Supporter’s Answer Guide – Extended version
Question 7: Should the UK retain its current restrictions on the use of endangered species?
Suggested answer: Yes.
NAVS reasoning: The directive allows the use of endangered animals for a number of reasons
including the avoidance of disease in humans, animals or plants and the development of foodstuffs
and “other substances or products”.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) on the other hand, allows endangered
species to be used only for research into the preservation of the species in question or “essential
biomedical purposes,” where that species “exceptionally proves to be the only one” suitable. ASPA
is therefore stricter than the directive in this instance and this position should be maintained.
Question 10: Do you agree that the UK should continue to operate a policy ban on the use of
great apes?
Suggested answer: Yes
NAVS reasoning: There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates how
nonhuman primates suffer during transportation, captivity and during experiments. All primate
species are intelligent, some use tools, others show self-awareness and they are good at problemsolving. Most live in family groups with complex social structures. They have proved themselves
capable of learning rudimentary arithmetic, have demonstrated reasoning, and some have even
learnt to speak in human sign language; they also display similar emotions to humans. It is
acknowledged that these animals suffer in the limited, often very restrictive, facilities available in
laboratories. Confining primates in the laboratory has a significant adverse effect on their welfare.
Lab primates are kept in small, barren metal cages often isolated from other primates. Their level of
awareness means that they are capable of suffering greatly from isolation and during even basic
experimental procedures – for example the stress of being restrained has been known to cause
monkeys to suffer rectal prolapse.
We know that all primates suffer in laboratories, but great apes are likely to suffer even more due to
their high intelligence, complex social lives, large size and long lives. The UK ban on use of great
apes must be retained. In addition, the new Directive aims at ending the use of wild-caught
primates, but a 12-year phase-out is too long. The UK should lead the way and set a much earlier
deadline.
Question 12: What criteria should be applied to ensure the competence of persons capturing
animals in the wild?
Suggested answer: None. There should be an end to the capture of wild animals for experiments.
NAVS reasoning: research shows that there are welfare, scientific and environmental concerns
associated with the capture of wild animals for experiments, or for laboratory animal suppliers to
replenish their stocks. The level of suffering and mortality associated with capture, handling and
housing of wild animals includes violence, stress and fear during capture; sudden confinement,
indiscriminate tearing apart of family groups and broken populations left behind (e.g. animals can be
left without parents or siblings). This also damages local populations and consequently the
environment: damage to habitat, to the genetic diversity of wild populations and even the
eradication of whole populations and the disruption of the natural population balance (removal of
females and animals of certain ages). Animal models are never an accurate model for the human
condition, but scientifically, the use of purpose-bred animals whose genetic and health background
is known is preferred; the benefits include reduction of variation, improved consistency and
reproducibility of data.
Question 14: Would this have a negative impact on UK breeders, suppliers and users? What
impact, if any, is there likely to be on animal welfare?
Suggested answer: Yes.
NAVS reasoning: Although Article 2 allows stricter national measures, there are issues concerning
the free market. If the UK maintained its current provisions, Member States operating minimum
standards provided by the directive could not be prevented from supplying animals to, or using
animals from, the UK. However, if the UK adhered to the minimum standards of the directive the
relevant suppliers and breeders would be able to supply laboratory animals to the UK but animal
welfare would diminish.
This means that the UK will not be able to stop the supply of animals from countries which only
have the minimum welfare standards of the directive. This would allow animals reared under poorer
conditions than in the UK to be used, in much the same way as animals brought in from abroad are
currently and undermine the strict welfare regulations that the UK attempts to maintain. This clearly
has welfare implications for the animals and a negative impact on UK breeders and suppliers as it is
possible that current UK breeders could become less stringent and animal welfare in the UK suffer.
Question 15: Is there a case on animal welfare grounds for retaining the current UK
prohibition on the use of stray and feral animals?
Suggested answer: Yes
NAVS reasoning: The current UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) goes beyond
the European Directive on the scope of protection for certain animals such as birds, foetal forms of
mammals or reptiles from halfway through the gestation or incubation period (section 1.2),
vertebrates of endangered species (section 10.3), dogs and cats and equines (section 5.6) and feral
and stray animals (section 10.3). The Home Office also publishes detailed annual statistics of
animal use under the ASPA, which contributes to public access to information about animal
experiments. The EU Directive (Article 2) allows EU Member States to go beyond the provisions of
the Directive, therefore the UK must maintain these higher standards.
Stray and feral animals should not be used for a multitude of reasons including the stress which is
involved in their capture, restraint and transportation to the designated establishment where they
will be used. All animals suffer in laboratories, but especially animals which are not bred or used to
captivity and the close proximity of humans. As well as the stress of these factors, which will make
the animals an even poorer scientific model than animals bred specifically for laboratory use,
scientifically, the use of purpose-bred animals with an available genetic and health background is
preferred. These more homogenous animals reduce the variation of data gathered from them,
leading to improved consistency and reproducibility of data. This can equate to fewer animals being
used. Therefore there are both scientific and ethical reasons for them not to be used in research
under the Directive.
Question 30: Are there any further issues we should consider in relation to the Union
reference laboratory?
