Animals: Experimentation

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wills for initiating this debate. It is good that there is so much agreement across the House on such an important topic. Like others, I start from the premise that medical research has saved or improved the lives of millions of people and that we should do everything possible to avoid harming its progress.

From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:

“The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice”.

There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact—tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals—as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.

Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.

This nevertheless remains a highly controversial area—as has emerged from each contribution to the debate. Certainly I recall that university campuses experience more publicity, campaigns and sometimes violent protests about animal rights than they do over any other activity or difference of opinion. The moral debate on this issue continues, and I would argue that there is a need and a responsibility for those involved in research, and even more those funding it, to explain their methods and to constantly reaffirm to the public the benefits of their work. As others have said, although that is clearly desirable, it is not always easy. The protests on campus can be targeted at individual scientists and sometimes their families. Identifying individuals or promoting their work could make them vulnerable to attack. There have been sufficient of these incidents in the past to make universities wary of opening up this work to a wider audience through the media.

Although the level of activity has reduced in recent years, the methods have changed. Communication technologies mean that universities can be disrupted more easily with no notice and for longer periods. Indeed, Universities UK, an organisation of which until recently I was chief executive, is one of several bodies supporting an organisation called support4rs, which provides advice and support to individuals and organisations who use animals in biological and medical research to help them deal with animal rights extremism. There is always the concern that those activities could have a chilling effect on legitimate university research.

However, universities are becoming much more open about the use of animal experimentation, which is an important step towards ensuring that there is a well informed and healthy debate. The Minister, in a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, earlier this month, referred to the three Rs: replacement of animal use, refinement of the procedures used, and reduction of the numbers used. This policy approach has certainly gained support in the university sector and, most importantly, is becoming embedded in research training.

I said that this area is controversial, but people in the UK have positive views about animal research. Surveys show that about three-quarters of them accept the need to use animals in research to make medical progress, and nine out of 10 do so as long as certain regulatory conditions are met. So the UK's commitment to regulation has paid off handsomely in terms of public confidence.

Within the research community, however, a major concern is that the UK's controls are too complex and bureaucratic . In an excellent briefing that I received from the UK Bioscience Sector Coalition, it expressed the hope that the new European directive governing animal research, to which other noble Lords have referred, could be an opportunity to remove some of the unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy, which, I agree, benefits neither science nor animal welfare.

Every speaker in this debate has emphasised both the importance and the benefits of research using animals, alongside the rigour of its regulation. The Minister himself did the same only recently in this House. In conclusion, therefore, I simply ask him to confirm that the new regulations will be transposed in a way that will maintain the UK's high reputation and enable the UK to become a world leader in the biosciences sector.