lovemymaltese
08-20-2002, 03:00 PM
The RSPCA’s calls for scientists to develop non-animal methods of testing have been answered by an inquiry into the use of animals in scientific experiments in the UK.
A report from a House of Lords select committee, has backed RSPCA policy and the Society’s submitted evidence that scientists should give more consideration to the three Rs – replacement, reduction and refinement of animals used in experiments.
The RSPCA urges the government to act rapidly and with commitment to set up a centre to co-ordinate the development and implementation of the three Rs, as recommended by the committee.
It is a sad fact that the UK lags behind several European countries that have already established such centres, despite the fact that the UK public is recognized throughout Europe as being the most concerned about the use of animals in experiments.
Major impact
Head of the RSPCA’s research animals department Maggy Jennings said a government-supported centre that encouraged and co-ordinated the development of humane alternatives, had the potential to have a major impact on animal use in science, provided it was independent and properly set up.
“The select committee has carried out an in-depth inquiry, taking evidence from right across the board,” said Dr Jennings. “ Many of the recommendations made by the report echo the RSPCA’s written and oral evidence to the committee. Now it is essential the recommendations outlined in the report are implemented by the government.”
Public knowledge
The Society also welcomes the committee’s views that information about experiments on animals should be made more widely available to the public, and that the ethics committees required at all establishments should include input from an external, lay member. The RSPCA already provides resources for lay members to help them contribute effectively to the review process and question whether and how animals are used.
However, the RSPCA is alarmed by proposals to change the way genetically modified animals are recorded within Home Office statistics.
The suggestion to shorten the project licence application form to a maximum of ten pages is another cause for concern. This important document sets out the basis for weighing up the suffering of animals against the likely benefit of the research. The detail provided must not be reduced in an arbitrary way without very good reason.
To donate please go to this website.http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=RSPCA/HowYouCanHelp/GivingOnline&articleid=0
A report from a House of Lords select committee, has backed RSPCA policy and the Society’s submitted evidence that scientists should give more consideration to the three Rs – replacement, reduction and refinement of animals used in experiments.
The RSPCA urges the government to act rapidly and with commitment to set up a centre to co-ordinate the development and implementation of the three Rs, as recommended by the committee.
It is a sad fact that the UK lags behind several European countries that have already established such centres, despite the fact that the UK public is recognized throughout Europe as being the most concerned about the use of animals in experiments.
Major impact
Head of the RSPCA’s research animals department Maggy Jennings said a government-supported centre that encouraged and co-ordinated the development of humane alternatives, had the potential to have a major impact on animal use in science, provided it was independent and properly set up.
“The select committee has carried out an in-depth inquiry, taking evidence from right across the board,” said Dr Jennings. “ Many of the recommendations made by the report echo the RSPCA’s written and oral evidence to the committee. Now it is essential the recommendations outlined in the report are implemented by the government.”
Public knowledge
The Society also welcomes the committee’s views that information about experiments on animals should be made more widely available to the public, and that the ethics committees required at all establishments should include input from an external, lay member. The RSPCA already provides resources for lay members to help them contribute effectively to the review process and question whether and how animals are used.
However, the RSPCA is alarmed by proposals to change the way genetically modified animals are recorded within Home Office statistics.
The suggestion to shorten the project licence application form to a maximum of ten pages is another cause for concern. This important document sets out the basis for weighing up the suffering of animals against the likely benefit of the research. The detail provided must not be reduced in an arbitrary way without very good reason.
To donate please go to this website.http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=RSPCA/HowYouCanHelp/GivingOnline&articleid=0