Public Meeting: 'Replacing Animals in Research: What's Happening in Europe?', March 5th 2009

The meeting was chaired and introduced by Sir David Madden, a former UK ambassador to Greece and currently consultant to the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).

Headlining the event was Green Party Leader and MEP Caroline Lucas, who is also Vice President of the EU cross-party Animal Welfare group, and has played a key role in the campaign to secure better animal protection and put replacement at the heart of the new legislation. It was important, said Caroline, not only to promote the development of new non-animal techniques, but also to ensure the use of existing ones. Despite being a legal requirement, this is far from being a reality at present, as exemplified by the crude LD50 shellfish toxin test still performed on 30,000 mice a year despite the availability of a modern alternative. To ensure proper scrutiny and transparency, the new law should require both prospective ethical review, to show that all non-animal options have been exhausted before a research project is approved, and retrospective review, to establish whether the expected outcomes were achieved. Also important was the creation of national centres for the 3Rs in all member states, and a new EU-wide centre of excellence with a more ambitious role than the present alternatives validating body ECVAM, which concentrates largely on regulatory procedures. According to Caroline, the quality of research could only benefit from this creative challenge.

The next speaker was Mike Baker, newly appointed Director General of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and President of the Eurogroup for Animals, a lobby group representing animal welfare organisations throughout Europe. In his view, the proposed new EU directive represented "an improvement but not a seismic shift". As departing CEO of the equine charity Brooke, Mike had witnessed an appalling lack of animal welfare in some developing countries, and welcomed the changes that the new law would bring there. At the same time, however, the upsurge in genetically engineered animals and the new REACH chemicals testing programme meant that animal testing was once more on the rise, and the Commission proposal offered no targets to tackle this. While criticising the Establishment's resistance to change, he also highlighted the "image problem" of the animal rights movement, which, he argued, needed to be less confrontational and more ready to engage. Given the rapid pace of scientific progress, Mike was positive about what could be achieved: "If the political will is there, we should be optimistic about the science". With a more sophisticated approach from animal campaigners and greater commitment from industry, there was, he said, " a brighter future if we can grasp it".

Completing the panel was Emily McIvor, Policy Director of the Dr Hadwen Trust. As the UK's leading non-animal medical research charity, the Trust is spearheading the campaign for an EU-wide animal replacement strategy. A seasoned Brussels lobbyist, Emily gave a strong sense of the institutional inertia standing in the way of progress on this issue (revision of the old Directive had been repeatedly postponed since 2001, for example). Another problem was that of regulatory loopholes and poor enforcement, as exemplified by the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetics, now entering its 2nd phase. On the positive side, the EU had validated more non-animal alternatives than any other region, and had forged ahead with a new skin irritation test without waiting for the sluggish OECD - none of which would have been achieved without the pressure of MEPs and animal campaigners. The proposed new directive was, said Emily, a rare opportunity to try and influence the decision-making process. The Commission proposal, which would include animal welfare as a benefit for the purpose of cost/benefit analyses and place limits on the severity and duration of experimental procedures, would put the EU ahead of the rest of the world in terms of animal protection. However, that proposal was already under threat from commercial interests, and looked set to be undermined by amendments from the Industry and Agriculture Committees which would permit severe and prolonged suffering, testing for trivial purposes and far less scrutiny of research projects.* It was therefore vital that the public get involved, for example by writing to their MEPs and signing up to the new campaign soon to be launched by the Dr Hadwen Trust.

The speakers' presentations were followed by some interesting questions, e.g. on the feasibility of legal challenges in cases of failure to enforce the use of existing alternatives. Though a possible option, this would take years and swallow up the budgets of the challenging organisations. Another question concerned agenda conflicts between environmental and animal protection groups, as exemplified by WWF's support for the REACH programme. In response, the panel highlighted the need for lobbying and making common cause with such groups. The question of transparency and freedom of information was also raised.

VERO would like to thank our distinguished chair and speakers for a highly informative evening, which highlighted the considerable hurdles to be overcome by the animal protection movement, but also showed what has been and can be achieved with pressure from the public and their elected representatives. We hope those who attended the meeting will have been inspired to support the movement for change.

* Update: Unfortunately, under intense pressure from industry lobbyists, the Agriculture Committee voted on 31 March to reject virtually every measure in the Commission proposal aimed at improving animal welfare. MEPs voted against setting an upper limit of permissible pain, voted in favour of extending opportunities for researchers to re-use animals, and voted to reduce the scope of authorisation so that the vast majority of animal research projects (everything apart from those involving severe pain or primates) would not have to pass a successful ethical review by the competent authority before being authorised. Having completed the Environment, Industry and Agriculture Committee stages, the draft directive will now go to a plenary vote of the European Parliament, scheduled for early May.