This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/20/rise-in-number-of-animals-used-in-uk-research-home-office-report-shows

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Rise in number of animals used in UK research, Home Office report shows Rise in number of animals used in UK research, Home Office report shows
(about 1 month later)
The number of scientific procedures involving animals conducted in 2015 rose slightly to 4.14m, compared with 4.12m in 2013. Around half of those were experimental procedures, of which 123,000 were classed as “severe”, according to official Home Office figures released today.The number of scientific procedures involving animals conducted in 2015 rose slightly to 4.14m, compared with 4.12m in 2013. Around half of those were experimental procedures, of which 123,000 were classed as “severe”, according to official Home Office figures released today.
By far the most common animals used by researchers were mice, with 3.04 million procedures completed. The overall numbers represent a 0.5% rise on 2013, the most relevant year for comparison.By far the most common animals used by researchers were mice, with 3.04 million procedures completed. The overall numbers represent a 0.5% rise on 2013, the most relevant year for comparison.
While the proportion of primates involved in experimental procedures remains low at 0.2%, the numbers show a 12% rise in procedures carried out on primates since 2013.While the proportion of primates involved in experimental procedures remains low at 0.2%, the numbers show a 12% rise in procedures carried out on primates since 2013.
Related: Drugs research hampered by substandard animal testing procedures
“The great majority of these tests are regulatory tests,” said Roger Lemon, professor of neurophysiology at University College London. “These are tests that need to be carried out on new drugs, new procedures, before they can be used in human patients.”“The great majority of these tests are regulatory tests,” said Roger Lemon, professor of neurophysiology at University College London. “These are tests that need to be carried out on new drugs, new procedures, before they can be used in human patients.”
Of the procedures involving primates less than 1% were deemed to be severe, with more than 98% judged to be either mild - meaning minor, short-lived pain or suffering - or moderate, a surgical procedure, for example .Of the procedures involving primates less than 1% were deemed to be severe, with more than 98% judged to be either mild - meaning minor, short-lived pain or suffering - or moderate, a surgical procedure, for example .
“I think the general public will be reassured by the fact that in the case of the use of primates in research in Britain, the great majority of these experiments are in the mild and moderate categories [of severity],” said Lemon.“I think the general public will be reassured by the fact that in the case of the use of primates in research in Britain, the great majority of these experiments are in the mild and moderate categories [of severity],” said Lemon.
Half of all procedures recorded involved the breeding or creation of genetically modified animals; half were experiments. Procedures on rats made up 268,522 of the total, with 561,424 using fish and 3,612 using primates.Half of all procedures recorded involved the breeding or creation of genetically modified animals; half were experiments. Procedures on rats made up 268,522 of the total, with 561,424 using fish and 3,612 using primates.
The RSPCA said more should be done to reduce the number of animals used in research.The RSPCA said more should be done to reduce the number of animals used in research.
“The RSPCA strongly believe that these animals deserve better, and much more could be done in practice to challenge animal use, reduce suffering and improve welfare,” said Dr Penny Hawkins, head of the research animals team at the RSPCA. “There has certainly been progress in recent years towards replacing laboratory animals and reducing their suffering, but the pace of change is far too slow for the millions who are still used every year.”“The RSPCA strongly believe that these animals deserve better, and much more could be done in practice to challenge animal use, reduce suffering and improve welfare,” said Dr Penny Hawkins, head of the research animals team at the RSPCA. “There has certainly been progress in recent years towards replacing laboratory animals and reducing their suffering, but the pace of change is far too slow for the millions who are still used every year.”
Related: Scientists told to stop wasting animal lives
This was the second year in which data was collected for completed procedures, as opposed to procedures that have started, following the introduction of a new UK law based on a European directive.This was the second year in which data was collected for completed procedures, as opposed to procedures that have started, following the introduction of a new UK law based on a European directive.
Despite 2015 being the second year for which the data was recorded in this way, the statisticians warn that comparison to 2014 figures is difficult due to issues with under-reporting in 2014.Despite 2015 being the second year for which the data was recorded in this way, the statisticians warn that comparison to 2014 figures is difficult due to issues with under-reporting in 2014.
Besides recording the number of procedures completed, the approach also records the maximum severity experienced by each animal, ranging from “sub-threshold”, in which the procedure caused less discomfort that having a needle inserted, to “severe” - judged as “a major departure from the animal’s usual state of health and wellbeing”.Besides recording the number of procedures completed, the approach also records the maximum severity experienced by each animal, ranging from “sub-threshold”, in which the procedure caused less discomfort that having a needle inserted, to “severe” - judged as “a major departure from the animal’s usual state of health and wellbeing”.
While 6% of experimental procedures were judged to be severe, 24% were deemed moderate, with nearly half of the experimental procedures assessed as mild.While 6% of experimental procedures were judged to be severe, 24% were deemed moderate, with nearly half of the experimental procedures assessed as mild.
As well as being useful to inspectors, such information is expected to have wider effects. “I think it is a very helpful demonstration of openness and transparency to the public about the severity that animals actually undergo,” said Sue Houlton, Chief Inspector of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU).As well as being useful to inspectors, such information is expected to have wider effects. “I think it is a very helpful demonstration of openness and transparency to the public about the severity that animals actually undergo,” said Sue Houlton, Chief Inspector of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU).
Houlton also revealed that the recent political events have caused disruption, with the release of the annual report from the ASRU delayed until after the summer. “I think you might appreciate that these have been rather extraordinary times in government and we are not currently in a position to publish that,” said Houlton.Houlton also revealed that the recent political events have caused disruption, with the release of the annual report from the ASRU delayed until after the summer. “I think you might appreciate that these have been rather extraordinary times in government and we are not currently in a position to publish that,” said Houlton.
While standards of animal research are unlikely to be affected by Brexit, some are concerned that reduced funding and other ramifications could trigger decrease in animal research.While standards of animal research are unlikely to be affected by Brexit, some are concerned that reduced funding and other ramifications could trigger decrease in animal research.
“One of the big factors is the European Medicines Agency - whether they choose to stay in London or whether they relocate,” said Sarah Bailey, a pharmacologist from the University of Bath. “The knock-on consequences perhaps for drug companies and drug development in the UK could be potentially serious.”“One of the big factors is the European Medicines Agency - whether they choose to stay in London or whether they relocate,” said Sarah Bailey, a pharmacologist from the University of Bath. “The knock-on consequences perhaps for drug companies and drug development in the UK could be potentially serious.”