Human-specific Medical Research Techniques

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

You are putting in some shift today, Sir Charles, if I may say so.

I am grateful to be here, and very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing today’s debate, which is on an issue close to my heart. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, and although I have spoken at some length on this issue before, today I will make just three points.

First, what drew me to supporting human-relevant science was the need to safeguard and protect animals. Home Office statistics show that 3 million testing procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2021. Also, the UK is the top user of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe; thousands of experiments are conducted every year on these sentient animals. Many people will have seen The Mirror’s film showing horrific gavage, or force-feeding; UK-bred, factory-farmed animals are force-fed chemicals directly into their stomachs without any pain relief, day in and day out. Of course, other poor creatures have been bred to be bled. All this animal suffering is quite unnecessary.

Then we have the staggering waste of animal lives. Millions of non-genetically altered animals are being bred for scientific procedures; they are killed without even being used in procedures; 1.8 million animals were killed in this way in 2017. I have previously called for laboratory animals to be included in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and I reiterate those calls today.

The stark reality is that animal experimentation is not a good enough predictor of what will happen in humans. For example, animal experimentation delayed the introduction of penicillin, failed in HIV research, and delayed the development of the polio vaccine by decades. History is littered with examples of human harm and fatalities after the application of animal data to human patients. Indeed, 92% of new medicines fail to pass human trials simply because testing on animals cannot predict human responses. Compare animal testing with, for example, the innovative liver on a chip, which can identify 87% of drugs that risk causing human liver damage, including where those drugs have passed animal tests.

That brings me to my second point, which is that human-relevant techniques work. They are based on human biology. There are also computer models, use of artificial intelligence, organ-on-a-chip technology and advanced use of human cells and tissues. Then we have rapidly developing gene-based medicine, whereby medicine is personalised to a patient’s individual DNA. It would be impossible to replicate that with animal tests. All that work is directly relevant to humans. It speeds up medical progress and gets new medicines and treatments to patients quicker, all without any inhumane treatment of animals. What is not to like?

Animal Free Research UK highlighted an excellent case in its briefing for today’s debate. It relates to diabetes, a major health issue for our nations and a cause of cost pressure to our health services. Scientists at the University of Exeter made a major advance in the treatment and prevention of diabetes by working with human cells. They made important discoveries about the changes that occur in insulin-producing beta cells. This could not have been achieved using animals, due to genetic differences between animals and humans.

My third and final point is that in addition to ending animal suffering and producing more effective and faster solutions for humans, ending animal testing would also be good for our economy. Once we look past the big business of animal research, which obviously has a vested interest in continuing with animal experimentation and blocking progress, we can start to turbocharge our economy and our place as a world leader in life sciences. In Scotland, life sciences contribute £3.4 billion to Scottish gross value added, and it is a growth sector. Given that we also have world-leading universities, and some amazing pharmaceutical companies in which efforts to undertake animal-free research are ongoing, we are really well placed. What we need is legislation to support the transition to human-relevant science. I would support a human-specific technologies Act; that would be an important step.

In conclusion, our laws are simply outdated. The regulatory requirement to test on animals before humans, despite clear and compelling evidence that it is ineffective, is simply not fit for purpose. I also note the letter written by Professor Main from the Animals in Science Committee, which calls on UK Ministers to take the initiative now on non-animal techniques.

I call on the Minister and the UK Government to mandate a rigorous, public, scientific hearing on the issue. We need to be evidence-led. That would reduce the unnecessary harm involved in animal experiments, and ultimately lead to a ban on this immoral practice. We must open up legislative paths that allow us to pursue alternatives, or risk being left behind when other countries steal our lead.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Front Benchers, would anybody else like to make an intervention or a short speech?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

The Father of the House is shaking his head; he is here to listen. Carol Monaghan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have talked to the hon. Gentleman about the three Rs. Essentially, nobody wants to be using animal testing where it is absolutely not needed. If innovation, such as computer models and new research, can find new ways of edging that out, why would any Government not want to do that? It has to be based on the evidence and the best science, and done on what is best for humankind, and that is what we will keep in mind. It is not done for the sake of animal testing in itself; it is very much evidence-based, as I said. That is why the current approach is to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research and to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards.

Our legal framework is absolutely clear: animals are only ever used in science 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 animals is limited to that needed to achieve that scientific benefit. Under UK law, there are three main purposes for which animals may be used in science: for basic research to understand biological processes and systems; for translational research to understand how biological systems apply to real-world applications, such as the development of medicines; and to test the safety and efficacy of medicines and chemicals.

In each of those instances, the rationale is clear. Without basic research using animals, we would limit our ability to make the kind of scientific discoveries that could transform medicine for the better. Without translational research using animals, we would limit our ability to develop new medicines not just for humans, but for animals. Without testing those medicines using animals, we would not know whether those medicines were safe or effective for use in humans or animals, unnecessarily limiting the availability of medicines to treat life-threatening diseases. Many medicines that prove ineffective in humans are detected earlier through animal testing, too, enabling us to focus valuable research funds on medicines that will be effective.

To be clear, this Government are unapologetically ambitious in our mission to make Britain a science and technology superpower. We understand just how much world-leading research matters if we are to succeed and translate that success into real benefits for our people and our NHS. That means investing in the next generation of tools and technologies that provide alternatives to animal research, and it means, where animal research remains necessary, maintaining those rigorous principles to put ethics at the heart of that research. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate, and I look forward to our working together in the months and years to come.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr McCabe, you have two minutes.