Animal Testing / Pain scores in animal testing

[Guest guest]

UK backs greater animal testing openness

 

09:53 21 January 03

 

NewScientist.com news service

 

Limited details of the millions of animal experiments conducted in the

UK each year are to be published in future, the government announced on

Tuesday.

The government was responding to the findings of a House of Lords select

committee report concerning the use of animals in medical and scientific

research.

" The government agrees with the report's finding that animal experiments

are necessary to develop human and veterinary medicine and to protect

humans and the environment, " said Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth.

The report also recommended publishing full details of any application

for a license to conduct animal experiments in the UK. But the

government rejected this, saying it would not repeal a law that makes it

illegal to publish such details. Instead, it suggests publishing a brief

non-technical summary of experiments written by the researchers

involved.

The format that these summaries will take has yet to be decided. They

will not include the names of researchers or research facilities but

will have to provide justification for the research.

 

Safeguard scientists

The decision to limit the amount of information disclosed has received

an angry response from some animal rights activists. But many scientific

and medical researchers backed to the government's decision.

 

Nancy Rothwell, a researcher at the University of Manchester, said:

" This looks like a very sensible response from the government, which

should provide greater openness about animal research, whilst continuing

to safeguard scientists from animal rights extremists. "

Simon Festing, of the Association of Medical Research Charities, said

patients suffering from diseases like cancer and cystic fibrosis would

be grateful for the government's backing for continued research

involving animals: " The absurd anti-vivisection agenda of abolishing

life-saving medical research involving animals is being systematically

shredded before our eyes. "

Another recommendation of the Lords' report was the establishment of a

UK research centre to further efforts to replace, reduce and refine

animal experiments. The government said this was " worth exploring

further " .

But Michelle Thew, chief executive of the British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection, said: " The government's lack of funding for

non-animal research development is recognised in the report, and yet

here the government still refuses to promote this as a top-priority

area. "

 

Will Knight

 

Related Stories Infant rats head grafted onto adult's thigh

3 December 2002 Lords report recommends animal testing 'pain scores'

24 July 2002 Persuasion replaces coercion in animal experiments

5 July 2002 For more related stories

search the print edition Archive Weblinks Government response

to Lords report (pdf) House of Lords Select Committee Report on

Animals in Scientific Procedures (pdf) British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection Association of Medical Research Charities

 

 

Lab animals should get " pain scores "

 

 

16:10 24 July 02

 

NewScientist.com news service

 

Animals should be scored for pain and suffering during scientific

experiments, says an influential UK parliamentary committee.

 

" Information on the levels of suffering and purpose of each project

would enable the public to make informed judgements about the

justification of animal research, " says Lord Smith of Clifton, chairman

of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific

Procedures.

 

" Moreover, the information would highlight where there was greatest

suffering, and hence where the need to develop replacements, reductions

and refinements was greatest, " he says.

 

The committee's report, published on Wednesday, endorses the use of

animals in experiments as necessary for testing new medical treatments.

But it recommends changes in the law to force scientists to disclose far

more information about their experiments.

 

 

 

Secret filming

 

 

At present, the Home Office is barred by law from divulging any

information about licence holders or their experiments. " This has

allowed a nonsense culture to develop where people have to infiltrate a

lab with a video camera to secretly film it, " says Lord Smith.

" Scientists have to raise their heads above the parapet. We want more

information to inform the public debate. "

 

However, the names and addresses of individuals need not be revealed,

the Lord Smith says. This would help protect them from extremists who

have attacked scientists.

 

The report also says the government should establish a " centre of

excellence " on the " three Rs " : reduction, refinement and replacement.

This would develop alternatives to vivisection and spread best practice

to reduce the numbers of animals used and minimise their suffering.

 

At present, the government spends only £60,000 directly on researching

alternatives, though it claims its overall spend is £280,000. Over 2.6

million animals were used in UK research in 2001, with 85 per cent being

rats, mice and other rodents.

 

 

" Irresponsible and discredited "

 

The report has been broadly welcomed by the scientific lobby. Simon

Festing, spokesman for the Association of Medical Research Charities

says: " Patients suffering illnesses like cancer or cystic fibrosis will

be relieved that the Lords' Committee have so strongly endorsed the

animals in medical research. "

 

" With any luck the irresponsible and now discredited anti-vivisection

movement should wither and die, " he says.

 

But Sarah Kite of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection

says: " We weren't expecting an abolitionists' charter. "

 

She adds: " We welcome the idea of 'pain scores' and hope they will give

a more accurate picture of what happens in labs and the level of

needless suffering inflicted on animals. We're also pleased that the

Lords' have said more information should be released on licence holders

and their work. This can only lead to a more informed debate. "

 

 

Danny Penman

 

 

Related Stories

 

 

Persuasion replaces coercion in animal experiments

5 July 2002

 

" Irrational protests " harming science, says Blair

24 May 2002

 

Chemical safety screening plan " unacceptable "

12 March 2002

 

 

For more related stories

search the print edition Archive

 

 

 

Weblinks

 

 

Animals In Scientific Procedures report

 

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection

 

Association of Medical Research Charities