fund animal experiments”.
Martyn Day MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, closed the debate saying, “It has been a very good debate. We have heard a range of views, all of which were rooted in animal welfare. As I reflect on what was said, I cannot help but think that there is a lucrative industry around animal testing that is well entrenched in the current systems, and that the animals in laboratories do not become any less sentient than the animals that are not in laboratory. We need to do something about that.
“I hope the Minister will take on board and take back to Government the need for a public scientific hearing, because we need to go forward with a facts-based approach. That is something that everybody could perhaps unite around, and it would help us move this debate forward.”
A new petition, calling for the ban of all animal experiments and redirection of funding towards human-based research, has already gathered over 31,000 signature and is likely to hit the target for debate – although, it seems, the response from the government has not changed since last August.
