Animal Testing (Hansard, 15 May 2002)

§ Norman Baker
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of safety tests where animal testing is required by law. [56018]

§ Angela Eagle
[holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Home Office neither sponsors safety tests involving the use of animals, nor does it set any requirements for data produced by any such procedures. Examples of specific legislative requirements under which procedures on animals may be carried out include the Medicines Act 1968, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations, the Control of Pesticides Regulations, European Union Pesticides Directives, and the Food Safety Act. These requirements are matters for the relevant sponsoring Department.
705W
Where testing using animals is required, we ensure that the 3Rs are rigorously applied (the use of alternatives which replace animal use entirely, reduce the numbers of animals used, or refine the procedures to minimise suffering). In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act also requires that the likely benefits of the programme are weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.
In addition, in August 2000, we announced an interdepartmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests. Progress in implementing the concordat is currently being reviewed.

§ Norman Baker
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which animal tests provide a reliable model on which to estimate likely reactions in humans. [56014]

§ Angela Eagle
[holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that regulated procedures can only be authorised and performed if there are no scientifically suitable alternatives that replace animal use, reduce the number animals needed, or refine the procedures used to minimise suffering. The likely benefits to humans, other animals or the environment must be weighed against the likely welfare costs to the animals involved.
Although it has been suggested that information derived from procedures on animals cannot be extended to humans, these views do not reflect the consensus in the wider scientific community. This recognises that while there are physiological or bio-chemical differences between species, there are greater similarities. Species differences are taken into account within the design of research projects and the results of testing a new drug, for example, on animals can be used to predict the effect on humans.
Animal procedures are, in any case, only one element of the tests carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of products. Before animals are used, they will also have been subjected to a variety of other screening processes including the use of computers, cell cultures and other non-animal tests. Clinical trials in humans also play an important part. It is not justified, therefore, to single out animal experiments for criticism when unexpected results are seen in full-scale clinical use. The simple fact is that biological science is not exact. However, until other suitable alternatives are developed, animal tests will continue to play an important part in minimising the adverse effects to humans caused by unexpected reactions during clinical trials and use.