(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Before I start, I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. This issue is very important to me, and to many of my constituents who contact me about this matter. I recognise that there are many views on this topic, on both sides of this debate, but it is clear that the scientific evidence for ending these procedures becomes stronger by the day. I am also a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society, and I must also declare that interest.
Many people may not be aware that five animals are used in research every minute of every day in the UK. Non-technical summaries of animal experiment licences granted between January and March 2025 show that over 2 million animals were approved for use across 125 projects, including 120 beagles, and there was a further licence for invasive brain surgery on monkeys. Many species are used, including dogs, cats, rats, horses, mice, zebra, fish and chickens. Many may be surprised by that list, but the simple message is that animal experiments are failing patients, and I will say a bit more about that later.
I recently led a petition debate in Westminster Hall on immediately banning the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. This petition now has over 240,000 signatures, which I think is a great demonstration of public opinion on this issue. During that debate, I quoted from a debate in the other place in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill, in which it was stated that experiments on dogs might be discontinued, yet a century later, we are still here debating this issue.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I recently met researchers at Glasgow University who are working to develop animal-free research methods. They told me that one challenge they face is a lack of dedicated funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to transition to more humane testing, the Government must consider making more research funding available?
Irene Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Moving towards animal-free research will take some time, which is why we refer to “phasing out”. The funding structures, particularly relating to academic research, have to shift. I thank her for her intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and for leading the Petitions Committee debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I spoke to her beforehand. Does she recognise that there have been world-leading innovations in anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment for arthritis, and that has had a life-changing impact across the world on those with auto-immune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s and colitis? That would not have been possible without limited research on animals. Research on animals must be considered as an option, given that people with those diseases now at least have the opportunity for a better life due to the medications perfected because of it.
Irene Campbell
As I said, this is about phasing out animal experiments in research. I hope that the example of scientific experimentation the hon. Gentleman has given would be possible without animal research in years to come.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The use of animals in research raises serious questions about animal welfare, particularly in procedures that cause pain, distress or even death. Does my hon. Friend agree that advances in technology are making the transition away from animal testing more feasible? In vitro techniques using human cells and tissues, computer modelling, and organ-on-a-chip technologies provide promising human-relevant alternatives. These methods can offer faster, more cost-effective and more ethically sound results than traditional animal tests.
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with everything my hon. Friend said.
It is important to note that only 14% of the UK public feel it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research. With that in mind, banning the use of dogs in medical research could be our first step towards fully phasing out research on animals. We should be encouraged to follow in the footsteps of other countries, such as the USA, which has recently published a road map, with the aim of making animal testing the exception, rather than the norm, for pre-clinical safety toxicity testing over the next three to five years.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the USA committing to a road map. I believe the EU has also done so, and is looking to phase out animal testing entirely through its road map, which is due to be published in 2026. Does she agree that the UK Government could commit to something similar—a road map that gives activists and others confidence in our direction of travel?
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Like her, I am a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. Will she pay tribute to the work of Animal Free Research UK, which has done a lot of work on this issue, and the campaign on Herbie’s law, which is a proposed framework that would set a deadline of 2035 for phasing out animal experiments in medical research in the UK, and ensure support for scientists making the transition?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and fully agree with everything he has said. I will speak about those matters a bit later.
To achieve those aims, we must consider several things. There needs to be a serious shift in funding towards non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding
“represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.”
That needs to shift considerably. The cosmetics brand Lush is one of the groups working to fill this funding gap, with prize funds that support initiatives to end or replace animal testing. Recent winners range from organ-on-a-chip technologies that emulate the human liver, developments in in-silico models to predict cellular processes at a molecular level, and a research group improving multi-material bioprinting platforms for creating 3D human organ-on-a-chip models. These non-animal methods can be far more relevant and accurate to human bodies, compared with testing on other species.
Given the success of the cosmetic industry phase-out, this proven approach could be replicated and provide a legislative blueprint for the next steps in the medical sector. In March 2013, a complete marketing ban on all endpoints for animal testing on cosmetics was introduced; on the day of the ban’s introduction in 2013, the European Commission confirmed that between 2007 and 2011, a total of €238 million was invested in research into alternatives to animal testing in the EU, reflecting major investment envisaged for use well beyond the cosmetics industry.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that funding for computer modelling and artificial intelligence opportunities are vital for this sector, especially as we look to reduce cruelty in animal testing?
