Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2007-3
Why do the Numbers of Laboratory Animal Procedures Conducted Continue to Rise? An Analysis of the Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2005
The publication of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2005 once again provides evidence that the levels of animal experimentation in Great Britain are rising, the underlying reason for this being the continued and increasing reliance on genetically modified animals as model systems. There has been a gradual increase in fundamental research, as applied toxicological studies have declined. Of particular concern is the impact that the forthcoming REACH legislation will have and the apparent lack of urgency in facing up to this challenge. The major issues arising from the Statistics are discussed, including the increases in rabbit and primate procedures. The potential of newly validated and emerging techniques to counteract these worrying trends are also considered.
Anon. (2006). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2005. Cm 6877, 89 pp. London, UK: HMSO.
2.
BhogalN., & CombesR. (2006). The relevance of genetically altered mouse models of human disease. ATLA34, 429–454.
3.
Anon. (2005). Report on the Review of the Status of the Development of Alternatives to using Animals in Chemical Safety Testing and Identification of New Areas for Development or Research in the Context of the Proposed REACH Regulation.173 pp. London, UK: DEFRA. Website http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/CB01067/CB01067_2795_FRA.pdf (Accessed 03.10.06).
4.
CombesR.D. (2007). Alternatives to animal testing. In: Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II (ed. TriggleD., & TaylorJ.), pp. 463–487. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, Ltd.
5.
Anon. (2005). Home Office: Animal Procedures Committee Report of Statistics Working Group.86 pp. London, UK: Home Office. Website www.apc.gov.uk/reference/stats-report270505.pdf (Accessed 07.09.06).
6.
HartungT., AabergeI., BertholdS., CarlinG., ChartonE., CoeckeS., FennrichS., FischerM., GommerM., HalderM., HaslovK., JahnkeM., Montag-LessingT., PooleS., SchechtmanL., WendelA., & Werner-FelmayerG. (2001). Novel pyrogen tests based on the human fever reaction. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 43. ATLA29, 99–123.
7.
Anon. (2006). Statement on the validity of in vitro pyrogen tests. ATLA34, 278–279.
8.
HoffmannS., PeterbauerA., SchindlerS., FennrichS., PooleS., MistryY., Montag-LessingT., SpreitzerI., LöschnerB., van AalderenM., BosR., GommerM., NibbelingR., Werner-FelmayerG., LoitzlP., JungiT., BrcicM., BrüggerP., FreyE., BoweG., CasadoJ., CoeckeS., de LangeJ., MogsterB., NaessL.M., AabergeI.S., WendelA., & HartungT. (2005). International validation of novel pyrogen tests based on human monocytoid cells. Journal of Immunological Methods298, 161–173.
9.
HudsonM., & BhogalN. (2004). Scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain in 2003: the facts, figures and consequences. ATLA32, 473–485.
10.
HudsonM., & BhogalN. (2006). An analysis of the Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2004.ATLA34, 85–103.
11.
LeenaarsM., & HendriksenC.F.M. (2005). Critical steps in the production of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies: evaluation and recommendations. ILAR Journal46, 269–279.
12.
LeenaarsP.P.A.M., HendriksenC.F.M., de LeeuwW.A., CaratF., DelahautP., FischerR., HalderM., HanlyW.C., HartingerJ., HauJ., LindbladE.B., NicklasW., OutschoornI.M., & Stewart-TullD.E.S. (1999). The production of polyclonal antibodies in laboratory animals. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 35. ATLA27, 79–102.
13.
SchadeR., StaakC., HendriksenC., ErhardM., HuglH., KochG., LarssonA., PollmannW., van RegenmortelM., RijkeE., SpielmannH., SteinbuschH., & StraughanD. (1996). The production of avian (egg yolk) antibodies IgY. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 21. ATLA24, 925–934.
14.
OharaR., KnappikA., ShimadaK., FrischC., YleraF., & KogaH. (2006). Antibodies for proteomic research: comparison of traditional immunization with recombinant antibody technology. Proteomics6, 2638–2646.
