- 4:30 pm
- I beg to move,That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Let me begin by declaring an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—I am keen to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later.The petition, entitled,“Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”,was created by Maria Iriart, and as of today has almost 236,000 signatures, which is an incredible achievement. Maria is here today, and I thank her for coming along. The petition goes on to say:“As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment.In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog’s throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.”When looking at Hansard for other debates on animal testing—particularly testing on dogs—I found an interesting starting point in a debate in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill. In that debate from almost a century ago, Lord Banbury was mentioned as quoting the eminent surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby, who said:“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]Yet, here we are, nearly 100 years later, discussing the very same issue.An opinion poll conducted for the UK Government by Ipsos MORI in 2018 found that only 14% of the UK public feel that it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research to benefit people. This is unsurprising, as we know that dogs have high emotional and intellectual capabilities, and studies have found that they can feel empathy, sense sadness or fear and demonstrate genuine human bonding.The UK Home Office regulator is intended to conduct assessments of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections, and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. To enforce the regulations, establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including vets, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, as well as an ethical review body.The Government responded to the petition on 5 March 2025 to clarify that they do not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. However, hopefully this debate will reignite that discussion and subsequent decisions.
- I was visited by my constituent Clara, who brought this issue to my attention, and I was keen to participate in today’s debate. My hon. Friend has made two important points: one of which is that this process has no legislative basis and no public consent. I therefore hope that, when the Government listen to this debate, we can look at how to take action to ensure that man’s best friend is left alone as man’s best friend.
- I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.It is important to note that the Labour manifesto pledge commits the Government to“partner with scientists, industry, and civil society”to phase out animals in medical testing. The Government also state:“This is a long-term goal, and it will need further scientific and technical advancement and validation to reach this point”.The group Understanding Animal Research supports the use of animal research currently in the UK. It says:“In the UK, dogs are primarily used to find out how new drugs act within a whole, living body and whether new medicines are safe enough to test in humans…Their genome has been sequenced and…they are often used in genetic studies…Dogs are primarily used in regulatory research”and as a secondary species, alongside rodents. The dogs are mostly tested for areas such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, anti-rabies vaccines, heart research and veterinary medicine. Understanding Animal Research also states:“Research dogs live in large enclosures together with their pack mates. Lab technicians look after the dogs and play with them every day. The dogs are fed and watered daily, and the environment (lights, temperature etc.) is controlled automatically. The cages are cleaned daily, and the space is big enough to have a toilet area separate from the bed and play area. Dogs are intelligent enough to keep these areas separate, and there’s plenty of space to allow them to do so. Because the dogs live together, their social needs are met by other dogs. Unlike pets, they do not require the constant company of humans.”However, Animal Free Research UK disputes that quality of care and says:“Applications for project licences to conduct animal experiments are very rarely refused. Answers to Written Questions”—
- I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. This morning I met Nutmeg, a lovely beagle. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a large proportion of the dogs who undergo medical scientific procedures are beagles—I believe 3,565 out of 3,770? Does she also agree that, if the Government will not commit right now to an immediate ban, we must at least have a clear timeframe for when such a ban may come into place?
- I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Animal Research UK continued:“Applicants are allowed to adjust and re-submit licence applications to enable them to be granted (for the last four years applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted).”The Animals in Science Regulation Unit’s 2023 annual report stated that there were 169 cases of non-compliance with the law or licence conditions—only a 3% decrease from 2022. Those cases involved a total of 154,904 animals, representing an overwhelming 864% increase on 2022.Beagles were used in a study conducted by AstraZeneca to test a new, more eco-friendly propellant for use in inhalers. The tests lasted up to 39 weeks and involved 72 beagles. The dogs were restrained by a tether and forced to inhale the gas for two hours each day through a mask fitted over their nose and mouth, which was held in place by a muzzle. Although the study states that the dogs had freely available access to water, it also states that water was withheld during the tests and for 16 hours overnight. That meant that the dogs went without water for at least 18 hours each day. At the end of the study, all the dogs were killed so that their tissues could be dissected for further study. The authors noted that the inhalers contribute only a small fraction of global hydrofluoroalkane emissions, so was that treatment of the dogs really justified?In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing the 1.81 million additional animals were bred but not used for scientific procedures in Britain, but we had no additional data since then. Those 1.81 million animals included 97 beagles, but we have no idea what happened to those that were not used.
- We are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public support for setting out a road map for ending the use of animal testing, so that the very sad stories that she is describing can be left in the history books, where they belong?
- I fully agree, and I will speak a little about that later.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. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they had passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Just over 30% of those that pass are subsequently re-labelled with warnings of side effects not predicted by animal tests, and almost 10% are completely withdrawn from the market.New non-animal methods, based directly on human biology, include the use of computer modelling and organ-on-a-chip technology, which can be much more relevant to the human body. I went on lab trip recently with the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research to visit the Animal Replacement Centre of Excellence at Queen Mary University of London, and I saw in person the pioneering work that is being done to provide medical breakthroughs without the use of animals.
- Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the scientific possibility of non-animal alternatives and what is happening on the ground? For decades, there have been suggestions of ways that we can use non-animal alternatives, yet we are not using them. Will she also commend the work of Cruelty Free International, which is producing a new list that explains exactly how we could switch from one type of experiment to the other?
- I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute.A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs.Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound 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. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses.Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs.The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding
- On that point, the previous Government committed to doubling investment in this area. Would my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the current Government matching that, if not improving on it?
