Animals (Experiments) (Hansard, 16 June 1981)

§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)

We are, it is alleged, a nation of animal lovers. That is beyond dispute. Many people who recently took a number of things, such as cosmetics, for granted have been horrified by the disclosures of the way in which animals are used in medical experiments and the mounting evidence that many of the experiments are not necessary or not as valid as claimed in the past. A recently formed organisation called FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, is supported by a growing number of hon. Members and people outside the House. It has among its sponsors and supporters many people who are eminent in science and medical research.

This is an important fact. People working in the field, with knowledge of these matters, are questioning what has been accepted often as a necessary evil. They should be heard. Their comments and allegations should be considered.

There has always been controversy in this country over the use of animals in laboratory testing. Some have regarded the testing as a necessary evil. Others have felt deeply that it should take place only when absolutely necessary. The main question I would like to raise is the extent to which the Government, the MRC and other organisations are examining the possibility of alternative methods of testing in relation to medical, cosmetic and other matters for which animals are used.

It is true, I believe, that there is growing concern about the disclosure of what appears to be unnecessary cruelty. Questions have arisen about the past accuracy and claims of accuracy of many of the tests that have been employed. Hon. Members will recall the claims that thalidomide was well tested. I have no need to remind the House of the tragedies that ensued.

Controversial views have been expressed about the effect of penicillin on animals—although not applicable to human beings—despite claims that it has been thoroughly tested. More controversy and argument has occurred over alcohol in relation to rats and the fact that comparisons with rats have not always proved valid to human beings.

The organisation to which I have referred outlines some of the growing evidence that feasible non-animal methods of testing substances now exist. Despite the fact that reliable bacterial testing for predicting chemicals that have a causal relationship with cancer were developed early in the 1970s, it is only now that it is being introduced as a preliminary test in laboratories. I and many people who support this investigation and who doubt some of the claims about the necessity of using animals in medical research want to know the Government's position in assisting institutions to do research into replacement of animals in this science.

The Medical Research Council has said on many occasions that alternatives to animal testing arise automatically or naturally in its general research programmes. Yet there is heavy emphasis in the MRC's research—which has changed little over the years—on large animal projects, which are not designed to produce alternatives, but continue as in the past.

999 Other countries seem to view the matter more seriously and more scientifically than we do. For example, the United States has established a centre for alternative methods of research with regard to animals. Much of the experimentation that recently hit the headlines, and that shocked and surprised many people, has been in cosmetics. Although it is true that many cosmetic firms no longer use the methods that horrifed people in this country, and were not using all of them at the time when many of the disclosures were made, some of them still do. While on the subject of research alternatives in the United States, I must point out that the firm of Revlon has contributed substantially to alternative methods of research in the hope of finding other ways of testing its cosmetics.

Many people in this country and abroad were shocked at the experiments carried out on rabbits in relation to shampoo—the blinding tests on rabbits' eyes, or on the back of the head to discover the irritant effects of new types of shampoos.

It would be foolish of me simply to say that there should be no experiments on animals. That would not be reasonable, nor could we expect such a proposal to be accepted. But the case of the rabbits, and other examples where there are alternatives, should be taken on board by the Government. In 1971, two American scientists questioned the experiments on rabbits. Those scientists, covering 24 major cosmetic and other industrial testing laboratories, established that the tests on the rabbits were unreliable and often unnecessary. Yet tests continue in this country.

FRAME has established a toxicity committee which looks into alternative methods. It has the support of many people inside and outside the House. The concept that there is no other way in which drugs and substances such as cosmetics and medicines can be released on the market unless they have been tested on animals is rapidly losing support. In certain areas, some of which I have mentioned, there are undoubtedly alternative methods.

This country seems to lag behind others, which have given greater attention to the matter. We do not seem to concern ourselves with the funding or the serious search for alternative methods. Much secrecy surrounds many of the tests that take place, as we all know, and it is often difficult to get accurate descriptions of the way in which the tests are carried out. That is why many people, when there have been disclosures, have been shocked and horrified at the way in which the tests take place and at the cruelty, the agony and the pain which many animals suffer.

If it is possible for many of the experiments concerning the testing of materials to take place in an alternative way, I believe that a humane society in a country such as Britain, which claims to care for animals, to feel deeply about cruelty to animals and is rightly quick to condemn and accuse others who do not conform to our attitude, should do all that is possible to find humane alternatives. That is what FRAME is arguing. The MRC is slow to take up some of the challenges and start to develop alternatives.

