Research animals suffer because of bureaucracy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Too much bureaucracy is causing unnecessary suffering to animals involved in scientific research, a House of Lords report said yesterday.
The report, by the ad hoc Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, says that delays and administrative wrangling are generating animal welfare problems the legislation is supposed to prevent.
Lord Smith of Clifton, the chairman of the committee, said there were no alternatives to animal experiments if medicines and other products were to be properly tested for safety, but he said more could be done to find other methods.
"There is also too much bureaucracy, which hampers scientific research and can harm animal welfare. The UK should strive not for the tightest regulation, but for the best regulation, properly enforced," Lord Smith said.
The select committee has called for more openness in the law governing the confidentiality of information relating to the sort of experimental procedures done on animals.
It also wants the Home Office officials responsible for inspecting scientific premises to be subjected to regular, independent checks.
Scientists and animal-rights activists criticised and welcomed the report. Michelle Thew, executive director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said that many of the committee's proposals were far too tentative, although she broadly welcomed its main recommendations.
Sue Mayer, the director of the anti-GM pressure group GeneWatch, said the report had side-stepped the rise of GM animals in research.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments