Human-specific Medical Research Techniques

Debate between Steve McCabe and Paul Scully

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate on human-specific medical research techniques. I also thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his thoughtful words, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). There has been a lot of food for thought and important points raised in some insightful contributions, and I will try to cover those. However, at the heart of today’s discussion has been what it takes to build world-leading science—science that does not just top global rankings in league tables, but changes British people’s lives for the better.

Earlier this year, the Government set out our plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and technology superpower by 2030. Backed by a commitment to increase public expenditure on R&D to £20 billion per annum by 2024-25, we are investing in the areas where we have the infrastructure, experience and insight to lead the world. Indeed, it was interesting to hear the shadow Minister talk about bioengineering, because that is one of the priority emerging technologies that the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has identified as something we want to back.

Life sciences is one of the areas that is crucial not just to grow the economy and create high-skilled, well-paid jobs today, but to ensure that British people can live longer, healthier, happier lives tomorrow. Our life sciences vision sets a strategy for the sector to solve some of the biggest healthcare problems of our generation. In May, we announced an ambitious policy package in support of the life sciences sector, backed by more than £650 million in funding, including £121 million to improve commercial clinical trials to bring new medicines to patients faster.

Clinical trials, which were raised in the debate, are not necessarily directly related to animal testing. That said, the UK led the world in trials during covid, providing both the first vaccine and the first treatment. That has wider impacts on the clinical research system, and, as we saw from the recently published review by Lord O’Shaughnessy, that provides the clear path for us to regain our world-leading position.

As the vision makes clear, research is at the heart of that. Research is critical to ensuring that we are providing the best possible care for everyone now and in the future. It is thanks to bold research by brilliant scientists that we can win the battle against life-threatening conditions by equipping our NHS with a new generation of innovative treatments. Extraordinary advances in non-invasive techniques, such as medical imaging, sensors and ex vivo analysis, promise to revolutionise human healthcare. However, to unlock that promise, many of the research questions that those technologies have opened up must be explored directly in humans. It is only by doing so that we can quickly and efficiently translate medical discoveries out of the laboratory and into our hospitals, where they can make a real difference.

UK Research and Innovation, as the UK’s national science, research and innovation funding body, plays a vital role in supporting the development of human-specific research techniques. For a number of years, UKRI has prioritised experimental medicine research, in which studies are undertaken in humans, to identify the mechanisms that drive diseases and provide early evidence for the validity of new discoveries and treatments to fight them. The Medical Research Council’s translational funding strategy pioneers that work, taking the most exciting ideas from discovery science into research using humans, with a clear focus on early clinical application.

The experimental medicine panel is a core part of that strategy, backed by an annual budget of £10 million. Since its establishment in 2020, the panel has invested more than £19 million to support 16 world-leading projects across the UK that could rapidly lead to major benefits for human health. That includes a project from Manchester Metropolitan University that aims to unpick how a region of the brain stem functions and signals to the rest of the brain. The university’s researchers hope that by using the innovative technology of deep brain stimulation, they will gain insight into the neural mechanisms that cause Parkinson’s, a particularly cruel disease, whose devastating impact will be all too familiar to many of us. That project shows just how transformative human-specific research techniques can be.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak talked about animal testing not working, and I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said the same. Animal studies are used as the basis for extrapolation, to indicate possible risks to humans. Very few drugs that enter human clinical trials prove to pose an unacceptable risk to humans. There are many reasons why drugs that are assessed as potentially effective and safe in animals do not progress to market, including commercial reasons, but should animal testing not occur, more potential medicines would not progress to market. Resources would be spent on potential medicines that would have been excluded through animal testing, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher. We have heard a lot about the three Rs, and I will come back to that point—we actively support that approach.

Let me just take the opportunity to make clear this Government’s position on animal testing. There was discussion earlier about which Department has responsibility, and, clearly, we work on this across Government. The Home Office regulates existing animal testing, but it does not oversee the ending of it. That sits with the research undertaken under the auspices of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That is why there are dual regimes. Clearly, as we move towards more advanced research and innovation, the responsibility increasingly comes under the auspices of DSIT.

Through UKRI, the Government actively support and fund the development and dissemination of the three Rs, which were set out more than 60 years ago by two English scientists in a programme for a more ethical approach to animal testing. As we have heard, the three Rs are: replacement of the use of animals where they are not necessary for research; the reduction in the number of animals needed to obtain the same amount of information; and the refinement of testing methods to minimise the pain, suffering and distress of the animals involved.

That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. World-renowned for its leadership in this space, the NC3Rs works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of non-animal technologies and ensures that the advances in these technologies are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.

Since its launch in 2004, the NC3Rs has committed £100 million to its research, innovation and early career awards to identify new and more ethical approaches for scientists in academia and industry. It has set out its strategy to increase the focus on animal replacement technologies, as well as championing high standards in animal research.

