Scientists told: reduce animal experiments

Alternative ways of conducting medical research should be found to spare animals being used in experiments, an influential group of scientists and ethicists says today.

Alternative ways of conducting medical research should be found to spare animals being used in experiments, an influential group of scientists and ethicists says today.

A two-year study on the ethics of animal experiments by the Nuffied Council on Bioethics, published today, concludes that researchers should be more open about the experiments.

The committee, made up of scientists, philosophers, members of animal protection groups and a lawyer, said it was unrealistic to assume that all animal experiments will end in the short term. But it added that practical advances in replacing animals would be a good way to reduce conflict between people on different sides of the debate.

Anti-vivisectionists welcomed the report as a vindication of their view that animal experiments should eventually be phased out of scientific research.

The report acknowledges the enormous contribution made by animal experiments to medical science but said a "thorough analysis" of the scientific barriers to replacements must be carried out.

"A world in which the important benefits of such research could be achieved without causing pain, suffering, distress, lasting harm or death to animals involved in research must be the ultimate goal," said the report.

The report highlighted some of the challenges to replacing animals, including the difficulty in simulating (in computers or in test tubes) the diversity of cells and tissues that make up a person. There was also the problem of conservatism in science, with some members of the working party reporting that, in their experience, researchers who had always used animals had been hesitant to enter into serious discussions about the potential for replacements.

Last year, there were almost 2.8m experiments on animals in the UK. The number was up on previous years but was around half the number of experiments carried out in the 1970s.

In the last few years, anti-vivisectionists have intensified their campaigns to halt animal research. Cambridge University abandoned plans to build a neuroscience research lab last year, citing increased security costs after protests.

Oxford University's contractors for a new animal research lab, Montpellier, pulled out last July after intimidation from activists. The university says it is determined to finish the lab and has kept details of the replacement builders secret. Last summer, the government gave police more powers to help them crack down on animal extremists.

Against this background, the authors of the Nuffield report condemned violence and intimidation as ways of securing a resolution to the debate between pro- and anti-vivisectionists, calling the action "morally wrong". The report urged all sides to improve the quality of the public debate by producing fair and balanced literature.

Pro-vivisection groups welcomed the Nuffield Council's calls for more research to find alternatives to animal research as well as its acknowledgement of the value of the research.

Philip Connolly, director of the Coalition for Medical Progress, pointed out that this was the third independent report - after the House of Lords select committee in 2002 and the Animal Procedures Committee in 2003 - to say that animal experiments enable scientific and medical advances. "It's a common argument by certain anti-vivisectionists that they don't," he said.

Dr Maggy Jennings, a member of the working party that produced the report and head of the RSPCA's research animals department said: "The report ... defines the many sources of suffering that can occur throughout the animals' lives. It sets these alongside the reasons why the research is done, so that it is clear what a terrible price animals pay for human wants and needs."

David Thomas, of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said the government needed to spend more on the search for replacements.

"What is needed is the political will to ensure that the potential that is there is tapped as much as possible," he said.

The government set up an institute for this task in May last year - the Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research with an initial budget of £660,000. Today the government sealed its commitment to the centre with an announcement of long-term funding of £3m from 2006-2008.

The Nuffield Council added that the replacement of animals should have a higher profile in universities and urged funding agencies such as the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust to consider funding a new professorship in the area.

The report also pointed to the need for more detail on how animals are treated in the annual statistics published by the Home Office on the use of animals in experiments.

The unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals was also criticised. For example, companies often refrain from publishing their results to prevent others copying their ideas.


Alok Jha, science correspondent

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Research lab fights back against protesters
A move away from secretive science may hold key to victory over animal activists.

Alok Jha, science corresponent

01, Nov, 2004 @9:45 AM

Animal tests of illicit drugs 'cruel'

British universities have spent £10m in a decade on animal experiments into the effects of illegal drugs, according to activists who say it is cruel because such drugs are "luxury" items people use by choice.

James Randerson, science correspondent

12, Apr, 2007 @1:43 PM

Anger over 'victory' for animal rights campaign
The government and some of the country's leading scientists yesterday reacted with anger and frustration to the decision to end the breeding of animals at a farm that has been relentlessly targeted by animal rights protesters, warning that there could be severe consequences for clinical research in the UK.

Julian Glover, David Adam and David Ward

24, Aug, 2005 @8:05 AM

Register boosts campaign to defend research on animals

· More than 100 UK groups admit experiments
· Openness seen as way of countering violent attacks

Alok Jha, science correspondent

22, Apr, 2006 @1:35 AM

Animal testing hits a 14-year high

Activists' backlash expected as number of experiments rises to 2.9 million.

Robin McKie and Mark Townsend

23, Jul, 2006 @9:27 AM

New law against animal activists
The government is to rush through a measure to protect British companies from vociferous animal rights extremists, a new criminal offence relating to 'economic sabotage'.

Tania Branigan, political correspondent

21, Jan, 2005 @11:47 AM

Animal activist faces ban from UK
Laboratory row hits Oxford streets as home secretary threatens US surgeon for allegedly advocating murder.

Jamie Wilson

26, Jul, 2004 @7:33 AM

New legal powers to trap animal rights militants
New powers to tackle animal rights extremists by clamping down on protests outside people's homes and providing further protection for companies against harassment are to be announced later this week by David Blunkett, the home secretary.

Alan Travis, home affairs editor

28, Jul, 2004 @8:23 AM

Animal rights groups protest at 20% rise in experiments
The number of scientific experiments carried out on non-human primates increased last year by 20%, despite a reduction in the number of primates used in research overall.

Alok Jha, science correspondent

08, Sep, 2004 @1:26 AM

Petition calls for total ban on primate experiments
Campaigners dressed as monkeys in pinstripe suits were at Downing Street yesterday to hand in a petition calling for a total ban on primate testing in Britain.

Sophie Kirkham

03, Aug, 2005 @12:21 AM