Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Irene Campbell Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Let me begin by declaring an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—I am keen to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later.

The petition, entitled,

“Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”,

was created by Maria Iriart, and as of today has almost 236,000 signatures, which is an incredible achievement. Maria is here today, and I thank her for coming along. The petition goes on to say:

“As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment.

In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog’s throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.”

When looking at Hansard for other debates on animal testing—particularly testing on dogs—I found an interesting starting point in a debate in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill. In that debate from almost a century ago, Lord Banbury was mentioned as quoting the eminent surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby, who said:

“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]

Yet, here we are, nearly 100 years later, discussing the very same issue.

An opinion poll conducted for the UK Government by Ipsos MORI in 2018 found that only 14% of the UK public feel that it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research to benefit people. This is unsurprising, as we know that dogs have high emotional and intellectual capabilities, and studies have found that they can feel empathy, sense sadness or fear and demonstrate genuine human bonding.

The UK Home Office regulator is intended to conduct assessments of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections, and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. To enforce the regulations, establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including vets, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, as well as an ethical review body.

The Government responded to the petition on 5 March 2025 to clarify that they do not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. However, hopefully this debate will reignite that discussion and subsequent decisions.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I was visited by my constituent Clara, who brought this issue to my attention, and I was keen to participate in today’s debate. My hon. Friend has made two important points: one of which is that this process has no legislative basis and no public consent. I therefore hope that, when the Government listen to this debate, we can look at how to take action to ensure that man’s best friend is left alone as man’s best friend.

[Irene Campbell]

I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

It is important to note that the Labour manifesto pledge commits the Government to

“partner with scientists, industry, and civil society”

to phase out animals in medical testing. The Government also state:

“This is a long-term goal, and it will need further scientific and technical advancement and validation to reach this point”.

The group Understanding Animal Research supports the use of animal research currently in the UK. It says:

“In the UK, dogs are primarily used to find out how new drugs act within a whole, living body and whether new medicines are safe enough to test in humans…Their genome has been sequenced and…they are often used in genetic studies…Dogs are primarily used in regulatory research”

and as a secondary species, alongside rodents. The dogs are mostly tested for areas such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, anti-rabies vaccines, heart research and veterinary medicine. Understanding Animal Research also states:

“Research dogs live in large enclosures together with their pack mates. Lab technicians look after the dogs and play with them every day. The dogs are fed and watered daily, and the environment (lights, temperature etc.) is controlled automatically. The cages are cleaned daily, and the space is big enough to have a toilet area separate from the bed and play area. Dogs are intelligent enough to keep these areas separate, and there’s plenty of space to allow them to do so. Because the dogs live together, their social needs are met by other dogs. Unlike pets, they do not require the constant company of humans.”

However, Animal Free Research UK disputes that quality of care and says:

“Applications for project licences to conduct animal experiments are very rarely refused. Answers to Written Questions”—

submitted in Parliament—

“indicate that over the past seven years, only one licence application has been rejected.”

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. This morning I met Nutmeg, a lovely beagle. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a large proportion of the dogs who undergo medical scientific procedures are beagles—I believe 3,565 out of 3,770? Does she also agree that, if the Government will not commit right now to an immediate ban, we must at least have a clear timeframe for when such a ban may come into place?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Animal Research UK continued:

“Applicants are allowed to adjust and re-submit licence applications to enable them to be granted (for the last four years applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted).”

The Animals in Science Regulation Unit’s 2023 annual report stated that there were 169 cases of non-compliance with the law or licence conditions—only a 3% decrease from 2022. Those cases involved a total of 154,904 animals, representing an overwhelming 864% increase on 2022.

Beagles were used in a study conducted by AstraZeneca to test a new, more eco-friendly propellant for use in inhalers. The tests lasted up to 39 weeks and involved 72 beagles. The dogs were restrained by a tether and forced to inhale the gas for two hours each day through a mask fitted over their nose and mouth, which was held in place by a muzzle. Although the study states that the dogs had freely available access to water, it also states that water was withheld during the tests and for 16 hours overnight. That meant that the dogs went without water for at least 18 hours each day. At the end of the study, all the dogs were killed so that their tissues could be dissected for further study. The authors noted that the inhalers contribute only a small fraction of global hydrofluoroalkane emissions, so was that treatment of the dogs really justified?

In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing the 1.81 million additional animals were bred but not used for scientific procedures in Britain, but we had no additional data since then. Those 1.81 million animals included 97 beagles, but we have no idea what happened to those that were not used.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

We are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public support for setting out a road map for ending the use of animal testing, so that the very sad stories that she is describing can be left in the history books, where they belong?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree, and I will speak a little about that later.