UKRI’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council also supports research into developing and applying innovative methodologies to study human and animal physiology, including in-silico approaches—organ-on-a-chip, as we have heard—organoid and other advanced cell culture systems. That includes a recent £4 million BBSRC and NC3Rs programme that focuses on supporting the next generation of non-animal technologies that mimic the physiological environment, enabling a whole-system/multi-system approach for discovery and translational science across the life course.

Much research can be done in non-animal models, as we have heard, but there are still purposes for which it is essential to use live animals. The dizzying complexity of whole biological systems means that they cannot always be replicated using validated non-animal methodologies. Therefore, although we very much recognise the need to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives where we can, the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains absolutely necessary at this time if we are to protect humans and the wider environment, whether that means improving our understanding of how biological systems work or accelerating the development of safe and effective medicines, treatments and technologies.

[Steve McCabe]

I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s brief—I am not trying to be difficult, and I am listening with interest to what he is saying—but I and others watching the debate will be curious to know whether it is Government policy and the Government’s intention to move to phasing out animal experiments, or is the Minister telling us that the Government think there will always be a place for animal experimentation?

[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.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Paul Scully

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Thank you very much for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point about unemployment.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears to me that there are considerably fewer Members in the Chamber now than voted against the closure motion you granted earlier. That would tend to give credence to the idea that the Government Whips have deliberately organised their Back Benchers to wreck the Bill by voting against the closure motion and then sent them home. Is it in your gift to grant a second closure motion, so that we can now test the will of those here in Parliament?

Greensill Capital

Debate between Steve McCabe and Paul Scully

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme that we are being asked about today for large businesses protects many jobs in those companies, but it is right that we also looked at a diversity of lenders and of approaches to cover small businesses, as they do not always have the resilience and capacity of those larger businesses to survive and respond in these tough times.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

I assumed that “whatever it takes” meant making sure that people got the help and the support that they needed, not deploying Treasury officials to try to mangle the rules in order to protect David Cameron’s shares. Just how many people and how many hours did the Chancellor devote to Mr Cameron’s concerns as opposed to those 3 million excluded self-employed people whom this Government have abandoned?

[Paul Scully]

The Chancellor and other Ministers have spent many, many hours speaking to lenders and to businesses of all sizes to make sure that we can best reflect on and flex the support that is given to them. The system worked when the Chancellor was asked to change the scheme inappropriately, because, rather than having the banks involved in the CCFF, it was a Government-backed scheme with the Bank of England. That is why he rejected that approach, which meant that the procedure went well.

Immigration

Debate between Steve McCabe and Paul Scully

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady is right. I make it clear that I do not consider people who are concerned about immigration, or who object to it, to be bigots, but I have a problem with the petition. Some of the people who contacted me had a legitimate right—they were not constituents, by and large—to say that they did not like what they had read in the press, whether or not it was what I had actually said. I understand that. The vile nature of some of the other people’s comments probably justifies what I said about them—in fact, what I said about them was probably mild compared with what I read from them.

I will pick up on what a couple of people said. A Mr David Harrington, who I understand owns or works for PressLine, a marketing consultancy, extended my criticism to say that I had accused all signatories of being of a racist tendency, which is quite worrying if he runs a marketing consultancy. That may have been what Mr Harrington heard, but never did I say it. The danger of petitions that deliberately set out to pander to people’s fears is that people end up reading things that are not there and hearing things that have never been said.

Mr Harrington, a bit like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, advised me that it was Labour that had opened the floodgates to mass migration. Members may not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely share that view, but people have legitimate concerns. We all know that there is pressure on some of our services at the moment and that people fear such pressure. There is pressure on health services and on access to school places. Certainly as far as European migration is concerned, I have more faith in the Prime Minister than it appears the hon. Gentleman has, because I do not want to plan to leave the European Union; I want the Prime Minister to succeed in his negotiations. I hope that one of the things the Prime Minister will seriously consider trying to negotiate is a migration fund so that, where we have a significant influx of people into a particular part of the country from Europe, we can draw on it if the influx is putting pressure on our services. That would be a welcome and useful proposal, as has been made clear in my extensive consultations with my constituents on immigration.

There is clearly an issue in relation to the benefits system. The vast majority of immigrants come to work, so we should not be entirely concerned when the petition says that foreigners are “taking all our benefits”, but it is reasonable to ask questions about benefits. For example, most people would recognise that it is absurd that people who do not have children resident in this country are able to claim child benefit. That is a reasonable point. I am not sure that I support the idea of transferable benefits. It is probably also legitimate to say that there should be a reasonable qualifying period for accessing benefits.

