The United Kingdom includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes also loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.
What Are the Laws/Regulations for Testing in the UK?
UK law both requires and regulates experiments on animals. Any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal, one of which must be a large non-rodent. The way scientists can use animals has been controlled by legislation since 1822, and the law has grown much stricter since then. The Animals Act of 1986, for example, insists that no animal experiments be conducted if there is a realistic alternative. Testing on animals now requires three Home Office licences - for the institution, the scientist and the project. They must outline the potential benefits and prove there is no alternative. Random inspections and on-site vets are mandatory. The number of experiments has been broadly static for a number of years and is about half the figure in the 1970s. The UK is the only country in the world to have both systems (local and national) running at the same time. The strict controls under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were added to in April 1999 with the introduction of the Local Ethical Review Process for animal research. There are also international regulations such as the European Directive 86/609.
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986
ASPA regulates the use of animals used for research in the UK. The Act permits studies to be conducted using animals for procedures such as breeding genetically modified animals, medical and veterinary advances, education, environmental toxicology and includes procedures requiring vivisection, if certain criteria are met.
Licenses Required to Test
3 licences are required by the ASPA before testing on animals is permitted:
ASPA regulates the use of animals used for research in the UK. The Act permits studies to be conducted using animals for procedures such as breeding genetically modified animals, medical and veterinary advances, education, environmental toxicology and includes procedures requiring vivisection, if certain criteria are met.
Licenses Required to Test
3 licences are required by the ASPA before testing on animals is permitted:
- a personal licence for each person carrying out procedures on animals
- a project licence for the programme of work
- an establishment licence for the place at which the work is carried out
Supporters of Animal Testing
declaration-on-openn.pdf | |
File Size: | 1115 kb |
File Type: |
According to http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/resources/faqs, we would be very unlikely to achieve many significant advances in scientific understanding or the prevention and treatment of diseases without animal research. We also need to use animals in safety testing to protect people, animals and the environment. Almost every major medical advance has depended on the use of animals at some stage in its research, development or testing. Examples include antibiotics, anaesthetics, insulin for diabetes, organ transplants, hip replacements, etc.
The Science Action Network has taken matters into their own hands. Each week myths and mis-information about animal research are published in newspapers and online and this might help explain the 10% fall in support for animal research. To bounce back from this fall, the SAN posted "forty reasons why we need animal research", and here are some examples from the article. (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/about-us/the-science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/)
The Science Action Network has taken matters into their own hands. Each week myths and mis-information about animal research are published in newspapers and online and this might help explain the 10% fall in support for animal research. To bounce back from this fall, the SAN posted "forty reasons why we need animal research", and here are some examples from the article. (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/about-us/the-science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/)
- The UK has some of the highest standards of laboratory animal welfare in the world.
- Animal research can only be carried out in the UK where there is no suitable non-animal alternative.
- The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s.
- We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.
Here is a tour of a research facility. You can see the affection shown to the animals and the pride the researcher takes in his facility.
Those Fighting Animal Testing
Medical testing and cosmetic testing are for different reasons, but require the same treatment to the animals shown here on Jaclyn.
I think it's very interesting the difference in these two videos. You can see that the doctor in the first video shows affection (whether fake or real) and claims that the animals are treated extremely well in the facilities. As shown in the video afterwards, we're told animals are treated terribly in the labs.
Impact on the United Kingdom
You can see the impact in many companies and groups that are speaking out against animal testing. One example is LUSH (which has just been added to the Jordan Creek Mall!!). LUSH originated in the United Kingdom and made its way to the United States with a strong apposition to animal testing. LUSH has a strong statement regarding animal testing, including a statement about alternatives: "The science of cosmetics safety testing has progressed greatly in recent years, and there are now dozens of proven non-animal test methods accepted by government regulators of cosmetics. Examples include 3-dimensional human skin models, which can fully replace the use of rabbits for skin irritation testing, and cell culture tests for sunlight-induced “photo”-toxicity, genetic mutations, and other harmful effects.
Surprisingly, non-animal methods have been shown to be scientifically superior – and usually take less time to complete, at a fraction of the cost of animal experiments." LUSH has also been willing to award prizes and money for companies who work on opposing testing as well- "The £250,000 prize fund, the biggest prize in the alternative testing sector, focuses pressure on safety testing for consumer products in a way which complements projects which already address alternatives to the animal testing of medicines and awards prizes for Science, Training, Lobbying, Public Awareness, and Young Researchers. It is a way that everyone at LUSH, our customers, and the wider public can become involved in the fight to end animal testing." Another example is The Body Shop, who has also worked hard to stop animal testing (as previously mentioned in presentation).
Surprisingly, non-animal methods have been shown to be scientifically superior – and usually take less time to complete, at a fraction of the cost of animal experiments." LUSH has also been willing to award prizes and money for companies who work on opposing testing as well- "The £250,000 prize fund, the biggest prize in the alternative testing sector, focuses pressure on safety testing for consumer products in a way which complements projects which already address alternatives to the animal testing of medicines and awards prizes for Science, Training, Lobbying, Public Awareness, and Young Researchers. It is a way that everyone at LUSH, our customers, and the wider public can become involved in the fight to end animal testing." Another example is The Body Shop, who has also worked hard to stop animal testing (as previously mentioned in presentation).
How does this compare to the United States?
The United Kingdom are further ahead than the US in many ways. First, they have the Animals Act of 1986 that requires certain licenses and qualifications to test on animals. For example, there must be NO other possible ingredient that can be used as an alternative. They can only test on animals for medical advances if they have the three licenses, which definitely restricts who can and cannot test. The people are very outspoken on their opinion on animal testing and those fighting have taken great strides to get the word out. Like the video shown above from LUSH, organizations are very serious on showing the people what goes on behind closed doors and that it needs to be stopped.
The laws they have in place show that the people care about changing the treatment of animals. It also shows that the people stand up for what they believe in and are willing to fight for a cause they're passionate about. It also shows that the people know there will be disagreements, so they start small and then work up towards a full denial of testing in the future. I think it's smart of them to make small requirements for big companies to get used to the restrictions and really think about whether the testing on the animal is worth it/necessary. This way, if they decide it isn't worth it, they'll be more supportive of cruelty-free products. This shows that they're more proactive and forward thinking as well compared to the United States.
The laws they have in place show that the people care about changing the treatment of animals. It also shows that the people stand up for what they believe in and are willing to fight for a cause they're passionate about. It also shows that the people know there will be disagreements, so they start small and then work up towards a full denial of testing in the future. I think it's smart of them to make small requirements for big companies to get used to the restrictions and really think about whether the testing on the animal is worth it/necessary. This way, if they decide it isn't worth it, they'll be more supportive of cruelty-free products. This shows that they're more proactive and forward thinking as well compared to the United States.