Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the petitioners for securing this important debate, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her excellent opening remarks. I am delighted to see so many Members from her party here to support her; I rise as a Member of an opposition party, but as a member of the APPG I fully support her position. I regret that apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), there is no one from the Conservative party in the Chamber. I would not dare suggest that they are not dog lovers—perhaps they are out walking their dogs on this beautiful day.

My wife and I share our home with Lola, our beautiful cockapoo. I say share—I would not dare say that we owned her. We share our home. We just spent Easter ensuring that she did not make off with any of our chocolate Easter eggs; I know they are a guilty pleasure of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. Along with the 50% of families across these islands who have pets, I can readily see the contradiction in medical experimentation on dogs when so many of us understand the love, intelligence and friendship that our pet dogs bring to our lives—yet we seem content to inflict great suffering on them.

As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, many comprehensive studies demonstrate that experiments on animals, including dogs, cannot accurately and fully predict whether new drugs will be safe for humans. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, statistics for 2023 tell us that 3,749 procedures were conducted on dogs in laboratories, 69% of which were to test the safety of products and devices for human medicine, human dentistry and veterinary medicine. However, as there is a huge question mark over the reliability of the tests and the human relevance of their outcomes, it is understandable that there is massive support for the banning of experimentation on dogs in the UK. In fact, not a month goes by where I so not receive emails on that topic in my inbox.

The Labour Government have confirmed that they aim to phase out animal testing and will publish proposals later this year, I believe, but they have not committed to an immediate ban on the use of dogs, which is what the petition calls for. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Some exciting—no, amazing—work in this field is happening in the UK, and it needs to be supported and celebrated.

As a member of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I recently visited Animal Free Research UK’s animal replacement centre of excellence at the Blizzard institute at Queen Mary University of London to learn more about its groundbreaking work into how cancer spreads using animal-free methods. Doctors showed us how they are revolutionising human skin testing, which is already providing better results for patients without using animals, as well as the development of animal-free next generation 3D tissues and disease models for use in biomedical research. In other words, they grow the tissue in the lab, and they do not need to use dogs.

Other truly transformative animal-free methods are available, for example, using computer modelling, which can provide results directly relevant to humans. Herbie’s law, as recommended by Animal Free Research UK, argues for a decade of change, and would mandate the replacement of animals in medical research in the UK by 2035, replacing them with humane, effective alternatives. There is support for that from within the Labour party, largely thanks to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and his private Member’s Bill.

When the UK Government say that they are partnering with scientists, industry and civic society in working towards phasing out animal testing, I hope they will also consult with animal protection groups on that goal. The Government have also agreed to publish an alternative methods strategy to support phasing out animal testing, so I hope they will read up on Herbie’s law in that process, ahead of publication later this year.

If the Government’s goal, however, is to be at the forefront of an alternative methods revolution, bringing in a commitment to a ban on experiments on dogs would send a clear signal of intent and be a major milestone in the important phasing out of animal testing. That does not need to happen in 10 years—or even in five. This Government could commit to the full implementation of Herbie’s law by the end of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

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 opening this important debate. I also thank the thousands of petitioners—some of whom are in the Public Gallery, which indicates the strength of public views on this matter—and all hon. Members here today, who have made powerful contributions.

I do not have a dog, so I will not enter the competition about whose dog is the cutest, but I do have two little children who try to touch every single dog we come across when we go around parks; they at least now know that they have to ask permission before they do that. I feel that I am not too far from having one of those cute dogs, or one like Frank, in our household.

The Government fully appreciate that the use of dogs for scientific and regulatory procedures stirs strong emotional feelings for many people across the UK, including myself as a dog lover. In my previous role in local government, I was responsible for environment, including stray dogs, as part of a service for many authorities around us. In a bid to avoid having to put healthy dogs down, we set up London’s first dog hotel, which Peter Egan opened. We had a system where staff could come and take dogs out for walks. Every role I have had has involved looking after dogs, and I must say that I found the preparation for this debate very difficult.

Along with other Members present, I long for the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research; it cannot come soon enough, but sadly it is not yet here. The UK is world leading in the development of non-animal methods, and the Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible. That is why our manifesto commits us to partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards phasing out animal testing. Colleagues mentioned the changes that the FDA has brought forward. To be clear, those bring it in line with us regarding the protection of animals, but where there is new learning to be done, we will absolutely look at that.

As part of our commitment to phasing out the use of animals in science, we will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. It will set out how we can build on our support by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animal testing with alternative methods wherever possible. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment.

I will now expand on why, given the current state of science, we are unfortunately not yet ready to ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. The use of animals in science lies in the intersection of two vital public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment, and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

The balance between these two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes 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 the absolute minimum. As has been mentioned, this is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.

The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated, including through a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use.

Our manifesto commitment stands in recognition of the fact that the phasing out of animal testing has to be in lockstep with the development of alternatives. As yet, the reality is that the technology is not advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. For now, animal testing and research play an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment.

Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. The development of the covid-19 vaccine, as with all vaccines, was made possible only because of the use of animals in research. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. Many products that would be unsafe or ineffective, or that could cause harm to humans, are detected through animal testing, ensuring the safety of the healthy volunteers who take part in clinical trials, as well as of future patients.

[Seamus Logan]

We have heard from a number of Members today—some of them very learned Members of Parliament who have professional backgrounds in this area—about the serious doubts regarding the efficacy of some of the tests the Minister is referring to. Would she be willing after the debate to share with me the sources she is using to support her claims regarding the value of this testing?