Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Alison Taylor
Main Page: Alison Taylor (Labour - Paisley and Renfrewshire North)Department Debates - View all Alison Taylor's debates with the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the topic. This issue resonates deeply with many people across the country, including in my constituency, where the concern for animal welfare is strong and heartfelt. Dogs hold a deeply special place in British life. As someone lucky enough to share my home with one, I know the joy they bring: the quiet comfort, the loyalty and the unconditional love. They are more than pets—they are family.
In 2023, thousands of dogs were used in the UK for experiments. Many were subjected to painful and frightening procedures. In some research labs, dogs have tubes pushed down their throats, sometimes three times a day, to force-feed them chemicals. It is called a procedure—but to dogs, it is just fear and pain. Using dogs in research is not just cruel; it is unreliable. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests still fail when they reach human trials. They either do not work or they are unsafe.
In 2006, a trial in the UK for a new drug meant to treat leukaemia and arthritis had already been tested on monkeys and had not revealed any major side effects. When it was given to healthy human volunteers, however, within hours their bodies went into shock. They were left fighting for their lives and nearly died. That is not just a tragedy, but a warning. Those drugs were tested on animals first, but animal suffering does not prevent human suffering. We cannot keep pretending that what happens in a dog’s body will predict what happens in ours. Time and again, it does not. We need better science.
A growing number of experts now call for a shift towards modern, human-relevant methods such as organ on a chip, 3D bio-printing and advanced computer modelling. Those are not dreams of the future; they are available now, and Britain should be leading the way. We are a nation known for scientific firsts, from the discovery of penicillin to mapping the human genome. We also pride ourselves on being a country of animal lovers. That combination gives us a unique opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world in building a better kind of research.
This issue is not just a fringe concern; it speaks to public values, ethical urgency and a real chance to build science that is not just cutting-edge, but truly humane. The petitioners are looking for better science, kinder choices and British leadership in shaping a more compassionate future, and I welcome this debate.