New EU limits on primate experimentation under review - New Scientist

New limits on animal experiments under review - Vivisectors in a panic - 11 November 2006


Europe's scientists must make themselves heard on animal experimentation
• 11 November 2006
• Mark Matfield
INSULIN is estimated to have saved the lives of over 5 million diabetics. It was discovered by Frederick Banting and his colleagues in Toronto in 1922, through experiments on dogs and rabbits. Cardiac surgery is only possible because of the heart-lung machine, which bypasses the blood circulation to the heart and allows it to be stopped. This apparatus was developed by John Gibbon in a series of experiments on dogs, conducted between 1937 and the first human open-heart operation in 1955. And although Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, he thought it was merely an antiseptic. It was not until 1939 that Howard Florey showed that it was an antibiotic by showing that it could protect mice from a virulent bacterial infection, still the standard test for antibiotic activity.

The scientific case for using animals in research and for the development of new drugs and surgical techniques rests on these and other discoveries. The future of such work is under the spotlight, however, as the European Union updates the legislation covering the use of animals in scientific research. That is why scientific organisations representing more than 37,000 researchers across Europe are this week joining forces to launch the European Coalition for Biomedical Research (ECBR). The coalition's task is to address this single item of EU legislation.

The original EU directive on animal experimentation was introduced in 1986. It needs revision because so much has changed since then, both in the scientific uses of animals and in our understanding of animal welfare. For example, transgenic mice had only just been developed in 1986, but the past decade has seen a huge expansion of the use of these genetically modified animals for research.

Our understanding of laboratory animal welfare has also evolved. Since 1986, the fundamental ethical principles of replacing animals in experiments where possible, reducing the numbers of animals used in experiments and refining the experiments to improve animal welfare have become broadly accepted across Europe. These principles are not mentioned at all in the current directive but ought to be included in the revision.

After several years of preparatory work on how to revise the animal experimentation directive, the European Commission recently held a public consultation in which it described the proposal in some detail: this is the last part of the process before a draft directive is written and submitted to the European Parliament.

The proposal sets out a fairly sensible scheme based on the system used in the UK. The commission has cherry-picked the best parts of the UK system but avoided most of the bureaucracy that it entailed, which has been the focus of much criticism in recent years.

While generally reasonable, however, the proposal contains some worrying ideas, including one which could drastically affect the use of the most common types of non-human primates in animal experiments. The commission proposes to force European researchers to use only non-human primates that have been bred in captivity for two generations. The thinking is that second-generation animals will have little, if any, of the behavioural traits that make wild animals stressed in a caged environment, although there is little evidence to back this up.

The problem is that these primates are almost impossible to obtain and few suppliers, if any, are willing to breed them. As it stands, the proposal would severely limit the use of non-human primates in experiments.

The consequences of this would be severe. Primate research has been essential for developments in several important fields, including asthma treatments, life support for premature babies, vaccines against polio and deep brain stimulation to treat Parkinson's disease. The similarity of their brain structure to humans' means that they are very important for several areas of research in neuroscience. Drug safety legislation requires that primates be used to test biological therapies that are being developed to treat diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

Another worry is that the European Parliament is bound to try to introduce many changes on an emotive issue like this. The ECBR will be helping its members inform MEPs in their respective countries about the reasons for the continuing need to use animals in medical research. Previous debates on the issue have shown that there is a considerable knowledge gap among MEPs, which needs to be filled.

The ECBR will also be scrutinizing the draft directive line by line and, where there are clauses that need changing, will seek the help of MEPs to ensure that appropriate amendments are tabled, debated and inserted. The objective is to achieve a new directive that balances the need for effective regulation with the need to allow research to proceed without undue delays, bureaucracy or hindrance.

From issue 2577 of New Scientist magazine, 11 November 2006, page 24

Related items:


The terror of overseas monkey farms
Animal experiments on the rise in Scotland
Covance