Division over animal testing laws

The original animal testing laws must be updated, but has the EU gone too far or not far enough?

There has been widespread concern over the long awaited proposal from the European Commission that aims to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific procedures.

Despite the Commission’s claims that the proposals will improve animal welfare and increase harmonisation across Europe, many have suggested the Directive would lead to increased bureaucracy and hamper essential research, with few additional animal welfare benefits.

The Medical Research Council (MRC), Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Royal Society have all expressed concern at the proposals.

Speaking on behalf of the research councils, Dr Tony Peatfield, acting director of corporate affairs at the MRC, said: “Europe-wide laws regulating the use of animals in research are important. It is time to update the 1986 Directive but we must make sure that any changes promote animal welfare, help to benefit patients and keep us at the forefront of global scientific research. We want to see appropriate regulations which are founded on good evidence and keep levels of red tape in proportion.”

Through the proposal - a draft revision of the EU Animals Directive to update the original 1986 Directive - the Commission say they are aiming to minimise the number of animals used in scientific procedures and significantly improve the treatment of the animals still needed for safety testing and biomedical research.
European environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas said: “It is absolutely important to steer away from testing on animals. Scientific research must focus on finding alternative methods to animal testing, but where alternatives are not available the situation of animals still used in experiments must be improved.”
Non-animal research charity - the Dr Hadwen Trust - have cautiously welcomed the proposals but warn the new Directive must be about more than “token gestures”. With this they are referring to the inclusion in the draft legislation of a great ape test ban, but point out that “as no apes are used in EU research at the moment, this is considered by many animal advocates as something of a token gesture.”

Emily McIvor, Dr Hadwen Trust Policy Director, said: “To make this law fit for a morally and scientifically progressive 21st century, the ultimate goal of replacing animals with alternatives must be right at the heart of the legislation.”

While there is no doubt that the wider scientific community endorse the 3Rs’ - to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals in research - there is a feeling that at this stage a balance needs to be struck between animal welfare and scientific advancement.

In a statement, the Royal Society said: “Modern biology is hugely dependent on the use of animals in research. Not only has the use of animals in research contributed to our understanding of how the human body works and the development of treatments and medicines that reduce human suffering and save lives, but it is also vital to progress in veterinary medicine.”

The EU plans to extend the species covered by the Directive to certain classes of invertebrates and suggests that controls be brought in for climate management in animal housing. These changes, say the Royal Society, have the potential to create an unworkable administrative burden disproportionate to any gain in animal welfare.

“The Directive should deliver a consistent approach across EU member states in the use of animals in research but it should allow for flexibility in the way the Directive is implemented,” said Dr Tony Peatfield.

The proposal will be adopted through the co-decision procedure and now awaits transmission to the European Parliament and the Council for their official positions on the draft.