Cruelty Free International disappointed at government stance on use of dogs in science
Credit: Cruelty Free International / Carlota Saorsa
The government restated its manifesto commitment to phase-out animal testing in Monday’s debate on the use of dogs in scientific procedures but Cruelty Free International is disappointed by their emphasis that ‘for now, the use of animals in scientific research remains necessary’.
This came despite many calls from MPs for the end of animal testing and prioritisation of non-animal methods in a well-attended Westminster Hall debate on e-petition 705384, relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures, which has to date received over 235,000 signatures.
The debate was led by Irene Campbell MP, for whom Cruelty Free International provided a briefing on the use of dogs, and can be watched on ParliamentLiveTV.
There were 3,770 uses of dogs in 2023, 95 per cent of which were beagles. The majority (69 per cent) of experiments on dogs are for regulatory purposes, usually safety tests for human drugs, veterinary drugs and agricultural products. However, a study performed by Cruelty Free International, together with Replacing Animal Research, revealed that passing a test on a dog provides virtually no meaningful indication that a drug is safe for humans, and that testing on dogs improves predictions of safety for humans by just 2 per cent, from 70 per cent to 72 per cent.
Many MPs spoke passionately of the need to end the use of dogs in scientific procedures and phase out animal testing entirely, along with the importance of prioritising humane science and non-animal testing. Alex Mayer, MP for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, commended and recommended Cruelty Free International’s RAT (Replace Animal Tests) List, which highlights six tests that have already accepted non-animal replacements and could be ended immediately.
In opening the debate, Campbell quoted Cruelty Free International’s former Senior Research Scientist, Dr Jarrod Bailey: “Modern, non-animal methods give the best possible chance of securing medical progress, since they are not hampered by translating from one species to another... Analysis in a paper authored by Dr Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound [drug] should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin.”
Ruth Jones, MP for Newport West and Islwyn, said: “I firmly believe that the ultimate goal should be the total replacement of all animal experiments with humane alternatives, and I would like to see a diversion of existing funding, resources and expertise away from animal experiments. With the existence of new and developing cutting-edge technology, we do not need whole-body animal systems to assess chemical and drug safety or to advance our scientific knowledge of diseases.”
She asked the government to “provide a detailed roadmap about the transition to human-relevant science” and concluded by saying: “Ending the use of dogs must be a first step in the full transition to the cutting-edge, human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress.”
Feryal Clark, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, representing the government, said: “I also, along with Members here, long for the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research – a day that cannot come soon enough. Sadly, it is not here yet. That is not today. The UK is world-leading in the development of non-animal methods, and the government is keen to ensure that they are utilised wherever possible. That’s why our manifesto commits us to partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.
“However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment… Our manifesto commitment stands in recognition that the phasing out of animal testing has to be in lockstep with the development of alternatives. As yet, the reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals.”
In closing, Campbell described the government response as "disappointing" and said: “The debate has brought attention to an issue that many people do not want to face or discuss. The many contributions today have highlighted the depth of feeling on this matter. We have the scientific evidence, with many scientists advising and supporting the view that it is time to remove dogs from medical testing. I look forward to the day when we achieve this aim.”
Our Head of Public Affairs, Dylan Underhill, said: “Today’s debate showed Parliament is starting to reflect the public’s growing demand for urgent action to bring animal testing to an end as soon as possible – there is evidence that at least some uses of dogs could be stopped relatively soon, while the need for more work to phase out all animal testing in the longer-term is clear. The Minister’s lack of ambition was a missed opportunity. MPs across the House made clear that change is both necessary and possible.
“The phase-out was a manifesto commitment from the government. Looking forward, we cannot allow them to renege on or water down the ambition behind that commitment. What we need now is for the government to step up with a phased and practical plan to turn this public and political momentum into meaningful progress.”
For further information, contact Dylan at dylan.underhill@crueltyfreeinternational.org.