Irene Campbell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
It is worth questioning the quality of care for animals used in animal experiments. Answers to written parliamentary questions indicate that only one licence application has been rejected over the past seven years, indicating that licences to conduct animal experiments are rarely refused. Applicants are also allowed to adjust and resubmit licence applications to enable them to be granted; for the past four years, applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted.
According to Animal Free Research, a group that supports scientists to transition from animal-based to human-specific medical research and provides expertise in this area, 154,904 animals were involved in breaches of animal use licence conditions in 2023. Breaches included non-compliance, adverse welfare outcomes, failure to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, in some cases for up to six days.
An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials even though they have passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. We already know that our bodies are very different to those of other species and that animals are not a reliable testing method—a simple example is the number of foods that are poisonous to animals but not to humans, such as chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs.
One example of that failure is the case of sepsis, a condition that kills 48,000 people in the UK every year. Researchers rely on testing on mice, yet hundreds of drugs that have passed tests on mice have gone on to fail in human trials, demonstrating the unsurprising fact that sepsis in humans is different to sepsis in mice. Researchers from Stanford and Harvard have shown that the genetic responses to inflammation in mice are profoundly different from those in humans, so why do we continue to undertake this horrific testing? I could describe the process of inducing sepsis in mice—I had actually written it out for this debate—but it is extremely distressing, and many would find it very upsetting. I suggest that any Member interested in finding out what defines a severe animal experiment should look it up. It is, indeed, truly horrific.
Many other disease models have a history of poor translatability in humans, such as sepsis, as we have just heard, or type 2 diabetes, which could be prime candidates for phasing in more human-relevant models. An example from many years ago is thalidomide, which was tested and tested on mice, and caused no problems whatsoever; however, when taken by pregnant women, many babies were born without limbs, and with other problems. When that drug was tested on mice, it had no impact whatsoever on the baby mice when they were born. To use diabetes as an example, rodents differ from humans on every tier of glucose regulation, yet they are still used in experiments rather than relevant human-based methods.
The Labour manifesto commits the Government to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society to phase out animals in medical testing. Science is—
Irene Campbell
Science is showing us that non-animal methods are effective, more relevant and more accurate to the human body. Innovative technologies known as new-approach methodologies can effectively and safely replace animal experiments. To achieve this, there is a critical need for a robust timetable to be introduced. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on the road map that will get us there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We appreciate that the use of animals in medical research stirs the strong emotional instincts of many people across the UK, including many colleagues here. The day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing cannot come soon enough. Sadly, however, that day is not here yet.
Phasing out animal testing has to be done in lockstep with the development of safe, accurate and validated alternatives. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. Consequently, the carefully regulated use of animals remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment. Animal testing continues to be required by international agreements, which all global medicines regulators follow, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Such testing is regulated through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to the animals is limited to the absolute minimum. This is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.
The system also includes a three-tier system of licensing that licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. New technologies including AI, as referred to by colleagues, do offer potentially revolutionary ways to create alternative technologies. That is why our manifesto commits us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. As the first step, we will publish a strategy later this year laying out how the Government will support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, and officials are working on this as we speak. The strategy will set out how we will create a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods wherever possible and that places the UK at the forefront of international efforts to drive this agenda. I am proud to say that the UK is already world-leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise this technology as much as possible.
James Naish
Does the Minister know whether there will be timelines for that strategy? Are there likely to be dates and milestones that we are working towards, or just a generic description of the direction of travel?
Feryal Clark
The road map will set out how we can get to a place where we can phase out animal testing. I cannot set out dates and what the road map will include, but a huge amount of investment is going into many of the projects that have been mentioned—hopefully that will all be included in the road map. As colleagues have said, where other nations are developing new ways to phase out animal testing, we will look into those and see where we can replicate them. We are closely following developments in Europe and the US, and we work closely with both the Food and Drug Administration and our European colleagues on this matter.
Currently, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs through UK Research and Innovation. That is primarily achieved through funding of the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulation on animal testing. Since its launch in 2004, it has committed over £100 million through its research, innovation and early career awards to provide new three Rs approaches for scientists in academia and industry to use.
That is only part of our support. Many UKRI programmes, including research on organoids, cell behaviour and AI, may eventually lead to the development of non-animal testing methods, but they are not categorised as such because they are basic research at the moment. The Government have also provided more than £6 million of funding for seven centres of excellence for regulatory science and innovation to help drive advancement in healthcare. The in-silico CERSI, led by the University of Manchester, aims to support the use of computational techniques to test and develop medical products.
To be clear, we want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can, but for now the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment. I thank hon. Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate. I look forward to us working together going forward.
Question put and agreed to.