Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Steve Race Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this petition and the 478 Exeter residents who have signed it.

I will speak in support of phasing out the use of dogs in medical research, because the scientific case for change is now overwhelming. Members may know that I have a private Member’s Bill—the Animals in Medical Research (Prohibition) Bill—on phasing out the use of animals in medical research, and I very much support the petition. My Bill is the first of its kind to be laid before Parliament, and I am proud to bring it to the House.

I approach this topic from a position of scientific rigour. It is clear that the use of animals in medical research does not necessarily offer the best scientific basis for medicines testing. According to Animal Free Research UK, more than 92% of drugs that pass animal tests, including tests on dogs, go on to fail in human trials. That is an extraordinary figure and means that, far from protecting human health, animal testing is giving us a false sense of security and can slow down medicines development. It is inefficient and it is generating bad science. Animal trials often fail to identify side effects in humans, for example. Although dogs are closer to humans than rodents are, they are still fundamentally different from us in key biological ways. Comprehensive analysis has found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans; it can be no better than tossing a coin.

Crucially, there is no law saying we must use dogs. As has been said, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed in 2023 that, while international guidelines suggest testing on two species, including dogs is not a legal requirement. We continue largely out of habit, not necessity; when I asked some of our larger pharma companies whether they have a strategy for reducing the use of animal testing and experimentation overall, some said that there is no strategy, but that they do have some principles. It is clear that the Government need to act in this space.

We have better options. Cutting-edge methods such as organ-on-a-chip technology and 3D human tissue models, supplemented by the use of AI-enabled modelling, are far more accurate in predicting how drugs will behave in people. Investing in such technologies would make drug development faster, safer and ultimately far more effective. I have seen for myself how the techniques can be applied to science. In Exeter, we have an Animal Free Research UK centre of excellence at our research, innovation, learning and development centre, jointly operated by a hospital trust and the University of Exeter. Those researchers excel in using animal-free methods in scientific exploration—specifically on cell ageing, which has already generated several start-up companies out of that centre. That is cutting-edge science; this is exactly where we ought to be as a country. Investing in such areas of science, instead of relying on old methods involving millions of animals every year, will mean that the UK can lead the world in this area of scientific innovation.

Indeed, the UK may already be falling behind internationally, which is a travesty for a nation of animal lovers. In April, as has been said, the US FDA announced it would move away from animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs, which would be replaced

“with more effective, human-relevant methods.”

The FDA went on to state:

“The new approach is designed to improve drug safety and accelerate the evaluation process, while reducing animal experimentation, lowering research and development (R&D) costs, and ultimately, drug prices.”

One reason the FDA gives for that move is to provide global leadership in regulatory science, in which it

“reaffirms its role as a global leader in modern regulatory science, setting new standards for the industry and encouraging the adoption of innovative, humane testing methods.”

There we go: if the US can move in that direction, it is imperative that the UK does so too. Our life sciences sector simply should not be left behind in cutting-edge science.

My private Member’s Bill is based on the campaign for Herbie’s law, which offers a clear, responsible plan to phase out the use of dogs and other animals over the next decade. It is a measured but vital step towards a future where science serves both human health and humane values. I commend the Science Minister, Lord Vallance, for meeting me and others to set out his work in this area, particularly the ongoing development of a strategy document that, I understand, is set to be published soon and will set out a road map for phasing out animal testing in medical research where possible. That strategy is long overdue and is evidence, I hope, that this Labour Government take this issue seriously. I encourage the Minister and the Government to choose progress. Let us choose science that actually works for patients, for innovation and for compassion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark]

My hon. Friend intervenes at the right time, as I was about to say that in publishing our road map, we will be setting out how we can go even further in supporting alternative methods and working towards a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternatives wherever possible.

Currently, through UKRI, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs. That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.

[Steve Race]

I failed to catch the Minister’s eye on her previous mention of the three Rs. Does she agree that the number of procedures using specially protected species—cats, dogs, horses and non-human primates—has actually increased over recent years, to about 17,000 from about 15,000 in 2022 and that that was driven by a 38.9% rise in procedures using horses? Does she also agree that our hon. Friend the Minister for Security confirmed that in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2024, no applications for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were refused? Does she see reductions in the number of animals being used in testing or are they actually increasing as part of the strategy?

[Feryal Clark]

The stats that I have say that in 2023 the use of dogs in procedures reduced by 9%. On overall animal testing, I will have to get back to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my colleagues from the Home Office will be able to explain the stringent licensing process—the procedure that everyone has to go through to be able to obtain a licence.

We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can. That is why our current approach is to 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, which will drive their uptake. We have a commitment in our manifesto to do all we can to phase out the use of animals—including dogs—in science, and we will be publishing a road map before the end of the year to lay out how we can give increased impetus to the support and validation of alternative methods.

Colleagues asked about ensuring that we are consulting animal welfare organisations, and there is a roundtable meeting with the Office for Life Sciences and animal welfare organisations to do precisely that. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) requested a meeting to discuss issues around the benefits of testing on animals. I am happy to agree to that and will be in contact with his office to arrange one.

I conclude by again thanking Members for their insightful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together as we go forward.