Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
promote the use of human-specific medical research techniques,
such as “organ-on-a-chip” and computer modelling, in place of
animal testing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
The Government provide significant funding for the development of
these technologies through UKRI, primarily to the National Centre
for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in
Research. We are doubling our investment in this area next year
to £20 million and this summer the Government will publish a plan
to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of methods
to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science.
(GP)
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer, but of course
animal testing is not working well. Less than 6% of cancer drugs
proceed past the first small phase 1 trials, and more than 99% of
Alzheimer’s drugs have failed. There are some very exciting
possibilities, such as the liver-on-a-chip device that correctly
identified 87% of drugs that caused liver toxicity after they
passed animal tests. Many other countries are racing ahead on
this: the USA has passed the FDA Modernization Act, the
Netherlands has a transition programme and India has new rules
for drug trials. Do we not need to go much further and look
towards legislative change and a much bigger injection of funds
to see real progress if we are to be world-leading in the future
in this biotechnology field?
(Con)
That is a wide-ranging question, and I will do my best to cover
some of those points. With respect to the effectiveness of
clinical trials, on the whole they cannot take place without
toxicology trials and most of those, sadly, have to be done on
animals. We very much welcome any technology that allows for in
silico methods of assessing toxicology and it is true that more
of those are emerging, but they have to be validated in order to
be assumed safe and usable in clinical trials.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government produced a previous report on a road map
for non-animal technologies from six UK government funders,
including MRC, EPSRC and Innovate UK way back in 2015. How will
they ensure that this new road map does not get left on the shelf
again? Will DSIT set up an independent strategic advisory board
with the key stakeholders to provide direction and oversight, as
suggested by the RSPCA?
(Con)
DSIT continues to be led on its approach to creating non-animal
methods in clinical trials, toxicology trials and so on by the
UK’s NC3Rs—the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement
and Reduction of Animals in Research—for toxicology and other
scientific research, and that continues. There was a decrease of
10% in animal testing from the previous year, according to our
most recent records, and that will continue. DSIT meanwhile has
no plans to add a new oversight executive body to those already
in existence.
(Lab)
My Lords, I express an interest as a past chairman of NC3Rs.
During the time I was chairman, we saw a marked reduction in the
number of animals used in research, and that continues with
certain types of animals, such as dogs, cats and so on. It is
essential, though, for new drugs to be tested on animals and
regulatory authorities rely on that. Is there anything we can do
to help those authorities relax a little?
(Con)
First, let me pay tribute to the work of the NC3Rs, which is an
extremely important body. Nobody feels comfortable doing a lot of
animal tests; they simply are necessary for human safety in too
many cases. For example, UK REACH follows the last-resort
principle where, as far as possible, it is able to waive animal
tests for chemicals. That kind of work will further accelerate
the work of the NC3Rs.
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke about other
countries that were looking at alternatives to animal testing.
What conversations has my noble friend’s department had with
other countries on how they can encourage more alternatives to
animal testing?
(Con)
DSIT continues to engage on life sciences research with a wide
range of other countries, including countries that have tried to
accelerate further. Recently, in particular, the Netherlands and
the United States have not always been able to succeed in their
goals of accelerating the date by which non-animal methods of
research become the only way forward. On the other hand, steady
progress towards the greater use of non-animal methods through
the three Rs seems to be bearing fruit, albeit not as fast as
anybody would like.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we know that there is a fast-growing global market for
human-specific technologies. The size of that global market in
2023 was around $2 billion, so it is huge. Does the Minister have
any views on the economic potential of human-specific
technologies for the UK as a leader in this field?
(Con)
Yes, indeed; the economic potential is absolutely enormous. As
with any medical devices, they need to be put through proper
pharma-covigilance procedures, validation and testing, to make
sure that by the time we are ready for clinical trials, all the
toxicology testing has been properly done. Where it is possible
to find an alternative to animal testing, that should always be
followed. We always aim to use the minimum number of animals for
the scientific benefit to be achieved and minimise the potential
harm to animals for that benefit.
(GP)
My Lords, in responding to me the Minister referred to the
apparent necessity of animals for toxicity tests. Of course, the
case I had cited was one where liver drugs had passed animal
toxicity tests and then were found to have problems with a
human-specific technology. Canada has passed a Bill to phase out
animal-based chemical toxicity testing and the European
Commission is committed to developing a road map in that
direction. As the noble Baroness on the Front Bench said,
human-specific technologies have enormous potential. Will the
Government look at getting an Act to provide a framework so that
the UK could get ahead in this area and end toxicology testing on
animals, as other countries are looking to do?
(Con)
The noble Baroness mentioned an Act—there are widespread
protections under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. We
have the three-tier licensing system, including significant
training and assessment for licensees, and a range of other
safeguards. Different jurisdictions are taking a range of
approaches to this; I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has
yet been able to set a timeline for the absolute removal of
animal tests because, sadly, they do remain critical for the
development of medicines.