- I fully agree.Surely, we must consider reversing our priorities. This debate provides us with a prime opportunity to look at how to fund future testing in the UK. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed:“There is no United Kingdom legislation that mandates animal testing.”The regulatory guidelines do recommend that new drugs are tested on two species before moving to human trials, but the Department also stated that assessors will accept“data from a suitably validated model that has been demonstrated to be predictive…in lieu of animal data.”So it is possible. In 2023, almost all regulatory tests on dogs were carried out to satisfy EU requirements, and only 12 were carried out to satisfy UK-only requirements. Cruelty Free International reports that animal tests continue to be commonly used even when validated alternatives exist.In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has released a new road map to reduce and replace animal testing in drug development and regulation, following the 2022 decision by the US Congress to pass the FDA Modernisation Act, which facilitates the use of non-animal methods for drug testing. On 10 April this year, the FDA announced that it is beginning to phase out animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies, which will ultimately be followed by other drugs. Canada, Australia and European Union countries have all come up with road maps for ending animal testing; it really is high time for the UK to join them.For the Government to stop issuing licences for experiments using dogs there must be a thorough overhaul of the licensing of animal experiments to ensure that the basic legal requirements to use non-animal methods wherever possible are properly enforced. Ending the use of dogs can be the first step in full transition to the cutting-edge human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress.
- I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call John Milne.
- 4:46 pm
- It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to speak in this very important debate. Every year, thousands of dogs are subjected to scientific experiments in the UK, often in the name of drug development. For many this raises serious ethical questions about the use of animals for human gain. Is an animal’s suffering worth the benefits to scientific discovery? For others, science and not the animals are paramount; the end justifies the means, as it were. However, animal testing does not deliver robust and useful scientific data. In fact, drug research on dogs tells us very little about whether a drug will work for humans, so campaigners argue that it is time to end animal research.Dr Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist, put it plainly: different species react differently to diseases and treatments. In other words, what works in dogs might not work in humans. In fact, drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials 92% of the time—a staggering and costly statistic. In toxicity testing, even when dogs show no toxic response it barely improves our confidence that the drug will be safe in humans. It improves it from 70% to just 72%, which is barely noticeable. Is that really a sound basis for human medicine?Fortunately, science offers us a better path forward. Human-specific technologies such as organ chips are revolutionising drug development. Those miniaturised organs mimic how real human organs react to treatments and can be patient-specific. They have shown 87% accuracy in detecting drug-induced liver toxicity, which is a dramatic improvement over animal models. If adopted widely, these tools could create over $24 billion through research and development in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration has recognised that. Through the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, the agency has removed the legal requirement for animal testing in drug trials. A third Act is already in the works to accelerate the validation and adoption of human-specific methods such as organ chips.
- 4:49 pm
- It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this petition and the 478 Exeter residents who have signed it.I will speak in support of phasing out the use of dogs in medical research, because the scientific case for change is now overwhelming. Members may know that I have a private Member’s Bill—the Animals in Medical Research (Prohibition) Bill—on phasing out the use of animals in medical research, and I very much support the petition. My Bill is the first of its kind to be laid before Parliament, and I am proud to bring it to the House.I approach this topic from a position of scientific rigour. It is clear that the use of animals in medical research does not necessarily offer the best scientific basis for medicines testing. According to Animal Free Research UK, more than 92% of drugs that pass animal tests, including tests on dogs, go on to fail in human trials. That is an extraordinary figure and means that, far from protecting human health, animal testing is giving us a false sense of security and can slow down medicines development. It is inefficient and it is generating bad science. Animal trials often fail to identify side effects in humans, for example. Although dogs are closer to humans than rodents are, they are still fundamentally different from us in key biological ways. Comprehensive analysis has found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans; it can be no better than tossing a coin.Crucially, there is no law saying we must use dogs. As has been said, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed in 2023 that, while international guidelines suggest testing on two species, including dogs is not a legal requirement. We continue largely out of habit, not necessity; when I asked some of our larger pharma companies whether they have a strategy for reducing the use of animal testing and experimentation overall, some said that there is no strategy, but that they do have some principles. It is clear that the Government need to act in this space.
- 4:54 pm
- It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the petitioners for securing this important debate, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her excellent opening remarks. I am delighted to see so many Members from her party here to support her; I rise as a Member of an opposition party, but as a member of the APPG I fully support her position. I regret that apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), there is no one from the Conservative party in the Chamber. I would not dare suggest that they are not dog lovers—perhaps they are out walking their dogs on this beautiful day.My wife and I share our home with Lola, our beautiful cockapoo. I say share—I would not dare say that we owned her. We share our home. We just spent Easter ensuring that she did not make off with any of our chocolate Easter eggs; I know they are a guilty pleasure of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. Along with the 50% of families across these islands who have pets, I can readily see the contradiction in medical experimentation on dogs when so many of us understand the love, intelligence and friendship that our pet dogs bring to our lives—yet we seem content to inflict great suffering on them.As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, many comprehensive studies demonstrate that experiments on animals, including dogs, cannot accurately and fully predict whether new drugs will be safe for humans. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, statistics for 2023 tell us that 3,749 procedures were conducted on dogs in laboratories, 69% of which were to test the safety of products and devices for human medicine, human dentistry and veterinary medicine. However, as there is a huge question mark over the reliability of the tests and the human relevance of their outcomes, it is understandable that there is massive support for the banning of experimentation on dogs in the UK. In fact, not a month goes by where I so not receive emails on that topic in my inbox.