We are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a key priority since I was first elected to parliament so I completely understand the continued use of animals in science, including toxicity testing, is a highly controversial and emotive topic. I do appreciate how very strongly campaigners feel about this issue. Because of our national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, this is rightly an area that is heavily regulated.
As you may already know, animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can only be used in research when no alternative methods are available. The Home Office has assured MPs that, in every research proposal, animals are replaced with non-animal alternatives wherever possible, the number of animals is reduced to the minimum necessary to achieve the desired result, and that, for those animals which must be used, procedures are refined as much as possible to minimise their suffering.
I am proud the UK is one of the world's leading nations in the development of non-animal methods; we need to ensure these are utilised wherever possible and I will always support work which aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives. However, we must acknowledge technology is not yet at a point to wholly replace animal testing for important applications tackling some of the most significant human health conditions so, while I absolutely share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, I do not think it is realistic to do so in the timeframe requested by many campaigners.
Therefore, I believe it is critical we continue to invest in research into the 3Rs: replacing the use of animals in research where unnecessary, reducing the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved in research. Through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), the last Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions.
In 2024, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, Andrew Griffith MP, announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in fiscal year 2024/25 to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives. I strongly advocate for these methods and believe they will greatly improve our animal welfare standards, the economy and the safety of chemical products in the UK. Such technologies have the potential to reduce the reliance on the use of animals, improve the efficiency of drug research and development, and deliver safer, cheaper and more effective medicines to patients.
Building on this, the current Government has now published a roadmap for the phasing out of animal testing. During the recent e-petition debate, my colleague Peter Fortune MP, challenged the Government on how it will achieve the objectives set out in the roadmap. While I support its broad aim, there are risks to it - namely that life sciences research and investment could simply move overseas to countries which also test on animals but to far lower standards than we permit here. This is because, for sound clinical reasons set out by regulators, certain products still do require animal testing. As medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, companies can move their operations elsewhere where, sadly, the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer.
I am grateful to constituents for highlighting Animal Aid’s campaign against lethal dose tests and several of my parliamentary colleagues have tabled questions on this subject. In response, the Minister has set out how the Strategy uses a ‘baskets’ approach to group animal tests according to how ready they are for replacement, based on the maturity of potential alternative methods. These initial baskets are not exhaustive and will be reviewed and refined in consultation with the research community on a regular basis.
I understand that two LD/LC50 tests are already in basket 1 and 2 (botulinum potency and fish acute toxicity tests respectively) meaning they are among the first targeted for phase-out. In addition, the Government-funded National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has ongoing work to replace, reduce and refine LD/LC50 tests.
Again, let me stress that I, along with my colleagues in Opposition, am keen to work with the Government on reaching a point at which testing on animals is no longer necessary. However, on behalf of my constituents, I will be scrutinising the roadmap’s implementation closely to make sure there are no unintended consequences such as outlined above.