The hour is late—or early, depending on which way one looks at the matter—and I know that the Minister has a great deal of the material put forward by FRAME and others. I shall not go into any great detail tonight. I want the Minister to deal with alternatives and with what the 1000 Government are doing. I hope that at some time in the future, when we gain further support and interest, the House will have a large-scale debate.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison

The Government are fully aware of the strength of public feeling, clearly conveyed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), that animals should not be subjected to any unnecessary suffering. The use of animals in experiments is an especially emotive subject. It has been the subject of intense debate and controversy for well over a century, from the time before the enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, by which such experiments are controlled at present. In recent years, public and parliamentary concern and interest in the subject have increased. It is not surprising, therefore, that recent years have also seen a considerable and increasing interest in many quarters in the possibility of getting by other means the information that we now obtain from animal experimentation. I well understand the hon. Lady's concern that we should go down that path.

I wish to make it clear from the outset that the Government welcome this constructive approach and fully support the view that alternatives to living animals should be used wherever practicable. Let there be no doubt about that. At the same time, for the reasons that I shall explain, it is necessary to dispel any misconception that there may be about the extent to which animals can be replaced, either now or in the foreseeable future. It is a regrettable but unavoidable fact that many kinds of biomedical research will require the use of animals for some time to come. It should not be assumed that alternatives to the use of animals exist in every case, nor should it be assumed that all that is needed to find and develop such alternatives is the provision of Government funds.

The use of animals in experiments is criticised on a number of grounds. There are those who consider that no experiments on animals can be justified and that it is as morally and ethically wrong to expose animals to risk as it would be to experiment on human beings. We respect the sincerity of those who hold such views, but we do not accept the conclusions. We believe that it is right to allow experiments on animals to continue, subject to proper controls and safeguards, in view of the benefits that can be derived for man and animal. Another criticism is that, while experiments for medical purposes may be justified, the use of animals for frivolous experiments should cease. The example often cited is the use of animals to test cosmetics to which the hon. Lady referred.

Attention is often drawn to the fact that some major manufacturers of cosmetics do not carry out tests on animals. It is also suggested that there are already sufficient cosmetics on the market, so that the testing of new products should not be allowed. It is true that many ingredients and formulations have already been tested on animals and that is one reason why some manufacturers do not find it necessary to test their ingredients. However, it must not be forgotten that in the light of new knowledge the need may arise at any time to retest existing products or ingredients as well as those involving new formulations. A move to prohibit the testing of new products would have wide implications as regards manufacture, trade and consumer choice, to say nothing of the real difficulties in distinguishing exclusively decorative products from those with a protective or other therapeutic function.

1001 A further criticism often levelled against animal experimentation is that the results are meaningless. It is said that variations between species mean that results obtained from the use of animals cannot be extrapolated to apply to human beings. It is true that there are considerable variations between species. There are also many similarities which enable comparisons to be correctly drawn. The art of the experimenter is to know the extent to which conclusions drawn from his experiments on animals are valid in respect of man.

An example often quoted by such critics of animal experiments is the thalidomide tragedy, but the reason that animal experiments did not then reveal the terrible consequences which the drug had if taken by the pregnant mother was that the traditional methods of toxicity testing did not use pregnant animals. Species variation was not the relevant factor. If thalidomide had been tested on non-pregnant women, its teratogenic effects would not have been discovered. Teratogenicity requires a different kind of testing from other kinds of toxicity. Manufacturers of drugs are now required to supply information on the effects on the foetuses of pregnant animals in at least two species.

I have spoken about alternatives to the use of living animals. The word "alternative" in this context is a form of shorthand, since there is an impressive range of such alternatives. Cell culture, tissue culture, organ culture, computer analogues, mathematical models and immune assays are only some of the methods and techniques involved. In its widest sense, the term "alternative" embraces all methods which replace the use of animals entirely, which enable fewer animals or animals of a lower species to be used or which require less use of conscious living animals. For example, the use of dummies, mathematical models, or computer analogues does not involve animals at all.

Methods such as cell or organ culture avoid the pain or distress which may be associated with the use of whole living animals, although it should be remembered that such methods do not necessarily reduce the number of animals used. Cell cultures are capable of being maintained for months or even years and donor animals are not required after the initial culture has been started. By contrast, organ cultures last only a short time so that a continuous source of donor animals may be required.

