The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: EU animal research under fire
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
EU animal research under fire
Posted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 25th March 2009 04:30 PM GMT]

New proposed European laws to harmonize animal research across the EU could seriously hamper biomedical research, according a report published yesterday (Mar. 24) by the European Science Foundation (ESF) and a declaration issued today (Mar. 25) by a group of leading British life sciences organizations.

Image: Understanding Animal Research/
Wellcome Images
"We certainly welcome the opportunity to standardize animal care on a Europe-wide basis," Roger Lemon, a neuroscientist at University College London and the chair of the ESF's expert group on animal research, told The Scientist. "But where we have some difficulty is where some types of research would just be stopped altogether."

Last November, the European Commission and European Parliament introduced draft legislation -- called the "Directive on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes" -- to update prior legislation from 1986. The proposed directive aims to reduce the number of animals used in research and to set standard guidelines for animal breeding, accommodation, and care across all 27 European member states.

The ESF's expert group felt that the directive's blanket laws don't necessarily achieve its stated goals, however. Rather than benefiting the well-being of animal subjects, the new rules would "simply make the conditions of animal research more bureaucratic and expensive without achieving any significant change in animal welfare," said Lemon. For example, the directive proposes a minimum cage size for lab mice, but research shows that mice often feel threatened by larger open spaces, Lemon said.

Nine UK bioscience organizations representing academia, industry, animal carers, research funders, and patient groups sent a "declaration of concern" to European officials today including detailed comments on hundreds of proposed measures in the directive. "We are concerned that some of the amendments as currently drafted will bring no animal welfare benefits, and paradoxically could lead to an increased number of animals used," Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust and one of the declaration's signatories, said in a statement.

The ESF's expert group proposed their own suite of new amendments to the directive that it hopes will provide "a better defined and more balanced approach" to animal welfare issues and biomedical research. Both the ESF's and the British group's proposals will be part of some 400 amendments that will be voted on next week (Mar. 31) by the EU's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which manages the directive.

Under the proposal, the use of non-human primates would be subject to stringent restrictions and research involving great apes would be banned. Lemon, who studies hand and finger motor control in rhesus monkeys, said that most basic research -- including his own -- would be halted and only research that can show direct, short-term benefits for treating human disease would be permitted. "There appears to be a lot of issues that would make a lot of research impossible, and it would basically stop it overnight," he said. "It's a very poor piece of legislation that needs a huge amount of work on it."


Related stories:
  • EU proposes great ape research ban
    [5th November 2008]
  • The war on animal research
    [April 2008]
  • EU plans to cut animal tests
    [16th November 2005]

  •  

    Rate this article

    Rating: 4.42/5 (19 votes )





    The Way Forward
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-05-05 12:19:49]
    If there's one thing that animal researchers, animal welfare advocates, and animal rights activists can agree on, it's the need to find alternatives to animal testing. Check out the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at LINK



    animal research is to be minimised
    by gandhidas lavekar

    [Comment posted 2009-03-28 06:52:08]
    Yes always animal experimentation is not justified particularly in traditional health care sciences like Ayurveda as the uses of herbal preparations & practices are based on long experience & many are in current practices. The EU insists on revalidation in animals , in my view only quality & limited safety are to be validated for medical uses globly.



    Animal research is regulated
    by Paul Browne

    [Comment posted 2009-03-27 10:50:27]
    Alistair Currie "Good regulation is not an assault on science. And the free-for-all that some scientists clearly hope for is not in the interests of science either."

    Yes, but bad regulation is an assault on Science, as our colleagues in the US found during the Bush years.

    The point that the ESA and lots of other scientific organizations is making is that while most of the proposed revisions are good (over 90%) there are a few that will add a lot of bureaucracy associated with animal research while doing little or nothing to improve animal welfare...in some cases (e.g. having to account for every shrimp larva) it looks as if those drafting them just didn't think it through.

    If these concerns are addressed you will find the EU scientific community support the revisions.

    Oh and by the way animal research is not "uncontrolled", there are tight regulations, particularly in the UK. This revision offers the opportunity to bring all the EU up to UK standards, and even to improve the way things are done in the UK, but if it fails because too many people recognize that it poses too great a threat to scientific research than the opportunity will have been missed.



    Primate research saves lives!
    by Paul Browne

    [Comment posted 2009-03-27 10:38:54]
    As usual the anti-vivs (the "Safer Medicines Campaign" is an animal rights front group) come forward with their misleading propaganda. They say that they were not invited to present evidence to the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, but that invitation was made public on the SCHER website, and a lot of scientists responded. What the anti-vivs are complaining about is that the committee ignored their propagandists and instead listened to scientists who were working in the fields concerned and who are focused on preventing and treating disease, not on ideological campaigns.

    The SCHER report can be read at LINK

    In addition I'd like to point out the important role that primate research has played in areas of reseaerch such as HIV prophylaxis LINK and developing new treatmnets form neurological diseases such as Parkinson's LINK




    What concerns me about this...
    by Daniel Rhoads

    [Comment posted 2009-03-26 06:26:48]
    What concerns me about this proposal is the claim that the restrictions would halt some basic research altogether (eliminating research on great apes aside). For instance, Dr. Lemon's research on rhesus monkeys - it's not stated at all what the restrictions would be or why projects like his would be halted.

    What are these restrictions, and can the directive's framers defend the basis for such regulations empirically? That is the question that I wish the author of this story had asked.



