22 February 2024
On Monday 19th Feb, I attended Parliament to hear our MPs debate the topic of animal testing. This came about through two petitions (signed by over 100,000 people in the UK) – the first petition being to end the use of animals for toxicity tests and the second petition to ban the use of dogs for all testing and research purposes in the UK.
Now let’s be absolutely clear – we are not dreaming and this can be achieved immediately. We have seen time and time again how animals have failed to reliably predict human responses to chemicals. In fact, 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals. Any other industry would have packed up their business years ago if it suffered losses like the medical industry has seen. But the torturous business of animal testing has persisted despite its abysmal scientific value.
After a round well-informed speeches by our members of parliament, Andrew Griffith, who is the Minister for science, research and innovation, delivered the government’s decision.
Firstly, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) will double their investment (to £20 million) in research to achieve the 3Rs – Reduction, Refinement and Replacement in fiscal year 2024-2025. The problem is not simply the poor investment, the problem lies in the 3Rs. Placing importance on reducing, refining, or indeed replacing animal testing, does not tackle the longstanding problem that the 3Rs are not fit-for-purpose. Animal testing was never the gold standard of scientific research and toxicity testing and both petitions strongly advocated to end animal testing based on real scientific evidence. The public want more money to be clearly diverted to replacing animal testing with non-animal methods. If the government were serious about reduction of animals in science, they would have made concrete plans to stop breeding animals. Yet, countless animals are still being bred in these torture chambers. We cannot have the smokescreen of the 3Rs to forget why we were there in the first place.
Secondly, the government will restart the public attitudes to animal research survey. Did the 140,000 petition signatures and the list of celebrities in support of ending animal testing somehow get lost in translation? Were the expert opinions from animal welfare organisations and leading scientists in the field of non-animal methods not provide the necessary evidence to stop animal testing? We must look to these experts to guide us in cutting-edge science that will truly support human health.
Finally, the Home Office fees for animal project licences (a necessary step for any animal testing in the UK) will be increased. For multimillion pound companies such as Marshall Bio Resources who run an industrial dog breeding facility in Cambridgeshire (MBR Acres), this increase in fees will make very little difference. They can afford this increase and will continue to make a profit until we abolish the barbaric suffering of animals.
The government has made their position clear – they will do the very least in the hopes that it will placate us. Medicine Without Cruelty does not agree with the outcomes of the debate and public opinion will only strengthen as more people become aware that these cruel and torturous practices on animals must end now.
Savita Nutan
Founder of Medicine Without Cruelty
