In the news
6 Sep 2008
14 December 2006
Home Office Inspectors' report 2005 published
Annual Report reveals “little protection of any real worth” for laboratory animals, says the Dr Hadwen Trust.
Today (December 14 2006) the Home Office published the second annual review1 of its Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate (ASPI) who monitor licensed research facilities and assess animal research licence applications2. The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, the UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity, has said that the report clearly exposes what little protection animals in laboratories actually receive and reform of the Inspectorate is urgently needed3.
Says Wendy Higgins, the Dr Hadwen Trust’s Communications Director:
“The government tries to persuade a concerned public that animal experiments are closely monitored. We dispute that and this latest report clearly exposes the paucity of that claim. It is ludicrous to suggest that an average of less than thirty full-time Inspectors can adequately monitor and protect nearly three million animals used for experiments plus the many thousands more living in breeding facilities up and down the country. Spending an average of just 3.1 hours per visit at each of the facility could not possibly constitute a high level of scrutiny, and the report itself admits that Inspectors can only hope to see a small fraction of the animal research being conducted at each establishment. When the Home Office’s hollow promises about laboratory animal welfare are exposed by their own Inspectorate’s report, isn’t it time that this government admitted that animals in the research industry receive little protection of any real worth to them as sentient beings4?”
The report also reveals that in 2005 there were 32 infringements in 2005 including animal experiments conducted without a proper licence. Despite the fact that a breach of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is a serious affair, and in some cases increased the suffering of animals, in the main the punishment for law-breakers is virtually meaningless. In most cases no or little further action was taken, and even where it was admitted that the breach “involved significant additional suffering” no prosecution for animal cruelty was made. In all, only one licence was revoked although the report does not state for how long and of the total infringements, only 9 were discovered by the Inspectorate5.
Says Wendy Higgins:
“It is little wonder that only 9 out of 32 infringements were actually discovered by Inspectors, when they spend so little time at each laboratory. And with little more than a slapped wrist by way of punishment, what incentive is there for licence holders to comply with the law? They know full well that they are unlikely to suffer any serious consequences even if their actions involve increased animal suffering. These toothless punishments are eloquent testimony to just how insignificant is the suffering of individual animals within the Home Office system. This is the shocking truth about animal experiments – even the government’s own Inspectors don’t know what life is really like for the vast majority of animals and if the law is broken, almost nothing will be done.”
The Dr Hadwen Trust also warns that only one member of the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate is relied upon professionally for significant expertise in the 3 Rs (Reduction, Refinement & Replacement). As the Inspectorate play a key role in taking licensing decisions on behalf of the Home Secretary, the charity believes that the current system allows a serious knowledge gap where most Inspectors are not suitably qualified in non-animal research techniques.
Says Wendy Higgins:
“Non-animal replacement science is a highly complex, fast-moving and specialised area. Currently the Inspectorate simply doesn’t have a high level of replacement expertise and without that there can’t be effective scrutiny of animal research license applications to ensure that proposed animal experiments couldn’t be replaced by the latest non-animal methods. Most Inspectors have an animal research background; there needs to be reform in this area as an urgent priority so that we move away from the current situation, where those charged with monitoring animal experiments are largely self-policing, predisposed towards animal research and ill-equipped to assess animal experiments in the light of the most modern, cutting-edge non-animal replacements.”
ENDS
Notes to Editor:
1 The Report can be viewed in full here
2 The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate (ASPI) provides scientific advice to the Home Secretary and to the Animals in Scientific Procedures Division (ASPD) officials who operate the licensing system and provide policy advice to Ministers. There are currently 28 inspectors to monitor nearly 3 million animal procedures annually.
3 Page 12 of the report shows that in 2005 there was animal research work carried out under 2,886 project licences and 14,188 personal licensees at 218 designated establishments.
4 Page 4 of the report reveals that “inspectorate strength during the year has been, on average, 25 full-time equivalents.” Page 13 of the report shows that the average visiting time per establishment in 2005 was 5.1 hours with 2.1 hours of that spent on travel.
5 Infringements are shown on pages 14-15 of the report.
6 The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research is the UK’s leading medical research charity funding and promoting exclusively non-animal research techniques to replace animal experiments. Our vital work benefits humans with the development of more relevant and reliable science whilst also benefiting laboratory animals.
Links: information or technical information