Modern, non-animal methods give the best possible chance of securing medical progress, since they are not hampered by translating from one species to another. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they had passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Just over 30% of those that pass are subsequently re-labelled with warnings of side effects not predicted by animal tests, and almost 10% are completely withdrawn from the market.

New non-animal methods, based directly on human biology, include the use of computer modelling and organ-on-a-chip technology, which can be much more relevant to the human body. I went on lab trip recently with the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research to visit the Animal Replacement Centre of Excellence at Queen Mary University of London, and I saw in person the pioneering work that is being done to provide medical breakthroughs without the use of animals.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the scientific possibility of non-animal alternatives and what is happening on the ground? For decades, there have been suggestions of ways that we can use non-animal alternatives, yet we are not using them. Will she also commend the work of Cruelty Free International, which is producing a new list that explains exactly how we could switch from one type of experiment to the other?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute.

A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs.

Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses.

Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs.

The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for 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.”

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

On that point, the previous Government committed to doubling investment in this area. Would my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the current Government matching that, if not improving on it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree.

Surely, we must consider reversing our priorities. This debate provides us with a prime opportunity to look at how to fund future testing in the UK. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed:

“There is no United Kingdom legislation that mandates animal testing.”

The regulatory guidelines do recommend that new drugs are tested on two species before moving to human trials, but the Department also stated that assessors will accept

“data from a suitably validated model that has been demonstrated to be predictive…in lieu of animal data.”

So it is possible. In 2023, almost all regulatory tests on dogs were carried out to satisfy EU requirements, and only 12 were carried out to satisfy UK-only requirements. Cruelty Free International reports that animal tests continue to be commonly used even when validated alternatives exist.

In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has released a new road map to reduce and replace animal testing in drug development and regulation, following the 2022 decision by the US Congress to pass the FDA Modernisation Act, which facilitates the use of non-animal methods for drug testing. On 10 April this year, the FDA announced that it is beginning to phase out animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies, which will ultimately be followed by other drugs. Canada, Australia and European Union countries have all come up with road maps for ending animal testing; it really is high time for the UK to join them.

For the Government to stop issuing licences for experiments using dogs there must be a thorough overhaul of the licensing of animal experiments to ensure that the basic legal requirements to use non-animal methods wherever possible are properly enforced. Ending the use of dogs can be the first step in full transition to the cutting-edge human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress.

As I close, I want to mention this morning’s Radio 4 “Today” programme, where Understanding Animal Research and Cruelty Free International discussed this debate. A question asked during the interview was about what happens to dogs after the research. It was confirmed that they are euthanised and dissected to look at their lived experience. Strangely, after that hard-hitting discussion on the lives of laboratory dogs in the “Today” interview, just after the 9 am news the announcer advised that the programme coming up at 9.45 am, called “Wheels and woofs”, would look at disabled dogs living their best lives—something that a laboratory dog will never get to do. I look forward to hearing from other Members and to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call John Milne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell]

I first thank Maria Iriart for creating the petition and for her work in growing it to more than 230,000 signatures. I thank its supporters who have attended the debate—it is much appreciated. I also thank Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, Dr Jarrod Bailey and Understanding Animal Research for their helpful briefings. As ever, I give huge thanks to the staff of the Petitions Committee for their invaluable hard work and organisation in preparing meetings and briefings, and for their support in preparing for this debate.

As we have heard, Britain is without doubt a nation of animal lovers. As a Scottish MP, I have some Scottish data to hand: 79% of Scottish adults believe that it is unacceptable for experiments on animals to continue when other testing methods are available, and 62% are in favour of the Government setting deadlines for the phasing out of animal testing. In my constituency, 248 people signed the petition. I, too, think that the timeline is crucial: when we get the road map, we need a realistic timeline with it; if we have no timeline, it would be hugely problematic.

I have to be honest: the debate has brought attention to an issue that many people do not want to face or discuss. The many contributions today have highlighted the depth of feeling on this matter. We have the scientific evidence, with many scientists advising and supporting the view that it is time to remove dogs from medical testing. It is important to remember that, although we have mentioned animal testing in the wider sense, this debate is about removing dogs immediately from medical testing. We should not lose sight of that—Jennie the dog is here today, so we even have a dog in the Chamber.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the Minister, although I have to say that her response was disappointing. I look forward to the day when we achieve this aim, but I really do think that we must have a timeline; otherwise, the road map will not be robust.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.