I would argue that the UK Government needs to make a greater commitment to ending all animal testing in the UK and to set a target date for doing so. There really is no excuse for continuing with this outdated and barbaric model of testing.
" The Government's policy on the use of animals in scientific procedures is clear and straightforward. There is still a need for the responsible use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes to continue if improvements in healthcare and veterinary treatment are to be developed with the minimum of delay and to make proper provision to protect man and the environment from health risks and other hazards.
Some campaigners describe animal experiments as 'outmoded science' and argue that there are better ways of making medical and scientific progress using modern, non-animal methods, such as computer modelling and microdosing.
However, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animal experiments cannot be carried out if the same objectives can be achieved using non-animal methods. So, as relevant, new and improved technologies and testing methods are developed, they already have to be used instead of animal methods.
Animal tests cannot predict with absolute certainty what will happen in humans, nor are they expected to. All modern medicines are tested in cell cultures, computers, animals and human volunteers: animal studies are used only as a coarse screen for gross toxicity purposes, and for obvious unacceptable side effects, before candidate drugs are tested in human volunteers.
The real safety testing for side effects in such drugs is carried out in large, controlled trials in humans who have the target disease, and at the dose and formulation anticipated for use. There are several human trial phases, and materials may fail at any stage. Despite the pre-clinical testing and the considerable investment required to develop candidate materials to this stage, the failure rate is high - and the figure of only 8% of materials becoming licensed products is of the right order.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the Government agency which is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work. The Home Office has oversight of only one of the component parts of the pre-clinical testing programme: the use of animals. The MHRA will only grant a marketing authorisation (MA) if it is satisfied that a product is efficacious, safe and of appropriate quality. The decision to grant an MA is taken based on an overall risk/benefit analysis, recognising that all drugs have some risk attached.
The Government strongly supports the development and use of non-animal alternatives where possible. The National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) was announced in May 2004 and acts as a focal point for research into the 3Rs.
The NC3Rs is an independent scientific organisation which provides a UK focus for the advancement of the 3Rs. Working with stakeholders in academia, industry, Government, research funders, regulatory authorities, and animal welfare organisations, the Centre aims to increase the development and implementation of the 3Rs in medical, biological and veterinary research and testing. The Centre is funded by Government and the Research Councils and also receives some funding from the Wellcome Trust and Industry.
We would all like to see a time when medical progress and improvements in healthcare are not dependent on the use of animals. But that time is not yet here. The fact remains that animals will be needed for research for the foreseeable future if we are to continue to develop life-saving medicines."
