The UK government has been criticised for not doing enough to reduce the number of scientific experiments taking place on animals.
Hamster
Statistics released by the Home Office show that 3.4 million procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2019, representing a decrease of 3% from the previous year.
Of these experiments, 50.1% accounted for the creation of genetically modified animals which were bred but not used in experiments, representing a decrease of 3% from 2018. The other half were reported for experimental procedures, with 57% of these procedures being done for basic research purposes, focusing on areas such as cancer, the immune system, and the nervous system. More so, experiments on animals for basic research purposes in 2019 are up 0.2% compared to the previous year.
While the figures do represent the lowest number of animal procedures since 2007, a number of charities have argued that not enough is being done to truly represent a significant and consistent decrease in animal experiments.
Dr Lindsay Marshall, the UK’s biomedical science adviser for the Humane Society International said: “The UK cannot expect to have world-leading science innovation whilst we rely on failing animal-based research methods that are rooted in the past.
“In drug discovery, pharmaceutical safety, chemical testing, cancer research, the data shows that animal models are really bad at telling us what will happen in a human body.
“As well as sometimes being dangerously misleading, animal approaches typically take a very long time to produce results, sometimes years, are very expensive, and of course cause enormous animal suffering.”
Dr Marshall is calling on the government to revise its 2010 research policy and focus on replacing animal procedures in science with new non-animal techniques based on human biology.
For instance, the pharmaceutical industry is pursuing technologies such as organ-on-chip and digital twins of the human body which can help replicate how drugs function within patients.
The 2010 research policy was created by the Coalition government at the time but since then animal experiments have fell by just 8%.
The UK’s efforts are being compared to countries such as The Netherlands and the US, where plans have been announced to phase-out certain areas of animal experiments. For instance, January this year saw Belgium’s Brussels-Capital Region ban animal testing on cats, dogs and primates. In 2019, the US Environmental Protection Agency stated it would reduce animal testing, including removing requirements and funding for experiments on mammals by 2035.
A Home Office spokesperson responded saying: "The UK has one of the most comprehensive animal welfare systems in the world and we are committed to the proper regulation of the use of animals in scientific research.
“Our controls ensure that animal research is carried out where no practicable alternative exists and we are pleased the number of scientific procedures conducted in Great Britain is the lowest it has been since 2007.”
Carla Owen, CEO, Animal Free Research UK added: “Today’s negligible decrease in the use of animals in laboratories represents yet more wasted opportunities to seriously address the country’s shameful reliance on outdated animal research. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced a reappraisal of the linear medical research testing policy which requires animal tests before human tests and results in a c.90% failure rate. It has never been more imperative to set a clear timetable for regulatory change. If the UK is to become a science superpower, we must significantly increase investment in cutting-edge new approach methodologies such as organ-on-a-chip which are best placed to discover treatments for human diseases, save precious time and lives, and stop the senseless suffering of millions of animals each year”.
Earlier this year, 77 scientists and academics signed an open letter to government and medical agencies calling for a clear timetable for regulatory change to enable the development of medicines without the use of animal testing. The move to in human testing for drug development where relevant, can potentially save money, accelerate drug development and improve public health, the group argued.