Suggested answer: Yes
The Union reference laboratory must be primarily orientated towards the replacement of animals in
research, rather than the refinement and reduction of their use. This is the only real way to ensure
progress; it stimulates creativity and initiative. Recital 10, states the objective of the directive; “the
final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes
as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so”.
The union reference laboratory could also incorporate a human tissue bank and database in order
for researchers to be able to obtain tissue for their research. This means that the human tissue
which is available can be used more widely, thus encouraging the use of human tissue and cells
and a move away from the use of animals.
Question 40: Are there any specific issues we should consider when preparing guidance and
codes of practice on accommodation and care?
Suggested answer: Yes
Recital 34 states that the care and accommodation of animals should be based on the “specific
needs and characteristics of each species.” This is important, but it does not reflect the importance
of the animals life stage to their accommodation – younger animals may require more space to
explore and play whereas older animals may require adaptations to their cages to reflect their
advanced age. This is especially true in animals in long-term studies.
Where the UK currently has higher standards than the directive these should be maintained as the
space requirements may change over time as the directive is reviewed by 2017. If minimum
requirements are chosen, these may need to be changed in time, creating a higher cost. In addition,
where animals are allowed more space under ASPA, this amount of space was determined by
certain processes, so to give animals less space is a retrograde step and should be avoided.
Question 47: Are there any other categories of project that should be covered by these
provisions?
Suggested answer: No
The ability to “authorise multiple generic projects”, whilst these projects will not be exempted from
the project evaluation, is a slackening of the controls to which these procedures should be
subjected. The fact that the procedures concern “established methods” does not mean that the
animals will not suffer (as our exposes of laboratories such as HLS and Inveresk have shown). In
addition the use of transgenic animals is on the increase and therefore transgenic breeding should
be more closely scrutinised, not rubber-stamped.
Question 52: Is there a case for animal welfare bodies to have more extensive membership
and functions than the minimum requirement set out in Articles 26 and 27? If so, what
additional members and functions should be required or recommended in guidance? How
might ‘small’ establishments be defined and how might they meet the requirements for
animal welfare bodies ‘by other means’?
Suggested answer: Yes.
NAVS reasoning: There is a strong case for animal welfare bodies to have more extensive
membership and functions than the minimum requirements of the Directive. The NAVS believes that
it is essential to have a variety of expertise amongst the members of the AWBs, and although a
veterinarian or an expert must provide input, this doesn’t necessarily mean that animal welfare will
be maximised. The directive states that AWBs should at least have a person responsible for the
animals’ welfare and care or if it is a user, then a scientific member. The AWB should receive input
from a designated expert/veterinarian, however, this limited number of members cannot be
expected to deal effectively with the range of tasks allocated to the AWB including application of the
3R’s, awareness of the existence of animal alternatives and following through the outcome and
development of projects. In order to ensure that the 3Rs are considered fully, a representative with
extensive knowledge of these issues should be included as a member of the AWB. Further, it may
be beneficial to have a lay person as part of the AWB in order to gain an unbiased and unscientific
opinion. The ASPA currently has requirements for membership of the ethical review process groups
which are more extensive including home office inspectors being present at meetings if they
choose, the inclusion of lay members and named animal care and welfare officers involved. These
roles should be maintained for AWBs.
In the case of “small” establishments, this could be defined by the number of employees or the
number of animals used / bred each year. In a situation where an establishment felt unable to set up
an AWB it could be possible for an AWB made up of staff from different establishments, lay
members and alternatives experts to carry out their duties for a number of “small” establishments in
the same region.
Question 53: Should the Animal Procedures Committee form the basis for the new National
Committee? What should be its membership and what range of expertise will the National
Committee require to enable it to meet the requirements set out in Article 49? How might this
expertise be accessed?
Suggested answer: Yes.
NAVS reasoning: The Animal Procedures Committee could form the basis of the new National
Committee; however, this MUST have permanent members from animal welfare organisations and
those that research or fund the replacement of animals in research such as the National Anti
Vivisection Society and the Lord Dowding Fund. The Directive encourages in the National
Committees to guide the AWBs, “[National Committees] shall advise... animal-welfare bodies on
matters dealing with the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in
procedures and ensure sharing of best practise” and therefore this should be respected and
implemented in order to ensure the AWBs all perform to a similar standard.
Question 59: How might ASPA 24 be amended to provide greater flexibility regarding
disclosure of information while protecting proprietary rights and intellectual property?
Suggested answer: ASPA 24 should be repealed, and the provisions for protection of confidential
information in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be relied upon.
NAVS reasoning: Section 24 of the 1986 Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act bars release of all
information on animal experiments and, NAVS believes, has given rise to increasing public
frustration and concern on this issue. There is no justifiable reason why all information regarding the
procedure and animals used cannot be disclosed, if requested, under the Freedom of Information
Act. The Directive provides protection for intellectual property and confidential information as part of
Article 38 and Article 43 so there should be no concerns on these points under the Directive. The
UK Freedom of Information Act also provides protection for these areas. Details regarding the use
of animals in experiments are of great public concern and should be readily available in order to
allow the public to make an informed judgement.