July 10, 2012

expert reaction to annual Home Office animal research statistics

The Home Office releases its annual statistics on the numbers of procedures carried out on animals for research purposes.

Prof Fran Balkwill, Chair of Understanding Animal Research, said:

“These statistics show that, once again, nearly half of all “procedures” amount to the breeding of a GM or HM mouse. We also saw a dramatic decrease, of nearly three-quarters, in the use of new world monkeys. This year, we have also seen an increase in the proportion of procedures that are for veterinary or environmental purposes. Nearly all animal procedures involve rodents or fish, and in 2011 fish and domestic fowl accounted for most of the rise in the number of procedures. Almost all domestic fowl were used for veterinary purposes, while fish are increasingly used for basic research into medical problems such as heart conditions.

“What the stats do not show is that a “procedure” can be as mild as taking a blood sample, and the number of “significant” procedures stands at only 5%. It is important to note that “animal research” also refers to veterinary studies, such as studying cat nutrition or transmissible diseases in farm animals.

“Animal research is conducted for the benefit of humans and animals alike, and we have made great strides in the past few years towards preventing or treating diseases that would have seemed incurable even a decade ago. We hope to see, in the coming years, further decreases in the number of dogs, cats and primates used, in line with efforts towards reduction, refinement and replacement of animals in research advocated by scientists and overseen by NC3Rs.”

Dr Tony Peatfield, Director of Corporate Affairs at the Medical Research Council (MRC), said:

“The small increase in the number of animals used in research procedures should be seen in the context of exciting progress in bioscience research investment, particularly in the academic sector. As one of the main funders of medical research in the UK, the MRC believes that the use of animals remains essential both in fundamental research and in researching the prevention and treatment of many diseases. However, we are committed to replacing, reducing, and refining animal use. To this end we fully support the work of NC3Rs, both financially and in adopting their guidance on the 3Rs and animal welfare.

“We also welcome the work NC3Rs is doing to measure the real impact of the 3Rs in UK research, and we are particularly pleased to note the increase in the number of applications from the academic sector for NC3Rs funding.”

Dr Penny Hawkins, Senior Scientist and Deputy Head of the RSPCA Research Animal Dept, said:

“Each animal bred or used for research, whether a mouse, fish or monkey, is an individual capable of experiencing pain, suffering and distress. Efforts are being made to improve the way animals are cared for and to reduce suffering in experimental procedures, but much more needs to be done. Any level of suffering is a concern for the RSPCA, but ending severe suffering is a top priority.

“We want the government to commit to ending severe animal suffering and for scientists to focus on changing these procedures so they cause as little pain and psychological suffering as possible.

“We often hear statements that most animal experiments cause minimal suffering, but in fact we simply don’t know how much suffering is actually caused, or how many animals suffer severely. The RSPCA has long argued that better information on actual animal suffering is essential, both for public accountability and so that efforts to reduce suffering can be properly focused where they are needed most.”

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“Animal research plays a necessary role in life sciences research, helping us to understand better and improve the treatment of diseases in humans and animals. The increase in the total number of animals reported today is mainly due to the breeding of mice and fish, and is not a good indicator of the great efforts going into reducing, refining and replacing animals in research. We will continue to work closely with the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research when reviewing grant applications to ensure the research that we fund follows best practice and reduces animal experimentations wherever possible.”

Stephen Whitehead, Chief Executive of ABPI, said:

“Where medical research is concerned, we have a straightforward option – continue with medical research, and continue to save and improve lives; or stop medical research, and stop our quest to cure Alzheimer’s, HIV, cancer, and every single disease that is currently untreatable. For me personally the decision is obvious – we have to prioritise human life at the same time as continuing to strive to reduce the number of animals used in research.”