select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on a new Government strategy on animal testing in the UK.
Professor Matthew Gibson, Chair of Sustainable Biomaterials, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, said:
“The strategy to accelerate the uptake and usage of non-animal models is welcome and ensures the UK is at the forefront of this scientific area. However, it is crucial that the question of how to unlock access to these models is addressed. For widespread uptake, and to displace animal usage, we urgently need technology to bank and distribute these cell/models. Effective transport, such as advanced cold chain methods, could allow all researchers to access the most relevant models, on demand, rather than relying on centralised facilities or developing (expensive) in house expertise.”
Professor Mary Ryan, Vice Provost for Research and Enterprise at Imperial College London, said:
“New technologies are replacing the use of animals in some areas of scientific research. I am part of a dedicated hub at Imperial College London that promotes alternative methodologies and trains our researchers in these. However, we need to recognise that scientific advances in medicine still rely on animal research. When it comes to alleviating human suffering – such as neurodegenerative conditions, or incurable diseases in children – science can, and should, intervene with every ethical tool at our disposal.”
Prof Robin Lovell-Badge FRS FMedSci, Group Leader, Francis Crick Institute, said:
“I am very supportive of many aspects of the new Strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods to replace the use of animals in science. However, much of this is geared towards regulatory testing, where the goals are more readily achievable, rather than for discovery science. All scientists in the UK working with animals have signed up to the 3Rs, and many of us actively research and develop alternatives. The Strategy document should perhaps have acknowledged this a little better. But of course, we will be very grateful for the additional £75m towards this aspect of what we do.
“However, pushing this agenda too hard (which I think the Strategy document does) will demotivate the excellent, highly motivated and well-trained animal technologists (technicians) who are essential to much of the work on animals that goes on in the UK. They are already upset by some of the fairly recent changes made in the way the review and oversight of animal research is conducted by the Home Office. Any (premature) loss of these skilled and conscientious people will severely affect the UK’s ability to conduct competitive/world-leading biomedical research. As a minimum, this “statement” needs to be matched by one that recognises the value of such individuals and the need for training others because we are definitely not ready to abandon research with animals, and for some disciplines we may never get to this.
“Advances in data generation and in silico analysis have been amazing – but much of this is correlative. To prove causation still requires testing. It will hopefully be possible to use NAMs, but only after these are validated against animals (or humans), and with complex areas of biology, such as the brain and behaviour, reproductive and endocrine systems, the immune system, tumour biology, etc, or where there is a need to account for ageing, altered physiologies, environmental effects, etc, where no current NAM gets anything close to the real biology, forcibly and prematurely pushing this strategy is unlikely to help new discoveries relevant to treating or preventing disorders and diseases in humans or animals.
“Other questions could be asked about this strategy, e.g. given the rather anti-science beliefs of the current leaders of the FDA, why base anything on their ‘roadmap’ to phase out animal testing. The UK is strong enough to lead on all aspects of the 3Rs.
“The 3 baskets highlighted from page 37:
“Those in basket 1 are already moving to in vitro models. The problem is little to do with science but with the regulations that have insisted on the use of animal testing.
“Some in basket 2 are also already being phased out by researchers in the UK, such as the forced swim test, or the LC50 tests in fish – which I suspect are only carried out because it is deemed a regulatory requirement.
“As stated, pharmacokinetic work is already moving to NAMs, but it is not yet safe to rely on these. I can’t judge whether it will be in 5 years time, but I doubt it. Will the authors of the strategy be willing ‘guinea pigs’ to test novel drugs in 2030? The same is true for cardiovascular safety.
“And we all want reliable, reproducible antibodies for use in our research as well as for diagnosis or treatments. There are companies (several that started in the UK) offering new ways to make antibodies without animals. But I very much doubt that all pAb production in animals can be replaced by 2030 – how many thousands are needed?
“And why is there only one item mentioned in basket 3? This is the basket in which much of biology and modern approaches to treatments, such as gene and cell-based therapies, currently sit.”
Dr Charlotte Dean, Associate Professor in Lung Development and Disease at Imperial College London, said:
“I welcome the announcement from the government to invest in rigorously testing alternatives to animal models. In my own research we have worked hard to establish non-animal ‘replacement’ models that we can use for our research and to test potential novel drugs for lung diseases such as emphysema. However, it is important that we work together as a community to rigorously test and validate these models to determine what they can and can’t be used for. Above all, at the moment, none of these alternative models can replicate the complexity of a whole animal and until we reach that point, we cannot phase out animal work altogether.”
Prof John Martin, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine, University College London (UCL), said:
“There will always be a need for animal experimentation in the advance of medical science for the good of patients. For example heart transplant is now a success. However no patient would have agreed to have the first heart transplant unless it had been shown to be safe in animals first.”
