§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedures used in the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; if the pigs were anaesthetised; and what measures were taken to protect the pigs' welfare; [142130]
(2) if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [142129]
§ Dr. Moonie[holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving pigs to study the potential benefit of treatment with pentoxifylline following septic shock initiated by haemorrhage and peritonitis at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing 'cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration.
This research was part of an ongoing programme to improve the treatment of military casualties injured by weapons. Haemorrhage was induced by the withdrawal of 40 per cent. of the blood volume and peritonitis by the placement of known quantities of bacteria on a small quantity of sterile faeces within the abdomen. The animals were then resuscitated (blood volume increased) with intravenous fluids, and pentoxifylline was administered.
The pigs were anaesthetised throughout all procedures and never allowed to regain consciousness. The anaesthetised pigs were monitored for 24 hours and those still alive at the end of this period were culled while still under anaesthesia. As a standard veterinary practice prior to anaesthesia, the pigs were allowed access to water but denied access to food for 12 hours. All of these procedures were carefully monitored by a veterinary surgeon.
All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives 181W not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work. In this particular case, reduction was achieved by minimising the numbers of animals used through focused experimental design; the work was terminated when the specific scientific question of the effect of the drug had been answered. The results were published in 'Resuscitation', a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
All work is also undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what cost-benefit analysis was conducted in respect of the food poisoning experiments on ferrets at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement; [142118]
(2) what consultation with the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee took place on the welfare implications of the research into food poisoning of ferrets prior to this procedure's commencement; and if he will make a statement. [142117]
§ Dr. Moonie[holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving ferrets to study the mechanism of poisoning caused by Staph Enterotoxin B (SEB) undertaken at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing 'cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration.
The research has enabled the establishment of an alternative animal model to study the mechanism of SEB poisoning which can cause severe incapacitating vomiting in military and civilian personnel. This model will replace the use of non-human primates. The establishment of an alternative animal model is essential to the development of vaccines and antitoxins. Cell culture models are unable to predict the effects of SEB.
This research was part of an ongoing programme to improve the range of medical countermeasures available to the UK and its armed forces. All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work. All work is also undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Animals (Scientific procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office.
The rationale for the study was discussed during one of the regular meetings with the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedure used in the Sarin experiments on marmosets at Porton Down; and how the monkeys' welfare was protected; [142128]
(2) if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the Sarin experiments conducted on marmosets at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [142127]
182W
§ Dr. Moonie[holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving the marmoset model to investigate whether a low dose of sarin disrupted performance of behavioural tests at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing 'cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration.
The marmosets lived in established male/female pairs in a housing system of interlinked cages. Behavioural tests were presented daily on a touch-sensitive screen in front of their home cage. Animals were always free to choose whether or not to engage in the task. This test battery was specifically devised to 'bridge the gap' between non-human primate research and human studies. Each correct response was rewarded with a small quantity of banana milkshake Which was not routinely fed as part of their varied and nutritionally complete diet.
During performance of the task, the animal's electroencephalography (EEG) was measured by means of a surgically implanted radiotelemetry device. This technique represents a significant refinement in terms of animal welfare and does not involve the restraint of the animal. Once implanted, the data collection system did not interfere with the animals' freedom.
Following administration of the sarin, animals were closely observed by experienced staff and no clinical signs were detected either in the short-term or over the duration of the study. The research team was supported by dedicated animal care staff and a highly experienced veterinary surgeon throughout the study.
The techniques developed in the course of this work represent a significant advance in both animal welfare and scientific quality. This research involving marmosets has demonstrated that exposure to a single, low dose of the nerve agent sarin did not disrupt performance of a complex behavioural test and did not produce significant changes in brain electrical activity. These techniques have more widespread applicability in a number of areas of civilian research, notably in the investigation of neurodegenerative disorders.
All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work.
All work involving the use of animals at the CBE Porton Down is also undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office.
In addition to the statutory controls, an independent body, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), reviews the arrangements for animal care and welfare at DERA sites, monitors the research programmes to ensure standards are the highest possible and advises on best practice.