How does one recognise when an MP is in pain? Some of them may yell out, others may develop an exaggerated limp. Still more may go quiet and simply stare in a disconcerting way… Of course some people may suggest that MPs don't feel pain at all, and merely inflict it..!
The point, though, is that we all handle pain in different ways, and it's not always obvious. So when we’re talking about animals, it gets even harder. For example, some argue that many prey animals automatically hide their pain, as showing weakness is not a good idea (again, something MPs may agree with…)
An EU directive covering research animals is currently being transposed into UK law. There are many aspects to it, and the RSPCA is watching closely to ensure that the relatively good standards associated with scientific research in this country are not eroded.
But one aspect of the directive is a very welcome one. In fact, it has allowed the RSPCA to set out our stall alongside it, as it will give us information we previously could not get.
Retrospective reporting of suffering will have to be carried out for all experiments with animals from Jan 2013. This means that we will be able to start building a picture of the levels of pain and suffering experienced by lab animals in this country.
Can't we do that already? Frankly, no. The current system requires scientists to predict the potential pain, suffering or distress that may be involved in each new project. The project is given a 'severity'
banding that may be mild, moderate or substantial/severe. Currently around 2% of projects are listed as severe - that's potentially 60,000 animals enduring severe suffering on behalf of research each year in the UK.
Simply, those ‘potentially’s’ and ‘around’s’ aren't enough.
The RSPCA is pragmatic enough to know that unfortunately, we can't simply stop experiments on animals at present, for a host of scientific, legal and practical reasons. But as with politics, the devil is in the detail.
Our work alongside the scientific community for years has involved challenging the necessity and justification for animal use on a case-by case basis. We want to ensure that researchers have fully explored all the options: are there humane alternatives? If not, how could suffering be minimised or eliminated? Do that many animals need to be used? Does that kind of animal need to be used? Has someone else performed similar tests who can share data?
All simple questions and ones that need to be asked EVERY time.
This new directive is a step towards that for many Member States. From a UK perspective, when figures on suffering begin to be published, and accurate reporting of what is really happening takes place, we will better be able to see which kinds of animal study cause most suffering for the first time. We can use this to further guide our own initiatives to reduce suffering, and we hope it will also be a real incentive for scientists to focus their attention on this critically important issue too.
We believe much of the scientific community wants to achieve better welfare and reductions in suffering, and real-life data will present a valuable opportunity to help make it happen. It should lead to better welfare, better science and better compliance with the law - as well as addressing the issue which is of greatest concern to the public in relation to animal experiments: the suffering.
This week, the RSPCA has committed to five new pledges, one of which is to reduce the number of animals suffering under the severe category.
It'll take time but the new EU directive makes it possible to measure progress, and the impact – both scientific and ethical – will benefit us all.
We can't however promise to reduce the suffering of MPs, but we hope this will make them feel a bit better...
Penny Hawkins is the deputy head of RSPCA Research Animals Department
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!