Inspectorate the key to welfare of animals in experiments
The Times
12 June 1971
Mr Carlisle, Under Secretary, Home Office (Runcorn, C) opened a debate on the Littlewood report on experiments on animals.
The Government had not yet given detailed consideration to the report and he could not enter any commitment about future action. Any worthwhile reforms would be effective only if there was broad agreement between the various interests and if they were capable of standing the tests of time in an era of rapid scientific and technological change.
In the Government's view the committee were right that the 1876 Act had been generally effective in achieving what they conceived to be the aims of the legislation - to prevent objectionable activities, to encourage humane practices and to provide for the accountability to the public of all concerned.
The Home Secretary appreciated the key role of the inspectorate in the working of the Act. He was satisfied for the present that its complement was adequate.
The annual total experiments reported by licensees had increased by over a million in seven years. Of the total for 1970, estimated at 5,650,000, mice constituted 70 per cent, rats 15 per cent, guinea-pigs 10 per cent and all other species combined might make up the remaining 5 per cent. Cats and dogs made up 0.5 per cent of the total involved.
There seemed a widespread misconception that implementing the committee's report would drastically reduce the number of experiments, but to implement the whole package of their recommendations would not reduce the number of experiments on animals.
There was the strongest argument for continuing to preserve the basic freedom of research work.
Mr Elystan Morgan (Cardiganshire, Lab) said there was a case for accepting the recommendations of the committee and for carrying out most of its legislative proposals.
There had been no legislation since 1876. Parliament should now have an opportunity of considering fresh legislation.
Mr Burden (Gillingham, C) said the total of 5,418,929 experiments in 1969 was enormous and horrifying. Those animals were subjected to the indignities, stresses, pain, mutilation, and the ultimate death involved in vivisection. The Government must take action to control what in many instances must be a ghastly traffic in animal misery.
Anyone who believed that 13 inspectors could adequately carry out the duties laid upon them was either optimistic or foolish, or was expecting them to work around the clock.
In view of the growth in animal experiments some new advisory body should be set up to examine individual proposals and guide experimenters in complicated matters of technique and suggest and advise on alternative methods to vivisection.
Vivisection was still necessary, but much of it was not. This was indefensible and should be stopped.
No creatures were more helpless than animals brought into the world to be used for this purpose. Man had a right, and an absolute duty, to ensure they were used as humanely as possible.
Mr Lomas (Huddersfield, West, Lab) said that because of the increasing number of experiments on animals and the fact that it would escalate to astronomical figures in the near future, new alternatives must be found.
Mr Stanbrook (Orpington, C) said he must protest about the delay in considering the report. This had contributed to the delay in finding alternative methods to the use of animals.
Dr Glyn (Windsor, C) said that in a period when they were looking for new methods of curing diseases, it was inevitable that experiments would be carried out on living animals.
It is incredibly difficult without a large number of spot checks (he said) to make sure that the process is humanely carried out.
There should be sufficient numbers in the inspectorate to be able to make spot checks without notice and to make sure that those carrying out the experiments were doing it with the minimum of suffering and harm to the animals.
Mr Houghton (Sowerby, Lab) said it was not good enough to ask busy people, many of high qualifications, to sit on committees and study problems of considerable public importance and then take no notice of the product of their time, effort and work.
A strengthened inspectorate, as recommended by the report, was necessary if society felt unable to judge the merits of the matter. Research stations should be more freely open to public inspection and there should be more effective control.
Mr Body (Holland with Boston, C) said he had seen cats kept in a laboratory in cages little bigger than the dispatch box. They were allowed out for only a few minutes every day.
He was depressed by the lack of leadership, initiative, and stimulation. The Government were the patrons of the greater part of the vivisection. A large part of it was paid for, directly or indirectly by the Government and much of it was done by Government agencies. They must therefore look to the Government to take a lead.
Mr Carlisle said he could not believe it was not right to continue research into such things as lung cancer. The majority of people regretted but accepted the need for some experiments of this kind.
They were always conscious of the need to find alternative methods of testing where applicable. This was a view held by many of the scientists involved in this work.
Those who carried out operations might show a lack of squeamishness, through experience, but these was no evidence that they were lacking in sensitivity for the pain inflicted.
The five and a half million experiments mentioned included all mandatory experiments of a therapeutic nature, and many did not inflict pain of any kind. It was not fair to talk about five and a half million animals in terms of mutilation and death.
Although many believed that any form of experiment on a living animal might cause distress, as a result of experiments, much human suffering was alleviated.
