Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures is an issue that rightly draws strong public interest, with over 235,000 people signing the petition that we are debating. It is not just a small outcry, but a clear signal that action is needed. Like so many other dogs, my much-loved working cocker spaniel Charlie is a clear example of how sentient and intelligent dogs truly are—and I am sure that he would want me to put on the record today that he is a very handsome dog. I was also thrilled to see Jennie enter the room today. We can feel the response in the room when a dog enters the Chamber. They bring more to our lives.

Dogs form deep emotional bonds, show remarkable sensitivity and learn with incredible ease. As with most dogs, Charlie is not just a pet; he is a member of my family, alongside my two cats, Merlot and Jags—I hesitate to add that I did not name the first cat. It is precisely that connection that makes the idea of using dogs like Charlie in laboratory experiments impossible to justify.

However, the case should not be made only on ethical and emotional grounds, but on the grounds of practicality and scientific validity. A growing body of evidence points to the limited translational value of data from dogs, as we have heard, in predicting human responses to drugs and chemicals. It is particularly concerning when we discover the pace of innovation in non-animal methods, including organ-on-a-chip technology, advanced cell cultures and AI-driven modelling systems. Those approaches are not only more humane, but frequently more accurate and cost-effective, begging the question: why have we not moved on this issue already?

Despite advances in biomedical research, dogs continue to be used in procedures that often cause significant suffering. They may be force-fed substances for toxicity tests, restrained for long periods and ultimately euthanised—as almost every Member has mentioned. Those are not minor interventions; they are often serious intrusions on an animal’s welfare, and they occur even as the scientific merit of such tests is increasingly being questioned.

While the Government have stated their commitment to phasing out animal testing where scientifically possible, many would argue that we have already reached that point, at least in the case of dogs. The infrastructure, knowledge and tools exist; what we now need is the determination to act on them. I understand that regulatory change takes time, but we must be clear in our direction of travel. The continued use of dogs in research is increasingly difficult to defend in the light of alternatives, shifting public opinion and our broader responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as well as scientific best practice.

We have the opportunity to show leadership on this issue by supporting innovation, upholding ethical standards and responding to the concerns of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. It is time to set a clear path towards ending the use of dogs in research and to invest in alternatives that will define a more humane and modern scientific future.