    Regulation is right and progress must be made
    by Alistair Currie

    [Comment posted 2009-03-26 04:21:23]
    It is simply a statement of fact to say that animal experimentation inflicts harm and suffering on millions of animals each year in the EU - in some cases that suffering is very substantial indeed. It is therefore entirely right - at the minimum - that it be regulated tightly and in a transparent fashion. While the Commission's orginal proposal does have many flaws, it is alarming and depressing that a number of bodies involved in and supportive of animal experimentation are exploiting these flaws as a wedge to propose changes that will effectively lead to self- or deregulation. The rhetoric is all about animal welfare, bureaucracy and protecting science but the agenda is that scientists should effectively be able to do whatever they choose.

    This is a short-sighted approach. European public opinion is clearly in favour of effective and transparent regulation (see LINK and those who seek to thwart it are storing up trouble for science and scientists. If animal experiments continue in an uncontrolled fashion and the personal research agendas of individual scientists and institutions dictate what is done to animals regardless of public concern a public and political backlash is inevitable - and justifiable. In a civilised society actions which cause suffering and harm to animals should be effectively controlled by law and the public have a right to as much information about what is done as is consistent with personal safety of researchers.

    Good regulation is not an assault on science. And the free-for-all that some scientists clearly hope for is not in the interests of science either.



    Absurd
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-03-26 01:54:37]
    If it is normal and acceptable for the homeowner to set a simple trap that injures a mouse and dooms it to a slow death - how could it be improper to use a mouse to research a cure for disease, no matter how it is done?

    "Harmonization" throughout the EU is worthwhile when it confers human rights. When it trammels national sovereignty to impose the taboos of one country on others, it is worse than useless.

    Mice will neither thank us for their rights, nor find them of much use in their next encounter with the cat.

    Fortunately, a land of liberty exists which respects the untrammeled freedom of scientific inquiry - at least so far as animal studies are concerned. By this of course I refer to the People's Republic of China, which is widely renowned for offering almost complete freedom in the use of animals for any purpose. The cost of animal research in China is only 20% of that in Western countries (LINK and biotechnology is a top government priority. Perhaps the free market will pressure Europe to adopt Chinese liberties.



    Hang on a minute - where's the evidence?
    by Kathy Archibald

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 17:26:47]
    Can anyone explain precisely how science would suffer if research involving great apes was banned? Or even all primates, for that matter?

    The truth is, science would benefit enormously if research into human disease was forced to focus on humans, using all the biotechnological tools now at our disposal. We would no longer be misled by results in primates that differ profoundly from results in humans: see LINK

    Claims that the use of primates is essential to biomedical research are scientifically flawed. In fact, there is powerful evidence of its unsuitability in many cases: LINK

    No convincing case has been made for the value of nonhuman primate research. Assertions of its indispensability by nonhuman primate researchers do not constitute scientific evidence.

    Kathy Archibald, Director, Safer Medicines Campaign www.safermedicines.org



    Animal experiments are bad science
    by Andre Menache

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 17:18:42]
    Having attended an EU expert meeting in November 2008 in Bruxelles, my colleagues and I were dismayed that not a single non animal researcher had been invited to give oral testimony to the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER). Article 7.2 of Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of laboratory animals clearly states that "An experiment shall not be performed if another satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not
    entailing the use of an animal, is
    reasonably and practicably available". The time has come to put this paragraph to the test. A major obstacle to doing so is the phenomenon of "institutional intimidation", used to ward off research scientists (within an academic or medical institution) who dare voice their opposition to animal experimentation.




    Another one in the minority
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 13:57:25]
    I have used mice for basic biomedical research for 2 decades. My philosophy about using these sentient beings in research is to prevent and/or minimize pain and distress. As professionals, we should convey to future scientists the proper attitude toward animal use. They should handle animals calmly and gently. Moreover, mice should be euthanized humanely and promptly if they appear to be suffering. Most of all, we should manifest a respectful and grateful attitude toward the rodents for allowing us understand and find cures for human diseases.



    Poor Legislation, Poorer Science
    by PAUL STEIN

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 13:21:48]
    Professor Lemon is correct that this is extremely poor legislation that can only lead to poorer science. It will definitely lead to decreased European Union competitiveness and result in a scientific brain drain to other places around the world.

    The Europeans will still need to purchase the latest drug and biological treatments for unmet medical needs, but they will come from places like the United States, where scientific benefits from research have, to date, only been minimally obstructed by the illogical din of the animal rightists.

    The purpose of this legislation coming about is exactly opposite as to what Ms. Hunt purports. The animal rights activists of Europe are listened to too much rather than being shut up. As in England, it is time for the rest of the European scientists to raise their voices in reason.

    Regarding one comment in the previous anonymous post, Professor Francione does not possess a reasonable, philosophical approach to animal rights as stated, but is a hyper-radical animal use abolishionist who equates owning a pet with sadism.



    I disagree with most animal rights positions but ...
    by Ellen Hunt

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 12:44:28]
    Even though I disagree with most animal rights positions, I think a major reason for the radicalization of the movement is that they are being suppressed. A university is a place where freedom of discussion is the foundation. And yet, these people are not allowed to leaflet, come on campus and talk, or anything else. They can be arrested for coming on or near campus in California.



    I know I'm in the minority here
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-03-25 12:14:21]
    Although I work in the pharmaceutical industry, I'm a vegan who is supportive of the animal rights movement. Despite the undeniable benefit/knowledge gained from animal research, I feel it's essentially immoral to conduct experiments on sentient beings in most situations and I'm pleased to see the EU government proposing any such changes.

    While I don't support violence toward animal researchers, and am sympathetic for people whose research is being curtailed, I am happy to see official steps toward reducing animal suffering though curtailing animal research.

    I have chosen to post this anonymously due to the high emotions inherent in these discussions (ie, I am not interested in getting flamed.)

    I encourage anyone with an interest in a reasonable, philosophical approach to animal rights to check out Gary Francione's writings and website.



    Comment on this blog