Lords step into the moral minefield of animal research

Few areas of scientific research generate more controversy than the use of animals in experiments. The intense and frequently bitter debate has become polarised between those who believe that experiments on animals are vital for saving human lives and those who think that any sort of experiment involving animal suffering is repugnant and morally indefensible.

The House of Lords has stepped into this ethical mine-field with a report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. It is an attempt to review the regulations governing such research 15 years after the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force – a law that is said to make Britain the most regulated country in the world for research on animals.

The committee, chaired by Lord Smith of Clifton, prides itself on its cross-party support and objectivity. Only one of its members is a scientist who has been directly involved in animal research, the rest being drawn from a range of academic disciplines and professions. "We consider the report has great authority because it was made by an independent committee," Lord Smith said.

The committee's first conclusion articulates the dilemma at the heart of the debate – the trade-off between the benefits to medicine and industry provided by animal experiments with the costs, or more properly the harm and suffering caused, to the animals involved. As the committee concluded: "It is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering."

Many opponents of animal research argue that much suffering could be avoided if the Government encouraged a move away from animal testing towards the use of human or animal tissue grown in a test tube. However, Lord Smith said that the committee found that there was no alternative to animal experiments.

"We do not see any possibility of doing away with animal experiments if we want safe medicines," he said.

In Britain, the number of "scientific procedures" involving animals fell by 3.4 per cent last year compared with 2000. In 2001, some 2.62 million procedures involving animals were registered with the Home Office, which is responsible for issuing the necessary licences to scientists.

Of these experiments, 63 per cent were for research to further basic knowledge of biology, and human or veterinary medicine. A further 17 per cent involved testing the safety or toxicity of substances, mostly drugs.

Most of the animals used – 85 per cent – were rats or mice, and 11 per cent were fish and birds. Dogs, cats, horses and monkeys, which have special protection under the 1986 Act, collectively composed less than 1 per cent of the total.

"Animal experiments are still needed, but more could be done to find new methods of research which don't involve animals," Lord Smith said.

Scientists involved in animal research are supposed to follow a procedure known as the "three R's", which call for a reduction in the numbers used, a refinement of procedures to minimise suffering, and the replacement of animals by other techniques wherever possible.

The select committee said that scientists who try to find alternatives to using live animals are often considered to be on the fringes of research. They are more likely to carry the title "Dr" rather than "Professor", Lord Smith said.

Yet the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has responsibility for co-ordinating international law on the use of animals for the testing of potentially toxic substances, has recently adopted four new tests that use skin or tissue to replace rabbits. Other developments, such as computers to model for toxicity testing or biological "chips" carrying genes, also promise to become viable alternatives to the use of live animals in some experiments.

Gill Langley, scientific adviser to the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, a charity, said that the Lords' report should force the Government to treat the issue more seriously.

"This is the second Lords committee in six months to call urgently on the Government to develop non-animal methods to replace animals experiments, especially in toxicology ... now is the moment for a serious funding commitment," Dr Langley said.

Mark Matfield, executive director of the Research Defence Association, said that contrary to popular belief many scientists were already using alternatives to animals. "These days, over 80 per cent of medical research is done by the non-animal methods of research," Dr Matfield said.

"We are unlikely to see the day when we can replace all animal experiments within the foreseeable future, but the Lords committee proposals to focus more effort on alternatives will be a very welcome step in that direction," he said.

Another area of concern for the committee was secrecy. It has called for the repeal of section 24 of the 1986 Act, which allows details of licensed procedures involving animals to remain confidential. This is needed to dispel the climate of secrecy and distrust surrounding animal testing, the committee said.

"The public availability of regularly updated, good quality information on what animals experiments are done and why, is vital to create an atmosphere in which animal experimentation can be discussed productively," the report said.

But fear of violence or intimidation by animal rights activists and issues of commercial confidentiality would still mean that details such as names and addresses would remain secret.

However, this should not stifle debate, the committee said. "There has been a siege attitude, which is understandable given the rise of animal rights terrorism," Lord Smith said.

"We believe it is inhibiting public discussion. The academic community has preferred to keep their heads below the parapet, to hunker down," Lord Smith added.

Although the committee would like the public to be reminded wherever possible of the medical benefits of animal experiments, it has drawn away from recommending that every drug should be clearly labelled as having been "tested on animals".

Lord Smith said that the suggestion had been dismissed by drug companies, which gave the lame excuse that there was not enough room on the label. It is likelier, however, that they were worried about the public being put off in a marketing climate that fosters a quite opposite message: "Not tested on animals".

Baroness Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution, said she was "saddened" that the committee did not recommend the printing of messages on every prescription. "That would draw a clear line between the extremists who appear not to put a premium on human life and the vast majority who would value the lives of those closer to them above and beyond experimental animals," she said.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has broadly supported the report of the Lords select committee, especially the recommendation for more independent scrutiny of the Home Office's animal experiments inspectorate.

"There is much to welcome in this report. We have been campaigning for years for greater transparency," said the BUAV's chief executive, Michelle Thew.

"If the Government refuses to introduce changes, it will show its contempt for democracy, public concern and animal welfare," Ms Thew added.