Lucy Donaldson, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK

Max Headley, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, UK

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.112.19

As far as the regulation of live animal experiments in the UK is concerned, the short answer is ‘no’. The EU Directive (2010/63/EU; eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063) was ‘transposed’ in 2013 into UK legislation as a modification of the existing ASPA (the Animals [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986; gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-version-of-aspa-1986), and that will not be altered by the various stages of Brexit. Somewhat behind the scenes there will, though, need to be some tidying up of the legislation. This is because ASPA refers to various points in the Directive (e.g. the appendices) and those will need to be fully incorporated into ASPA; but that will happen by secondary legislation with no discussion of the contents. The end result is that Brexit will have no immediate effect on day-to-day regulation. Somewhat less certain is what will happen to ASPA after Brexit as and when there are changes to the Directive, although at the moment significant change isn’t on the horizon.

As a response to the EU Citizen’s Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection’ in 2015, the EU Commission produced a report (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/vivisection/en.pdf) and subsequently convened a scientific meeting in 2016 on non-animal alternatives (for report see ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/3r/pdf/scientific_conference/non_animal_approaches_conference_ report.pdf). The outcome of this process was that the Commission saw no need to deviate from the normal review process already embedded in the Directive. The first, inevitably rather preliminary, review was in 2017 (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/related_topics_en.htm) and this concluded that the Directive was broadly doing a good job. There was also a meeting on the use of Non-Human Primates (NHPs) and a Commission report on the value of their use (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_ animals/scientific_committees_en.htm).

In its interactions with ASRU (the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in the Home Office), the sector, via UKBSC (the UK Bioscience Coalition; rsb.org.uk/policy/groups-and-committees/uk-bioscience-sector-coalition), has argued strongly for maintaining as much parity with the EU regulations as possible. This would not only avoid this becoming a hurdle to continued collaboration across the EU but would also give industry parity in the requirements for animals in safety testing of new therapies. Moreover, any proposal for overt change to the UK regulations would open the door to political and public debate on the use of animals in research – and given the risk that this could lead to further restrictions, that route is best avoided.

Depending on the hardness of Brexit, ASRU may or may not be permitted observer status at the EU’s ‘Contact Points’ meetings in Brussels. Presumably, if the UK keeps that status then it will be a lot easier for ASRU to follow what’s going on with the Directive and thereby to maintain full parity than if we are not present at the table.

A secondary aspect of a ‘hard’ Brexit might be delays in international transport, which could affect the duration animals spend in transit into or out of the UK. That would not be good for welfare, quite apart from likely additional costs.

Other possible legislative changes affecting international interactions

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs put out a consultation document in March 2018 on ‘Health and Harmony: The future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit’, in which one proposal was the banning of export of live animals. While this was targeted at the export of animals for slaughter for food, it’s important that the sector ensures that the export of research animals is not caught in the legislation.
The Physiological Society contributed to a response from RSB (the Royal Society of Biology; rsb.org.uk/policy/policy-issues/uk-biosciences-and-europe#Parliament) drawing attention to this risk and the adverse welfare as well as scientific implications of getting the legislation wrong.

Meanwhile what’s going on in the UK?

More parochially, the proposals for an Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill (gov.uk/government/publications/draft-animal-welfare-sentencing-and-recognition-of-sentience-bill-2017) are not aimed at the use of animals for research, but the sector needs to be aware of the possibility that the bill might catch animals that are studied in research projects outwith ASPA (i.e. not requiring a Project Licence, such as with environmental monitoring of wildlife). To that end The Physiological Society submitted a response to the consultation drawing attention to the risks of collateral damage to research, supporting the slightly more general response submitted by RSB.

The Society has an active ‘animals in research’ working group, chaired by Andrew Trafford (University of Manchester, UK). If you would like to contribute to the work of The Society in this area, or have views to express on any aspect of current/future animal regulation, please do contact the Policy team on policy@physoc.org.