Q&A: Animal research

Lab rat Animal studies "have contributed greatly to scientific advances", a Parliamentary report found

Related Stories

News that all ferry companies and all but two airlines have stopped importing animals destined for research laboratories has led to warnings that it could setback the search for new medicines. But how important are animals in medical research and what are they used for?

How much animal research is there in the UK?

There were 3.7 million "scientific procedures" on animals in 2010 according to figures from the Home Office. This total includes the breeding of genetically modified animals which nearly half that total. Excluding breeding, the number of procedures was 2.1 million.

The UK has among the strictest rules in the world. Licences are permitted under the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act only when there is no non-animal alternative, the expected benefits outweigh the effects on the animals, and the number of animals used and their suffering is minimised. France and Germany carry out roughly the same number of procedures as the UK each year.

What sort of animals are used?

The vast majority of animals used are mice (72%), fish (13%), rats (8%) and birds (4%). Dogs, cats and non-human primates account for less than 0.5% of procedures. The range of tests is broad, but the largest single category - 466,000 procedures - involve the immune system, followed by the nervous system. All new drugs have to undergo safety testing (toxicology) involving animals. Nearly 400,000 such tests were carried out in 2010.

Why is animal research needed?

Every major medical research body agrees that animal research is essential in the quest to understand human diseases and to develop new treatments. Advances in the understanding of genetics mean that animals can be bred with specific genetic traits that allow researchers to explore a range of conditions from cancer and heart disease to stroke and dementia.

There have been numerous inquiries looking into the issue. In 2002 a House of Lords select committee report into animal research concluded: "We are convinced that experiments on animals have contributed greatly to scientific advances, both for human medicine and for animal health." In 2006 the Weatherall report commissioned by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust concluded there was a "strong scientific and moral case" for using non-human primates in research.

Is animal research ethical?

Animal research has always been controversial. Many people strongly oppose the use of any animals in experiments arguing they are cruel and unethical. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has campaigned for more than a hundred years to end all animal experiments. Repeated public opinion surveys over the past decade have shown strong support for the research - on the crucial proviso that it meets certain conditions: there is no unnecessary suffering, it is for serious medical or life-saving purposes and there is no alternative.

Is animal research useful?

Opponents of animal research believe it is not simply cruel but pointless. Animals are not humans and many species do not get the same diseases as us. But despite the differences, animal models - mostly mice - are seen by the scientific community as vital in the quest to understand disease. Leading scientists point to a wealth of medical advances which have been made with the help of animal research. These includes new vaccines, treatments for cancer, Parkinson's disease, asthma and HIV. Last year a review led by Prof Patrick Bateson into research involving monkeys found the work was generally useful and should continue. But it said that for nearly one in 10 projects, no clear scientific, medical or social benefits had emerged.

Fergus Walsh Article written by Fergus Walsh Fergus Walsh Medical correspondent

Defeating cancer, the 'evil genius'

Can we win the war against cancer? Over the past 18 months, Panorama has followed a group of patients on drug trials. Some who'd been given months to live, are keeping cancer at bay for years.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • Comment number 27.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    6.Greenoakroundhouse - "All this effort to prolong human life & population size at any price. Animals, the environment & the climate would be much better off without humanity"

    A lot of reserach is into quality of life, not prolonging it, like the brain surgery that cured my epilepsy & has allowed me to work again etc.

    Can't disagree with your second statement though, mores the pity....

  • rate this

    Comment number 25.

    By protesting against testing in the UK, activists are simply causing the work to be done abroad in countries that don't have anywhere near the same level of concern for the animals involved. Our safeguards ensure that at all times the wellbeing of the animal is paramount. Currently, it's a necessary evil, so why not choose the lesser of the two evils? It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

  • rate this

    Comment number 24.

    As a scientist working in animal research I face this moral dilemma on a regular basis. PETA base a lot of their arguments on the low success rate of drugs developed using animal models. Let's hear the success rate for drugs that don't use animal models as a comparison? Also, animal work is expensive, extensively regulated and quite inflexible. In vitro alternative - favourable but unavailable

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    I can understand the comment by Aidy, if people disagree with animal research then they should be exempt of all medicines that have involved animal research (probably most conventional medicines). This idea in itself is unethical and should never happen, however may provoke thought in more moderate objectors.


Comments 5 of 27



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.