Forum Brief: Animal testing

Animal experiments remain essential for medical advances, human welfare, and protection of the environment, the government said yesterday.

The statement came in a response to a report from an all-party committee of peers which had recognised the need for animal experiments but called for more research into ways to reduce, refine and replace the practice.

Forum Brief: Pfizer

A spokesman for Pfizer told ePolitix.com: "Everyone at Pfizer looks forward to the time when it will no longer be necessary to use animals in research. However, with present knowledge, there are no alternatives if cures or improved treatments are to be found for serious conditions such as Alzheimer's Disease, Stroke, and various types of cancer.

"Situations remain where only animals will answer certain questions such as how a new drug behaves in an entire living system rather than just in isolated cells or tissues. We do not choose to do animal testing. It's critical to progressing a medicine. If we didn't have to do it, we wouldn't.

"While discovering and developing cures, we seek and promote alternatives to animal testing. These include isolated proteins - enzymes, hormone receptors, neurotransmitter receptors - cell cultures, tissue studies and computer models, used primarily in early stages of research. Through this work we have reduced the number of animals needed for testing to 25 per cent since the 1980s.

"When animals are used in UK biomedical research, studies are controlled by the most stringent legislation of its type in the world. Pfizer conducts all of this work strictly in accordance with this legislation, which it either meets or exceeds.

"It's important not to forget that all major medical advances of the last century have resulted from research that involved the use of animals, including prescription medicines, life support machines for premature babies and surgical procedures such as coronary bypass and organ transplant. In light of its significance, we hope to work in partnership with government, to raise awareness of the necessity of research and to communicate our methods to the public, so they can make an informed decision on the value of animal testing."

Forum Response: RSPCA

Dr Maggy Jennings, head of the RSPCA's research animals department, said: "It is vital that hand in hand with the reasons for research there is more openness about the level of suffering caused to the animals used. The public needs to know the price that animals have to pay.

"We are disappointed with the unenthusiastic response of the government to the Lords' call for a Centre for the Three Rs - replacement, refinement and reduction in animal experiments.

"Their proposals amount to little more than passing the buck to research councils, industry and others. They have failed to grasp the essential feature of the idea behind the Centre - that it should co-ordinate and stimulate co-operative efforts across scientific disciplines and between different organisations.

"The RSPCA gave written and oral evidence to the House of Lords select committee and many of our recommendations were echoed in the committee's report last July. We will now be going through the Home Office's response with a fine tooth comb and making representations to the minister. We will be urging the government again to implement those recommendations that will genuinely benefit animals."

Forum Response: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection

Michelle Thew, chief executive of BUAV, said: "It is shameful that it takes a report by the House of Lords to make this government take the issue of animal experiments seriously, but I fear that the government will use this as an excuse for more talk instead of more action. I am not impressed by a government response that lacks any real substance

"The government's statement calls for more consultation on freedom of information for animal experiments when action on this issue is already long overdue; the government's appalling lack of funding for non-animal research development is recognised in the report and yet here the government still refuses to promote this to a top-priority area; and we see no recognition at all in the government's response to the report's stinging criticisms of the Home Office Inspectorate's lack of independence.

"Instead the Home Office's reaction to recommendations for reform from the Lords, is simply to agree to further consultation with animal research scientists. It is quite clear that this government holds the idea of progress and reform in contempt.

"British people want progressive policy instead of spin, and they want decisive action instead of words. There is nothing in this insubstantial government response that indicates the government has woken up to that fact."

Forum Response: Medical Research Council

Professor Sir George Radda, chief executive of the MRC, said: "The MRC has always been committed to establishing the best standards of care for animals in research and welcomes these further recommendations and suggestions as to how these can be improved upon. Increasing public access to the regulatory process and sharing information will lead to a greater understanding in the public about how animals are used for research."