OVERVIEW

A note by the Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee, prepared in April 2001 for the House of Lords Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures

  1.  During the year 2000 the Committee made significant progress on the agenda which emerged from our review of the Act, completed in 1998. We concluded consultation exercises on openness and biotechnology. Using the results of those exercises, two working groups of the Committee worked hard at analysing the difficult issues involved and formulating practical recommendations. That work enabled us to offer our considered advice on openness to the Home Office at the end of the year, and our report on biotechnology is also close to finalisation. We also started a wide-ranging consultation exercise about the cost-benefit assessment, and made encouraging progress on other areas of our review of the Act. The APC Secretariat's note on events and progress in 2000 includes a work programme for the coming year, which gives details of how we intend to take these and other issues forward[1].

2.  The Committee also carried on with its regular duties. For example, our Research and Alternatives sub-committee continued to identify suitable projects for funding to identify practical alternatives to the use of animals. The Committee also gave advice on certain applications, such as those involving microsurgery training using animals.

  3.  The Committee prides itself on bringing an independent and critical scrutiny to the use of animals in scientific procedures. In pursuit of its general duties and particular enquiries it finds itself asking whether the current regulatory regime is adequate, effective and efficient in meeting the objectives of the legislation, and it is concerned to make practical proposals for improvement where appropriate.

  4.  Perhaps inevitably, the Committee is criticised as either complacent towards current practice or as unduly hostile. A better appreciation of the Committee's function and work would be assisted by recognition of two key points. In the first place, there is widespread misunderstanding of current practice, as recent controversies have revealed. For example, it is plainly not commonly understood that most scientific procedures do not cause grave suffering to animals, and that even the taking of a blood sample constitutes a procedure under the Act. In the second place however, even supposing a better understanding of the use of animals in scientific procedures, the Committee's programme of critical appraisal of the Act and its working is fully warranted. In no sense can it be characterised as anti science or industry. Rather, it should be recognised that the continuing investigation of the use of animals in scientific procedures by the Committee is a key element in ensuring confidence in the regulation of what is and is likely to remain a highly contentious area.

Michael Banner
Chairman

25 April 2001