Academics have raised concerns over government plans to phase out animal testing in scientific research, stating new targets to rapidly reduce its use are unrealistic and arbitrary.

New plans to replace animal testing for some major safety tests by end of 2025 and scale back the use of dogs and non-human primates in tests for human medicines by at least 35 per cent by 2030 were by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) on 11 November.

The plans will help fulfil Labour’s manifesto pledge to “work towards phasing out animal testing”, with almost 3 million animals currently used in UK laboratories each year.

Unveiling a strategy to “create a revolutionary research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods wherever possible”, science minister Patrick Vallance said plans represented a “step change” in efforts to “increase the use of alternative methods that can replace animals in some circumstances”.

̽����Ƶ

Emma Grange, director of science and regulatory affairs at the campaign group Cruelty Free International, welcomed the plans as a “long overdue but very exciting move towards ending the cruelty of animal testing in the UK, which we also expect to have a positive impact globally”.

“The commitments to funding, regulatory reform, and measurable targets are exactly the kind of leadership we need and marks a serious move towards alleviating the suffering caused by the millions of animal tests which happen every year in this country,” she added. 

̽����Ƶ

But while welcoming the announcement of £75 million to support the endeavour – including the creation of new Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods – scientists have criticised the strategy’s proposed timetable for reducing animal testing.

It is difficult to predict confidently when artificial intelligence or other methods could replace animals in pharmakinetic studies, used to measure how a drug is absorbed and metabolised by a body over time, explained Robin Lovell-Badge, a research group leader at the Francis Crick Institute.

“Pharmacokinetic work is already moving to New Approach Methodologies but it is not yet safe to rely on these. I can’t judge whether it will be in five years time, but I doubt it,”  he said.

“Will the authors of the strategy be willing ‘guinea pigs’ to test novel drugs in 2030? The same is true for cardiovascular safety,” he added.

Plans to phase out the use of animal testing in antibody research by 2030 also faced the same problem, he said. “There are companies – several that started in the UK – offering new ways to make antibodies without animals. But I very much doubt that all polyclonal-type antibodies production in animals can be replaced by 2030,” added Lovell-Badge.

̽����Ƶ

The strategy also risked the loss of “skilled and conscientious” animal technicians from UK university labs who had striven to improve the welfare of animal testing subjects, he added.

“Pushing this agenda too hard – which I think the strategy document does – will demotivate the excellent, highly motivated and well-trained animal technologists who are essential to much of the work on animals that goes on in the UK,” he said, adding that they were “already upset by some of the fairly recent changes made in the way the review and oversight of animal research is conducted by the Home Office”.

“As a minimum, this ‘statement’ needs to be matched by one that recognises the value of such individuals and the need for training others because we are definitely not ready to abandon research with animals, and for some disciplines we may never get to this,” he concluded.

̽����Ƶ

The need to continue animal testing in discovery research was also endorsed by Mary Ryan, vice-provost for research and enterprise at Imperial College London, who is part of a dedicated hub investigating alternative testing methodologies.

“We need to recognise that scientific advances in medicine still rely on animal research. When it comes to alleviating human suffering – such as neurodegenerative conditions, or incurable diseases in children –  science can, and should, intervene with every ethical tool at our disposal.”

Sarah Bailey, professor of life sciences at the University of Bath, said the sector already had a “clear ethical drive to only use animals in research where there are no alternatives” but that “animal research is still needed where the non-animal methods do not provide the complexity of biological systems, the ability to study biology across the lifespan and the continuing need to assess the effects of new medicines”.

Noting that the strategy’s targets are “ambitious”, Bailey said “it needs to be made clear that the non-animal methods are not yet ready to replace animals for all purposes.”

̽����Ƶ

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com