Prof Julie Gough, Professor of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, University of Manchester, said:
“This is a very welcome announcement. Alternative methodologies that are much more human relevant are being developed across the globe. These have great potential to significantly replace animal testing and also the use of animal derived reagents in scientific research. While some areas will be more replaceable than others, it will still take many years for these new methods to be fully adopted. Once robust scientific evidence is gathered then a lot of procedures can be replaced.”
Professor Sarah Bailey, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath and UK Bioscience Sector Coalition Co-Chair (Academic), said:
“The strategy recognises, as with any transition, that this is not an ‘either or approach’. Both animal research and non-animal methods must go hand-in-hand to achieve advances in biomedical science. There is, and always has been, a clear ethical drive to only use animals in research where there are no alternatives. Animal research is still needed where the non-animal methods do not provide the complexity of biological systems, the ability to study biology across the lifespan and the continuing need to assess the effects of new medicines. The government strategy recognizes that the development of non-animal approaches requires the use of animals to validate those methods. The targets are ambitious, they are a roadmap, but it needs to be made clear that the non-animal methods are not yet ready to replace animals for all purposes.”
Prof Malcolm Macleod, Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, said:
“Reducing the ethical costs of research through reduced animal use is very much to be welcomed. Developing new drugs for human diseases, particularly the neurodegenerative diseases, has been particularly challenging. It has been argued that reasons for this include the way that some of those animal studies have been conducted, and limitations in the extent to which these animal models are relevant to human disease.
“As we move to replacing those experiments with other approaches, it is critically important that we understand how best to design and report such studies – and the DRIVER guidelines from NC3Rs will be important here – as well as how findings from such studies map to human health outcomes.”
Wendy Jarrett, CEO of Understanding Animal Research (UAR) said:
“This strategy sets out how the government will support the development and uptake of new non-animal technologies, which we fully support. In many cases these will give us entirely new capabilities and expand the toolbox available to researchers to answer previously difficult or unanswerable questions. In others it will allow us to further reduce the number of animals used. The strategy makes it very clear that animals have been fundamental to the discovery and development of most of the medicines that we have available to us today, and to preventing and treating disease in people, their pets, livestock and wild animals.
“The strategy is also realistic about the limitations of non-animal technologies, while noting the great potential for the UK to be a global leader in addressing some of those limitations and bringing new technologies into use in the future. This is a workable plan, likely to yield the greatest advantage from new opportunities while not undermining what we already have.
“UK law states that animals cannot be used in scientific research if there is a working, non-animal way of answering the question.
“Animals will continue to be needed for many years to come to protect humans, animals and the environment, study how the body works in health and in disease, and gauge how potential new medicines behave in whole, living organisms. I look forward to the day that we can phase out animals in scientific research, but I know that this will not be in my lifetime and, in the meantime, I’m pleased that the government is prioritising the development and phase-in of as many new non-animal tools as possible.”
Dr Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive, NC3Rs
“The new government strategy will help to speed up efforts to replace animal research and testing, while also recognising the continued need for high standards of animal welfare where alternative methods currently do not exist. The strategy is ambitious and will ensure that the UK maintains its world leading position. The NC3Rs is at the heart of delivering the strategy and I am excited about the opportunities to turn the ambitions into reality.”
Dr Doug Brown FRSB, Chief Executive of the RSB, said:
“The Royal Society of Biology welcomes the Government’s commitment and investment to support the research community’s ongoing drive to develop and adopt alternatives to animal use, where possible. We support the Government’s science-led approach, recognising that where alternatives cannot yet reliably or safely replace animal models, strictly regulated animal research will remain necessary for the foreseeable future alongside the increasing use of alternatives. We look forward to working with the Government to implement this strategy effectively, to ensure we continue to advance science, medicine and health.”
Declared interests:
Professor Matthew Gibson: named inventor and has a financial interest in patents relating to cryopreservation through his company Cryologyx.
Prof Julie Gough: trustee and grantholder from the Humane Research Trust.
Prof Malcolm Macleod: MM has previously been a member of the UK Home Office Animals in Science Committee and of the MHRA Commission for Human Medicines; and has published extensively on translational challenges. He has no financial conflicts of interest.
Dr Vicky Robinson: NC3Rs has a role in delivery of the strategy.
Dr Charlotte Dean: Charlotte chairs Imperial’s Animal Welfare Ethical Review Body and is a member of the NC3Rs ‘partnerships and Impact’ panel (their remit is particularly to fund projects to help roll out replacement models to be taken up by researchers more widely).
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.