Russell and Birch in their book "Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques" published in 1959, provided a useful classification of the various alternatives available. They classified them under "the three Rs" which stood for replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement meant the substitution of insentient material for conscious living higher animals. Reduction meant reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information in a given case. Refinement meant any decrease in the incidence or severity of procedures performed on those animals which still have to be used.

As I have said, we support the use of any of these alternatives, whenever their use is practicable. It may be helpful, however, if I clarify a possible area of misunderstanding about the Home Secretary's powers under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. This is the Act under which experiments on living animals which may cause pain are controlled at present.

The Act lays down the purposes for which experiments may be proposed. Provided that the proposed experiments satisfy the Act's criteria of purpose, the Home Secretary has no power to determine the need for any experiment, 1002 and it follows that he has no statutory power to refuse to license experiments on the ground that alternative methods are available. In any event, the exercise of such a judgment would, to say the least, be extremely difficult in view of conflicting scientific opinion likely to be encountered on any given issue.

This conclusion is reflected in the draft Council of Europe convention on animal experiments which has been prepared at Strasbourg by the ad hoc committee of experts on the protection of animals. Provision is made in the draft for the question of alternatives to be a central consideration in the experimenter's intention, but not in such a way as to require the licensing authority to make judgments on the use of alternatives.

In spite of these practical limitations, the Government regularly bring to the attention of all those carrying out experiments under the 1876 Act the importance of taking every reasonable step, including consultation with their colleagues and a study of available scientific literature, to confirm before using living animals that their investigations cannot be effectively carried out by any alternative means. Licensees are also urged to give thought to the possibilities of developing new alternatives to the use of living animals and to publish information about successful new methods, so that other licensees may be encouraged and helped to reduce the number of animals.

Our understanding is that where a proven alternative exists, researchers are quick to adopt it, not only on humanitarian grounds but because such methods are generally quicker, cheaper and more reliable. The use of alternatives is believed to be one of the factors that have led to the levelling off of the numbers of experiments performed over the last 12 years, and indeed to the fall in numbers in 1978 and 1979, the latest years for which published figures are available.

The hon. Lady has called upon the Government to take more positive action to encourage the development and evaluation of alternatives and the dissemination of information about those which already exist. Of course, as I have already said, the Government support the view that alternatives to animals should be used wherever possible. But we simply cannot ignore the present overall need to restrain public expenditure wherever possible, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of Government funds being made available for that purpose.

One of the difficulties in providing information or advice about alternatives is that there is rarely unanimous agreement among scientists about the validity and accuracy of alternative techniques in any given area. Nor are they agreed about their relative costs in terms of manpower, materials and time. In the last resort, the decision whether an alternative method will suit his purpose must be left to the individual scientist.

It is the view of the Medical Research Council, to which the hon. Lady referred, that alternative techniques to the use of live animals in biomedical research are best developed by scientists in the course of their own research programmes. The council considers that it is not practical for scientists to be engaged in devising alternatives as their sole or main activity separately from the research experiments for which alternatives would be desirable; and that the person conducting an experiment is in the best position to decide, from discussions with his colleagues, from his own experience and from a study of the scientific literature relating to his subject, whether techniques of his own or of others will serve his purpose without using 1003 animals. It is also through knowledge of his own techniques or those of others that he is best able to judge during the course of his experiments when an alternative could usefully be developed.

Those well-established approaches to the conduct of research are far more likely, in the council's view, to be fruitful and economical in the use of animals than for scientists to be engaged in the search for alternatives to the use of animals in other scientists' experiments. I understand that most existing alternatives emerged during the course of scientific research and similar work, and were not devised as a result of someone deliberately engaged upon devising alternatives.

We would all like to see a continuing progressive reduction in the number of animals subjected to procedures which may involve them in some pain or distress, 1004 consistent with the needs of human and animal health and of legitimate scientific research. So, to the extent that some alternatives contribute to that progress, their development is certainly to be encouraged. But I have sought to show that there are real limitations on how far and how fast that process can go.

Nevertheless, the hon. Lady has initiated a useful debate and has given us the opportunity to discuss an issue that is of considerable importance in the field of animal experimentation. I hope that I have convinced the House that the Government are fully aware of the problems and that I have been able to explain why it is not possible for the immediate progress in this field, which the hon. Lady and others, and indeed we ourselves, wish to see.