The hon. Gentleman drew on the example of curry shops. The balti business is very big in the Birmingham area. The issue is not about whether one should have to bring over a chef from the Indian subcontinent in this day and age. It would be better to put a bit more support and funding into our sixth form colleges and further education colleges so that they are not at risk of collapsing. If we cannot train people as balti chefs and curry chefs in this day and age, there is something badly wrong with our skills training in this country.

I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that, as was Labour policy at the last election—the Chancellor is now keen on some bits of Labour policy—where an employer asks for a visa to bring someone into this country because they argue that they genuinely cannot fill the skills gap, and where it is practical to create an apprenticeship, we should say, “You can have the visa, provided that there is an apprenticeship to train someone from here for the future.” That would be a useful and practical way of addressing that particular problem.

The Government’s targets need a bit of realism. I liked a lot of what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say—he was trying to be fairly balanced—but then I heard him say, “Oh, the last Labour Government let 2.5 million people into the country.” Where has that figure come from? How many of those people are permanent residents of the UK? How many of them does he know anything about? The reality is that that figure has been conjured up for propaganda purposes, just as the Government’s target to reduce immigration is now becoming a straitjacket for the Home Secretary. It would probably be better if the Government were to set out clear principles for the areas of concern on immigration so that people across the country can work together. That would be more fruitful than setting unachievable targets that lead to further disillusionment, which would be a mistake.

Of course, including refugees in the target, thereby confusing refugees with conventional economic migrants, is a dreadful mistake. I hope the Minister, who is responsible for refugees, will take advantage of this debate to tell us a bit more about what is happening with the Syrian refugees. How many orphaned and abandoned children can we reasonably expect to have been resettled in this country come Christmas? An answer to that question would be helpful, and it would also be helpful if he made it clear that he sees a clear distinction between refugees and economic migrants and that he is willing to consider not mixing the two in the numbers.

It is preposterous that this country wants to make it hard for high-value students to come to our universities. I do not know why we should discourage people who pay good money to come to our universities, and who help to subsidise our own students. Such students will not stop going to university; they will just go to Australia, Canada or the United States. The losers will be our universities and research programmes. It is a dreadful mistake to include students in our immigration targets, and the Minister will have no difficulty getting support from the Labour party, and maybe from other Opposition parties, if he were to come clean and make that distinction. Students are not coming here to settle permanently. They are people who come here for a time-limited period and who we actually want to come here.

This petition is misleading in a number of ways. It ignores the fact that the number of permanent visas being awarded is currently down by about 15%; it ignores the fact that many of our most welcome immigrants come on fixed five-year work permits; and it does not take account of what they come to do or where they come from. We are talking about doctors, nurses, scientists, social care workers, digital engineers—the very people the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to come here to help, support and invigorate businesses, and to start businesses—and they are coming from places such as India, Australia, the USA, the Philippines, Canada and New Zealand. They are the main countries that we are taking immigrants from at present, which is hardly the picture conjured up by this particular petition.

Of course, the petition also ignores what the impact would be on our agriculture and hospitality sectors, for example, if we were to end immigration immediately. The effect would be to close down those sectors. I do not know whether the person responsible for originating this petition thought about the implications of that, or whether the 190,000 or so people who were so keen to sign it have considered that, but I understand that closing our borders would mean that it would be quite difficult to leave the country as well as to enter it. As I have said, I have no problem with discussing and debating immigration. There are immigration issues that we should tackle. There are some where we could find quite a bit of cross-party consensus. However, I for one have no desire to have to go around telling my constituents, “I’m sorry. You’re not going on holiday after all this year, because we have decided to support a petition that says we are going to close our borders.” I do not think that things have got quite that bad in the UK.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. There is a persuasive argument, I say to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to consider whether we should issue further guidelines on the wording of petitions. That might be helpful. That is no criticism of the hon. Gentleman or his Committee but there may be times when the current e-petition situation has unintended consequences.

Is it not reasonable to ask that we be given a bit more information about the person originating the petition? It is probably fair to know who they are, where they live, whether they are a registered British voter, for example, whether they have any party political association or any history in relation to a particular subject. It would not be unreasonable to know that. The idea of the e-petition system, of course, was to give a voice to the public and to ensure that we in this place did not ignore issues that matter.

[Paul Scully]

I will quickly answer that point. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Petitions Committee is a new Committee and we are developing and looking at reviewing our processes as we go through. This is the third debate that has arisen from an e-petition and we will always continue to review the system. We certainly know the people who are signing the petition, because we are in contact with them and informing them about the result of their signing the petition, whether it is just a Government response, whether we will have a debate such as this one or whether there will be some other action.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that intervention. My point is that we should know, not just the Petitions Committee. Indeed, all the other people who might be tempted to sign a petition should perhaps know in advance, as well. That would be quite useful.